Obviously I misinterpreted what you said Laurie and incorrectly assumed that your comment was a shot. Please accept my sincere apologies for my jumping to the wrong conclusion. Sorry mate.

On barriers, when I did my results analysis I was quite surprised that they didn't figure quite as prominently as I thought they would. After 30 years of punting the mugs way it took me a lot of self discipline to learn to accept what the stats told me and not what my brain was saying.

I built my method around the most recurring statistics (2 year period) and without showing all my cards they include things like in the top 5 average prizemoney earners in the race, where it finished at its most recent start, its pre-post newspaper odds, a horse must be within a certain number of points of top rated (Sportsman) zipform runner and even (believe it or not) saddlecloth number! Of course there are more. (You're probably thinking ******???)

The stats simply showed me that there IS a discernible pattern to racing form and I think that I was probably lucky to delve into the results deeply enough to find the right ones. Further, I only bet on Metropolitan race meetings and then only in specific races and NEVER, EVER on rain affected ground.

Maverick, to answer your question, I don't ever set out to bets on tris, doubles, quinellas etc...but very occasionally I may have 2 or more selections in a race and I'll take a small multi bet more or less as an interest. My main bets are always on a 1 win x 3 place ratio.

Cheers

Privateer

thanks privateer. what you are confirming is that working your statistics and having the courage and faith to bet to it is getting good results.

in my system which is listed horses the top 5 prizemoney horses figure prominently.

Privateer,
Thanks for your summary. I agree with you about the relative lack of importance of barriers but to this point I have been unsure of how to use it. I was hoping you might give me some tips.

I sat down and tabulated data from the last 18 months of races, breaking races into three arbitrary groups <= 1200, 1201-2000, 2001+. What struck me was that some of my long-held beliefs didn't seem to hold up:
1) Many days since last race (ie running fresh) could be overcome in the sprint group but a large majority of the distance winners had run in the last 14 days
2) Saddlecloth one (and to a lesser extent 2) wone a relatively large percentage of races in the middle distance group
3) Barriers did not seem to matter, even in the sprints
4) Just about as many horses won coming up in weights, as those going down in weight.

On top of these, something I did think...that the "better" horses (as judged by API) won more often.

Knowing all this (and please feel free to correct me) how do you put it together...would I be best to give a "tick" for a runner which has one of these things, or would I best to give "points" for such things...as seen in some (well ok, just one) racing magazines.
I couldn't work out a fair way to give points for a cumulative percentage event

e.g. Not using real figures
<7 days - 15% of winners
<14 days - 35% of winners
<21 days - 55%
etc

This is really long so i had better stop before I get dizzy.

i will be keeping an eye on silk and money in the next week or so as a matter of interest.

recent form. barrier 4 won barrier 1 won barrier 1 2nd.
barrier 9 3rd barrier 15 12th barrier 13 11th.


this is an interesting discussion and am happy to be accept the judge's decision.

I didn't mean to exclude anyone else. I think this discussion covers just what I have been pulling my hair out about for the last few weeks...ever since decided to "spring clean" my punting. Please anyone feel free to chip in if you can help me.

P.s. I got the feeling that eaglefarm was closer to fast on saturday and that the equine rain dancer (not my quote unfortunately) in the last would finally have his day in the sun.

Tubby, If you are only using those 4 criteria, I wouldn't individually weight them but simply exclude those in the race that don't qualify. The thing is though is that you will still often be left with several runners per race in some cases.

Have a look at adding some extras to your stats that reduce the number of selections in a race. You might try:

Horses in the PRE POST MARKET (newspaper) paying not less than $3 or more than $11,

Those that have a PLACE percentage of 60% or better (forget win %'s)

Finished in the first 4 at its most recent start

Saddlecloth no lower than 7 (except feature type set weights)

And, as Topsy supported, in the top 5 in the race terms of average prizemoney won.

Cheers

Privateer

Thanks to all contributors for the interesting and informative discussion.

I do a lot of watching of races and read a lot of information (have plenty of time recently to do so) and generally blackbook horses for future betting and provide comment etc re weight, barrier draw, track and race conditions...

Privateer, having read yours and others' comments of their different approaches to punting and relative successes, I realise that there may be a better method of doing things (my present method has thus far been inconsistent) and I presently have the time and the resources to give it a reasonable go and look to improve my strike rate...what would you recommend to someone in how and where to start?

Can I ask if you are using a particular programme or software appl to store the plethora of details etc and do you process and provide final analysis yourself?

Is there a recommended optimum amount of stats or weightings (applied factors) or is it the more the merrier?

When you say that you look at 2 years of race stats for each race, what sort of stats do you mean and where do you get them from?

I spend a lot of time watching races and accessing (esp online) info re races I intend to bet on, is this a good utilisation of resources or are there better information resources available?

Thanks for your time and again appreciate you and the other posts ...and look forward to your feedback...
l

Lets hear a cheer for privateer.

Sorry, couldn't help mysef.
Thanks a lot

Desi

Most of the information I obtained from results was from spending several months in the library checking through newspapers armed with exercise books, pens, pencils a calculator and a lot of spare time! It was something I had wanted to do for a long time so I took long service leave specifically to do this. I concentrated only on Metropolitan results from Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane - the places where I wanted to bet and, not coincidentally, the meetings covered in detail by the "Sportsman"

My working background included in depth analytical study of statistics and pattern identification so I was fairly well organised and was able to approach the daunting task with some confidence in what I was doing AND what I was looking for.

The list of stats isn't endless but included some that I reckon haven't been considered before.

I don't want to list them obviously as I put a hell of a lot of work into them and without wanting to sound unreasonable, they are all there available to the public and for everyone to access. What I will do is tell you about a few that in the overall scheme of things don't play a major part in identifying winning selections but a lot of punters consider "Gospel"

* Distance from the winner last start

* Unlucky last start

* Gear changes i.e Blinkers first time

* Won over the distance (except in races of 2200 or more)

* Up in class but down in weight (Down in class but UP in weight is much
better) Weight changes do NOT have significance that they had before
weights were compressed.

* Short priced favourites ie, "it's 5/4 so it MUST win"

* Winning strike rates (place strike rate is a much better guide to a horses
chances)

Now I'm not telling you to ignore all of the above, I'm simply saying that over a two year period in Melb, Syd, Adel & Bris that the above mentioned stats did NOT significantly contribute to the winning of money. There are many more important factors that DID contribute.

Cheers

Privateer

Tubby, cash will be fine thanks mate.