We exploit the bias towards topweights. In practise this system is limited to runners #1-4 or 5, the band where we find most winners, because runners with higher TAB numbers subtract too much from the points system to be selected.

I realise that this gives low pay-outs. Lots in the $1.20 - $1.30 area, and quite a few $1.10s or money-backs.

Obviously we avoid money-back, but otherwise we seek runs of strikes, regardless of how small the return. You don't need big margins for every placegetter if you can consistently pick series of four or five or more placegetters in a row without an out.

But then you need an appropriate staking strategy, parlay style. The objective is to get good returns over a series of races, not in one race. So if you get the occasional $1.10 return, it doesn't matter as long as it is in a series of succesful bets.

With systems like this I run several banks (an idea I pinched from this forum, long time ago). In one I am betting I can pick two placegetters in a row, in another three in a row and in another four in a row. Low returns in a race or two don't really matter. I always figure, in any case, that $1.30 is still 30% return - not bad in any other market.

In short, these are systems where we sacrifice big margins for a high strike rate and try to milk a profit out of that. Everything depends on strike rate and also the pattern of strikes. No good if you get single outs breaking up sequences of strikes. Better to have sequences of outs followed by sequences of strikes. As far as this can be predicted.

In my brief tests this system behaves like that: characteristically, sequences of strikes and then sequences of outs. Which is promising - if you apply the right staking strategy to match that pattern of results.

Hermes

PS:- To head off any suggestion otherwise, I am not saying you can make a loss into a profit by creative staking. It has to win at level stakes first.