LG, thanks for the compliment, but what I know about handicapping and the actual conveyance itself you could write on the back of a postage stamp ..... But I believe I don't need to know all the details. What continually blows me away, and continually reinforces my opinion of how to extract a quid from this caper is what woof43 posted this morning, and other similar postings of quality information.

woof43 - And in there lays the story of centipetal force and the effect of Mass.

The normal stable ring around on a friday, questions always generally revolve around Mass, fitness and sustained pace % of distance to max speed are the items always high on the agenda.

kenchar posted once about the most important piece of information ..... bloodcounts !! So with kenchar's bloodcounts and woof43's centipetal force & the effect of mass, you've got to ask yourself "Where does that leave me?" We're not inside the stable and we're not the Vet. But we're assuming that inside knowledge leads to backing winners, well IMHO (old age acronym for Is My Hearingaid On) it's not necessarily so. Inside info may lead to a reduction with losing bets, but surely horses surprise the stable at times. I'm also aware that a Christmas Bonus for some stable hands is that the stable sets a horse for a race and they're all on it ..... Fact or Fantasy ?! I don't know. What I do know is that these are things we'll never know. I'm absolutely certain that if we do the same as everyone else then we're consigned to being in that illustrious group of 98% of punters, big club isn't it ??

Geoff Murphy used to back his horses when they were better tha 4 / 1, because he assumed that with his S/R he couldn't lose. So do you look at the "races" and see horses coming back from a spell, say you spot a 4 y/o with decent form, and as a 3 y/o last time in work they won over 1400 3rd up ..... Logic would tell you that they're going to need an extra run this time in to get to peak fitness and also they may be tried at 1600m. So, pencil them in for 4th up over 1600m and unless it's form is absolutely miserable, back it for that one run over 1600m and maybe also the run after. This takes the mystery and overanalysis out of the equation. 90% of the posters / readers on here would analyse a race within an inch of it's existance ..... Is racing that scientific, and if so, how do they factor in one of the more important elements , LUCK? If you can "see" what the trainer sees, then let him or her do their job and you'll be well rewarded.

Keep it simple ..... the more I "enjoy" my database the more futile I see the exercise of being scientific in the world where LUCK plays such a major role in delivering an outcome.