Ratings Discussion
 

Thought I'd open a discussion on ratings from members.

A common ratings benchmark is to get the highest strike rate from whatever method is used. This becomes the top rated horse and then there is a big distance between strike rate and accuracy, the further one goes down the field.

Surely from my point of view, if one comes up with a rated price and unders is offered, then one should be able to make a profit laying said horses.
Vice versa, if overs are obtained one should be able to make a profit backing.

Often with a rated price, the shorter the odds, the more you make, the longer the price the more you lose - this is the conundrum.

I don't subscribe to the view of distribution, frequency or strike rate as an indicator, it is the value offered by overs or unders of that rated price that reflects the accuracy.

What stands out is the All The Good horse.
Surely 40/1, 50/1 etc was complete overs and the favoured horses should have been a point better odds, yeah all fine in hindsight, but even a class 2 horse who had proven itself over the distance and had been imported by a top UK trainer to contend a Group 1 had to be further clues.

Hindsight too easy after the fact.

My question is, has anyone found accurate ratings anywhere, or been able to make them from scratch, and by accurate I mean, horses starting over the price provide profit, horses starting under the price provide good lay profit?

This is the true indicator of accuracy.

slightly off track I know but conversly as we all know just taking the lower SP's overall regardless of whether the individual is good value or not (according to who?) the closer to break even and even into profit at odds on, which smashes a lot of theories.

That is true and the reverse of what should occur if the ratings are accurate.
I've not been able to find ratings that defy this....yet.

Almost anyone can Form a Market.
The usefulness can only be determined over a period of time and events.
Accuracy is not the best judge of success.
The Profit is the only useful judge of whether or not the Prices are any good.
If you get Winning Overs only one race in ten and muck up the other 9 times, it may not matter.
If that one Winner pays more Overs than the other 9 muckups, there could still be room for Profit.

hey Moeee, that's what I have been saying for years, good onya!!! exactly right!

So often we hear -

x% of top raters win
x% of the top two
x% of the top three
etc

Whilst that's a good guide to overall performance, it is not a guide to accuracy.

A good example are the unitab ratings. The ratings pretty much breakdown as expected distribution of winners.

However, if one were to bet overlays and lay underlays, one would be severely out of pocket. The market peforms better.

Well then what is being shown in that case, is DUMB Punters are betting heavily on the animals that those ratings are coming up with.
Or perhaps you haven't really looked close enough at the results and are just guessing.
Or perhaps the sample you have used is not Big enough.

I agree with Chrome,

'The market performs better'.

Certainly I think it's a case of the first point you make.
I have dissected the ratings closely enough and the sample size is certainly big enough.

I'll post more on this shortly.

Uggh I just lost a whole page of data, it got deleted :(