Lay??
 

Here's a Lay system I have been looking at on and off but never recorded the results.

1) 8 starters and more.
2) CP and JT neural algorithyms on a setting of 3. All others on zero.
3) Lay selection has the lowest total points.
4) Must not be the selection's first start.

Out of curiousity I've recorded the results for the past three days. There were 81 selections for one accident of $8.10 (NSW TAB). This accident did not have the outright but the equal lowest points, so I took the horse with the lower liability. I could have omitted the race but chose not to do so. There were also some selections at unlayable prices but I've included them in the results.

Now that I've listed the rules the F.Curse will probably throw in a few large accidents.

That looks impressive Michael.

Well done.

Betting to Liability is definitely the way to go.

The system should work very strongly in 1600m+ races where the better Jockeys come into their own.

Hi, Bhagwan.

I had a look at how jockeys fared in sprint as opposed to distance races, if I remember correctly I think I used below/above 1,700 metres as the yardstick. However, I could not find any sort of consistency - it seemed good and bad jockeys won their fair share of races regardless of race distance. Maybe bad jockeys do not so as well if drawn a bad barrier? Might be something to look at in the future.

One race has already been run - M.V race 1. The selection, no.11 ($15) was unplaced. In fact, many of the selections over the 3 day testing period were unplaced.

Bhagwan, I've thought once more about sprints with the CP and JT algorithyms.

Using the method there were some high liability close-calls in sprints so out of curiousity I've reversed the method, and the results are surprising. The rules I used are:

1) Maximum distance of 1,250 metres.
2) Lay the highest-points selection with the CP and JT algorithyms.
3) The top selection must not have a total of 60 points or more.
4) No Black Type races.
5) No NTD races.

For rule 3 there were 5 selections at 60 or more points - 2 won and the other three placed.

For rule 4 I don't feel comfortable laying the best horse in top-class races and also often ridden by one of the best jockeys.

Over the past three days there have been 43 races for 4 accidents with a total liability of $8.60 on NSWTAB.

This is an amazing success strike rate as the vast majority of the selections started at single figures.

Well done again Michael.

Is there a reason why its CP & JA is set at 3 & not 5 so as to maybe get a bit more possible separation?

That's meant to read JT not JA.

Cheers.

Bhagwan, I'm under the impression with only 2 neural categories that if they were both on the same setting then it made no difference.

However, I've checked it on yesterday's Warwick Farm race 6. On a setting of 3, nos. 2 and 6 are both allocated 30.5 points, yet when the setting is changed to 5 then no.2 has 50.0 points and no.6 has 50.8 points. Therefore no.6 was the selection.

So from today both algorithyms will be on a setting of 5.

I'll probably start laying today. If so, the F. Curse will most likely kick in.

I noticed that as well due to fractional points that it uses.

I feel having a min field size of 9+ improves the SR of most Lay plans, especially when Laying for the place.

Bhagwan, when testing the method I looked at a minimum of of 8 starters.

There were only a few races with exactly 8 starters but will now seperately record them to see if they should be omitted.

There might be two of them today if there is at least one scratching:

Bunbury R4 - the selection is no.8.
Bunbury R6 - the selection is no.9.

Incidentally, there is one selection that has at least 100 points - I use this figure of 100 because I've increased the neural settings from 3 to 5.

Hobart R6 no.2 - Prince Obama.

I notice it would have made 19% POT if deleting any paying 3.00+

SR approx 50%

18 selections.

Not bad ,at all seeing that one of the venues had a lucky run of place getters.

It performed well in light of the 50% SR.

I feel it maybe a strong idea to delete any paying 3.00+

Cheers.