Xanadu,

Many thanks for your advice. I'm intrigued with your replacement jockey strategy.

Do you have any statistics to support this?

I have a two phased approach to bet selection.

Firstly, I have a statistical based system that narrows down the field size and then a qualitative based system accounting for other factors.

Here's my stat system:
1. Identify Top 6 Horses as per Friday paper prices;
2. Identify all horses ranked within four points of the top rated Zipform (Sportsman) horse;
3. Identify the Top Six Horses based on AVP.

In my analysis I have found these three filters have the highest correlation and statistically provide over 70% of winners.

I should add that I have program that pro-rates to a percentage, points 1 and 3.

Horses that meet the three above filters progress to a qualitative stage that scores each horse based on:

1. Last three start form;
2. Place %
3. Jockey
4. Barrier
5. Weight

Interestingly I do not look at distance. My analysis over 1500 races identifies distance as a 50/50 proposition. I tend to find a horse that is good at a 'distance' is easily recognised.

As I said in my original post, I was questioning the Top 6 AVP as a recent run of ordinary results was highlighted by a decrease in winners being from the Top 6 AVP.

My hypothesis is still inconclusive!


LB