how to be as smart as the "stable"
 

I just read Aussielongboats contribution and one thing that stood out to me was "to look where no-one else is looking" ..... My mantra for quite a while now. Easier said than done, or is it? Aussie longboat also said "It is rare if one of my selections is first up - gives too much advantage to the trainer or stable. I am at a disadvantage because I don't know how it has been going. They do - I don't"

My philosophy of getting together a stable of horses is that you're IN THE KNOW without really trying. Let old Barny explain. Say a stable is setting the horse for a first up win. It's in your stable, you back it ..... You're in EXACTLY the same position as the stable ..... aren't you ??? If they set the nag for a second up win, it's in the stable you back it ..... You're in EXACTLY the same position as the stable ..... aren't you ??? Almost ..... BUT you need to take into account the failure first up, so you've comparatively lost one point of odds. So if the nag wins at 10 / 1 you've got the equivalent of 9 / 1 taking into account it's first up run.

So you're essentially giving up one point in the betting market for every run your stable horse has prior to the run they've set it for.

You only have to ask yourself "Is it worth me giving up one point in the betting market for each run the horse has to be on the same page as the stable ???"

There are many methods associated with developing a "stable" of horses to follow and I believe easier to be more disciplined than a mechanical system aimed at individual races.

I don't have the data base to do this but take all horses that have placed in a Stakes race or higher and divide the total runs by the total odds of all the wins and see if there was a level stakes profit.

I am sure you will find that most are in profit, if you look for better class horses and are willing to follow them and have a big enough bank to keep you going then the rest is easy.

shaun, someone on here used to put a 'value" next to each horses placing in Listed > Group races (maybe even listed as well) and used that "value" as a rating. Interesting way to rate a horse but he / she backed them at every start (only the highest rated in the field tho' so not really a "stable" but close).

There were many good winners he / she backed simply by "rating" all Listed > group race placegetters (incl winners of course). Not all races would be of equal value, some S.A. races were given a lesser value than say if the same race were in Melbourne ..... I might go and look for this coz' it's interesting reading, and they got some big priced winners up.

Further to your post shaun, it may be easier to be more disciplined following this method. This requires no tinkering.

Just for interest sake a couple of years ago now, I decided to put about ten of Gai W's horses into a "stable". They all had to be entering a new preparation and hence backing them from their first up start that particular prep.

I thought I'll outlay $30 on each horse in the stable on the basis of $2, $4, $6, $8 and $10 for each horse. When and if a horse got into profit, that horse leaves the stable. I do recall once she had a horse in a big race down in Melbourne, won and paid around $33 for the win, put me well in front.

I know Gai W likes to have her horses race well fresh. But I think I gave this up as most of hers were too short. I am sure there must be some other idea in this format.

Regards, Paul

I assume here that one is talking about betting 1 horse a race.

Now this is the quickest way to the poorhouse.

Every race has at least 3 or more chances in it and most races 5 or 6.

Whats required is to cover all bases with a price that makes a profit and disregarding those under that price.

This is Basic mathematics.

Funny thing is that plenty of people will tell you all of Gai's horses are short, but what of Bart's ??? He get's some nice winners up at good odds, sometimes up to 33 / 1 in obscure places at midweek events. I'm going to add a couple of 'Fastnet Rock" horses this spring, and try to build my stable up to 10 horses, giving each of them 5 runs.

Worth noting that horses to follow in PPM was always in front - that says a lot in itself, and proves that it can be done. I'm sure 99.9% of their systems were failures.

The Herald Sun spring stables usually lose but only because they've got horses aimed at one particular event, and popular horses too.

One filter you could have is not back anything under $4.00 ?

Don't want to get to much involved here as i have never,
Attempted this before but i will just say this.

A person from when i used to attend the track,
A fair while ago used to do this.

He went back several years and noted the winners,
And placegetters from all Listed, gr-3-2-1 races,
Over several years.

He noticed a trend where in "certain races" of this calibre,
These horses could successfully be followed for a certain nos of starts.

Some races he would only follow the winners,
Other races he would only follow the placegetters.

He would note the trainers of these horses age etc,
And would then put them into a stable.

He was back then very very successful.

Finding long priced horses that most of us would ignore.

One day at Flemington after he had knocked me off,
In a photo finish on a $26.0 pop i asked him how did you back that??.

Form was something like 0-8 and 3rd up his reply it ran 3rd,
In a gr-3 race last year and place getters from whatever race,
It was usually win within there next 5 starts.

Certain races only and group-listed from around Australia,
Winners or placegetters was how he gathered his stable.

Does this make sense???.

Makes a lot of sense to me garyf, thanks.

Thought you might be interested Barny

http://www.sartinmethodology.com/pu...WinningPMTR.pdf

Nice to see Dick Mitchell get a mention there. :)

The good old 3 R's.

in response to GaryF's post in this thread. Here's a site with all the Group race results going back to 2007. This would be a pretty big task to come up with a "common follow on" from each and every race. Something to ponder on though.

http://www.horseracinginfo.com.au/g...ces-results.php

Paul

Yep that's for sure that's why he only followed certain races,

In his quest for profits he put in trainers, then age groups, He had other criteria as well don't know what they were.

And is it still an angle that can be profitable???.

My last meeting was may 2007 the day i stopped work,
He had been doing this for several years before that.

Certainly an angle but not for me though thanks i will pass.

Cheers.

I also note the stats on that site also list LR races as well. Just sitting here looking at that site and run a search on the first horse mentioned in those stats, Temple of Boom. The win mentioned there was a Group 3 race on 6 August 2011, at its 4th run back from a spell. The very next preparation it won a Group 1 race also at its 4th run back from a spell on 21 April 2012 at 14/1.

I've looked at things like this on and off over the years, never really only just concentrated on Group Races, usually just run of the mill races and it was very time consuming.

Something to store in the back of my mind here,

Paul

Snap, you beat me by 1 minute. The more one thinks about this with your initial comment/s one should really take the time to look at this angle even if its just reserved for black type races.

I'm on holidays up in Cairns at present, must look at this more when I get back home,

Paul

Knew i should have not posted this angle Especially as i have not been through it myself.

Probably haven't explained this properly although i thought i did.
We are not looking at the horse ("that's the second part")
"WE ARE LOOKING AT THE RACE ITSELF"

For example using P'S 123 example of,
Temple of Doom it is the ""AURIE STAR RACE ITSELF " we are interested in.

That race, what is it like following the winners and placegetters,
Over the years do those horses go on and win races within,
There next3- 4-5 starts or does the race not produce much,
In the way of future winners.

I look at this a little bit in my own form analysis but not,
In that format i call it a 'KEY RACE" it is when you see,
A Horse win a race be it metro cntry prov horses,
That finish behind it and the winner itself,
Will go on and win again many times next start.

It's identifying these races early that leads to future winners,
Before everybody else jumps on.

This is why i watch and tape races every day only my own racetypes,
Which i have posted, that way the workload becomes managable.

For instance in between posting i am watching the 6 races i earmarked today.

Let's take the Blue Diamond for example off the top of my head,
Do last start winners and placegetters repeat next start, some don't start again,
Others push on to the Golden slipper some go up in distance and,
Run in the Sires over 1400.

What then, do they come back and win 1-2-3 up as 3yo's,
Or does the Blue Diamond prep burn them out??.

Unfortunately i have not followed this angle and,
I have no evidence or data that it works.

All i know that Bob, that was his name made a living,
Out of it for many years up to 2007 anyway.

He would always then assess the trainer,
Some horses trained by lesser trainers fluked,
The win on the day the better trainers,
Could go on and get there horses to win again often at,
Very big odds like that day at flemington.

He personally liked l Freedman Hayes and Cummings,
That was back in the late 90's early 2000.
They would enter 2-3 in a race sure enough Bob would,
Be on the $21.00 shot the stable elect least fancied.

I entered this thread on a whim with no factual evidence,
To back my theory up, this is something i hate doing,
And i promise you, i will not do again.

Will still post or give an opinion but not say things that i can't verify.

Sorry but that's just me.

Cheers.

I'm sure this has been posted here before and you only need to read the first few lines.

"Only 2 percent of racegoers are cosistent winners..........if you do everything the opposite you will probably be successful".

But alas, most "systems" start with "find the favourite...."

Agree Mark, but its a start to further your knowledge into pace analysis and velocity recordings.

I foundwith time sectionals from TVN you can determine whether certain horses that run on with a slow velocity at the start of the race go on to win one of there next 2 starts.

If you look on the weekend at all the 1200 m races.
Measure the metres per second for the first 800m and the last 400m and then follow up with some calculations you can see which races horses had a fun time out in front.

Its another angle for anyone interested but takes some time week in and out.
Not my cuppa tea.

Especially when they're mostly inaccurate times given.

Several problems will occur that will have to be overcome,
If anyone starts using the race theory as i posted.

The day and date and name of the race will have to be entered,
The problem being that race clubs regularly rename,
Races as they attract new sponsors to the sport.

So a gr=3 race may be in 2007 may be the barny stakes,
In 2008 it may be the mark stakes in 2008 it could be the garyf stakes.

Still the same race but might have a different name the following year(s).

The other problem is each year the races change group status.
Each year a select committee sits down and assesses each races category.

I only know 2 of the criteria.

1= Quality of the horses the race attracts.
2= The prizemoney the club has to offer for the race.

There's probably other criteria i just don't know them.

So what in 2007 may be the GR-3 Barny hcp
May be in 2008 the GR-2 Garyf hcp etc

Your time honoured races like the Caulfield + Melbourne cup,
The Oaks, The Derby, The Guineas, etc are all ok but the rest,
Of them could change name and Group Status.

The name change can be checked but a race going from a ,
Listed Race in 2007 to a Gr-2 in 2009 will obviously attract,
The better class horses meaning when it may be useless,
Following the race when it had Listed status only would then have,
to start on that race again at the different group level.

If it were me i would probably concentrate on the state where i live,
And maybe restrict ones self to the gr-1-2 races only, which,
Once established you would think only go up or back one grade,
Or that plus the time honoured races for consistency.

Only a suggestion but these,
things will always be happening.

Cheers.

Gee Gary

If I only posted what I could verify, nobody on here would have heard of Star.

I, for one appreciate your writings, whether you feel they are researched or not.

eg

see my new thread on the Neurals I am about to post.

Thanks

Star

Hi there Garyf, yes I realised that you were referring to the race itself and not the individual horse. I guess my line of thinking there was that establishing some sort of a "family history tree" from each Group race would be a pretty mammoth task.

My thinking was to pick a couple or few trainers and endeavour to just back their "pattern" runners, although even that is rather time consuming with the amount of runners some of these trainers have.

And Vortech, your comments on velocity caught my attention. They probably turn out to give a similar result to what I am already doing with TVN sectional times. I might look at your aspect of metres per second when I have more time when I get back home. I'd be happy to swap any thoughts you have on this subject.

Paul

Is this by comparison to Daily sectionals?