You would classify a fit horse under its days last start.
Generally horses that have had there last start less than 28 days win around 76% of the races.

A couple of our trainers have said horses lose there fitness after 18 to 22 days of intense training.

Whereas horses generally after 3 runs only win 51% of races.

The difference lies with the distance. Stayers require the 3-4 runs in a prep where sprinters can go fresh or 2nd up.

Other factors include the coat, sweating at barriers or in the yard or even the head position when walking around before the jump.

If the sweat is clear it doesn't matter apparently ..... not actually being a horse I cannot categorically confirm this, but I have it from a high authority, approx 16 hands ..... lol

Some of those colts sweat up over a young filly!
But the first indicators are the best statistically.

As it's really Privateer's thread ..... Quote Privateer "

When you see a horse sweating, don't worry if the sweat isclear.

And, no, I won't be providing night classes in equine anatomy."

Allow me a moment to have a little bit of a gloat. It comes from researching almost every post on here, a lot of which have been archived into history. It also comes from a recent purchase of a database, of which I've been able to put to use to reinforce a couple of my systems as profitable, but moreso to bust quite a few myths of racing. I've ended up with a list of 6, different to Privateers Pareto list, wherby mine, actioned individually on any system I've trialled, has improved the POT. I'll say that again ..... I have a list of 6 filters, each of which applied individually will improve the POT of any system, sometimes dramatically (eg; from a lowly 6% to 91.25% ..... I think I've posted this fact before).

Now the rub is this ..... each of these 6 filters applied together in their entirety show a POT of 21.3% which is ABSOLUTELY REMARKABLE when you think about the fact that these filters aren't really in Sync with each other. Another myth exploded, and actually one of mine.

Forever, I thought a decent system had to have a sound base and then filters that complemented each other filter, in sync, and in sync with the base. Apparenty not.

The Pareto thread shows that decent filters do not have to correlate or be in sync with each other.

I'd like to thank the originator of this thread ..... My 6 filters are oh so different to Privateers and in keeping with my theme, are outside the square, but the proof of the pudding has been the extensive testing, and realisation that there are single filters which will improve any system.

Can you name two of the six filters.

I'ld like to see him tip a single winner.

Of course I can, but I'll do better than that and tell you how I came across them. In the longshot system jacfin, for the first time I'd seen on this forum, exploded one of the biggest racing myths. I didn't take much notice of it at the time but it stuck in my head. It's now the BEST filter I have, the BEST.

Partypooper, in a couple of his systems came up with one of the very best filters, but they went along largely un-noticed - Why - Because it's safer to stick with the crowd, even tho'rowd in this case leads you to a loss of 15% at best. remember 95%+ of punters lose, and some don't just lose the obligatory 15%, they do the lot.

Then there was sarge1.

And there is a SP filter which runs along the lines of Privateers filter.

And another one from Partypooper.

And lastly from the poster who posted, who's name escapes me, who posted the longshot system.

Why the Pareto thread has been so appealing is simply the fact that it reinforces everything punters want to know. The tried and True SAFE method ..... but does it work ? I'll guarantee that Privateer had a few other things up his sleeve.

I've no doubt the way the pre-post is constructed that you could do something creative with that, and that going up in weight blah, blah is a little like swimming agin the tide, but constructive, but does it increase the POT ?

I have 6 filters which individually improve any system I've tested, and make a profit with all of them in the same basket no matter how disjointed it seems they are.

The Pareto philosophy is good, but have we got all the components, Isuspect NOT !!!!

This is a systems thread moeee, one for those of us who aren't cerebrally challenged.

hahahahaha!!!
Not a single one :)
On any thread in any subForum

Barny
This just says that you have found 6 filters within the forum. It does not say what they are. It does not even cryptically say what they are. It does not even say where we can find them if we were to do our own research. To be blunt are you going to share or just continue patting yourself on the back? The basis of the forum is to learn and contribute if you have something to give back. I think you have well and truly learnt from the forum and good on you. I apologize if this offends you but this is the way I see and I am trying to be honest and polite at the same time. I am just trying to say "Remember where you learnt what you have learnt". Beton

I don't want to turn this into an ad for the database, but suffice to say as Barny has found and many others, there are so many myths that can be busted when you run them across years of racing data.

Finding what filters impact profit rather than just strike rate filters is crucial to having an edge in this game.

So long as the filters have logic to them and are not simply there to boost POT, otherwise I firmly believe they will cause more harm than good in the long term.

Of course that's a very important consideration mattio.
Consider for example topweights, when using this as a filter often improves the strike rate dramatically, but it is the most overbet proposition of all.
This is taking all of them, not using other principles.

I actually like betting the topweights, its a key filter in a number of my systems providing there is value there as you are right Chrome, they are often overbet by the public but do tend to increase the overall strike rate.

par for the course Benton, lots of words with little substance

Exactly as I thought mattio, for as long as I could remember. I've been searching for systems for decades and having a link between the filters seems to be the way to go, and it is too (yup a cointradiction), BUT I have 6 filters (one is price ..... whoopee $4.00 to $30.00 - big deal eh ?) and the others can be used on any system and improve the POT - which you believe will cause more harm than good - fair enough too. I would have argued till I was blue in the face about the same thing, BUT I now believe it's wrong.

I pump in some logical filters and continue to test each of these 6 filters, and it keeps improving the POT, or reducing a LOT.

The one name I couldn't remember last night was punter57, who hosted the longshot system. There's a wealth of information in there including a few standout arguments for and reasoning for going against what nearly all punters have as "non-negotiables".

Go against the "non-negotiables", and all things being equal (ie; they all have four legs), your POT has to improve, coz' no one has their money parked there !!!!

Hello Barny
That's one filter and very generic but a start. Plus a direction to search. That's a start as well. Are you going to put up or play hard to get. As I said "the forum is about learning and once you have learnt some CONTRIBUTE".

GIVING - surpasses all the WONDERS OF THE WORLD. Beton

I've spent 1,000's of hours studying this forum and there is NO way I'm listing my filters.

All I'll say is it's logical to go against the non-negotiables to increase the POT. i've been fairly consistent in my contributions in this area, it's just that I've found an 'edge'.

I've given you the idea, you can draw your own conclusions as to whether it's logical, and if your half smart you'll think of these filters, and then probs some, and trial them. It's probably like the longshot systyem, you have to have the mentality to challenge the norm, and be comfortable with that position.

good luck .....

BTW, I did have one filter many months ago that I thought was the bees knees and it turned out OK, but not great. BUT that was before I had a database capable of checking these things.

My thought processes on punting have done a 180 deg turn.

Go against the "non-negotiables" and you'll have a bigger slice of the pool.

hey beton, you posted this after I asked for help on the Pre-Post thread !!

"Barny
The rules are simple and they are all here. GaryF has gone to a lot of time and trouble to post. Please respect that and take the time and trouble to read. There are no easy sheets on this one, but it has been summarized several times. Beton"

What goes around comes around eh ......... at least I've given you and idea that has been spawned from 1,000's of hours research and 100's hours of testing. Probs more than you'd give me eh ??

Seems everyone is a Winner on this Forum , but not a single one member has posted a winning selection :)
EXCEPT ME.
I'm posting Lots of Winners , but I'm still Losing.

This Forum is rapidly turning into FantasyLand if it wasn't already.

Mooee,
You obviously havent been reading the threads.

As I've suggested to you before moeee, you cannot continue to do the same thing and expect different results. You complain a lot about losing yet you don't seem to be receptive to change.

You seem to know quite a lot about racing but it looks to me that your stuck in the traditional method of selecting winners, which is fine.

But you're swimming with the lemmings and whilst the S/R might be OK the return has to be shared among too many lemmings for you to make a profit.

You need to do more research and less complaining. Hope this helps!

I'll put money on another being field size. Probably 8 +

I've looked at field size, especially with a system that is based on Win% and it only showed a POT when the field size was less than 12. To me this wasn't logical, and it took a while for the penny to drop! There are multiple selections in the bigger fields, especially during the Spring Carnival.

I have a system to cull multiple selections down to one which include selecting horses from QLD, WA SA or NZ and culling the locals, purely based on the premise the "outsiders will be better than fair value.

I just don't see field size restrictions as a logical filter, although many do, esp bhagwan.

Hi Barny,

Have noticed that the Exacta comes into its own,
With fields of 11-12 runners by taking your top pick,
Plus remaining runners in top 6-7 Pre-post.


Cheers LG

Barny the filters I refer to are things like "47-64 days since 3rd last start" or something like that where there is no logic to it and the only reason it is there is because a database says it made a higher profit. These are the types of filters that will lead to failure.

What do you determine as "non-negotiables"? I'd like to see whare your thought pattern is going with this.

From reading many of the posts and investing some big hours into different rating strategies I've come up with a few things to consider

1. Determine your base value for a horse - How can one measure the success of a horse in a race without consideration to this. For example last start win has no bearing what so ever unless you can adjust his base to the current race day conditions. This adjustment to the race day needs to include throughts around

Barrier Trials- When reviewing the replays, look at the run in 200m or 400m or 600m sections. Trainers have a tendency to send the runner out to do a specific piece of work and then will ease down, the trial will show it finishes 7th but in fact very happy with the run.

Trackwork - Generally light work in the early parts of hte week and then increasing around Thursday. Look for horses around 12 sec per 200m or better. They are fit.

Develop a good Par Times theory - All tracks are different and variations need to apply through condition and rail changes. Just a simple example. Over a 1400m race at Kembla Grange on a good I have seen a Par value time of 82.12. Bunbury same distance and condition is 84.78
So if horse A runs 82.50 at Kembla vs 84.20 at Bunbury which is better??? Of course things need adjusting

Velocity ratings - Comparing sectionals from the early marks through the 600 / 400 / 200 can give a clue on how quick the pace was and how good the backrunners really were.

Position in Running - Need to calculate which horses have early pace based on the distance today.

Strength of the Race - Different classes different days need to be considered.

Price - The big factor.

Once you have a base rating and then can make the adjustments to the horses rating by these factors



Happy days!

Barny
Best advice that I could give you or anybody. The basic rules are in the first post. This anyone could read quicker than writing a post to ask what it is about. If you are serious about punting then you must read the entire thread which is a tutorial on how to punt. Nobody could summarize it and do it justice. Read it and then judge my post. GaryF took the time and effort to contribute something that is worth reading in its entirity. AND TO GET FULL VALUE ONE SHOULD READ AND STUDY IT IN IT"S ENTIRITY. To give you a summary would be shortchanging you, GaryF and every other contributor. I offer my thanks to GaryF again because he showed what the forum is about
Learning and giving back. Beton

I'm with Beton.

Barny , you have made all sorts of claims , but all you have provided is hot air.

I haven't made any claims about winning $x amount of dollars moeee. All I've done is mention I have 6 individual filters which improve systems POT or reduce the LOT. In a couple of other posts I've mentioned that the easy part is to find systems with a decent POT, and it is. Ask anyone who has a database. bhagwan apparently runs many different systems. I also mentioned that I now believe there is a fine line between winning and losing as one (or two) filters can make or break you.

And I did post two tips, one ran second at 12/1 the other ran midfield, one was a system horse (the one that ran 2nd) the other a "stable" horse.

All I've posted are my findings moeee. You could buy a database moeee and then find out that it is easy to develop winning systems with a decent POT. But that woiuld require you to do something constructive and different moeee.

But you have Barny.
You have posted that you have a System that is producing over 90% Profit on Turnover.
I would certainly be using it had I a System capable of that.
But I wouldn't tease other members about it.

That's it moeee, you win, no more posts from me .....

Barny
You keep on about your 6 filters. And you say you are not going to share them. That's ok. Just don't carry on about them. But every chance you have you say "look at me I've got 6 miracle filters". You have introduced them into the forum, the sporting thing is to at least point people into the right direction. I am certain that you have a lot more to learn from this forum. All I am saying is "it is a twoway street" Beton

I don't know why Beton , but my feelings were hurt by you on previous occasions.
But you sure as heck hit the nail on the head here.
Perhaps I was the nail in a previous thread and didn't want to accept responsibility.
Cheers.

I try to be polite and diplomatic as I appreciate others opinion. Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't truck rubbish.

The pareto rules are based on Saturday and the better Mid week Metro races. I have been looking at how and whether it could be put into 7 day mode. To do so the rules need relaxing. Thus I have been looking at the almost complying. Sunday there was one almost qualifying and placed. There were 3 possibles today for 2 wins, Looks promising. I will alter the rules for other than Saturday and monitor. Beton

I have done some more research on the Paretto Principal and was , am going to go into it further when my other thread on Systems -- Pros & Cons is done and dusted.

I have some difficulty with the title Privateer gave his thread, so, because I do not know what the opening post was will stick to my thoughts and go along with it.

He could have called it anything and the same great thread would have been produced and rehashed, just like we have done.

I intend to do a new one called the 80/20 Principal which is what Mr Paretto was all about. it will be initially directed to the principal and thinking, not necessarily about gambling but then we can pick over the bones to see if their is anything their which might highlight a different thought pattern and qualifications.

You old timers will be able to tell me if Privateer looked at it this way and if not , how and why did he use that name.

Star

Star
the Privateer took his long service leave and went into the library and researched the results of past records. A long and tedious task. He then analysed his results and applied the Pareto principle to them, culling the filters that only marginly altered the result and leaving those that had a major difference on the result. The more filters you have the less selections you have. He looked at the selections and the value. So yes he applied the 20/80 rule. The 20/80 bit is hockum. Most of anything comes from a small portion of what you do, most of your problems come from a small part of what you do. The area inbetween breaks even or a modest profit. Pareto simply said take the small portion that gives you the most and bin the rest.
Privateer did this. From his rules there is no more to do other than run them through a up to date database. Whilst the Pareto principle outlines a course to follow, in the real world most businesses cannot implement it for many reasons. 9 times out of 10 you need the bulk to be able to get those juicy bits. In punting you still need lots of average winners to be able to score that big one. Think of it like fishing. You have to be fishing to catch a big one, in the meantime you will catch a lot of smaller fish that you have kiss and throw back. You also get a lot of average size ones. These bide you over. Thus you have to watch what you cull any further. Beton

Interesting post beton - I found it extremely thought provoking.

In other words we open up the filters so as to have best chance of capturing most of the opportunities - big and small (and medium).
All of which are helpful to our overall success in some way.

Can be applied to much that is important to life I think.
e.g. looking for a soul mate, life partner (yeah, a bit deep for here!)
e.g. the world of sales i.e. lead generation-conversion for instance

Cheers LG