Thanks Chrome, that's all I will say!!!.......

Now run every horse at first up, 3rd run, 4th run, 5th run etc....

I said 2nd up, not 2nd up after a win!

Hi Mark,

My post was light hearted and now that I look back at it, could have been interpreted as "having a go."
That was not intended at all.

Another poster had asked about horses 2nd up after a win, so that's what I provided.

Obviously, I'm happy to provide other crteria for 2nd up, but I feel you'd need extra criteria to judge it, as 2nd up when the horse ran last (for example) would not be a true reflection of any impact of the 2nd up hoodoo.

Chrome Prince,

No mate, no offence taken, I believe that like wide barriers, the so called 2nd up from a spell syndrome is just a myth. If one of our holders of data bases could run through some reults, no filters, of the LOT/POT of horses 1st up, 2nd up, 3rd up etc I would be very surprised if 2nd up runners fared any worse (on averge) than any of the others. In fact I would expect them all to show a loss, that is the nature of gambling into a market greater than 100%.

Mark,

The only filter that I've used is in first up runs, they must have raced prior (no first starters) just to keep things even.

FIRST UP
Selections: 2,987
Winners: 241
Strike Rate: 8.07%
POT: -24.48%
Ave Div: $9.36

SECOND UP
Selections: 3,006
Winners: 240
Strike Rate: 7.98%
POT: -37.67%
Ave Div: $7.81

THIRD UP
Selections: 2,655
Winners: 237
Strike Rate: 8.93%
POT: -36.94%
Ave Div: $7.06

FOURTH UP
Selections: 2,217
Winners: 240
Strike Rate: 10.83%
POT: -10.11%
Ave Div: $8.30

FIFTH UP
Selections: 1,783
Winners: 197
Strike Rate: 11.05%
POT:11.07%****
Ave Div: $10.05

Interesting stuff.

Mark is right, second up horses are no worse statistically (miniscule difference) on the actual strike rate.
However, horses second and third up are by far the worst POT.
Fifth up was a complete surprise!

Fifth up results include a 50/1 winner, an 80/1 winner, and a 217/1 winner!!!

Watch this gem get marketed by you know who now :lol:



[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-09-03 17:47 ]

Cheers Chrome, I'll go you halves in the marketing.

:lol:

Look for the ChroMark system in your racing mag available at your local newsagent next week!

If you can't afford the magazine we'll bombard you with glossy brochures.

:lol:

Actually, in all seriousness, the figures did demonstrate one thing apart from the 2nd up fallacy - based on the data, the more runs a horse has from a spell, statistically speaking, it has a better chance!

Instead of "training off", it appears they just get fitter. Of course the figures are raw at this stage and in future, I'll try and get more than 5 runs in to compare latter runs.

I have a gut feeling that 5 runs in just might be the peak strike rate, but need more data to go on.


[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-09-03 23:08 ]

In general I agree, but they all horses are different. I think most punters forget they are animals not machines.

hi all

Thought i'd throw in another couple of factors that is to calculate distance and days since last start in the equation.

1st uppers have a good record from 1000m to 1200m races also
look at the number of days since last start those that have run close to there last starts race over the sprint distance as indicated dont always perform well.

The stats i have read somewhere? is that horses that run over say 1000m the fresher the better say ist up or 21 days or more since last start.

Be interesting to see if it does make a difference.

regards
ubetido