Bhagwan and co.

Still working on these figures because they bother me. Reviewed the whole thing. What has happened is.

*Did an initial test of the idea on 60 random races, all races, any races extracted from the Sportsman, May, June races. Wow! An amazing resut. Stacks of winners. Even more placegetters. And paying! A $17.80 winner, for instance.
*Expanded this to 180 races. Same time period. Still great guns. Great strikes.
*Tested it out on a batch of forthcoming races. Did really well.

The trouble was my sample of 180+ included several spectacularly good race days, a couple of really good ones, several bad ones but no shockers.

*Tested it on another batch of forthcoming races. Ordinary.
*Did a bigger sample. For this I've had to turn to old copies of the Herald Sun, whatever I can get. Batches from January, Feb, March, April. Some from 2001. All races, any races.

The more I add the more the overall pattern emerges. You strike bad periods. A couple of race days in a row in April, shocking. Not just bad, but way off. One out of eight at Flemington. None out of five, Victoria Park. Then you hit good days and then amazingly good days. But in my initial 180 I didn't strike any of the shockers the larger sample revealed. The pitfalls of a small sample. If you'd used this mini-system on all races any races in my first sample period, May, June, you'd have struck some great days with a healthy strike rate. Some days stacks of winners. Other days, like today, a swag of placegetters. But the larger samples show this is not reliable. The first sample was even, but its not over time. Can do very, very well or very, very badly. (Definition of a "fun" system I suppose.) But over time the bad patches win. Which is what I expected from the outset really.

But there are spectacular days!

The bigger the sample - trying different batches since they're so uneven - and the closer I look the less enthused I am, but then you get days like today that keep me thinking it is worth pursuing. Beware the bad days!

Hermes

Another angle. May I suggest that when doing your research, looking at any last start winners in Melbourne that started exactly seven days ago will probably increase your profits. Don't waste your time on any other venues or days to last start.

Ciao

Thanks for the imput on this little system. I now have so many possible lines of investigation I really need a database to work from, so I'm building one. Lowest numbered last start winners. I'II feed in all my samples and be able to do some proper analysis.

Meanwhile, tommorow's card has lots of qualifiers and some strong horses among them. Wednesday was a great day for placegetters. Looking at the card, I'm expecting a strong show from this system tommorow. (But beware the bad days!)

Failing another filter that will push this system into the black, I'II try just plain old judgement. Looking mainly at average prize and average place percent in the context of the other runners in each race. I think the stragegy tommorow should be...

RANDWICK


R1. #3 Mr Attorney - each way.
R2 #1 Honey Ryder - each way.
R3 #9 Ms Bowie - no bet.
R4. #6 Mr Platinum - each way
R5 No qualifers.
R6 #1 Inclusion - place.
R7 #1 Go Ziggy - place.
R8 #5 Freiby - place

MOONEE VALLEY

R1 #1 Spanish Symbol - each way.
R2 #1 St steven - each way.
R3 #4 Midday Matinee - no bet.
R4 #1 Be My Princess - each way
R5 #1 Shaye Spice - place only
R6 #7 Trust Fund - no bet.
R7 #1 Sly Rambler - place.
R8 #8 Runs on Ego - no bet.

EAGLE FARM

R1 #7 Kimjed - no bet
R2 #3 Devil - each way
R3 #8 In our Time - no bet
R4 #9 La Philomene - no bet
R5 #1 General Minolta - place
R6 #1 Pittance - each way
R7 #5 Final Shuffle - no bet
R8 #1 Pitterac - no bet

Morphetville

R1 #1 Judanzo - each way
R2 #3 Bellton - each way
R3 #3 Nafir - place
R4 #1 Romalada - each way
R5 #1 Risky Lass - each way
R6 #4 Sure Bet - no bet.
R7 #1 Zip Infatuation - place
R8 No qualifiers.


Hermes

Hi Hermes.

You seem to have missed Satashi, ahead of Runs on Ego, MR8.

Good luck today.

As a coincidence I was just looking at that Merriguy. Lowest numbered last start winner in that race is not Runs on Ego but Satashi. Satashi the selection.

Good luck to you today Merriguy, and to all on this forum. Some good races today.

Hermes

Another good day for placegetting lowest numbered last start winners. In terms of placegetters I made 12 out of 19 correct calls and also made lots of correct no bet calls.

Clearly there are plenty of placegetters in the pool of lowest Tabbed LSW. Apply some discrimination and you'll get more than you lose. And some reasonable ones too. Today:

Mr Attorney - $2.70 place. ($5.90 win)
Sly Rambler - $3.20 place ($10.30 the win)
Bellton - $2.80 pl
Nefir - $3.20 pl
Romilada - $2.30 pl
Kimjed - $2.40 pl
Final Shuffle - $3.20 (14.40 the win)

Lowest return of the day was St Steven - $1.20 the place.

Another day showing how this system turns up some decent winners too, but I have no luck finding a device for picking them from the raw pool. Be nice to add winners like Final Shuffle to a system that pulls placegetters like Nafir.

I actually placed some bets on some of these today and came out way ahead. Betting on places only. $62 outlay for $104.60 return. There's potential in this.

(And Geelong beat Collingwood!)

:smile: :smile:

Hermes

Try this with the last start winners.

Only back the runners that have also ran 1,2 or 3 in its 2nd. or 3rd. or both 2nd.& 3rd. last starts.

The strike rate will increase but the average div. will drop but I feel the POT will be stronger.

Check it out.

Thanks Bhagwan. Yes, I have been looking at many factors including second last starts for ways to separate the chaff from the wheat. Doing some calculations to see if your suggestion increases POT.

My current experimental set of filters is working fine on past races so here's tommorows prognosis:

Tommorow's qualifers (wednesday 17th July): lowest tabbed last start winners are listed below.

I have rated their chances of running a place on a scale of 0-4. Zero = no bet. You could bet 2 units on a 2, 3 units on a 3 etc. Or ignore the ratings. No horses rated 4 tommorow but several no bets.

CHELTENHAM

R2 #1 Diver Dave - 1
R4#1 San Sonata - 2
R5 #1 Miss Revic - 1
R7 #9 Mr Vandaam - no bet
R8 #1 Blue Bows - no bet.

GRAFTON

R1 #2 Point Guard - 2
R4 #1 Casual Story - 2
R5 #1 Miss Smugg - 1
R6#1 Sir Redford - 1
R7#2 Stormcat Academy - 3
R8#7 Nikolinis - 2

RANDWICK (Kensington)

R1#1 Al Megdam - 1
R3#6 Covet Thee - 1
R4#3 Acceptive - 1
R4#2 Azzeal - 1
R6#1 Rain Statesman - 1
R7#5 Perry Can Do - no bet
R8#7 Painter's Brush - 1


FLEMINGTON

R1#9 Liston - no bet
R3#3 Lightning Ridge - 1
R4#4 Jacque - 1
R5 #1 Intermagic - no bet
R6#6 Mystic Melody - 1
R8#3 Medori Gift - 2

EAGLE FARM

R4#2 Duel Fuel - 2
R5#6 Interior Trim - no bet
R6#10 Ditty Doo - no bet

Some healthy place strike rates in this lot. Note Nikolonis - 72.7% place average from 11 starts. Casual Story - 71.4% from 7 starts. Sir Redford - 61.1% from 18. Painter's Brush - 66.6% from 9 starts. etc.

Despite the rating I don't actually like Stormcat's chances at Grafton race 7. A very competitive field. A stack of last start winners. Of them I prefer Caissa #5 to win. But we'll leave Stormat the selection, rated 3 to run a place.They say it will overcome the barrier. Not enough, I think.

Go punting to all

Hermes

Hi all,

I'm thinking about comments I've read about whether you do win or place wagers. It seems to me this isn't the issue. For example, if this system hits 33% of its guesses then all the 2-1 wins will end up losing money.

I don't know if you've considered this already but it would help if there is an average win percentage. Couldn't you use this as part of your filter?

For example, if this system hits 33% of the time then skip anything less than 3-1. 25% filters to only 4-1. Simple math.

Also, you mention there are bad times and good times. What's different about the bad times? I realize that sounds like and INCREDIBLY naive question, but the pattern is in there somewhere. I've found a neat trick is to figure out how to MISS the picks. As Sherlock Holmes would say, when you eliminate everything else, whatever is left, no matter how incredible, is the truth! Of course, his life was dictated by a writer who could twist facts at will but, hey, what can you do?

This is a great thread! Thanks!

TheDuck, I have found that trimming down selections to only include the longer prices, in my systems expands the run of outs, so it actually ends up evening out the same. For instance, if you eliminate anything under 3/1 then the strike rate decreases significantly. You might like to check it out yourself with some of your selection methods and let us know if this is true for you.