I'm getting increasingly frustrated by my lack of wins lately. It seems I did a lot better in the past having a quick look at the Daily Telegraph form and picking a winner from there. At the moment I use Ozeform.com, The Sportsman and The Winning Post to compile my ratings. What I am having problems with is that after my analysis I end up having roughly 6 horses to choose from because I have too many variables in my ratings system. I know punters are eternally looking for the perfect mix of form components to compile their choices, I just can't work it out for the life of me at the moment. Maybe I should use the same method as my girlfriend, pick a "nice" horsey name and watch it bolt in by 5 lengths.

Why don't you apply the trueism "winners keep winning and losers keep ......" to your final selections.

By concentrating on those horses which have shown that they are capable of winning in the grade of the race you are analyzing and have a good strike rate should help sort out the perennial losers.

i have said before on this forum that i wouldnt know a good thing if i fell over it and i think that sums up racing these days.
you have to be fairly sharp to pick up the signs. things like paul sutherland taking two horses to goulburn last week and missing the double by an inch. gary portelli took grand juror to hawkesbury today and got good odds. (actually backed that one)
last saturday sonarchi had won over 1400 metres and had been placed in listed company twice. (saw it after the race)
the over analysis can be mind boggling and i think you are right standing back a bit probably does have someting going for it.

Im used to get stuck with over-analysis in my early days, thinking every system was the best since the last piece of toasted white bread and vegemite!
I ended up taking the system with the least amount of effort, but with the highest strike rate. (EFFORT/TIME/STRIKE RATE/$PER DAY.
Stick to one main method as your bench mark, and I am sure your other methods have their place to, in other forms of selections for different types of bets.

ShoeIn,

Some time ago I had a similar problem that I went to great lengths to address. What I found was that an initial 'field cull' was required.

Statistically speaking there are four criteria that I have found produce between 75-80% of winners:

1. Top 6 in Pre-Post Prices;
2. Rated within four (4) points of top rated Zipform horse;
3. Finished in the first five place getters last start;
4. Weighted below 56kgs and if above 56kgs not rising more than 2.5kgs from last start.

These four criteria will generally narrow a field down to approximately 33% of its original size.

If you have more than a third you are potentially entering a lottery of a race!

I have found that once I have culled the field an analysis of consistency factors such as place strike rate, last three start performances, Average Prizemoney and distance suitability brings up a ranking between horses left in you culled field.

And of course track condition enters the equation at some point!

Hope this gives you some food for thought?


LB


[ This Message was edited by: Luckyboy on 2003-06-19 21:38 ]

Thanks for the replies so far, much appreciated. And LB those criteria you listed I will definitely have a look at this weekend. I think my problem is I am a bit to forgiving of a horse's last run and I always have to back my stable of favourite horses because there is nothing worse than not backing one of your personal favourites and watching it win at good odds (eg Proudly Agro a while back at $30 odd dollars, ouch). Will let you know how I fare at Rosehill this weekend.

Cheers

ShoeIn

Hi all,

Yes there is such a problem as overanalysis...most definitely.

If you refer to the betting systems forum and the thread about mode, median times etc. I have made a post or two about analysis and measurement processes v's what it actually takes to make money. Most people spend too much time on measurement and analysis, and not enough time on practical application and thinking.

There is a lot to be said for making your analysis process simpler....but you should not make it "simple" (if that makes sense?)

In my opinion (and thats all it is) "simple" methods that involve such fixed criteria like prepost fav's, API etc. will only ever lead you to the obvious...the same as the market...and that equals long term losses.
I know they are intended to narrow a field down to give you a starting point, but the problem is that obvious factors are over discounted by the market and offer no winning advantage.




[ This Message was edited by: osulldj on 2003-06-20 08:49 ]

Hi All,

osulldj makes a valid point that I concur with... statistics will only take you so far.

At some point we have to make a qualitative judgment about one horse over another.

I guess this is where it comes down to a question of chance and value.

A long term punting colleague of mine once said "Value is a question of choice. What I see as value some others may not. At the end of the day you need to know your selection strike rate to determine the value price".


LB

G'day Luckyboy,

Your culling method is quite sound except for one flaw-concentrating on horses that were in the first five place-getters last start. A particular horse may have run second last start but beaten by 6-7 lengths. In other words, something had to run a place behind the winner. That is why a punter should concentrate on runners which finished within 2 lengths of the winner no matter their finishing order. Also, that it is to contest a similar class of race today or preferably, a lower class.
The finishing order method is the mainstay of many mechanical systems and that is why most, if not all, are destined to fail in the medium to long term.

Cheers.

G'day again Luckyboy,

To further emphasise my point that finishing order is basically irrelevant in deciding the merits of a horse's performance, I refer you to the two big metric miles held in Sydney each year(The Doncaster and The Epsom). Invariably, there is a close finish with a major portion of the field crossing the line in what is known as a "blanket-finish"). This is where the skill of the form student comes to the fore. Some horse may have finished anywhere between 4th and 10th place and to the untrained eye it appears to be an indifferent run. However, the majority of these runners may have finished as close as 2 lengths or so from the winner. Next start they regularly contest a race of a lower class and have a very high win and place strike-rate, regularly at good odds. Don't forget, they were primed to run well in the feature race but were beaten by better horses on the day but they are still at their prime performance capabilities. Therefore, connections cover some of their expenses with a well deserved win in a race with a lower class factor.
I have used this method with a good deal of success for years, as the one great factor in form study which remains constant is the class differentiation between individual horses.

Cheers.

Hi Xanadu,

Nice to chat again!

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The system I use to cull a field will prevent me from picking out winners such as you describe. However, I have found over a two year analysis the correlation between my field culling criteria is pretty sound.

The system won’t let me put a bet on every race, but it will give me a small selection of horses with which to make a judgment on in those races that I do.

As I said at some point the selection comes down to a qualitative aspect and some of the issues you identify definitely come into the picture.


LB


[ This Message was edited by: Luckyboy on 2003-06-20 17:35 ]