Privateer,
Thanks for your summary. I agree with you about the relative lack of importance of barriers but to this point I have been unsure of how to use it. I was hoping you might give me some tips.

I sat down and tabulated data from the last 18 months of races, breaking races into three arbitrary groups <= 1200, 1201-2000, 2001+. What struck me was that some of my long-held beliefs didn't seem to hold up:
1) Many days since last race (ie running fresh) could be overcome in the sprint group but a large majority of the distance winners had run in the last 14 days
2) Saddlecloth one (and to a lesser extent 2) wone a relatively large percentage of races in the middle distance group
3) Barriers did not seem to matter, even in the sprints
4) Just about as many horses won coming up in weights, as those going down in weight.

On top of these, something I did think...that the "better" horses (as judged by API) won more often.

Knowing all this (and please feel free to correct me) how do you put it together...would I be best to give a "tick" for a runner which has one of these things, or would I best to give "points" for such things...as seen in some (well ok, just one) racing magazines.
I couldn't work out a fair way to give points for a cumulative percentage event

e.g. Not using real figures
<7 days - 15% of winners
<14 days - 35% of winners
<21 days - 55%
etc

This is really long so i had better stop before I get dizzy.

__________________
Ever get the feeling that the world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes?