For sometime now I have been fiddling around with different culling methods. Time is my enemy each week and if possible would love to find one or two ways of culling the fields down into smaller numbers. Would to hear other peoples opinions.

Thanks
Twodogs

cull anything that has not placed or won a listed or group race.
then work from the most recent start.
you will actually get some days off.
e.g. i notice another forum member criticising helenus and kusi.
when did they last place in a listed race compared to their opposition.
i suggest we wait for them to re-qualify rather than be on them by co-incidence or fluke.

make sure you check my tips before you do your form ,eliminate them and you will be on your way to backing many many winners...

[ This Message was edited by: tragic on 2003-09-29 21:09 ]

i like your logic topsy99 if i can just supress my cynicism and think rationaly for a little bit i shall ponder your lead

[ This Message was edited by: tragic on 2003-09-29 21:22 ]

Thanks for your thoughts but I was thinking more along the lines of a common filter applied to most races which culls the field without losing too many winners. Examples like top 6 average prizemoney, Wizard Wrat >=81, Zipform ratings etc.

Thanks
Twodogs

dont create too much work.
my system evolved from chasing form and creating activity but at the end of the day not making any money.
my having a common culling process e.g. top 6 prizemoney winners. where do you cut off.
at $100000. or $10 every race has a top 6 money earners
this leads to doing every race and it will drive you crazy.
in becareful's words. Be Careful

For me it has to be pre post odds,take the top 6(or more if you wish)and go from there.

Hi Twodogs,

personally I think that culling the field can be dangerous, and you're better off culling the races... ie investigate ALL runners in a smaller number of races.

I'm very new to form analysis, but this is my tactic at the moment... By analysing the entire field, you can sometimes spot something that you'd miss if you just concentrate on "the contenders".

If you are going to cull the field, then my personal favorite at the moment is looking at the jockey. With my own "form selections", I don't back anything that's being ridden by a jockey with a poor strike rate.

whats ur point topsy

Thinking about last Saterday. 80% of all races in all states were won by the first four averaged prize money and from the top four Zip lines from the Sportsman.

Worth keeping in mind if you want to cull hard and spend the min. time on form. Look for a top jock and/or trainer and bobs your uncle for a not at all scary selection method that will bag enough winners to keep a fellows dignity intact.

Cheers.

Cheers.

good day umrum.
what i am suggesting is that good horses that run in good races generally keep performing. in helenus case it is some time now (i think the rosehill guineas) since it placed in top company. I will be waiting for it to place again at least in group class before i would back it.
otherwise i am implying the horse could be enigmatic and hard to catch otherwise.
hope this explains the point i am making.

I think you will be waiting a long time Topsy. The nag has not come up again this year. It happens. Move on I reckon.

Cheers

oh right. just wondering what you meant when u said a forum member criticised kusi and helenus. both are finished. helenus has a better future in front of him as a pro rooter

[ This Message was edited by: umrum on 2003-10-07 13:56 ]

Do you mean that 80% of winners were in the first four in EITHER the ave prizemoney or Zip ratings, OR were they in the first four in BOTH???

Gidday Crash,

Does that stat stand up each week?

Twodogs

Hello Stebbo,

I somewhat agree with you re culling but when time is your enemy it is great to be able to fine down the chances without losing too many winners.

Twodogs

A couple of other stats that I have come across 80% of winners are in the top 4 of the market 5 minutes before the start and 74% of winners are priced <=$13 in the prepost market.

Cheers
Twodogs

Sportsnut,

The first four lines from both. However it is worth mentioning that as far as Zip goes the first four lines might include more than four runners as often there is 2 on the second line and 3 or 4 on the third line. Not often but worth mentioning.

Moe yesterday: 3 wins from the top rater, 2 wins from 2nd. 3 from 3rd. 1 fourth and a 5th that dead heated with a top rater [9 races].
There is a system there somewhere [useing both Zip and average prize money].
Add decent handicapping and it aint a bad way to go. I still look at all runners though in case I miss something. So I wouldn't call it a system.

Cheers.

Know what you are thinking there Two Dogs [and perhaps Sportsnut too], but sorry to say no it dosn't stand up all the time but it does most of the time. Enough to make a system out of it ? I have been working on it for some time. The top 4 Zip lines are the problem. They may include up to eight runners in larger fields. I have just been using them for hadicapping [with some success]. Been looking for another criteria to add to the mix. Any ideas ?







[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-01 10:38 ]

Crash,

I suppose I am at the same stage, looking for that filter that will move me forward. Have you looked at the Wizard Wrat >=81? its strike rate is >70%

Twodogs

Crash,

I wonder if instead of the Zipform ratings, you could use the ratings displayed on the Unitab website??? I think they seem to do fairly well.

The wizard is somthing I have been thinking about. I'm not very fond of it, but they do have some good stats. will have a look at some sort of Zip, Wrat/trat combo Twodogs.

Hadn't thought about Unitab Sportsnut. Will check it out.

I have a terrible sinking feeling about systems though. I have often wondered, with all the info etc. at their fingertips and all their experience, why arn't the Professionals useing systems instead of all the work they put in [for 2 to 10% POT a year] keeping up with form, endlessly swapping e/m. about track condt., bias and many hours at the pc. and the tracks etc. ?
I know being born in the right bed and suburb helps [and good luck to them] with their starting bank [very big to live off 2 to 10%] though and I bet not many [or none] started out as blue collar workers either. Not now days anyway.

Worth pondering.

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-01 17:28 ]

do you think the horse knows he has no option but win when
1..he was a last start winner
2..won at track and distance
3..had last run in last fourteen days
i doubt it but i understand the logic of system users .these things are not for me i prefer kenchars mode of attack ,be as informed as you can,understand class,study video replays,be wary of media hype.get streetsmart,as i said in a earlier post 'even a blind chook can find a grain of wheat if it keeps pecking long enough' and to my mind system punters keep pecking away hoping they stab a winner before thier bank runs out ,i could be wrong (i was wrong once) but thems me thoughts for what its worth..........

pecking for wheat or not. i dont think it can be done.
in an 8 horse race the odds of picking a winner are 7/1 "pittsburgh phil)

me no understand topsy99

sorry. shouldnt try to be funny.
last week i thought converge was a good thing. it hadnt qualified in listed/group company so i couldnt back it.
this turned out to be a good decision.
on its last run it should have won. but you cant tell. i dont think you can pick the eyes out of races a culling and systematic approach delivers winners over time.
being clever and zeroing in on good things probably needs inside knowledge.
sorry to write cheeky posts.

Hi tragic,

Guess it's what suits one's style - neither approach is wrong or right as long as it works for you.

Do you think a coin knows whether it last landed on heads or tails?
Doesn't alter the fact of the odds of it landing on heads is still 50%.
:smile:

Hi Tragic,
Thanks for the mention I still believe if one wants to win you have to go to the track.I know its everyone to their own but from what I can see from all the systems, ratings etc dont produce constant winning days.I hear this POT that LOT etc, I dont care what my POT is as long as I come home with more than I went with.
Here is a little thing for anyone that wants to bother going to the track that WORKS.

1/ MINIMUM 8 STARTERS

2/ LOOK AT BOOKIE ODDS

3/ CHECK TOTE PLACE PRICE

4/ IF TOTE PLACE PRICE IS +50% OF BOOKIES PRICE IT IS A BET FOR THE PLACE

IVE GIVEN MY GUTS ON ONE THING I DO AT THE TRACK,SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO BOTHER GOING GIVE IT A GO.

Think of the value here 1/2 bookie odds and 3 chances of collecting.

Oh dont worry how big the odds are (the horse dont know)

Today I couldnt sniff out anything except place bets.

RESULTS

8 BETS

AD RC1 NO6 BOOKS $26 TOTE $14.90 PLACE
AD RC2 NO5 BOOKS $12 TOTE $5.70 PLACE
AD RC3 NO4 BOOKS $4.2 TOTE $2.70 PLACE
BR RC4 NO3 BOOKS $5.5 TOTE $3.70 PLACE

RETURN 27
BET 8
PROFIT 19

Cheers

On 2003-10-01 15:16, sportznut wrote:
Crash, I wonder if instead of the Zipform ratings, you could use the ratings displayed on the Unitab website??? I think they seem to do fairly well.



I actually checked the results from Saturday and the Unitab ratings didn't really do all that great. However, in the past I think they've gone okay, especially the horses top rated at 100. I think it might have been Bhagwan who posted some stats about them on here somewhere.


[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2003-10-02 11:20 ]

Crash,

I am not suggesting a system as such (a list of mechanical rules) my belief is that you can use your time better if either your working with good ratings??? or your able to fine a field down and then apply your magnifing glass to whats left.

Cheers
Twodogs

G'day everyone,
I'll put my eggs in the basket
with Kenchar&Twodogs ect.It comes down to what the indivdual feels comfortable with.Myself, I prefer to look at angles.When situations arise that appeal to me I have a go at them.Thats where I think the system bettors can fall in a hole.Plus it seems to me to be a whole lot of time to invest in something that may or may not work.
To have a basic understanding of statistics is important,however a lot of statistics that are printed in regards to racing are basically useless.When the system builders figure out which is which I've no doubt they can and do make some money.The main "but"about systems though is they all fail when the weight money is to great.(same as weight ratings)

When someone tries to use mathematics and times ie.certanties in an uncertain game I reckon you've got to be doomed to failure.
Both of these do have there uses though,that being all hores are divisable into different classes(times )and the mathematics can tell you what's good value.Thats all I'll use these measures for.Cheers strawb

also stats can support anything. a bit of shane warne tweak and you can have an undeniable statistic.

while stats can show past trends, thats all they are. past trends, which may or may not continue to occur.

While maths can be used for gambling, horse racing itself is not a science. I think to win long term you need to limit your bets to say 4 or 5 a week. Then have a few tri's or $5 bets for fun.

As i've said before it depends what your comfort zone is. The problem with horse racing is the uncertainty of racing."the only certainty in racing is the uncertain".

If anyone is interested in the place method in my post on this thread.
Today until I left the track at 3.30 there were 4 place bets for 3 results for a total of 8.9.

Cheers

I like it Kenchar. Avoid the pie stall and bus stop above all ealse ?

Shane Warne tweak Umrum [?] How about a Chappell underarm ?

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-02 18:52 ]

Haven't posted for a long time but wanted to reply to those of you who don't believe that a "system" (or "method" as I prefer to call it) can be developed and be regularly profitable for a long period.

I developed my own method through the intensive analysis of 2 years worth of racing statistics, around 18 months ago and shared some of my ideas on this forum. I then introduced 2 new principles and dropped 2 and monitored this for 6 weeks before committing cold, hard cash.

Since then, my longest losing streak has been 5 races and I am able to make quite a healthy living from punting without needing to work.

Of course I don't want to give away all that I've learned but here are a few pointers for those interested:

Only bet on Metropolitan race meetings. Ideally, select the Metro meeting(s) which has/have the best class of race. eg tomorrow, you wouldn't touch Brisbane or Adelaide with a barge pole.

Never, ever bet on rain affected tracks. Doesn't matter if your selection has webbed feet, don't do it.

Try and concentrate your selections around the top 6 saddlecloths.

Down in class and up in weight is better than up in class and down in weight.

Barrier positions do not play as big a part in the result as often as people think.

The place strike rate % is a better guide to a horses chances than the win strike rate %

Always, always, always look for value with your bets. (I won't bet on anything under $4)

When betting each way, always bet on a 1 win/3 place ratio.

The often touted "within 3 lengths of the winner last start" or similar alleged guide to selections, is NOT a valid theory.

Average prizemoney (Top 5) is an excellent base to work with.

Good luck to all.

Privateer

My method notwithstanding....tomorrow I like

Thorn Park in Sydney
Belus & Sylvaner in Melbourne



[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2003-10-03 19:04 ]

Welcome back, Privateer. Trust it will not only be a short visit!

Thanks too for the form tips. Much wisdom there.

I tend to agree about barriers but Thorn Park from 18 ? Boss on deck might help but the distance is the real worry.

Great post and spot on advice re systems.

Privateer,

A lot of wise information and advice there. Glad to see you're winning.
I'll just add a couple of things which may help some punters.

The beaten margin is far more accurate in assessing a horse's chances than actual placings.

Average prizemoney is more powerful if you use the average prizemoney won over the last three starts and compare it with the overall API.
The last three starts API should also be massively larger than the career API - if it's not then your horse is in very poor form!

Barriers have very little to do with a horse's winning chances unless you can specifically pick out a reason for a barrier not suiting your horse's pattern of racing.

Average lengths beaten over last three starts is far stronger than lengths beaten last start.

Track and distance stats for your horse are pretty useless UNLESS you assess the failures rather than the wins.

Did you know that less than 15% of races are won by horses with 100% track or distance record?

Great advice Chrome Prince and Privateer!!!

Whether your selections are a mechanical method or based on experience I think the main thing is that your foundations are based on facts. Stats that stand up week in week out.

Twodogs

As we are talking Saterday meetings, go straight to what the top Jocks are riding. The top ones will get on the best rides regardless of Trainer [the good trainers just happen to have the best horses most of the time].
Cory Brown won the three Sydney Group 1 races [in a row] yesterday.
Bowman, Beadman, Cassidy, Quinn, Munce, Beasley and Brown x3 won all the races. In Melb. Prebble won a treble [had to get that one in], Baster, Nikolic, King. Oliver and Findlay the last race.
Jockey's do the form and you usely find a top jock on the winners because they get the first choice of rides. Forget the apprentices [except for Zac Purton] on Sat.

Cheers.

Evening Crash,

I think it's important to also look at trainer/jock combo's!! Got to be careful of some of the lesser lights.

Twodogs