21st October 2008, 04:36 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,441
|
|
But that's the argument moeee,
It doesn't matter whether the horse won the race or not, as long as it was value.
It's easy to pick a horse as a top rater and rate it at evens and it wins, this does not mean the ratings were accurate because it won, the accuracy is not in the result but in the value.
For example, I can rate 100 races where the top rated horse is rated at evens and even if 50% of them win, this is still not justification.
The real justification comes when I back only those that I can get $2.20 on and I make 10% POT. This is the only proof that the ratings are accurate and outperform the market.
There are many ratings services out in the market, which claim x% of top raters win, x% of the top 2 win x% of races and they are mostly correct.
However, they are of little use when backing the overlays produces a negative result.
The winner of the Caulfield Cup should not have been a top rated horse simply because it won, but certainly the price was an overlay, just as Weekend Hussler and Littorio were a bit too skinny, but they should not necessarily have been further down the ratings just because they didn't perform on the day.
I personally don't think it's possible to get all the winners top rated no matter which method one uses - it's all about value.
|