mattio - i'm working on giving it a facelift then will try make it available for people on here.

UB/SpeedBen - Thanks

Bhagwan - I've just tested my data in 4 ways including your described method, here are the results:

Flat Stake 1% of $100 bankroll ($1) for all bets:
426 Winners from 1,050 Bets (40.57% SR)
Turnover of $1,050
Profit of $513
POT 48.83%
ROI 513%

$1 Unit size adjusting for assessed Prices through ratings (Note I adjusted Bhagwan's equation slightly and have explained at the bottom)
426 Winners from 1,050 Bets (40.57% SR)
Turnover of $1,455
Profit of $723
POT 49.69%
ROI 723%

1% of Max Bankroll since inception adjusted for each bet
426 Winners from 1,050 Bets (40.57% SR)
Turnover of $41,427
Profit of $14,784
POT 35.69%
ROI 14,784%

1% of Max Bankroll since inception adjusted for each bet AND also adjusted based on assessed prices via ratings (As per below)
426 Winners from 1,050 Bets (40.57% SR)
Turnover of $338,971
Profit of $109,151
POT 32.20%
ROI 109,151%

So essentially based on the above by implementing some staking plans (1% of max bankroll insread of set units AND adjusted for assessed prices) you dramatically increase your profits at the sacrifice of additional turnover and therefore reducing POT. Interested on the thoughts/comments from others, I highly doubt in practice I can turn my $200 bankroll into $110,000 over the space of 7 months but thats what my testing is saying. We'll see how it goes in practice.

Adjusted Bhagwan's method:

As my plays are already required to be 75% of the 2nd rated horse, that would mean every bet would have a minimum unit size of 1.3333 every bet. Therefore I used the following equation to adjust for it so that any play which is precisely 75% of 2nd rater will be 1 unit:

((2nd Rated Price / 1st Rated Price) / 1.333333)

Example: Top Rater = $3.54, 2nd Rater = $6.72

((6.72 / 3.54) / 1.33333) = 1.4237
Whereas in Bhagwan's method it would've been 1.8983

You then multiply this by either your unit size (set dollar) or max % of bankroll as i've done. Certainly does seem like a logical way of doing it, doesn't seem to improve the POT by a great deal but simply means your turning over more money for more profit.

Also i'll post my plays for today at around noon.