My apologies to all if my response to baghwan was considered inappropriate. It just gets a little frustrating in forums when people other than the intended recipient reply yet add nothing positive.

Partypooper, have you found the WA TAB-FORM to be superior to any of the other ratings with your results? The reason I ask is that the majority of the ratings on Saturday seemd to agree, but there were a number between WA and S-Tab that did not and a number of those ran placings. Just 2 examples were PR4-5 paying $1.40 and PR9-3 paying $1.80. Both were 100 rated here with S-Tab but not with your WA TAB-FORM.

And in PR5-4 which did not place, it was rated 100 with WA but not with S Tab.

Similar with a couple in Sydney which placed and were rated 100 with S-Tab but not with WA. All of them fit the rest of the criteria as well.

Have you ever done any testing to see if your results would have been better/different using a different ratings source? Just curious, as some of the initial 100 raters that were eliminated once I checked with Racing and Sports for pre-post info, went on to win or place.They were usually second or third pre-post faves. Am just trying to maybe tweak something a litle out of your inital system.

It appeared to be a down day anyway all up. 3 selections in Melbourne for 0 winners and 2 placings, though one was a NTD (do you avoid betting in races under 8 runners to avoid that), 5 in Sydney with 2 winners and 4 placings, 1 in Brisbane for nil, 2 in Adelaide for nil and 5 in Perth for 1 win and 3 placings. Return of about 65c per $1.

A different story in my punters club where I picked 3 winners, 2 seconds and a third at Caulfield.

cheers again

honkin