Follow 'em to win
 

The on thing I haven’t seen much discussion on here is picking a horse and following it for several starts.



Logic is that there are so many variables in horse racing to take into account and as mentioned before my list of 100 excuses why a horse didn’t win. So, one or even two failures, or even a failed campaign can be forgiven. A failed campaign you say ?! “A failed campaign !!” You’ll find the trainer will usually pull the pin after a couple of runs if nothing seems to be going right.



So how do we pick a horse that will win ?



Barnys’ rules



1) Look for a NZ’der with ability. These ************s have been coming over here for years with OK sort of horses that seem to beat our good ‘uns. They’re not bringing them over for no reason. Give a proven performer a couple of runs.



2) Look for a lightly raced horse, potentially good, racing in QLD, WA or even SA that’s been placed, what seems to be, waaaay out of it’s class. Put it in your black book and watch it when it comes back from a spell in Melbourne over a similar distance.



3) Watch for those interstate neddies (not Sydney !) that have really good form in the way of an outstanding SR and back them a couple of times.



4) Black book any horse that breaks a track record, regardless where it is. It’s obviously got ability.



5) Keep your eyes peeled for a lightly raced horse with an excuse for a really bad run (failed due to track conditions etc). Black book it.



6) Try this ‘un. A lightly raced horse on the bottom weight with good form, provided there are only a couple on the minimum, with a huge pull in weights over the top weight. Worth a couple of runs that ‘un.



7) A horse that’s had between 10 and 15 runs who’s second up from a spell after a Barry Crocker first up. Again with decent form prior to a spell.



8) When JB Cummings has an interest in one.



The above is based on the premise that there’s a lot of luck involved in racing, and even the trainers and jockeys don’t always know when one is going to win, but they do know when they’ve got a good ‘un. Some fantastic odds are frequently available because of an ordinary, and unexplained run, only to find it's true potential realised in the next start or two. "Geez ..... you could have easily had that on it's run a few starts back?!"

I’ll release another of my 100 reasons why a horse didn’t win. “Shied at the crossing” ….. and that to “Some horses just don’t try when it’s windy”


I’d love some more suggestions as to how to pick a horse to back for a few runs please.

A horse, A capable one with proven performance! in the right race and right company, right distance, reasonable jock, is a good proposition for starters!

Everything to the opposite of the above and you can follow that horse to the poorhouse, no matter, how many times it will run, no matter how good the horse is in his own class it will only win by accident!

Coming from NZ or Europe means nothing if the horse is no good, owners, trainers, other connections often have stars in their eyes.

Just look at the Melbourne cup!

Trainers "know" and I say that advisedly, only their own horses, it takes a few other runners to make a race and most of the time they have only a vague idea about the ability and current state of preparation of those other horses.

If blindly following horses, hoping they will eventually win and make a profit, there would be no need for handicapping-rating races.

Ever noticed that one day a horse is a hotshot fav. and even wins, and next week the same horse in a seemingly similar race is regarded as a rank outsider? Think on that. It all comes back to right ....race...etc...

Good luck.

PS. I like the way you have the little grey cells turning around, keep at it!

Barny, I have has some success over the years by picking a few to follow over the carnivals eg Melb spring & Sydney autumn, & mainly arrive at the nags to follow by keep a close eye on trials, the first couple of starts back from a spell & betting markets - obviously being in a top stable doesnt hurt.

Unless you have the time to daily trawl through racing replays & trials (which I dont) Ive always found finding horses to follow from your average racing calender is tough work & reckon there are easier ways to find a winner - dare I say it "follow the money" can be more rewarding, provided of course your not the last mug in line.

lomoca, I don't suggest we throw darts at the formguide .......

I was driving over Kosiosko last Feb / Mar and listened to a racing program about NZ horses and they went into great detail about Wall Street being NZ's best horse, it's form and the fact it was set for the Cox Plate. It won one race out of two here at 6/1. A horse called Ginga Dude ran Wall Street to a neck over 1,600 metres the start before Ginga Dude came over here. Ginga Dude won at double figure odds trouncing the opposition.

Bart Cummings was spruiking Rock Classic, who on form didn't appear too flash. It proceeded to win a big race at double figure odds.

Why was Ginga Dude overlooked ?

Why was Rock Classic overlooked ?

I'm not looking for duds at all, I'm studying to find a potentially decent horse and giving it a couple of runs. When Bart gives a horse one run then puts it out for a spell, that's worth a look. Also worth a look is a horse with a really good strike rate who has had a shocker first up. The unwashed usually think it hasn't "come up", which may be true, but one run in ?

Good on you.

All I'm saying, if I had been betting on trainers spruiking their own horses, the opinions of the so called in the "knows" every time, I would have given up punting, disappointed, bitter and dead broke a long time ago.

And I don't care where the gossip comes from, I ignore it go by class and form.
Overlooked by whom?
Only by the ignorants.

Just because Bart, or any trainer is talking his horse up, doesn't mean it is no good, just as it doesn't mean it is!

Easiest way to get a good stable if your inclined to bet that way is Robbie Waterhouse Black Book.(Free)
Cheers
darky

Thank you Darkydog2002

Any results?
Have noticed that in his weekly email, but never actually followed them or kept results.

You may find this an interesting read http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthr...ight=Black+Book
I posted on this subject awhile ago and found staking an important part of the process.

Barny

I've made a decent return from following a stable of horses to lay. Use something like the Blackbook service on R&S and it becomes a fairly straight forward process.

I just follow them for 14 days max from when their posted then discard.
Cheers
darky

Would someone give a bit of feedback on this please?

I'm going to back horses with a decent Win S/R% until they fall out of that pre-determined Win S/R%. They must be racing in decent quality metro races, not #78 etc.

I'm going to eliminate .....

• Horses that have won 6 or 7 races in their first 7 or 8 runs based on the logic that they can't keep it going, and have probably had the guts run out of them ..... and if the above turns out to be incorrect on the rare occasion, then they'll be too short anyway.
• Horses that are running in low grade events, on the basis that even tho' they have a high Win S/R%, the trainer doesn't rate them.
• Fillies and Mares backing up within 7 days, this is a good 'un a system rule that's worthy of throwing in.
• Odds on pops.
• Horses in their next preparation that are obviously going targetted to distance events. They'll be given a different preparation to previous ones and the chances of them continuing with their high Win S/R% are low.

I'm going to give extra attention to .....

• Geldings ..... and maybe eliminate mares altogether. What about Horses that still have their manhood???
• Horses from interstate and NZ because their form is sometimes underrated and the odds reflect that.

That's basically it.

Any feedback welcome ......

Hi Barny,

You might want to give some thought to not eliminating odds on pops. Looking at the recent stats from UB they actually do well overall and are worth throwing in even just as anchors in all-ups.

I'd recommend really studying a horses form patterns, often it will give you a clue as to how they operate. Some need a few runs to come to their top, others put in only one good run in a prep, some also run good / bad / good / bad almost like clockwork and then there are the grinders that put in week in, week out, running consistent places.

Regarding tackle:
It's interesting to see the stats on Peter Moody regarding colts. It seems the ones that keep their manhood go very well indeed.

Strikerate: 27%
Wins: 28/96
P.O.T. 11.5%

The Schmile

Hi shaun, a very interesting post of yours. A couple of your comments you made ......

"Since i have enough runners to last me 6 months and the stakes oneach runner is slowly going up i won't add any new runners for the moment untili have halved my current stable, lets see how long that takes."

I'm looking for a methodical approach to adding and deleting runners. Your method is a black book type method, and would not suit me as I need rules as 'inflexible' as I can get.

"I am going to retire the current stable as there are few of theserunners resuming now, I may start another one latter."


ditto my comment above.

Really interesting to note that PPM's Horses to Follow showed a profit I believe year after year, so this stable approach has merit. I just don't think one can follow a horse for as many runs as you suggest.

There was a system of sorts posted on here where Group winning and placed horses were given points depending upon the quality of the race and the horses finish. This poster backed these Group horses for what seemed like forever, but as he used a points system to rate each horse, he only had one bet per race. He was very patient and once a horse qualified, it seemed to qualify for life on the basis that it was a top notch horse. there was room for improvement in this system I'm sure. I recall Tears I Cry who fluked a Group win, then spent the next couple of years where it couldn't get a suitable race, and eventually lost so many times it eventually got back to a suitable grade and won a few races on the trot.

There's merit in the stable system, but I reckon you need to have tight rules to get rid of horses quickly. That's one element where my fixed Win% system appears to avoid throwing good money after bad.

I agree, i have tried the stable system in the past a few times and it can work if you have the right selections and how long to follow them for.

But as i said the other issue is how many to follow.

Following a stable list is like the stock market, know when to get in and know when to get out.

I did have some stats around here will have to see if i can find them but it showed that following about 75% of horses from day 1 in there career to the end would have produced a profit.

Even a horse that wins say 5 in 50 runs can produce a profit, but i don't even want to start thinking of how much it would cost to do this.

The group or listed company is a good idea at least you know a horse has some class if it places in those races.

Giving horses points for winning or placing in Group races, as a ratings method, has merit. The only thing I didn't like was that this poster kept the horses on his list forever, BUT then only backing them when they were top pick. So I suppose that other horses would overtake them in points as they compete in Group races and do well, and that some out of form horses would drop in class.

shaun, I don't see it as an issue as to how many you follow. You're trying to profit from the horse only.

I'd love to figure out how to eliminate a few more losers though.

Anyone with a suggestion as to the type of race to FILTER OUT would be most welcome.

Hi Barny,

I found this website you might be interested in to build your stable with quality NZ horses:

Top 100 rated NZ horses

The Schmile

Thanks for that The Schmille. Just need to find out their winning % and I'll break the NZ TAB.

One thing that I'll point out to anyone reading my post about following a pre-determined Win% S/R and keeping the horse in your stable so long as it doesn't slip out of that pre-determined Win% S/R is this; - You do get first up winners, and good priced second up winners especially if they didn't go so well first up. Although I flick them if they've lost 3 in a row even if there still within the Win% parameters, I DO pick them up again after a spell IF they remain qualified.

Here is a mechanical method to select horses to follow...

List horses which last started at $1.60 (say 7/4on) win or lose anywhere!
Delete if 1) Win strike rate less than 25%
2) Less than 4 race starts
3) Older than 5 years.
Follow for three starts 1 unit, 2 units , 3 units stop at win.

You have a horse well supported at it's last run, good strike rate and with enough runs to have proved it's form.
The rules also limit your list of horses to ,I hope, the more likely future winners.

Example, Sheza Dragon last Tuesday Townsville 1st start won $2.40 Prev.start 2/1on. Of course some will be short but others reasonable.
For your improvement or dismissal. Good luck all.

Nice idea Midas,

I might tweak this one a little bit and see how it goes.

Thank you for posting!

The Schmile

Thanks TheSchmile any suggestions appreciated.
To increase selections maybe any odds on winner (winning form is good form) which complies with the condions.
I've been following my original post for a couple of months -not a lot of selections but looks promising and the main object is to find winners.
Luck to all
MIDAS

Hi Midas,

I was thinking of using a refined, 'retirement' type of staking plan over 4 runs instead of 3.

Plan of attack being:

1/ Horse starts at $1.60 or below and has 25% win strike or better. (your original idea)

2/ Next start (first bet) = 1 unit

3/ If it loses, set a divisor to whatever the horses price is pre post or fixed odds.
So if it's paying $4 (3/1) pre post, divisor = 3
Equation 3 + 1 = 4 / 3 (divisor) this bet = 1.33

4/ Horse loses again, this run it's paying $5 pre post (4/1), divisor = 4
Equation 4 + 1 + 1.33 = 6.33 / 4 (divisor) next bet = 1.5825

Continue loss recovery for 4 bets.

The thinking being to back them relative to their market chance of winning, should be more accurate than a rigid 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4 staking plan.

What do you think? Let me know.

The Schmile

Reply to The Schmile Hi

I have records of a win selection system based on last start odds on plus a few filters with a good strike rate for 23 months.
Recently I had a brain wave and checked the results of the winning horses under this system for the next 5 runs 1,2,3,4,5 units. I found it was more profitable to follow for only 3 runs not the five, also three runs 1,2,3 units until win - 45% POT. However 3 runs at 2,3,4 units increased POT to 77%.
I am no mathamatician but maybe the set bets could give you more return on the larger priced winners which is the cream of most methods.
Of course those results apply only to my particular method and in any case may not continue into the future but again it is something to consider.
Good luck with your experiments
Midas

More proof that picking a "stable" with sound rules and following the horse for a short period, has credibility. Thanks midas.

Nice insight Midas,

It's always best to stick with what you're comfortable with and if you can achieve figures such as this, maybe the 1,2,3 or 2,3,4 is the way to go for you.

Regardless, it seems like a really sound idea in principle.

Thanks again for sharing!

The Schmile