A SIMPLE SELECTION METHOD

See my placegetter stats posts on this forum for some background info what I am doing. I'm trying different factors, running them through sample races, looking for the factors that score hits.

Here's a simple method that seems to work surprisingly well. A lazy approach to punting but as I say my stats say that it works.

It combines two simple factors:

*A high proportion of placegetters (and weinners) were last start winners.
*There is a bias towards the lower saddlecloth numbers (weights in handicaps).

So, the selection rule is:

Select the last start winner with the lowest saddlecloth number. If you have two last start winners, numbers 2 and 5, number 2 is the selection.

Don't look at anything else, just those two factors. I didn't expect it would come to much, but I was surprised.

Tried it over 180 races, all races, any races. Results were about 54% place strike and about 30% win strike rate. (53 winners in 180)

The highest win pay was $17.80, the highest place pay was $3.80. The lowest place pay was $1 (three times).

After 180 races betting $1 to win, $4 to place each race. That's 180 x $5 = $900 outlay. Total returns were a healthy $1095. A result not to be sneezed at for such a simple selection method. The average return per race is $6.08 (less your $5 bet) which is a comfortable return rate (for such a simple selection method).

Would it be sustained over a larger sample? Don't know. But on first inspection it provides a good volume of hits, with not too long runs of outs, and prices sufficient to give a return.

I tried other modes of staking. $1 to win, $4 to place works best (for reasons given by other contributors to this forum). I was really after placegetters but this method throws up a good proportion of winners too. You need the winners to make it profitable. No good for placebetting alone- margins are too fine.

But the thing is, it must be done *raw*. I've tried to be smart and find other factors to add to try to improve the results. I tried being more selective about races, for instance. But no good. I tried making the selections more intelligent. Read the form of the qualifier before betting. But I think you get better results if you leave it as it is. The method works precisely because it catches those suprise hits you wouldn't normally have bet on, and it catches a good number of hits in races with big fields which pay better. And it works in steeples, hurdles, 2yo, country, metro, whatever - these races have the same statistical bias this system exploits. If you add more filters and only bet on the safe ones you tend to slash your average return because you miss the surprise winners.

The sample races I tried this on are the same races I've tested other selection methods on. This method often turns up totally different horses, ones missed by other more rational systems. I've trialled a couple of methods based on last start winners, but this one works best. This is a bit annoying actually. I put in hours and hours of stats, I apply logical rules in logical ways, I read up on form, I try to make intelligent, deliberate selections -- and this irrational selection method gives better results. Doh!

Actually, it is not quite irrational. Picking numbers out of a hat is irrational. There is at least some rational basis for this method: it exzploits a bias towards last start winners and lower saddlecloth numbers. Happily, this seems to follow a line of least resistance through the stats, including the market stats, so it just happens you come out ahead.

And the results are very even. It gives a consistent volume of hits, even if only low paying placegetters, that keeps you in the black rather than having long runs of outs that dip you in and out of the red. Some systems will pay in the long run provided you can sustain periods in the red. In this system you stay in the black and your profits gather slowly. Or that's what happened in the sample.

In any case, it works better than other lazy methods like backing favourites. Favourites at $1 to win, $4 to place over the same sample gives you a loss. The Zip Star horse (from the Sportsman) at $1 to win, $4 to place gives you a loss (and a couple of very nasty runs of outs).

Try it out. On paper.

I am aware of this though. Most, if not all, simple systems will *eventually* send you bust. It is just that some will do it quicker than others. If this system "works" that might just mean that it postpones bankrupotcy longer than similiar methods. The difference between a perceived "good" system and a bad system is the time it takes to kill you.

Time wounds all heels - Groucho Marx.

Hermes.