Lots of action today and some good winners and placegetters again. Lowest tabbed last start winners were in the thick of it at all tracks bar Eagle Farm, one out of three. After scratchings, seventeen selections, eleven ran a place. Betting level stakes for places, a return of $22.50 for $17 outlay. Tycoon Ruler was the best result for the day.
**********************
I've watched this category of runners closely the last few weeks matching the live tests to past results. Live tests make past results much more useful. I'm happy that my ratings filter succesfully removes the dross. These are simple ratings based on the commonly considered factors like average prizewinnings, place percentage, days since last start. Nothing mysterious. If nothing else, they identify the no bets only missing the occasional strike.
With this no bet filter applied to the lowest tabbed last start winners the overall results on level stakes are quite OK for placebetting over a fair sample. I have full prices on 360 races:
360 races
192 place strikes = 53.3%
Return on places = $372
Average return = $1.94
POT = 3.33% for places
For win bets it shows just under break even:
76 win strikes = 21%
Return on wins = $357.60
This is not very exciting - except that getting anything to show POT on places over 360 races is a victory for me - BUT my rating system has revealed a way to improve on this dramatically. It happens that the runners I rate as 2, 3 or 4 - the better prospects to place - have a good strike rate but a very poor average return that is draining potential profit. Thus:
Rated 2, 3 or 4.
160 races
92 place strikes
40 win strikes
Return on places = $153.60
Average Return = $1.67
Return on wins = $120.40
This is why I've been having trouble squeezing out a profit from a good strike rate. In this sub-group we have an excellent strike rate but a loss on turnover. Too many lowest tabbed last start winners pay too little. The problem with this overall category of runners I realise is that it includes too many favourites - there is too much poor value in the category as a whole.
But the figures for those runners I rate as marginal - the rating 1s - show very good results in terms of value and here I think I have at last pinpointed the runners that attracted me to lowest numbered LSWs in the first place. I've isolated the action. Look at these figures:
Rated 1
200 races
100 place strikes = 50%
36 win strikes = 18%
Return on places = $218.40
Average place return = $2.10
POT on places = 9.20%
Return on wins = $237.20
Average win return = $6.58
Here are the value runners in this category! The marginal prospects - as opposed to the more certain bets - have about a 50% place strike rate, and a low win strike rate, but give healthy average returns and a good POT. An extraordinary average win return. I had to check it again. Comes to $6.58. Mostly $7 plus winners. Tycoon Ruler was today's example at $11. Eartear on 20th July = $7.80. Jestica - $8.40. Sly Rambler - $10.30. Final Shuffle - $14.40. Not many of them - 18% strike for wins in this sub-group - but this band pays well when they come home. And they come home often enough to give a return. Over 200 recent races.
So to extract value from this group you have to eliminate the dross, ignore the sure things and exploit the middle band. I know this is what various people on this forum have been telling me in different ways, but now I've worked it out for myself.
Who are the rated 1 runners? Conzeal was a good example today. Rated down because its last start win was more than 14 days ago and was not among the top three prizewinners, amongst other things against it. But not dross. Started fourth favourite. Paid $4 for the place. Tycoon Ruler is a perfect example too. St. Steven was an example of rated 2,3 or 4. Nothing against it on paper. A dead cert but not worth it. Shantey R7 Randwick today is an example of a horse with too much against it to be worth the bet. Started about 7th or 8th favourite, 26/1. No bet.
You can obviously achieve much the same filtering by observing the market. The rated 1 runners are usually your lowest tabbed LSWs starting at third or fourth favourite, or if second or first then usually at a good price.
But I'm happy that my ratings work without recourse to the market. Except of course that my ratings are exactly wrong. Don't bet by my ratings. Bet the opposite. If its only rated 1, back it!
In conclusion:
On further analysis, there are three types of runner in the category lowest tabbed last start winner and success or failure depends upon distinguishing between them.
1. Dross. Not likely to place at all. The category includes quite a few cases where the fact a horse is the lowest numbered LSW is meaningless in the context of the race - the Gungadin factor. They have very little chance. Often TAB numbers higher than 5. (Of course, sometimes these will win. Oh well.)
2. Marginal prospects. A fifty/fifty chance of placing and much less of winning but at a good price. Not standout selections and often borderline with the dross category. Or often strong on paper but with a black mark like poor prizewinning average. Not usually TABS 1, 2 or 3.
3. Heavily backed good prospects. A strong chance of placing and a good chance of winning, but at no value. There is a high proportion of heavily backed favourites among the lowest tabbed LSWs. Everyone likes a winner. This drains the value out of the category. Often TABs 1, 2, 3.
Might not be news to experienced punters, but its all news to me.
Maybe there are these three types of runners in whatever category of horse we look at . Anyway target the middle band. The shortcoming of the middle band will be more and longer runs of outs, not broken up by the sure things, and long waits between drinks for winners. But it should give POT.
In any case, should my figures once again level out over larger samples as promising figures have a tendency to do, I'm quietly confident that if I concentrate on those I rank as the marginal prospects it is near enough to profit at level stakes to warrant a staking plan. Lowest tabbed LSWs are a rich category of runner. Intelligent selection can isolate the band of value. Then intelligent staking can turn over profit. Open to suggestions as always.
Bhagwan, you wrote many posts back of betting 1,2,6,18. With six banks of $28? Can you explain further?
Hermes
|