Here's some irrational or counter-intuitive rules that I try sometimes:

*Ran 0 last start
*Ran 6th or worse last start
*Middle barriers only
*Only horses with single names
*Horses rated below 90 on the TABQ
*Declining finishing positions over last three races
*Only horses with a 0 in one of last three races

If you take a really solid statistic - like the incidence of TABS 1-4 finishing in the money - and combine with one of these counter-intuitive rules you often have the basis for a productive system. I use a system daily that does OK (about 6% POT over 3 months, but consistent) and two of the rules are:

1. TABs 2,3,4 or 5 only.
2. The second lowest rated of these horses on the TABQ ratings.

Why the second lowest? Seems irrational. You'd get more winners if you tried the highest rated but you wouldn't make a profit. The second lowest rated places you in the band of runners that win less often but pay better. Rule 1. chases talent and rule 2. chases value. (There are other rules in that system too, not just those two).

Note also that Bahgwan posted a beauty a while back: small fields, selection ran 9th or worse last start. Seems irrational to single out poor performers but it pays in such races. With most systems the way I approach it is to try to find ways to gently reduce strike rate while increasing average return and to do that you can often resort to quite irrational rules (as long as your first rule is rational and gets a solid strike rate).

Hermes