A SIMPLE SELECTION METHOD

See my placegetter stats posts on this forum for some background info what I am doing. I'm trying different factors, running them through sample races, looking for the factors that score hits.

Here's a simple method that seems to work surprisingly well. A lazy approach to punting but as I say my stats say that it works.

It combines two simple factors:

*A high proportion of placegetters (and weinners) were last start winners.
*There is a bias towards the lower saddlecloth numbers (weights in handicaps).

So, the selection rule is:

Select the last start winner with the lowest saddlecloth number. If you have two last start winners, numbers 2 and 5, number 2 is the selection.

Don't look at anything else, just those two factors. I didn't expect it would come to much, but I was surprised.

Tried it over 180 races, all races, any races. Results were about 54% place strike and about 30% win strike rate. (53 winners in 180)

The highest win pay was $17.80, the highest place pay was $3.80. The lowest place pay was $1 (three times).

After 180 races betting $1 to win, $4 to place each race. That's 180 x $5 = $900 outlay. Total returns were a healthy $1095. A result not to be sneezed at for such a simple selection method. The average return per race is $6.08 (less your $5 bet) which is a comfortable return rate (for such a simple selection method).

Would it be sustained over a larger sample? Don't know. But on first inspection it provides a good volume of hits, with not too long runs of outs, and prices sufficient to give a return.

I tried other modes of staking. $1 to win, $4 to place works best (for reasons given by other contributors to this forum). I was really after placegetters but this method throws up a good proportion of winners too. You need the winners to make it profitable. No good for placebetting alone- margins are too fine.

But the thing is, it must be done *raw*. I've tried to be smart and find other factors to add to try to improve the results. I tried being more selective about races, for instance. But no good. I tried making the selections more intelligent. Read the form of the qualifier before betting. But I think you get better results if you leave it as it is. The method works precisely because it catches those suprise hits you wouldn't normally have bet on, and it catches a good number of hits in races with big fields which pay better. And it works in steeples, hurdles, 2yo, country, metro, whatever - these races have the same statistical bias this system exploits. If you add more filters and only bet on the safe ones you tend to slash your average return because you miss the surprise winners.

The sample races I tried this on are the same races I've tested other selection methods on. This method often turns up totally different horses, ones missed by other more rational systems. I've trialled a couple of methods based on last start winners, but this one works best. This is a bit annoying actually. I put in hours and hours of stats, I apply logical rules in logical ways, I read up on form, I try to make intelligent, deliberate selections -- and this irrational selection method gives better results. Doh!

Actually, it is not quite irrational. Picking numbers out of a hat is irrational. There is at least some rational basis for this method: it exzploits a bias towards last start winners and lower saddlecloth numbers. Happily, this seems to follow a line of least resistance through the stats, including the market stats, so it just happens you come out ahead.

And the results are very even. It gives a consistent volume of hits, even if only low paying placegetters, that keeps you in the black rather than having long runs of outs that dip you in and out of the red. Some systems will pay in the long run provided you can sustain periods in the red. In this system you stay in the black and your profits gather slowly. Or that's what happened in the sample.

In any case, it works better than other lazy methods like backing favourites. Favourites at $1 to win, $4 to place over the same sample gives you a loss. The Zip Star horse (from the Sportsman) at $1 to win, $4 to place gives you a loss (and a couple of very nasty runs of outs).

Try it out. On paper.

I am aware of this though. Most, if not all, simple systems will *eventually* send you bust. It is just that some will do it quicker than others. If this system "works" that might just mean that it postpones bankrupotcy longer than similiar methods. The difference between a perceived "good" system and a bad system is the time it takes to kill you.

Time wounds all heels - Groucho Marx.

Hermes.

So today (Wednesday 3rd July) the selections are:


Wednesday 3rd July 2002

Selection method: Top weighted last start winner.

Betting: $1 to win, $4 to place.

Canterbury

Race 1

# 1 Baroness Britney.

Race 2

#3 Boon Moon

Race 3

4 Houlihan

Race 6

#4 Grand Raj

Race 7

#5 Isim


Moonee Valley

Race 3.

5 Quasi Stellar


Race 4

#1 Silver Birch

Race 5

#1 Gold Boom

Race 7

#3 Datari

Race 8

#2 Mystic Melody


Doomben

Race 1

#1 Akers

Race 5

#2 My True North

Race 6

#4 Grace's Roses


Murray Bridge

Race 4

#3 Telbon Lotto

Race 5

#1 Prince of Revelry


We'll see.

Hermes

A small thing:

Its not quite all races, every race. Some races don't have any last start winners. In that case, no bet. That's why there's some races missing in the selections above.

If you want to reduce the number of races to bet on I suggest selecting races at random. If you set parameters like "Fewer than 14 runners" you change the mix of selections. And the method depends absolutely upon getting a felicitous mix of the good, the bad and the ugly (with the good predominating) - see selections above. If you take any steps to change that mix, won't work.

In the long run though I suspect the success or failure of something like this will depend upon finding a mechanism to select fewer races that have the same mix of selections but targetting the better prices.

Cheers

Hermes

Hi, Hermes.

A few years ago Equestrian Publishing sold a system similar to yours. In the package there were about half-a-dozen sub systems all based on the last start winner with the lowest TAB number, each sub system had its own rules. All the systems in their testing period (almost a year) showed a profit in both Win and Place wagering.

hermes you got my 5 STAR special in that lot....Silver Birch.

Good Luck.

By the way, don't be put off by just random numbers with that system. The laws of random numbers say that you will find winners that others won't merely because you are oblivious to certain form factors.

Missed one, plus one small correction.

Murray Bridge.

Race 5 should be #2 Nafir and of course Prince of Revelry is running in race 6, not 5.

Thought I'd point out the correction before the race rather than after.

Good punting

Hermes

Thanks for that michaelg. You mean someone has already thought of packaging this up as a "system" to sell to lazy punters? Damn! I was thinking of tweaking it a bit to make it more complicated and mysterious, naming it something like "Hermes Miracle Punting Plan" and selling "Hermes Turbo Tips" to subscribers for $10 a week each. After which I could forget about punting and retire in Fiji. But you say its already been done. Oh well... :smile:

System doing great so far today. Hope this doesn't cruel things!

5 races so far --- two winners ($6.50, $8.70 NSW Tab), and one third ($1.90). Couple of scrachings. Do you then look for the next qualifier, or just forget that race. I guess you will say it doesn't really matter. Serendipity!!

Thanks for the system. While I appreciate it might fall down tomorrow, it does seem to have quite a few pluses going for it.
Personally I like to have a few bets --- for interest sake if nothing else. Couldn't be one of those who only have one bet a day; yet don't believe in backing the card everywhere there are races. Thanks again.

Merriguy, you need two banks. One that will make you rich and one that will probably send you broke. If you ever get serious you will easily see why, otherwise, I hope you are at least having fun.

Hermes, my wife found the elusive filter you need in your system.

Lowest saddlecloth number from last start winners

PLUS

Cutest name.

Works every time she reckons.

Placegetter

Results:

Baroness Brittany - scratched.
Akers - unplaced
Boon Moon - $5.50 win, $2.60 place.
Houlihan - unplaced
Quasi Stellar - $9.20 win, $2.50 place. (Yeah!)
Silver Birch - $1.70 place (Equine Investor's five star beauty.)
Telbon Lotto - unplaced
My True North - third, NTD. (Blast!)
Gold Boom - scratched.
Nafir - $5.90 win, $1.90 place. (Lucky I double checked the selections or I'd missed this one.)
Grand Raj - unplaced.
Graces Roses - unplaced.
Prince of Revelry - unplaced.
Isim - unplaced.
Detari - $2.10 place.
Mystic Melody - $5.80 win, $2.00 place.

By my reckoning that's $70 outlay ($1 win, $4 place on 14 races) with a return of $77.60.

The system is $7.60 up after fourteen races.

If we'd added Placegetters wife's filter (see post above) we would have eliminated Akers and saved an extra five bucks.

Today's results - fortunately for me - illustrate what I see as all the best features of this hot little system. A good number of reasonably priced placegetters gets you by while you wait for a healthy share of winners and the occasional good one like Quasi Stellar, race 3 Moonee Valley, $9.20 the win, which I would never have selected in a million years. Who selected Quasi Stellar? And it isn't a one-off. This method gets winners like that often enough. Just check back through batches of old races and see. It surprises me.

I reckon you could expect one return like Quasi Stellar every one or two race days with this system. On a day to day basis you *should* be ahead two days out of three. And there is high fun value in this too.

And all with a selection system that is so simple George Bush junior could do it without having to hardly look up from his pretzels.

A couple of refinements:

*It wouldn't hurt to eliminate races less than 8 runners to avoid the dreaded NTD as in Doomben race 5, #2 My True North, today. It shouldn't upset the stats. On the other hand, you should be able to pick two horses in a field of seven. I don't think it matters, but NTDs really irk me.

*If you want to include a safety device, I suggest stop betting after four outs and only resume after a strike. The chances are that the strike you miss by doing so will be one of the small priced placegetters this system collects and missing it won't cost you as much as you saved on outs, and the chances are also that you'll collect the next winner after the one you missed because this system throws up its share of doubles (two strikes in a row). Maybe. I haven't tested this. Today you might have missed Quasi Stellar and picked up Silver Birch, or you might have missed Detari and picked up Mystic Melody, if these strikes had of been the resumes from the break.

In any case, in my sampling this system seems remarkably resilient against long runs of outs. It breaks up the runs of outs with lots of short priced placegetters. In my sample of 180 races there was one run of seven outs, two of six, none of five, three of four outs, three runs of three outs and twelve sets of two outs. That is pretty stable. A safety device wouldn't have saved you much. No doubt you'll hit runs of eight outs, nine, ten, etc. but again the sheer volume of placegetters this system gathers guards against it happening too often.

So I don't think spectacular and catastrophic runs of outs are the weakness in this system. More likely it will strangle you slowly with a slipping average return.

The good number of double strikes and triple strikes the system yields is promising for the apllication of various staking schemes that depend on doubles and triples. Then the system will either strangle you very rapidly, or it will show itself to be a true weakness in the fabric of horseracing that will get you rich with little effort. Which do you think it is?

And remember: Like all systems it is self-defeating. The more it succeeds the less it works. There is no solid ground. You push one side and the other side moves to compensate.

A good day. But I remember last Wednesday.

Hermes

Question - why not back for win only??? Sure you would have a longer time between "drinks" but based on your initial post ("no good for placebetting alone - margins too fine") and todays results you would be better off. For today $26.40 in divs from 14 races - so at $5 a race (ie. put your place pool in win) you would be up $62 for the day.

I was just being careful becareful.

It won't work for placegetters only but it will for win only - if it "works" at all - , except you then expose yourself to long dries between drinks, as you say. And if you take out the placegetters and play win only I suspect runs of outs could be severe. There is nothing to buffer them.

One of the features I find attractive here is that it nets lots of placegetters which breaks up a run of outs and saves you from cycles of boom/bust.

Betting win only would be more fun. More ups and downs. I'm a conservative soul. I'm looking for stability.

You seem to be having fun with the mini system.
Good luck.

Many punters in this forum, including myself, had a bad one last Sat. Oakfield Duke, Ex-files, Zed-Files, Timidity. And so on. This simple selection system scored though.

Thirty one eligible races. Outlay at $1 win, $4 place = $155. Return = $166.50.

At win only, return = $250.50. (Underlines becarefuls point!)

Check them out. The winners were Gullcatcher, Wyngrove, No Stops (at $15.60 to win), Mr Attorney (at $11.50), Zabenz, Judanazo, Zedimbi, Glenwest ($7.10), Zip Infatuation.

Going OK.

Hermes

I've extended my sample to get an idea of the long term prospects of this mini system. I don't have hard figures. I mainly did it by eye, but it seems to me that, in the long term:

*If you bet win only, you'll go bust pretty quickly. You hit long runs of outs punctuated by small paying winners. After a while there are just not enough good paying winners to off-set the outs.

*If you bet each way you'll go bust slowly. Again, after a while the volume of outs exceeds the returns provided by the low paying placegetters. It will grind you down.

So, in conclusion:

If you are a fun better looking for a good day out, this system is recommended. High fun value and on lots of days you'll do well pulling in some wild and wooly winners. It is much better than following favourites.

But do NOT adopt this system as an investment strategy or your long-term betting strategy. You'll lose. I haven't worked out the gorey details. Don't need to. You can see the graph trends. You'll lose.

Hermes

One way to increase your profit but keeping the idea of win & place,
is to bet 1Win+3Place instead of the 1W+4P
This should increase you profit on turnover by 20 points, because the betting ratio has been changed from 20%W*80%P to 25%W*75%P

Thanks for the tip Bhagwan.

System started off well today but fell in a heap at the end.

Rose Hill R1 #1 Eastwest Success - Win $2.70, P. $1.30.
R2 #5 Prsently - 4.40/1.40
Flem R3 #4 Malu, 3.10 the place.
Sunshine R3 #10 Sequently, 4.40 the place.
Sunshine R4 #3 Jestica 8.40/2.00
Rosehill R5 #6 Bringing Joy, 1.40 the place.
Flem R5 #5 The Big Ask - 5.30/2.20 (A great win! Great race!)
Then a loooong run of outs.
Until Flem R8 #6 Freegold, 3.90 place.
Chelt.R7 #6 Court Hero, 4.20/1.80


Pulled in some goodies, but too many outs on the day. At each way $1, $4. Outlay $125. Return = $112.80. Betting win only = exactly even.

Collating results, and despite what I wrote earlier in this topic, win only looks the better way with this mix, doesn't it? But you get substantial runs of outs before it puts you ahead. Going through a few weeks results now, each way betting is poor value - just behind. Win only has us in front, pulling in some good wins. Long term prospects doubtful I reckon. What do you think Bhjagwan? Can I make anything of this?

THE GUNGADIN FACTOR

A refinement to the system. There must be a way to filter out the likes of Sunshine Coast R1 #11 Gungadin, a selection in this sysatem. I know we are looking for the occasional long shot, but Gungadin is too much. We can squeeze extra value out of this system by eliminating runners like Gungadin, a wasted bet, the longest of long shots.

So eliminate horses with the Gungadin factor:

*The bottom average prizewinners.

If your lowest numbered last start winner has the worst average prizewinnings in the race, forget it.

That will leave the happy mix of all-sorts and take care of Gungadin.

Hermes

Hermes

It seems that the answers to some of your queries are to be found, in seed form at least, in some of what you have said yourself.

1) In your first post you said that "You need the winners to make it profitable." Therefore the place component is obviously not pulling its weight (no matter how satisfying it may be to get a return from the TAB or whatever on a regular basis), and so you should stick to the win bets.

2) The 200 or so results that I presume you have (original 180 plus recent races), should give a reasonable idea of what should be the cut-off point about saddlecloth numbers. Are the few winners over, say, about number 8, or whatever, giving a reasonable return? I'd like to hear your answer to that one!!

3) And the next step is surely to find a progression that will take advantage of your very good strike rate of 30% winners. Perhapos the forum can help there.

All in all I think it has great prospects. Congratulations.

Thanks Merriguy. Good advice. Will do some further figures including looking for a saddlecloth cut off. Lots of # 5 and 6 overall, I've noticed, but not sure about win onlys. In fact, it seems I'll need to recalculate all of this on the win only figures. Becareful had it right several posts back. He wrote:

"Question - why not back for win only??? Sure you would have a longer time between "drinks" but based on your initial post ("no good
for placebetting alone - margins too fine") and todays results you would be better off. For today $26.40 in divs from 14 races - so at $5 a race (ie. put your place pool in win) you would be up $62 for the day."

You were right becareful. Win only is the way. It's doing better. A strike rate you could do something with.

I'II do some more figures. Wish I had a push-of-a-button database.

Hermes

Thanks for the positive comment Hermes! One idea you might like to look at to get rid of the "Gungadin" factor would be to eliminate horses over a certain price (maybe $25?). I don't know if this would work but it would be worth looking at when reviewing your data.

Hermes,

'becareful' is on the right track with prices. You may want to look a lttle further into pre-race prices. It's a very good filter.

My own analysis over the last two years highlights that only 3% of winners have had a pre-race price (Friday paper) greater than $20.

Luckyboy

Try this.
WIN BETTING ONLY
Approach No.1
Have a betting bank of $150 for every $1.00 win bet.Level stakes

Only bet on the critters showing $5.00+ in the paper.
Only bet on the Mules with TAB Nos. 1-10
(1-10 have a strike rate of 90%)

PLACE BETTING ONLY
Approach No.2
Try this staking plan from Eqestrean Investor
Bet sequence 1-2-6-18=$28 then stop & start again if you dont have a strike on that sequence.
You could have 6 banks of $28=$168

You said you have a place strike rate of 50%+
Test it on past results.

Leave out races with 7 & less runners.
Selections TAB No.1-10 only
No bet on selections paying less than $3.30 in the paper.
It should show a profit.

Then let us all know your findings.

That Equestian Publishing system that was based on last start winners, was based on starting at the bottom of the list of horses & betting on the first one you come to paying $11.00 or less in the newspaper.

They claimed it made a profit ,after testing it over 350 races ,it was all fabrication.With very long runs of outs.
You would have lost a motsa with buckleys of recovering .

It makes far more sence to start at the top & work down.
With some qualifing rules.
E.G.1-10 TAB Nos. win 90% of races so why would you start at the bottom 10%. It dont add up,it just dont add up.

Bhagwan,

This device - start at the top and look down for the first LSW - has merit it seems. Much more than starting at the bottom. Now I just need to find the ways it will pay.

A numerical cut-off for a start. The results a cut off at #7 will snare the vast majority of both placegetters and winners. Or rather seven is where the money stops. You miss some biggies beyond #6 or #7 but it can't be profitable to chase them race after race. In terms of just the volume of strike numbers you could cut off at #3! That will snare the vast majority of them, but only the lower priced ones. It is worth going down to #6 or #7 to snare the better priced winners.

The distribution of placegetters is noteworthy. Very few outside of saddlecloths 1, 2 3. Over 90% of them have saddlecloths 1, 2 or 3. The distribution of winners is more diverse. No exact figure but I'd say if your lowest numbered last start winner is 1, 2 or 3 there is a solid statistical chance it will place.

And here's something: most placegetters ran second! Very few thirds. I hadn't noticed this before. A proportion of nearly 8/2. A great method of selecting your second placer in quinellas??

I know this is looking like it will pay on win only but I am worried about a statistical fact: fewer last start winners win races than you'd expect. But, more last start winners place than you'd expect. That's why I was chasing placegetters with this method.

Last start winners who win are therefore horses that win two in a row. The stats are against that. The stats say that horses that win a race are more likely to run a place next race than they are to win. Doesn't the stat go:

35% of winners are last start winners. BUT
only 25% of last start winners are next time winners.


In this case we've found a method of locating a high proportion of seconds. In my samples the win strike is healthy, but that defies the stats, doesn't it? In the long term I expect the stat that says last start winners are more likely to place than to win will prevail. Despite my sample.

Maybe we have a quinella system in the making. Something like:

Take the last start winner with lowest saddlecloth number. Selection 1. (Likely to run second).

Selections 2 and 3. Of the four horses with adjacent numbers, take the two with the best last start and/or highest prixewinnings (or placegetter percentage or whatever way you want to distinguish between them).

We do this because, as a general observation, the other placegetters *follow the last start winner* who places. That is, if a last start winner with saddlecloth #1 wins or places, then the other placegetters will have saddlecloth numbers not far away. Usually there is at least one other placegetter one or two numbers away above or below. It is less likely that you get a placegetting last start winner with a low saddlecloth and the other placegetters are 7 and 8 or even 5 or 6. More likely combinations like 1, 2, 3 or 1, 2, 4. or 2, 3 and 5. etc. The bias towards the lower numbers/higher weights.

On the other hand if your placegetting last start winner is in the higher numbers 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. Then so too will be the other placegetters. More often than not.

Of course you get some very diverse distributions, but I note this as a general pattern. Very often one of the horses adjacent to the placegetting last start winner will place too. I colour them in in the form guides with a green marker. You can see the blocks of green. Looked interesting so I did a quick count. Only about 3 in 10 deviate from the pattern. Will need to do more stats obviously.

But maybe when betting quinellas use the lowest numbered last start winner to find the centre of the action. Take it as your centre and look at the numbers around it. To put it another way:

You don't get many placegetting last start winners that stick out like a sore thumb. You find them within a nest of other placegetters. You should be able to find a quinella strategy to take advantage of this.

Anyone find ways to make this pay?

The quest for a viable system (and steady stats) goes on.

Hermes

Twenty-five eligible races on the card tommorow. There's some good bets among the selections. Some days good, some ordinary, some bad. On paper, could be a good one.

Two selections are eliminated. We'll save our money on Warwick Farm R3, #10 Absolute Lure, and even more so Ipswich R5 #9 Tryst. So that's twenty three bets.

For the record they are:

Warwick Farm R1 #2 King of Soul, R2 #3 Lucky Gwen, R4 #4 Dare Du Ciel, R5 #3 Exotikos, R6 #3 Don't Come Yet, R7 #7 Venere, R8 #1 Kurrajong Mist.

Sandown R1 #1 War Abandoned, R2 #1 Stolen Crown, R3 #1 Sacred Hill, R4 #6 Fine & Dapper, R5 #7 Zedati, R6 #5 Power in Motion, R7 #5 Century Gal, R8 #4 Our Target.

Ipswich R6 #4 Graces Roses, R7 #2 Norwhal, R8 #2 Hellie Missed.

Gawler R3 #2 Delete Me Not, R5 #2 Claredon Curse, R6 #1 Kurt, R7 #4 Dutton, R8 #1 Manilow.

We'll try it on paper win only - $5 on the nose. That's 23 x 5 = $115.
Also calculate as per Bhagwan's suggestion - $1 win, $3 place = $92.

And I'd like to try this. Numbers 1, 2, 3 only. $5 to place. That's 14 races = $70.
And let's see if it bends the other way: Numbers 4,5 and 6 only. $5 to win. That's seven races = $35.

Hermes

Some quinella combinations.

Try simple adjacent horses. The two adjacent to the lowest numbered last start winner. Eg. Warwick Farm R1. Selection is #2 King of Soul. So box 3 quinella becomes 1, 2, 3. Race 7 Warwick Farm. Selection is #7 Venere. Quinella becomes 6, 7, 8. Trying to catch the adjacent horse phenomenon.

A more complex possibility:

Take the lowest numbered last start winner. Then the lowest numbered last start second placegetter, then third. If no second, then third, then fourth. And so on.

Now, where this yields horses adjacent to the lowest numbered last start winner: box 3 quinella.

The selections tommorow become:

Warwick.

R1 - 1, 2, 4.
R2 - 1, 2, 3.
R6 - 1, 2, 3.

Sandown

R5 - 4, 6, 7.
R8 - 4, 5, 6.


Ipswich

R6 - 2, 3, 4.
R7 - 2, 3, 6.
R8 - 2,3, 6.

Gawler

R3 - 1, 2, 5.
R5 - 1, 2, 9.
R6 - 1, 2, 3.
R8 - 1, 2, 8.

An extension of the idea.

Hermes

Bhagwan wrote:

Then let us all know your findings.

Will try it that way too, Bhagwan. Many thanks for your insights. Will report the findings.

Two punters went to the races today armed with a wad of cash. One to Warwick Farm. One to Sandown. Both had a new selection strategy they heard from a mate who heard from a mate who read it on the Net. Simple system: select the lowest numbered last start winner.

The guy at Warwick farm had a beauty. Six placegetters in seven. Went home a believer.
The guy at Sandown crashed. Two places in eight races. Blamed the heavy track. Went home and kicked the dog.

(Another guy at Ispwich scored two places out of three and another guy at Gawler scored two out of four. Both went home happy but not convinced.)

Total today in twenty two races (one scratching from 23) = twelve placegetters. 54%. Few winners, but King of Soul at $5.80 (Vic TAB) was a nice start to the day.

Warwick Farm

R1 #2 King of Soul - $5.80/$2.60
R2 #3 Lucky Gwen $1.70
R5 #3 Exotikos - $2.60
R6 #3 Don't Come Yet - $4.40
R7 #7 Venere - $4.00
R8 - #1 Kurrajong Mist - $2.00

Sandown

R1 #1 War Abandoned - $1.60
R5 #7 Zedatzi - $1.90

Ipswich

R7 #2 Narwhal - #2.80
R8 #2 Hellie Missed - $1.80

Gawler

R5 #2 Claredon Curse - $1.90
R6 #1 Kurt - #3.90/$2.00


Have to check to see which staking stragegy worked best, but still enough action in this system to keep me interested.

Hermes

The level stakes return for the place were sensational.

Return $29.30
Outlay $22.00
Profit $7.30 =33% POT

If you could do that on win betting you would be brilliant , but on place betting thats sesational, for the day that is .

You were saying its level stakes profit for the place was ordinary, what would be interesting, is to find out the profit possability at level stakes on the past 150+ results with the various filters added.
That had previously mentioned.
E.G. TAB 1,2,3 OR TAB 1-7 etc.

Isolating the TABs 1,2,3.

122 races. 67 placegetters. 54%.

But we're collecting too many low payers.

Average return on that sample = $1.87.

$1.87 at 54% won't go.

Raw figures only and so no money filter.

Bhagwan, the immutability of your morning price $3.30 rule has dawned on me.

Hermes

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.