85% Returned to the Public - Hogwash
 

Between 2% and 5% of punters make a living out of this caper.

The return to punters from TAB's or the bookies is for arguments sake, say 85%.

So, you only have to narrow the gap between 85% and North of 100% to be in front. Wrong ..... Incorrect assumption. Included in the 85% are those punters who make their living off the punt. They could quite conceivably be taking 20% of the 85% which leaves the unwashed to fight over 65%.

How much money would be on successful stable information in each race ???

So mow you have to be better than Joe Public by greater than 50% just to break even.

Yes Barny,

But the mere fact that Joe Public bet into that odds shows that they are not to smart.

Now, I can't talk for you guys but me and myself have just realised that " If you follow the crowd " then you are doomed to mediocrity. At the moment I am working on the angle that many supposed truths in gambling on the horses are just urban myths.

Even if they are right, you can't win because the weight of money forces the price down below the break even point.

I am looking for something different, like what I posted in " The Paretto Principle " about " THE CALF PATH OF THE MIND. "

Star, I posted years ago about the racing myths, and was soundly howled down by those that know better. ie the 95% that are regular losers.

Mark.

I'd like to see a new thread started on them. You will not get howled down by me.

One of the ways to do it is to put a few up and let's try to see if they are Myths or Truths. Bit like that program on Pay TV. " The Myth Busters " It will go hand in hand with the Calf Path

Some people take things too seriously, but I do like the idea of ; The Myth Busters ' Maybe it might have some legs here.

Those that criticize too fiercely, do this forum a great diservice because unless you have a thick skin you will slink away never to be heard of again.

Once you have been in this game for awhile you seem to take on the persona of the norm. Sometimes, a newbie might say something out of context or is plain wrong in the context being discussed but just maybe, under different circumstances might need to be investigated further .

I am trying to look outside the square,

Star.

I don't think we've got the type of contributors at the moment to get Myth Busters up and running. It's a completely different forum now compared to many years ago. In the "past" there was much discussion around handicapping principles, practical information regarding the horses fitness, plenty of systems and discussions, and plenty of decent threads that took up 30 odd pages, including one of my fav's the longshot method. There were people like "crash' who infuriated some, but had a wealthy of handicapping information, and was willing to share.

One of the best threads we've had for a while, Pareto Principle, originated some 6 - 7 years ago on here ....

At the moment it's more or less a trading environment.

Thanks for slapping us with paint from your almighty broad brush

Maybe it's because the more intelligent realise that after all that has gone before, there is no simple answer or system that will produce a consistent return in gambling?

.

Rails Run, the topics are different that's all.

Hi Barny,
Here,s a question for your urban Myth start up.

"Do Lower Weighted Horses Run Faster than their Higher Weighted Rivals."

Cheers
darky

I'm sure The Myth Busters thread won't go ahead, maybe you could start it up darkydog?

No response to the first question Barny which is a pity but I,m sure there will be more testers out there.

"Urban Myth Busters" though is a great thread and I,m sure most of us would be interested in what comes out of it.

Q2.In this day and age of Training methods do the Fillies and Mares perform worse than the Male horses?

Cheers and thanks for a enlightening thread.
darky

Hi Darky,

I did not answer your first question because I assumed it was a gee up. Infact I did type a reply but cancelled because you might be up for a bit of mischief.

I will by pass Q1 for the time being because Q2 is a reasonable question. I do not have the statistics but assume the fillies and mares do peform worse then male horses.

Now, I cannot give a link and I am not sure how researched it was, but I do remember seeing a report where one person ( might be a lady ) did some research and on her studies noticed that on a per start basis that males out performed females by about ( 10% just guessing here ) She then factored that percentage into her ratings or system.

It would not surprise me if I saw that on this website and it could of been Lucky Lil or one of her followers.

So, off the cuff, I would say males outperform females, just need to find a source because I have given up assuming anything anymore.

STAR

Very good question DD & my observation for what it's worth is that one can expect on average for male horses to marginally outperform females.

However, just as with other factors such as wide barriers, apprentice jockeys, large fields etc etc, one can also expect on average to secure a marginally longer price about the females.

So are we any better off bottom line wise excluding females & just focussing on the males? No, not in my experience.

Are you talking Colts, Stallions and Geldings or all?
Also when you talk about outperform are your taking it on a strike rate of total wins or a strike rate of the ratio of runners.

Also as a punter do you measure by each group and the Loss on turnover?

Darky

You know those weighed 56kg+ win more races than lower weighed horses
You also know Geldings are the most consistent beasts to bet on.

Or I have let the cat out of the bag :D



What else have I got in my armory:
1. Also those that have not won at the distance are a better betting edge than those that have...DS rating @ R&S
2. and forget those that have won at the Track...divvy killer. (DS rating @ R&S)
3. Barriers are a myth, except those >11, not so good IMHO
4. Apprentices are not worth going near even with Mooeee''s money
5. 4 and 5 yo's are more reliable than the Melbourne Metro Trains....
6. Queensland tracks (non-Metro) and Wa & NSW Metro tracks in neural ratings aren't worth the bandwidth in down loading them
7. Don Scott R&S ratings are best applied to those that have less than 4 wins
8. Days Last run don't make a fig of difference to the top DS rater in R&S ratings
....these are all my experiences...so they are not right or wrong, but may help :D

Thanks Stix.

Interesting bit of information. Looking forward to more words of wisdom from you.

Star

Hi Stix,
Q1.was to get the ball rolling and your answer is correct of course.
Not sure if the TIME rating people agree as I,m strictly a Weight rating man.
Would love to know what they think though.
Thanks for yours and everybodys contribution so far.
Cheers.

Star,
The lady might have been "Felicity" who used to post some quite good stuff.
Cheers

I had to come back to Darkies Q1. And after reviewing Stix's I feel I can sum up the question like they do in the Myth Busters.

" BUSTED "

If anybody wants to unbust ( is that a word ) please chime in.

Star

The amount of 4 and 5 yo geldings running around is massive. I would say that mares would be a better bet, only because everyone has the geldings angle covered.

As to the weights, geez, does it matter ? Weights are good as a guide as to whether your horse is going up or down in class. Under 50 kgs in the Cox Plate for instance and weights come in to it, but that's about it for mine.

So You Think eh ...

I would say the answer is "Depends"

A horse running poorly dropping in class will more then likely still run poorer then a horse rising in class that is fit and running well.

A horse running well that is in the top few weights is more likely to beat a horse running poorly that is carrying a lesser weight.

But also a horse running well that is in the top few weights is more likely to beat a horse running well that is carrying a lesser weight.

Making generalised statements to test is usually not where you will fin the edge. What must be done is understanding what other punters think then finding the anomolies within the broad statement.

An example to follow my last post.


Last start winners win a larger share of races then they should by random chance.

This is true but last start winners running at a country track which then come to town to race on a metro track lose a very large pencentage of races. So much higher then last start winners overall that they are actually a very good angle to analyse for laying because so many people like to bet on hroses with 1 in their form line at the last start.