Blocka

I pulled this thing apart and put it back again piece by piece. The weakness in all these systems, as has been stated ad nauseum, is that they all suffer from back-fitting. Thus the chances of future performance resembling past performance is tenuous indeed.

Having said all that - let me say this. The underlying "theme" of this system is that form horses (placed last start), underated by the handicapper (52.5 kg or less) can offer enough value to squeeze out a profit.

The "top trainer" filter sought to qualify the selections. I discarded this in favour of a more race objective and enduring filter in the shape of a ratings "rank". The "ratings" I chose belongs to the software known as Bet Selector.

Bet Selector has three ratings methods available to use and backtest on a set of given variables. I cherry picked the PP ratings as the best performing under the given scenario. Each of the different "ratings" produced substantial profits, but PP ratings generated the most. I would suggest ratings from say UniTab or other sources could be substituted with profitable effect.

I also discarded Brisbane and Adelaide as these venues produced a smallish loss. Back-fitting?? You be the judge.

Horses under 5.0 produced smaller profits for the past two years (from memory) but beyond that generated larger losses which surprised me a bit. But if you included them all a substantial profit would have still been made.

Overall I am cautiuosly optimistic about this system that seeks out the contrary or the overlooked but rated and in-form contender.

PS Don't tell anyone as I'm thinking of flogging this in Kenchar's favourite racing magazine.