Bhagwan,

This device - start at the top and look down for the first LSW - has merit it seems. Much more than starting at the bottom. Now I just need to find the ways it will pay.

A numerical cut-off for a start. The results a cut off at #7 will snare the vast majority of both placegetters and winners. Or rather seven is where the money stops. You miss some biggies beyond #6 or #7 but it can't be profitable to chase them race after race. In terms of just the volume of strike numbers you could cut off at #3! That will snare the vast majority of them, but only the lower priced ones. It is worth going down to #6 or #7 to snare the better priced winners.

The distribution of placegetters is noteworthy. Very few outside of saddlecloths 1, 2 3. Over 90% of them have saddlecloths 1, 2 or 3. The distribution of winners is more diverse. No exact figure but I'd say if your lowest numbered last start winner is 1, 2 or 3 there is a solid statistical chance it will place.

And here's something: most placegetters ran second! Very few thirds. I hadn't noticed this before. A proportion of nearly 8/2. A great method of selecting your second placer in quinellas??

I know this is looking like it will pay on win only but I am worried about a statistical fact: fewer last start winners win races than you'd expect. But, more last start winners place than you'd expect. That's why I was chasing placegetters with this method.

Last start winners who win are therefore horses that win two in a row. The stats are against that. The stats say that horses that win a race are more likely to run a place next race than they are to win. Doesn't the stat go:

35% of winners are last start winners. BUT
only 25% of last start winners are next time winners.


In this case we've found a method of locating a high proportion of seconds. In my samples the win strike is healthy, but that defies the stats, doesn't it? In the long term I expect the stat that says last start winners are more likely to place than to win will prevail. Despite my sample.

Maybe we have a quinella system in the making. Something like:

Take the last start winner with lowest saddlecloth number. Selection 1. (Likely to run second).

Selections 2 and 3. Of the four horses with adjacent numbers, take the two with the best last start and/or highest prixewinnings (or placegetter percentage or whatever way you want to distinguish between them).

We do this because, as a general observation, the other placegetters *follow the last start winner* who places. That is, if a last start winner with saddlecloth #1 wins or places, then the other placegetters will have saddlecloth numbers not far away. Usually there is at least one other placegetter one or two numbers away above or below. It is less likely that you get a placegetting last start winner with a low saddlecloth and the other placegetters are 7 and 8 or even 5 or 6. More likely combinations like 1, 2, 3 or 1, 2, 4. or 2, 3 and 5. etc. The bias towards the lower numbers/higher weights.

On the other hand if your placegetting last start winner is in the higher numbers 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. Then so too will be the other placegetters. More often than not.

Of course you get some very diverse distributions, but I note this as a general pattern. Very often one of the horses adjacent to the placegetting last start winner will place too. I colour them in in the form guides with a green marker. You can see the blocks of green. Looked interesting so I did a quick count. Only about 3 in 10 deviate from the pattern. Will need to do more stats obviously.

But maybe when betting quinellas use the lowest numbered last start winner to find the centre of the action. Take it as your centre and look at the numbers around it. To put it another way:

You don't get many placegetting last start winners that stick out like a sore thumb. You find them within a nest of other placegetters. You should be able to find a quinella strategy to take advantage of this.

Anyone find ways to make this pay?

The quest for a viable system (and steady stats) goes on.

Hermes