You are right (obviously!). The problem I've found is that as you drop in quality you also take a hit in your ability to correctly predict the outcome.

The very 1st race I tried to predict was this year's manikato stakes. There was a ton of money for Sunline, but on my figures it Piavonic had the form without the condition problem Sunline had as it was coming back from a spell. My horses for that race were Piavonic, Sunline, Miss Power Bird & Falvelon. As we know they finished Piavonic, Sunline, Falvelon with Piavonic paying $32 for the win!

So even though the higher quality races are easier to predict, mug punters still back 'name' horses no matter what. What I'm trying to do is take into consideration facts that most don't. Then, IF you can get a value bet on your prediction off you go.

I would say however, the better your method of picking winners, the better your odds at the lower quality races AND the better chance of a value bet - which is exactly your point. My problem is my method seems to trip up on lower quality races.

For those of you who haven't fallen asleep yet reading this, there are two areas where I think real expertise is required (and it's what I currently lack).

First, being able to rate one race against another, for example, does finishing 4 lengths behind the winner in a G3 WFA race in Melbourne equate to winning a Rs1mw for 3YO's in Sydney? Once you can rate races you can rate the performance of horses in those races against horses in other races.

Second, when you do frame your book and find some value betting, do you bet straight out or an exotic and if an exotic which do you choose?

Anyway enough of my problems,

cheers,

mac