My latest angle involves what i beleive to be the key to a good horse,good horses win more then they place,they seem to have the will to win that uncanny knack of sticking their head out at the right time.

So how do we find the ones with that will to win and avoid the ones that seem to run too many placings?

My way is to divide the amount of career wins by the amount of total career placings and only considering for further examination those that end up with a win of place % 66.66 or more.

I dont have the means to check this over an extended period of time but after keeping occasional records and refining this approach over the last couple of years i think i'm onto something.

Does anyone use a variation of this?
and
What do you guys honestly think of this angle?

Thanks for the replies not,as i said i'm after honesty so if you think it's a stupid idea say so i wont mind.

Perhaps a few winners from last saturday might back up what i'm saying;

BR7=Panzer=$5.10(uni tab) 20starts-8wins-11placings-WofP%=72.72%

BR8=Our Fabio=$6.90 6st-3wins-4places=WofP%75%

SR5=Private Steer=$2.20 10st-6w-8p=WofP%=75%

SR7=Domine=$3.20 15st-6w-9p=WofP%=66.66%

MR2=Yvonne=$6.90 6st-5w-5p=WofP%=100%

MR4=Cahuita=$42.80 5st-2w-3p=WofP%=66.66%

Add to these some nice place divys and youv'e got yourself a nice day on the punt.

I like your approach which is in fact looking at the ratio of win% to place%. You are selecting consistent horses that tend to win when they run well. I obtained similar results to you last Sat but I have to admit you got more winners overall, hence my interest.

I have looked at consistency for several years and can honestly say that using it has allowed me to at least beat the take.i.e. I may not be winning but I don't lose either and I have accurate records to prove this over the years. Like you I need another angle to superimpose on the consistency approach to produce a profit.

I have concluded that most of the factors one sees discussed so far have very little relevance because if they did surely several punters would have found a successful way to use them by now and the whole betting world would have collapsed. The only factor I have been able to apply is the principle of obtaining value, so I have been backing the longest price of my top three selections based on consistency.

One other factor that I feel has some bearing is weight analysis a la Don Scott method. I used this for a while and so do a lot of others hence there is little value on selections. Also, I feel the handicapper gets it right most of the time anyway so looking for class-weight anomolies is tedious and time consuming. It worked for Don Scott et al until the method became well known and value went down the gurgler.

There is another angle that I would like to see more discussion on and that is fitness because I feel it is the other major factor apart from value and consistency.

Well I hope you enjoyed my comments.

Yeah thanks Gunny,

I agree that weight ratings and the like are over used but if one could apply their own unique slant on them they hold a lot of merit.

A couple of the winners mentioned above would not pass my final test with one of those rules devised to reduce the bad value winners and losers and another rule designed to stick to horses with good recent form and fitness.

Time will tell how things hold up but i've been around long enough and tried many approaches to know that this one has a chance.

I guess i'll have to get out the old form guides and see if i'm right.

Merit in this approach-horse has to have had a reasonable number of starts- hard to apply to 3y-o-s. Also need to consider prizemoney in conjunction with this figure and the class of race in which the horse wins compared to the class of horse it is racing against. A very consistent bush galloper may have difficulty against a less consistent group or w.fa. performer. Nonetheless if the horses are roughly of the same class your ratio does separate winners from professional placegetters that just don't seem to win.

Dale,

Point taken in that other thread so I'll put my two Bobs worth here.

Your idea is good but class of race [as pointed out] is the key.

You have a good starting point to build on.

Throw in suitability at track, condt., distance, jocky, is the horse race fit[?] and anything ealse you think important and you end up with good handicapping.

Handicapping alone will produce more winners than any other "angle" or system. Just good old hard work and to make it a lot eaiser [and EVERYBODY agrees with this and then ignores it, including me now and then], Don't bet on a slow or heavy tracks, 1000m. races, hurdles, maidens, 2yr.olds, 3yr. olds [until the end of Nov.], stakes or cups, fillies and mares and fillies races, transitional [nsw], class one races, Sunday races, any race day without a good form guide, progression beting, exotics, E/W [ unless you are a place specialist] and NEVER bet at the PUB. Drink at the pub, but put your bets on as you go in [level stakes to win on one or two selections per race] sober and hopefuly collect as you leave or [better] the next day when sober and NEVER chase losses.
If you bet on any races above that I have mentioned, have an interest bet [$1 or $2 only] regardless of the chance you think the horse[s] have of winning [you will be amazed at how often you are WRONG in these races] and save your serious money for the races your handicapping efforts have a good chance in.

Don't ever fall into the trap of following breeding [unless you are buying a horse] to look for winners. Follow form [Tarzans brother drowned in the bath].

The above is the only way that I and many others know of to possibly make a profit from punting [and all that depends on your handicapping ability]. If you want to just have fun and don't mind paying for it, ignore all of the above.

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-05 08:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-05 08:22 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-06 09:23 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-06 09:27 ]

Don't EVER bet E/W ????, yeah who wants to bet e/w at 250% with a return of 300%

:eek:

Mark,

I'm obviously expressing my opinion only.

Some punters can make the odd buck on place betting but your dealing with very unstable divi that is more than likely to crash downward as upward [cosistentcy is what I'm looking for in my above point of view] just as you have put your money on or worse, AFTER the start.

I wonder why pro Punters avoid the place bet and exotics like the plague [as well as everthing ealse I've mentioned]?

Perhaps they know something?

Cheers.

Crash,

Mark didn't say anything about betting with TAB - his e/w bets are with the bookies where the return is guaranteed (and very profitable for Mark's approach).

Place betting could become very profitable now that Betfair is offering it - either laying or backing!

I know of several professionals who do bet exotics almost exclusively but I would agree that you should leave them alone until you have mastered win betting.

I agree with the comments re drinking, loss chasing and progression betting though!

Gee Mark, thanks for telling me about your fixed prices [?]

Becareful, yes I know about the exotic and even place beting pros. but considering their tiny number and geting it in context with the original poster, my points were general and accurate initial advice.

Cheers all and good luck tomorrow.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-06 09:29 ]

Crash;

I'm an advacote of the majority of your beleifs but use mechanical means to restrict and reduce my bets to a point where i feel it safe to bet in some of your races to be avoided,eg;2yo & 3yo.

On the each way debate i can't see the point of regardless of price each way betting,but if you set yourself a minimum place divy and only bet the place on top of your win bet if you can acheive that price then i'm all for it.

A bigger minimum place div might make someone feel better at the time, but the shorter the win price the more the percentages favour the place bettor.


[ This Message was edited by: shoto on 2003-09-06 00:12 ]

Shoto,

I know where your comming from and in principal agree as it is the same for a win bet.

However, it is a hard task to plonk money down on a horse paying 1.10 for the place or worse, the ones we regularly see paying "money back" after the jump and you can't do anything about it. If the horse dosn't place you loose your money and if it wins you get it back without a cent profit!

I backed five odds-on horses [amongst three others that won thank god] on Thursday as I thought they looked safe money. They all lost. Luckily I didn't back them for a place as it would have hurt a lot worse.

Moral? I will now stick to the wise council and maxims of past punting sages [never bet odds-on]that I have usualy got by on nicely and not to anything I read in this forum because as those sages say, "what can go wrong, often does" [five times in a row and I mean losses on those five races with three zeros ]. A very good lesson from the past.

Cheers and good punting to all.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-06 07:06 ]

hi all

was interested when i saw this post. the question i have bases on what you have indicated is if a horse has the following stats
40starts win 2 2nd 1 3rd 0

then under you model this horse has as w/p ratio of 66% yet this is not a consistent horse given the number of starts.

Have you found this to be a problem or have you factored in some minimum or max starts etc.

regards
ubetido

Hi Ubetido;

At this stage i have no starts requirement instead to avoid that type of situation i am sticking to horses with a win% of 25 or more.

I do see a need for a cut off point in relation to starts as the older a horse gets the less likely it is to still have that winning edge but at this stage i have not decided on that number,somewhere around the 34 start mark would be my guess.

Ohh and i also ask for horses to have won at least 2 races.

Play around with it people and let me know what you come up with.

becareful,

Every time any contibutor suggests that Mark's ideas are flawed you come to his/her rescue.
Do we have our first romance on the forum?
Interested in your response.:razz:

Xanadu,

Crash made some incorrect assumptions about Marks betting (ie. that he was doing it on the TAB). In the same post I also correct some other things I felt were incorrect about Crash's statements so I would hardly call it rushing to Mark's defence!

Besides I am a happily married man (and I think Mark is too) :razz:

...and you're an idiot Xanadu.

Tch! Tch!roll:

[ This Message was edited by: xanadu on 2003-09-11 11:12 ]

[ This Message was edited by: xanadu on 2003-09-11 11:14 ]

Becareful,

My original comments on this thread were a response to Dale pointing out [in another thread] about the lack of comment his ideas where geting regarding his thread here.
My preface comment : "Point taken, so I'll put my Two Bobs worth here" refers to that.

My opinion[s] in my post were not "statements" [of facts] that needed "correcting".

Disagree with me sure, but to correct ? If you wish to claim the mantle that response implies, fine by me but beware the burden that comes with it.

Most punters know that one man's punting Bible can easily be another man's toilet paper and with that very much in mind, I presented my opinions and maxims and Marks response was fine [as he can I'm sure speak for himself], but your latest post invites comment I think.

My comments about place betting as well as some of my other opinions, were a generalisation [ie. "smoking is bad for your health", but just because there are 90yr. olds still smoking, does not make that point invalid] only concering most punters and in the spirit of the original thread.
Mark had not even posted on this thread until after my comments that included place beting and his following opinion[s] were accepted as that.

As to my incorrect "statements" I made according to you , how about addressing them to the writer? rather than to the forum as if a corrected pupil?

Saying that someone bets with a bookie for set place odds and that future Betfair oppertunities might be good for place beting is not the same as saying I have made incorrect assumptions and statements [needing your correction].

I don't mind being corrected regarding a statement of fact, but not when I have made none!

Changing a writers obvious opinion into "statements" that you need to "correct" say more about the corrector than the writer.

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 12:31 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 12:46 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 13:37 ]

Crash,

The incorrect (in my opinion) statements I was referred to were:

QUOTE: Some punters can make the odd buck on place betting but your dealing with very unstable divi that is more than likely to crash downward as upward [cosistentcy is what I'm looking for in my above point of view] just as you have put your money on or worse, AFTER the start

The statement regarding the unstable dividend is is plainly false as there are a lot of options for betting on place or each way that have a fixed dividend. You either made the assumption that all place betting is done with the TAB which is incorrect or maybe you are not aware of the other options.

QUOTE: I wonder why pro Punters avoid the place bet and exotics like the plague [as well as everthing ealse I've mentioned]?

Again this doesn't sound like an opinion to me but rather a statement of fact as you see it - again incorrect as some successful pro-punters do bet exotics in a big way.


As I said before I agreed with most of the things you said but my reply was meant to point out that a couple of your points were inaccurate. It was not meant to offend you (and if it did I certainly apologise for that) and I believe it was addressed to you so I am not sure what you mean by "how about addressing them to the writer".

_________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2003-09-11 13:21 ]

Becareful,

To all who can read, your post was cleary addressed to "Xanadu".

Regarding my opinons as to place betting, I will stick to them as they are not "plainly false" as most punters still bet on the tote as far as I know and not on a p/c or with a bookie.

As to "Pro punters" this point has been delt with between us on the preveous page [1], so I would be labouring my point by repeating that it was a generalization only regarding it. If you like, I can edit my original post for you and preface "Pro punters" with the word "most" [?].

Saying that what I said "sounds like a statement of fact" [to you] even after I have said it is but "my opinion" [just like you like your statements in posts to be considered] and I was talking generaly, twice or three times now, attracts the only response I can think of : To most people the earth seems flat, and even when told otherwise some will still believe it to be so.

What ealse can I say?

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 14:28 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 18:18 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 18:20 ]

becareful,

My comments were meant to be a "razz" and from your reply you took this in the spirit in which they were intended. To set the record straight, if my comments caused you any embarrassment then I offer my apologies. You have shown yourself to be a person with a sense of humour-unfortunately others do not show these same qualities.

Good luck to you.:smile:

Crash,

So you are not objecting to my original post where I disagreed with you (or "corrected" you - however you want to put it). But rather you are objecting to my reply to Xanadu???? :roll:

Xanadu - no offence taken! :smile:

For the record....
(1)I bet e/w on races where I cannot lose.
(2)I also have a separate "gambling" account for win only, some quinella & some trifecta betting.
(3)I use betfair to lay horses.
(4)I bet e/w on UK races.
(5)My way is obviously not the only way to make money.
(6)For some reason, this is the second time Xanadu has had an entirely unprovoked "razz" at me.
(6.5)I keep reading these posts, so I must have some sense of humour.
Which reminds me of the horse who was told by his trainer he was on his last chance or he'd end up pulling the milk-cart. At his next start he was tailed off, with the jockey giving him a good belting. He turned to the over zealous rider and said, "ease up mate, I've got to be up at 3.00am tomorrow".

:smile:

Becareful,

Right on.

I was objecting to your post that disagrees with my point of view, addressed to "Xanadu" and not to the writer. Not for disagreeing with me per-se, and your wording "correcting" rather than "disagree" which applies to claimed facts and not to opinion.
If I claim a fact I will say so, as I assume that of all I read in this forum without it being stated as a preface to all comment [the sky is blue].

Anyhow, I hope that clears that up [I'm a bit touchy at the moment as Handbrakes PMT's are the devils own work inflicted on a poor boy. At 15yrs. younger than me she still gets em'].

What the hell is a "Razz" anyway ? Is that "youthspeak" for taking the micky?

Cheers.

Hi Dale,

Some time ago Practical Punting Magazine had a series of systems know as the "suit of diamonds". They used the P/W ratio as a basis for all 13 systems and claimed some nice wins, although I doubt it was tested long enough to be sure. Nonetheless I like the idea and wish it was included in my selection software (Price predictor pro gold v2).

I noticed Gunny72 mentioned the importance of Fitness. Perhaps combining your idea with the fitness statistics of Barry Blakemore (The Key Factor is Fitness - book) may give you what you need to beat the tote.

I also note Gunny72 mentions the importance of value, but what ratings are the most accurate? How relavant are they on the day? Perhaps sticking to 4/1 or better is a way of getting value "for the rest of us", but I know some professionals would recoil in horror at this suggestion. Personally, when I design a system, I look at the spread of historic winning dividends, and then bet on selections that are offering a return in the upper range of these dividends.

@Lenny

[ This Message was edited by: Lenny on 2003-09-11 17:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Lenny on 2003-09-11 17:49 ]

Hi Lenny,i've got about 100 old P.P.M's but once they put the price up and reduced the contents i stopped buying them,if you or anyone out there have a copy with these 13 systems i would appreaciate it greatly if you could post them.

I agree with the fitness and value sentiments and if class was added to those two factors a punters path would be paved with gold,if only it was that easy lol.

Talking about P.P.M back in 91 i sent them a system which they published under the name The Tewes Thunderbolt,i think it first appeared in the may 91 edition,as i recall Richard Hartley JNR liked the approach a lot and they pulled it out from time to time when they had their best of P.P.M. readers Systems.

Anyhow to cut a long story short i ended up giving up on it way too early as i was young and stupid,if anyone out there has used it or still uses it let me know how you got on.

Keep it up Guys,
This is dead set better than the soapies.


[ This Message was edited by: kenchar on 2003-09-11 20:43 ]

Hi Dale,

How about posting your system here. I'd like to give it a go.

The 13 systems you are after go like this. Actually, I'll only give you 5 - not because I'm a tease :wink: but because I don't want to be accused of breaching copyright. If the coast is clear and no-one objects, I'll give you the other 8, or else give me your email address.

SUIT OF DIAMONDS (Practical Punting)

Legend:
X is spell
P is place 123
* is anything

General rules:
1) Saturday, Wednesday and any full
form day
2) Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane
metropolitan tracks
3) Eliminate scratchings
4) Place/Win ratio
5) 3 highest ratio each race, on equal
thirds keep both, if more ignore
6) (Optional) Elimate 1st uppers

Ace Of Diamonds (Strike rate 26.8%/Profit on turnover 78.8%) pick 19 from 71
1) Place SR 80-99%
2) W/P 4.0+
3) Last start 1,2,3
4) Ignore 1st up
5) If more than 1 selection, ignore

2OD (Ws/Pr 26/146.5) 6/23
1) EF must read *11P or 11PP
2) W/P 2.0+
3) Elim if won last 3 starts

3OD (Ws/Pr 50/194.3) 7/14
1) 3 wins in EF
2) Elim if won last 3 starts
3) W/P 2.0+

4OD (Ws/Pr 19.6/264.3) 9/46
1) Last 4 runs must be PP14 or P1x4 or P144
2) P/W 2.0+

5OD (Ws/Pr 22/49.7) 17/77
1) EF must read ANY11ANY or X11ANY
2) Elim if won last 3 starts
3) 6th or better last start
4) P/W 1.5+

From the POT figures you can imagine they need more testing. Tell me how you go.

@Lenny

[ This Message was edited by: Lenny on 2003-09-12 01:53 ]

Lenny thanks for that i hadn't considered using the best 3 or 4 in a race and then going from there but that might have some merit,although you'd have to pick your races carefully.

The interesting bit of those mini systems is that some seem to be intentionally avoiding last start winners,something i've been considering for the last couple of weeks.

The rules look a little back fitted if you ask me and i'd rather stick to what i think is important ut thanks again for posting them.

I'll start a new thread to post the
Thunderbolt system.

No problem, Dale.

It is interesting you should try and avoid last start winners by choice, I reckon this is one of the best "easy" win ideas there are!

@Lenny

When i say i'm looking at avoiding last start winners it's not that they are not a good chance of winning just that they are over bet compared to horses that have won their 2nd or 3rd last starts.

Let's examine these noble sentiments in light of your recent efforts.

Now it's:

"Talking about tossing things around can one of you ************s ......

If i offended anybody i'm not sorry,you guys who ruin every theoretic discussion and stiffle almost every thread with your negative it cant be done attitude offend me on a daily basis."

Presumably you don't mind people calling your ideas stupid, providing they don't do it in a negative manner.

I don't mind a challenge. So here goes.

The more I riffle through on-line dictionaries the more positive I become that no one will again stiffle threads.

Can this be for real? Jumping on Dale for some innocuous remark made TWO YEARS AGO? This is sad, and surely not in the spirit of helping each other out by throwing ideas around for CONSIDERED comment. Bear in mind, one and all, that the "gentle" Jfc has only recently labelled an (outside the square) idea as "Grotesque". This idea, by the way, had nothing to do with dressing up in horses undies. Cold showers anyone??

Anyone with basic reasoning powers will conclude I am not jumping on Dale for his original remark.

It clearly intended to contrast with Dale's current ones.

In those recent remarks Dale was not throwing ideas around for CONSIDERED comment.

Punter57 began the day throwing around false accusations, and I now have to waste time dealing with them.

Meanwhile he's found his confronting his mischief too tedious, and vanishes like a gambler's lucky streak.

Heres an idea for rating consistancy.

Only target races where the whole field has had 8+ career starts.
Now work out a percentage on how many times the horse has finished in the first 5 positions to career starts & convert this to a percentage.


Mark Reids site has a figure that has this info but one has to input the horses name to get it , can be very tedious.
He calls them F5`s.

Another is to calculate the combined career percentage of 1sts & 2nds only.
(ignore career 3rds)



The win to place percentage has a lot of logic to it .
It will be interesting to see which is the strongest situation to use it in.
One might find it to be more accurate where the whole field has had 8+
career starts.

Cheers.

Couldn't you then convert those percentages to a reasonably accurate price-line Bagman ?

Oooh a post that is 2 years old,obviously someone got a little upset lmao.

Bhagwan your idea(1) has some merit,one could change Win of Place % to Win of Prizemoney %,ie how many times has it won compared to being placed in top 5,it could be a much more consistent way of rating horses which have that knack of sticking their heads out at the line,i was mucking around with W of P % in the first place trying to systematicly pick horses that have a habit of going on to win when they are in the finish.

(2) I'm not as fussed on this idea,some horses are habitual 2nd place getters,it all goes back to horse pack mentality and weaker animals not challenging the leader of the pack.

I'm not as big a fan of this approach as i once was but i think it has plenty going for it and if used in combination with a couple of other aspects could excell but thesedays i find career starts a better way to work out that horse that just has that something extra,i guess that goes back to horse pack mentality aswell with the younger stronger fitter brumby stepping up to challenge the old worn out pack leader for leadership rights.