System Help
 

Could one of you guys with an extensive data base test this for me if you have the time please.I have been toying with it for a short time only and it has had it's good days and bad days.I am just interested as to how it may or may not stand up long term,and maybe past results may shed some light.

Rule 1
Must have won at one of it's last two starts(this prep)
Rule 2
If the last start was not a win,must have finished within 4 lenghts of the winner
Rule 3
Must have a "c" next to it
Rule 4
Must have had minimum of 10 career starts
Rule 5
Must have minimum win s/r of 20%
Rule 6
Must have minimum place s/r of 40%
That's it.
cheers if anyone can help.

Got4it,

I did a quick run with my database and got the following :

Selections : 1220
Win $ : 1033.00
Place $ :1152.50

Sorry but looks like a loser over the longer term.

Add filter of Unitab rating of 100

Selections : 405
Win $ : 439.00 ( 8% POT )
Place $ :397.30

Good Luck.

Thanks for your time Wes

If I do a bit of"tweaking" could I possibly impose on you to run it thru again?

cheers,and thanks again

I'll do my best to test anything you propose on here.

Wesmip 1,

Revised rules.

1. Must have won 1 of last 2 starts

2. If not last start winner must have finished within 3 lengths of winner

3. Must have a "C" next to it's name

4. Must have at least 10 career starts

5. Minimum win s/r 25%

6. Minimum place s/r 40%

7. Distance range 1200/1600 only

8. Must be on the first 5 lines of betting prepost

9. Weight variance from last start no more than 2kgs either way

10. In top 3 Unitab ratings

Hope that is not too many rules ,if it's a hassel,don't worry about it,I'll test it manually.

cheers mate

Hi!
I would not bother testing it the way it is. With rules like this you are bound to pick only shortish priced horses, and even with a decent strikerate, the odds will be against you.

If you reduced the win and place percentage and leave the rest, you would have a much better chance, lower strikerate for sure, but better odds. Distance does not matter a great deal.
Good luck

System
 

Hi what would be your best system that you have tried over time and do you have a good staking plan? Thanks

got4it,


Its a losing system again. The only thing I couldn't do was

8. Must be on the first 5 lines of betting prepost

But it is showing a loss of of approx 11%.

Good Luck

Thanks for your time and effort Wesmip 1.

Back to the drawing board I guess.

cheers,and thanks again

pearcy, Go4it,

I have lots of systems I have developed over time and some work and some dont.

The best advice I can give is ...

Pick something that is deemed as bad by the general public. A classic example is outide barriers, or low weight , or excessive weight, or an apprentice jockey, more than 5 lengths last start, etc.

This will get you the odds. Then work out ways to make the strike rate better. It is the only tried and tested method I have come up with for developing profitable systems.

Good Luck.

System
 

Thanks for that do you have one specific one you could let me try. I would really appreciate it as I am only a beginner.

clohe@bigpond.net.au

pearcy,

Try the following :

1.Unitab rating =100
2. Outside 2 barriers
3. Last Start Winner
4. 8 or more runners in the field

It produces a small profit ($799.90 from 784 bets)

You can improve it heaps ...

For example ...
5. Winners which won by less than 2 lengths has $397.30 from 337 bets

The reasons you might use these factors are :

1. Unitab ratings of 100 are 2.4 more times likely to win
2. Outside 2 barrier give you some decent odds
3. Last start winners are showing form and fitness and are 40% more likely to win than the average horse.
4. Larger fields give better odds
5. We pick winners which had a hard win last start (less than 2 lengths). Those that win by too much are usually very low odds next race.

Good Luck

Hi Wesmip1,

Just wondering if your system testing has the capabilities to include horses with any gear changes.

Cheers if you can help.

Young buck,

Sorry can't do it .. gear changes are not easily enough available and are sometimes wrong.

Thanks anyways.