I was reading an article somewhere a while back about the impact of the computer revolution on punting. Had an impact definitely, but not a huge one, it was saying. In fact the comforting thing in the article was that all the computer power in the world has only managed to budge the punt a millimetre or two, mainly by draining profits out of favourites. The punt was a very tight thing already, so its been made more difficult, but there's still hope for the computer semi-literates.

The article - sorry don't recall the author etc. I only glanced at it - said the impact of computers reached its limit by about 1996-7. Further advances in computers haven't enhanced their tipping performance greatly. Extra gigs don't help. Then there was stuff about chaos factors etc. explaining why there are real limits to the predictability of a race anyway.

Can the mathematically minded tell me just how unpredictable is a horse race?

I gather that the best computers in the world, with the best software and the best brains behind it, selecting on all standard races, hits a wall somewhere just over a third winners. Why?

The zip rating system in the Sportsman is "objective" computer-driven handicapping. Gets under a third winners (but worth following because its a better paying third than market favourites).

Hermes