OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums

OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/index.php)
-   Horse Race Betting Systems (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   This Might Work (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=24150)

darkydog2002 21st May 2012 06:24 PM

This Might Work
 
UNITAB or R+S Ratings or Eva ratings /Shauns Ratings

Selections are the 1st /3rd and 5th rated.

Cheers

Shaun 21st May 2012 07:17 PM

I will be straight up with mine when they start to fire the top 2 SR is better than the other 3 comnined.

Barny 21st May 2012 07:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkydog2002
UNITAB or R+S Ratings or Eva ratings /Shauns Ratings

Selections are the 1st /3rd and 5th rated.

Cheers

smokescreen was a good horse, remember that one?

Vortech 21st May 2012 08:24 PM

Just an observation. If a ratings system is producing better results with the 1st, 3rd and 5th rater, wouldn't you not adjust the weightings behind the rules of variables to try and get the 3rd and 5th sitting as 2nd and 3rd respectively.

Or is it the 3rd and 5th have lower strike rates but better value?

Regards

darkydog2002 21st May 2012 09:58 PM

I,m looking for better Value and needing minimum $4 on any of them.
My feeling is that really good priced winners i.e $16 + make up will make up for the losers I,m bound to get along the way.The other prices will be the bread and butter.
I,ve found that my yearly profit consists of striking the longer priced occasionally.

Shaun I,ve noted your comments on the top 2 and thanks.In your case I,ll accept $3 minimum.

Cheers

beton 21st May 2012 10:31 PM

I am just doing some research in my data base. 16+ runners in the $2.10-2.50 range second fav 12.63%. =8 runners same range 24.44%. in the $2.60 -3.00 range 12.75% and 23.65%. in the $3.10-3.50 range 16.55% and 22.09%.
The average overall for 2nd fav is 19.33% 1st has a 18% swing over these price and field ranges but that has to be expected. 3rd has only 3% variance 4th has 5.6% variance and we are talking 7.68% to 13.09%. These figures definately support 3 and 5. Beton

darkydog2002 22nd May 2012 11:30 AM

Thanks Beton
Cheers

woof43 22nd May 2012 03:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortech
Just an observation. If a ratings system is producing better results with the 1st, 3rd and 5th rater, wouldn't you not adjust the weightings behind the rules of variables to try and get the 3rd and 5th sitting as 2nd and 3rd respectively.

Or is it the 3rd and 5th have lower strike rates but better value?

Regards

You measure your handicapping/ratings by strike rates and you should have a smooth transition right thru the range,
Wagering, will have patchy results thru the range.

It's best to try an understand if your trying develop a rating system based on handicapping factors or a wagering system

Barny 22nd May 2012 10:36 PM

Barny, you are now also on notice. You have been TOUd for this post. It is not constructive and baits another member. If you object to someone's post then send in a TOU. No more warnings. Take care. Thank you. Moderator.

beton 22nd May 2012 11:59 PM

Barny
with respect
It takes half a second to ignore any post that you are not happy with. If his posts help one person then all his bad posts can be forgiven. We don't have to go too far back to when your posts were getting rubbished. Yet some of your posts did contain some valid points. I like most people here read the posts and work out for ourselves which ones we heed and which ones we ditch. I for one do not like the bitchiness that constantly raises it's ugly head.
It does not do you any justice and it does not help anybody.
Beton


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 12:26 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.