Hi, Moeee.

Maybe it's not a matter of eliminating inferior races but identifying races where the topweights might have an advantage.

Rule 1 - I agree, there is less opportunity for interference, but this would also be true for the lower TAB numbers.
Rule 2. Races in excess of 1,200 metres could enable a front runner to slow down the pace or conversely set an unrealisticly fast pace. Maybe the possibility for a "truly run race" in sprint races is greater. I have looked at races from 1,250 to 1,600 metres, and whilst there are some good priced winners the strike rate is approx 50/50 compared to 79%. There were 34 races for 27 winners. 15 of those winners were in excess of the total outlay of $3.00, so the few high dividends (there were three dividends over $10) did not really distort the results.
Rule 3 - Maybe better class races provide an even chance for lower weighted horses?
Rule 4 - I agree. Also they do not have an extensive racing history that would justify them being allocated higher weights.

Of course, as you say, the results could be a coincidence. It might even crash from today, but with an approximately 50% POT over the test period of 34 races it might be worthwile looking at it. Time will tell. Or maybe someone with a data base could prove the sytem a flop or having merit.

If anyone's interested, today's selections are:
Wangaratta R6 nos. 1, 2, 3



[ This Message was edited by: michaelg on 2004-10-07 11:54 ]