I'm looking for the wisdom of experience on the question of how we select what races to punt on and how we determine which races to avoid. Obviously, some races are tougher to find a winner in than others. I have used the rough n ready guide of no more than 14 runners to hone in on the easier races but I'm interested in other methods. (And then there's the problem that the easier the race the less the dividends...)

Here's a thought on rating races by degree of difficulty:

Refer to the Zip form scores in the Sportsman Chartform.What is the difference between the top Zip and the bottom Zip?

Eg. If the top scored Zip in the race = 56 and the weakest roughie is rated as a Zip = 48, the difference = 8.

Now divide that number into the number of runners.

If the Zip diff. = 8 and there are 16 runners the result = 2.0.

Anything higher than two is a bad race to pick (or set your own cut-off)

I figure that if the Zip form analysts and all their computer power can't tell 'em apart, how can I?

Some examples from Sat. 8th June 2002.

Race 2 Eagle Farm.

Top zip = 55
Bottom zip = 48
Diff = 7
Runners = 20
7/20 = 2.85

NO BET

Race 3 Eagle Farm

Top zip = 58
Bottom Zip = 49
Diff = 9
Runners = 16
9/16 = 1.77

WORTH A BET

Any thoughts or other methods?

Cheers

I start by looking at the top half dozen horses in a race, if I can't narrow those 6 down to 2 or 3 horses after putting them thru my selection criteria, I avoid the race.

In other words if I consider that there are more than 3 horses with a strong winning chance, I usually don't bet.

CLASS

Bet on Blacktype races.
Listed /Grp 1/ Grp 2/ Grp 3.

Avoid Maidens and lesser class races.


Then you know that whatever you back it has some ability and you can get good odds about class horses in bad form which surprise!

thanks.

I have been doing something of this already, but in a haphazard way. I haven't considered class enough, though. I just tend to avoid races where too many horses have too few career races to give meaningful stats.

What about the problem of easy race = poor dividends. Should I be looking for the easy races? OK, if I'm using a system that backs favourites, but there's no value for money in it.

Does anyone deliberately seek out races that are hard to pick on the theory they'll pay better if you do get a winner? To what extent should one look at the money anyway?

I have a few rules for selecting races and horses.
* You must have a reliable rating system to rate the fields. I use a personal spreadsheet based on times - subscription services or Techform are OK as long as they are consistent.
* Stick to sprint races only (<1600m). Times are almost meaningless in staying races.
* Stay away from wet tracks - slow or worse.
* Eliminate 2YO races. Too young, too green and not enough exposed form.
* Convert your ratings to prices, as a bookie does - total market = 120%.
* Back the value bets, where there is a substantial margin between your price and the market. One bet, straight out, per race - no each way or place bets.
* Best tip of all - record all your bets in a spreadsheet and analyse the results - continuously.

Couldn't agree more Rain Lover, if you take anything away with you from this forum - this may be the single most important thing!

Thanks for the backup, EI. Most punters haven't got a clue about whether they're in front or behind over time. Or whether novelty bets are good value or net.
If they had the true figures in front of them they would be amazed.

Thanks for the backup, EI. Most punters haven't got a clue about whether they're in front or behind over time. Or whether novelty bets are good value or not.
If they had the true figures in front of them they would be amazed.

Thanks for contributions. And especially Brumby for the info on how they calculate the Zip. Always wondered. But I have found the Zip a good guide. Often you can spend hours rating horses and come up with much the same results as the Zip analysts. I read of an analyst, looking at 2 years of results, who found the Zip star the second most reliable guide to a winner (after both best av. prize/av.places horses). Useful. As explained above I've been using it to select races. I also avoid races where two horses get the zip star. Again, if the zip analysts can't separate them, how can I?

I don't have a "system" as such but the "rules" for me are looking like:

*Only metro races, weekends, public holidays etc.
*No sprints or hurdles.Prefer 1200-2000m races.
*No more than 14 runners
*No 2yo, maidens etc.
*Zip diff. (see above) of less than 2.0.
*No races with two Zip starred horses

This still leaves lots of races but hopefully weeds out the tricky ones. Any more filters and the number of eligible races starts to become a problem. Sometimes I eliminate races with more than two last start winners as well but this cuts out some good races. The problem is to find highly specific filters that don't impact too severely on volume of races.

Rain Lover,

Many thanks. I have no experience with sprints having always avoided them. Why choose to punt on sprints? What is the advantage?

Can you explain what you mean by convertying ratings to prices as a bookie does - total = 120%. I'm new to the mysteries of bookmaking.

The tip about the spreadsheet is too true. I record bets in a notebook. Until I started recording it I had no idea how much I was losing. You can be deceived by psychologically satisfying but financially meaningless wins. You can seem to be winning when in fact over the long term you are way down. Must learn spreadsheet basics (or get the kids onto it).

Thanks again.

Hermes....if you want I can provide you with a spreadsheet in Excel format and all you have to do is enter the information and it will calculate it all for you.

E.G.
Date
Venue
Race#
Horse#
Horse Name
Amount Bet
Dividend
Won
Lost
Account Balance.

Email me : mrdavidking@hotmail.com
And I will be glad to send it to anyone who would like it.


[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-12 18:28 ]

Try this.

1)Only target races where every runner has had 8 career starts or more.(We are hoping their career results mean something although their previous one or two starts may have been ordinary)

2)Pick 2-3 horses to beat the paper pre-post favorite.
You will be amazed how many times the overated favs. get rolled in these sort of races, with some big payers.

3)If there are any runners with less than 8 career starts in this field. No bet that race.

4)No more than 13 runners.

You will end up with approx.3 qualifying races in every 8 races.

Wow! Didn't realise the ready reckoner would be so popular!

Thanks to all those who provided feedback.

Hope it helps you win.

:wink:

Cash donations, tips, creditcard numbers and recommendations for Knighthood all welcome!
:lol:

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-13 11:24 ]

Brumby supplied the (potentially) useful stat: 73% of winners are within four zip points of the starred zip horse (in the Sportsman Chartform).

How do we make this figure useful? Brumby suggests perhaps we set a limit (percent) of runners that can be within 4 points of the top zip. So, for example:

Race 6 at Cheltenham last week.
Top zip (starred) = 56
Four from the star = 52
Runners within range 56-52 = 8
Number of runners = 15
i.e. 8/15 runners are in that range of those horses winning 73% of races.

In theory if there are too many such horses in a race it will be a tough one to pick and conversely if there are few of them it will be compasratively easier.

Baghwan has just pointed ouit how often favourites get beaten. Actually I think its about 70% of the time, isn't it? If we are looking for horses likely to beat the favourite look to that top group of horses within four of the top zip. (The top zip is often but not always the favourite. A good bet when it is not.)

BUT, races don't always go to plan. Because the other significant stat here is that in 27% of races winners were beyond a range of four points from top zip. These are the cases where, in review, you can't find anything in the form guide that mighgt have given you a clue that this horse would win. As Baghwan says in his posts, form will usually lead the experts to the same conclusion, with no surprises. But in fact races are full of surprises. The problem becomes:

in races with a small percentage of the field in the top four points, there is a corresponding larger percentage of the field in that group of horses causing upsets 27% of the time. The fewer the class runners the more likely a roughie will get home. Isnt that right?

So might this be a measure of what races are likely to go to roughies? If you have a field of, say, 15 but only three horses are within four points of the top zip, isn't it more likely a roughie will win, simply because there is proportionately more of them? Its an inherent problem. Races with few decent runners are easier to pick, but only up to a point, because there are also more dark horses to cause an upset. And upsets happen in what, at least 20% of all races just because the universe is made that way and no amount of form analysis can change it?

In race selection, how can we try to predict races likely to go to roughies? It doesn't take much skill to calculate the "best" horse in a race, but the "best" horse doesn't always win.

Perhaps I'm fumbling here for a system of grading races into:

*Those likely to go to the favourites
*Those likely to go to a non-favourite among the top group of horses
*Those likely to go to an outsider.

All suggestions welcome.

Brumby? How often do starred zip horses win? Better than 30%. I'm interested in any stats on the zip rating's performance. Thanks.

Cheers

While these stats are a very useful guide, you must ask yourself which roughies were REAL roughies and which were overlooked by the betting public.

Some roughies deserve to be roughies...they pop up once in a blue moon with no real form or class.

Others have class races to their credit and their form may not be as bad as what the formguide says.

For example, Form is 5963. The horse may have finished 9th on a track surface which did not suit (Heavy etc) and in reality may have finished no further back than 4 lengths at those starts.

A horse can finish 4th 15 lengths behind the winner or a length behind.

My point is that upsets in races USUALLY occur because of a misinterpretation of data.
The real odds of a horse may be well under what is on offer. That is where the value lies and at the end of the day where the profit lies.
There is no value betting the favorite or the first four in betting always and disregarding those at longer prices.

The odds are stacked against punters and that is why the vast majority lose. The only way to turn the odds in your favour is to get the "overs".

Now I am not saying don't back the favorite because if you rate it an even money chance and you can get 5/2 on it then it is a good bet.

My over-all strategy is simple: to establish a reliable selection method backed with a reliable staking method. The selection method starts with selecting races. I realkise there are limits. I also know it is not entiorely a mug's game because study and analysis will improve your strike rate and average dividend. But only to a point. I'm open to suggestions on a reliable selection method backed with a reliable staking method. I'm impressed with the "Retirement" Plan of Barry Hughes as posted by EI, I think. Going back through old TAB results on-line, it gives a reasonable profit on favourites. If I had a selection method that does better than favourites...

As I say, I'm open to suggestions and very grateful for all the advice so far.

Cheers