I would have hoped that by now someone would have expressed caution about those figures. Guess I'd better before the nation's welfare bill rises.

My figures from 1998 to August 2005 return a ROT of only 89.9%.

So which is right - my POT of -10.1% versus Nanook's +53.9%.

First I should remind most about how I produce my figure.

I stake each selection in inverse proportion to (non-fractional) SP - i.e. 1/SP.

I payout on Best( SP, NSW ).

This avoids the big nagging problem of fluke longshots distorting small samples.

Nanook's level stake analysis appears to depend on at least 3 big results.

$4,360
$7,310 (both mentioned earlier)
$6,690 (or more) from Silver Laddie Goulburn 16/2/2001

$18,360 Total


Without all those 3 there would have been a small loss.

I may have further to say once I consider stuff, but right now I see no need to get carried away with this idea.

An interesting control is to examine the higher priced half of these runners.

For SP > 8/1, there are 366 runs.

ROT = 82.2% which is worse than the full 89.9%.