A bad day for lowest tabbed last start winners. Off to a reasonably good start with a win, Al Megdam, followed by two placegetters at Randwick. Casual Story at Grafton. But Flemington - wipe out. Worse as the day went on.

If you ventured to Cheltenham, though, you might have picked up Diver Dave in R2 ($4.50 the win, $2 the place) and San Sonata in R4, $3.30 win, $1.40 p. And a second, Miss Revic, $1.80. which might have ameliorated some of the damage at other venues.

Vis-a-vis last Sat. I'm personally $1.10 up. Outlayed $34 on this today. Return = $14.80. Miserable. Saturday and today illustrate the good and bad of this method.

Back to the filters, although no filters would have helped today. Yes, EI I'm finding a price filter tend to impact too much as you say.

A days-since-last-start filter has definite merit. The idea is to snare horses at peak or just dropping off. How long ago they won that last start is obviously relevant, and over past races I am finding it so. A last start filter of 18 or so days will certainly help tip the scales towards profit and eliminate bad bets.

Always happy for contributions to this thread...

Hermes

Hey Hermes,

How's that database coming along? I thought it might be good for all of us to continue our research from the same place. If I can help I will. These computer thingies are my job so I have some facility with the annoying things. :smile:

Been very busy. Will talk about the database soon the Duck. Coming along.

Today:

Some strong qualifers in the lowest tabbed last start winners. With some judious betting you should be able to squeeze a profit from placegetters, but I'd expect a couple of winners from this lot too. A few favourites there. Again, my ratings from zero to 4 on their prospects to place. Zero = no bet.

ROSEHILL

R1 - #2 Thorn Park - 1
R2 - #1 Cariboo - 3
R4 -#4 Coablo - 1
R5 # 2 Interbank - 1
R6 - #11 Eartear - 1
R8 - #2 Dashiki - 3 (scratched)

CAULFIELD

R1 - #1 Chowpie - 2
R2 - #1 Romantic Sea - 2 (a question about barrier)
R3 - #1 Palais - 1 (a question about barrier)
R4 - #4 Quatyman - no bet
R5 - #2 Rubitano - 3
R6 - #2 Mr Gold Flyer - 2
R8 - #1 Out of Options - 2

DOOMBEN

R1 - #3 Centona - no bet
R2 - #2 Kymessa - 1 (scratched)
R3 - #2 Craiglea Bells - 1
R4 - #2 All That Glitter - 1 (a question about barrier)
R5 - #3 Linea - 2
R6 - #7 Gonzo - 1
R7 - #2 Jillina Blue - 2
R8 - #9 Icy Grip - no bet

CHELTENHAM

R1 - #4 Just Vic - no bet
R2 - #2 Terminus Prince - 2
R4 - #5 Kastabon - 1
R6 - #3 Shocks - 2
R7 - #1 To Pay Up - no bet
R8 - #6 Addition - no bet

Try This

The first last start winner you come to between TAB 1-7
that is also starting between Barriers 1-7

Most races have 14 & less runners ,we are covering at least half of the inside field in the majority of cases.
We are assuming the out side half has a less of a chance of getting up.

Stats show Barriers 1-7 win 55.2%
1-8 61%
1-9 66.7%
1-10 71.7%
1-11 76.9%
1-12 83.2%
1-13 88.5%

Go over your past results & see if barrier has any impact on the overall figure.

Bhagwan: There are lies,damned lies and statistics. Most winners come from barriers 1-10 say because there are fewer races with larger fields. The influence of the barrier depends on the length of the race and the shape of the course. Barrier 14 in a field of 14 over 1400m at Caufield is very different from Barrier 14 in field of 14 over 1200m or 2400m at Flemington. This is one of the disadvantages of using a mechanical system. The appropriate statistic is the strike rate (%wins from starts)for a particular barrier over a given distance at a particular course. Of course with luck in running anything is possible. Remember Gurner's Lane?

Good point about statistics. There was one where it was proven with statistics that an increase in churches resulted in more crime. The real point was there was an increase in population that resulted in more churches and crime. Percentage-wise, everything was the same.

I am curious about this database as I would love to run a statistical method called 'factor analysis' over it. What this does is statistically determines which factors appear to most affect the variable(s) being analyzed. Since this is a (more) mechanical approach then we'll let the mechanics tell us what we should be looking at -- from a mathematical standpoint anyway. We then switch that around and find out what ranges and combinations of factors (clusters) present the best opportunity.

It's more involved than that but the poor suckers (ok, like myself) who are into this will understand the approach. We could then test it and see if it actually works.

Who said math isn't fun (besides my kids!)?

-Duck

The hold up with the database The Duck is my learning curve. You may be distressed to know I'm working on a Mac. A G3. The software I'm using is Filemaker Pro. On most things Mac you can now get the standard MS software, eg. MS Exel for spreadsheets etc. but I'm told Filemaker Pro is the native Mac database builder. Not too hard to learn but then I'm making it quite complex. This is the third attempt at starting from scratch. Think I've got it right this time. Just a mattrer of adding more data. It will be flash when its done.

Any assistance or advice appreciated. I'm very much a novice with this sort of software. Usually work with images, not numbers and code.

Hermes

WEDNESDAY SELECTIONS

Last Wednesdays races were bad for this system. On paper tommorow's won't be much chop either. Not a strong group of runners in this category for Wednesday 24th July 2002. I anticipate a wipe out at Sandown with big fields and little talent among the lowest tabbed last start winners. So I've tightened the parameters of my ratings, especially for runners in large fields. (Will probably cut out some good returns in doing so.)

Both Pro Gold and Hulavie are borderline selections at Sandown. Won't be surprised if neither run a place, or if we get nothing from Sandown at all. Only La Banca in R8 at is a confident bet.

By my ratings Clarendon's Curse is an outstanding prospect to run a place. If either La Banca or Clarendon's Curse is at a good price, worth a win bet.

CANTERBURY

R1 #2 Vital Agreement - 1
R2 #1 Patch Adams - 1
R4 #1 Secret Gift - 2
R5 #3 Midnight Sports - 1
R6 #1 Melissa Mel - no bet
R7 #5 No Integrity - no bet

SANDOWN

R1 #5 Miss Megari - no bet
R2 #1 C'este Le Reve - 1
R3 #3 Pro Gold - 1
R4 #1 Hulavie - 1
R5 #8 Meet the Stars - no bet
R6 #4 Allez Jane - no bet
R7 #4 Prime Target - no bet
R8 #2 La Banca - 3

DOOMBEN

R3 #2 Scooters - 1
R6 #4 Disco Girl - no bet
R7 #2 Just Devine - 2
R8 #7 Rubys Jester - 1


BALAKLAVA

R2 #7 Upmarket Star - 1
R6 #4 So Late - 2
R8 #2 Claredons Curse - 5

----------------------------------------------
TOTAL = 23 units

Over three race days now this system - filtered lowest tabbed last start winners - is a whisker ahead. Outlay $97, return $98.50.

Ah, a Mac. Yes, excellent and popular graphics platform. However, I'm a number cruncher and use 'the other kind'.

Send whatever whenever in any old format and I'll figure it out. I can even send it back to you in whatever format you're looking for.

But there's no rush. I was just offering to help with the crunching and analysis. I was also curious to see how similar or different Australia racing is from Canuck and Yankee racing. It's interesting when the DRF has horses from the other side of the planet. Some sleepers clean up, some really strong entries have to be dragged across the finish line by their tails! It seems your ponies are just as finicky as ours.

-Duck

TheDuck, how healthy is "Yankee and Canuck" racing at the moment? In Australia it is really flourishing with prizemoney being increased each year. The only problem is attendance figures on non feature race days has fallen away.

I was wondering if it is the same overseas, as I have heard that racing is not doing so well in the States, but doing well in the U.K. and Pacific Rim.