I just read Aussielongboats contribution and one thing that stood out to me was "to look where no-one else is looking" ..... My mantra for quite a while now. Easier said than done, or is it? Aussie longboat also said "It is rare if one of my selections is first up - gives too much advantage to the trainer or stable. I am at a disadvantage because I don't know how it has been going. They do - I don't"

My philosophy of getting together a stable of horses is that you're IN THE KNOW without really trying. Let old Barny explain. Say a stable is setting the horse for a first up win. It's in your stable, you back it ..... You're in EXACTLY the same position as the stable ..... aren't you ??? If they set the nag for a second up win, it's in the stable you back it ..... You're in EXACTLY the same position as the stable ..... aren't you ??? Almost ..... BUT you need to take into account the failure first up, so you've comparatively lost one point of odds. So if the nag wins at 10 / 1 you've got the equivalent of 9 / 1 taking into account it's first up run.

So you're essentially giving up one point in the betting market for every run your stable horse has prior to the run they've set it for.

You only have to ask yourself "Is it worth me giving up one point in the betting market for each run the horse has to be on the same page as the stable ???"

There are many methods associated with developing a "stable" of horses to follow and I believe easier to be more disciplined than a mechanical system aimed at individual races.