The question is, which is better?

I would be most interested to read some informed opinion on this topic and as a started shall provide some research of my own.

By ways of comparison I have decided to use the top rated horse on weight and time from the Wizard formguide for B,S,M races on Saturdays from 3 Nov 2001 to 30 Mar 2002

Note: in some races there was more than one top rater and in the case of scratchings the starter with the highest rating was used.

The results:

WRAT
sel 499
win 117 (23.4%)
ret 482.4 (-3.3%)
ave. div $4.12

TRAT
sel 533
win 107 (20.1%)
ret 514.3 (-3.5%)
ave. div $4.81

NB. the dividends were selected on this basis-
where the horse started (SP) at its top fluctuation (TF) this price was used.
-
where the horse firmed in the betting the dividend one turn below the TF was used.
ie. TF 3.50; SP 3.00; price used 3.20
-
TAB dividends were not considered although some probably paid considerably more

I believe this method would have returned a small profit if TF had been used on all winners as the difference would probably be greater than 3%.

So WRAT has the higher strike rate but there is a minimal difference in profits. No clear indication here.

Included in these winners were 14 winners in double figures, 3 over 20.0, with a best of 41.0.

(maybe I could sell this as a system, at least it would take a long time to go broke!)

further research to be done:

how do the dual top raters go? expect higher strike rate but significantly smaller divis.

what about only those whose TF is 10.0 or better? only need 7% strike rate to break even.

As a point of interest the horse which returned the 41.0 divi was called Vanishing Powder and won race 8 @ eagle farm on Jan 26. I seem to recall this site advertsing it as a winner under one of their selection methods.



[ This Message was edited by: thekey on 2002-08-20 21:55 ]

The Dual 100 Pointers results as follows:

sel 241
win 64 (26.56%)
return 243.5
profit 2.5 (1%)
ave. div. $3.80

pretty much as expected - higher strike rate, lower dividends.

I am a little concerned as to the longterm consistency of these figures as March was an exceptional month and turned a 17.2% loss into these break even figures.

For the last 4 saturdays there have been 6 wins from 23 bets. this is right on par for the SR but a return of 20.4 sees a small LOT.

I know everyone will suggest filters etc. to improve this but all logical filters will remove the larger priced winners reducing this to a long term loss situation.

I don't know how others feel about this but I don't feel comfortable betting a horse that hasn't won for 12 months or longer, same for a horse that has a low career SR.

This is where all the big priced winners come from.

With regards to the double figure priced horses mentioned in the previous post the results were so woeful it is not even worth printing.

weight and time plus field strength.both 91 100 .fs to1 and ahalf plus. use all 3 for handicapping success. plus of course all your own handicapping procedures.

I prefer to rely on Time based ratings up to 2100m and weight based ratings for 2100m +.

thekey

With what you have as results already (20-23% for either), have you considered backing only those which pay as an overlay. ie $5 or better for a win.


[ This Message was edited by: Fryingpan on 2002-08-26 14:46 ]

Unfortunately backing those over the $5 mark severely reduces the strike rate and thereby increases the need for higher dividends.

I don't believe that because the SR is 20% $5 is necessarily value for any given top rater.

You must consider the other contenders.

ie. if there are 6 horses rated above say 95 would the top rater have a 20% chance of winning, assuming there are more than 6 horses in the race.

you can usually recognize a straight times punter. a forlorn look and a handful of losing betting tickets.

Hi Darkydog and all

I see have you been studying your Don Scott / Rem Plante quotes very dilligently.

In my view, saying times have no place in racings is blatantly ignorant. My own approach is centred on a combination of time and the influence pace has on time, and I have managed to make an effective income for a number of years. I will say though that times are not consistently reliable if you do not consider the early pace of the race and the influence it has had on final time.

My own database of rated races over the past 6 years clearly shows that better horses run faster times than inferior horses. When I comine that with the influence of pace, the relationship and effectiveness of those ratings in identifying the difference between horses is very very good.

At the end of it all, the key is to be able to identify what time rating a horse can run in the likely pace conditions of the upcoming race. Add a few other checks like weight, distance, fitness etc. and you have a powerful indication of the competitive potential of horses in an upcoming race.
I then isolate the value, bet those horses effectively, ignore the poor value and when the dust settles at the end of a year, I find that i'm in front, all be it some years less than others.

So when I hear someone say that times don't work, all it means to me is that they don't know how to make them work.

Our betting environment is still dominated by class and weight and this is the reason why times are more effective. Very few people know how to use them well.

My sentiments exactly Osulld , couldn't agree more.

Am interested in how you can assess form using times. How do you assess the time one horse runs if the state of the track is different, or if the race is run at a muddling pace in the early stages? This approach would need to also account for the fact that some courses are "faster" than others. Seems a difficult way to assess form.

Vig,

Thats why it can be very profitable is because it is so hard to do and very few people have the ability or more importantly the resources at their disposal to do it well.

In short, you need to compare all times run on a day against the standard for the track and distance. However it gets more complicated. The class of racing isn't the same at all tracks so your standards need to take this into account. Using the times comparison you calculate the how fast/slow the track was for the day and correct actual times to reflect this.

You are then in a position to compare correct times against the standard but that is only partially useful as you need to consider the influence of early pace.

By understanding the times horses should run given the early pace, you can compare actual performances against them and determine race quality.

(At tracks where they don't record sectional times it is impossible to complete the pace analysis stage.)

The only way I can maintain a process as detailed as this for every race run in Australian where they record sectionals is through some sophisticated comptuer technology and an established set of standards, parameters etc. that were developed based on analysis of 7 years of racing.

Take my word for it, it can be done but unless you have the resources for automation, its impossible to consistently maintain.

In saying all that, no set of numbers provide the magical answer to racing. You still have to apply common sense to their interpretation and use...and most importantly, bet for value.

hi.osulldj.well dip me in honey and feed me to the lesbians.i learnt from both the masters .both dead now but the teachings still have held me in check for more years than i care to remember.my best to you.

Hi Darkydog,

I too learnt a hell of a lot from the two you mention....they were the pioneers of Australian punting.

One thing I have also learnt is that there is more than one way to win and I have no doubt you can win using class / weight approaches, I never said otherwise.

On the other hand your comment, taken straight from the views of these two men implied that time has no place in racing, which as I said in my opinion is ignorant.

The diversity of opinion on how to go about winning and the fact that nearly all the professionals I know win with a different method means that that we don't necessarily have to all conform to the one magical way....but at the same time we shouldn't be ignorant of other methods simply because we have never tried or if we have, we couldn't manage to make it work. There is a big difference between saying "something doesnt work" and actually meaning "I can't make it work".
Good luck in the photo finishes!

i sympathise with this debate. for many years i tried times and developed with a friend a complicated pascall based program to calculate the times of meetings and to work the cyberhorse meetings automatically.
many top selections win. but the difficulty was there is a top selection in every race and which ones to back and not to back is always the perennially question. its a problem that will alwasy confront us devising a method that does not take too much work, too much betting and is reasonably reliable.
i have done studies also on various ideas as said in another topic on sunday i backed donarch in the coleraine cup even though it got beat by 31 lengths last start.
i also was talking to the local chemist today and he said he was at caulfield on sunday and had $20 on it because it was paying $18 as against 8/1 on the books.
simply on the overs he cracked it. my system is automatic (programmed (perl language ) cyberhorse form based and selected two horses only from coleraine.
prince iluka and donarch which ran 1st and second. i developed this method after years of trying times and weights.
exasperating is the description i use and to give an example of the silliness of my fall backs in great glens race on sunday i looked only at the top 4 horses and backed the two longest prices. i got the winner.
today i had four selections in the last at canterbury, time deposit, britts best, porquoir and forbill.
i backed the two longest prices ones. they finished 2nd and 3rd the even money favorite and britts best 6/1 never featured.
maybe there's no formula. except to determine a safe factor of horses that brings regular good priced winners.

the debate could go on forever so my final comment is.if the official handicapper uses wt as the basis of bringing them together why not devote more time on this area.time in my opinion being a minor consideration.however if times work for you good luck to you.

hi all

value seems to be the key to all that is said
how one determines value is another thing. I like to try and keep things simple and still get results.

At the end of the day the fastest horse may not feel like running too fast on the day.

Weight seems to be a factor on the wet tracks
otherwise horses have won with big weights even though they werent expected to win at great odds.

Luck in running can prevent a horse from running its fastest time.


regards

ubetido