W924. Hi! There is a standard problem with many systems: people say things like "20% of winners won their previous start " and then you find out that 30% of THE RUNNERS going around are LSWs. Or "3 year olds have a poor record in the Melbourne Cup" until it turns out hardly any go round in the first place and that the 10 wins they've had (or whatever) is PROPORTIONAL to the number who tried it. Or "50% of winners were close-up (<5 lengths) in their previous start" and it then turns out that 70% of today's runners fit this criteria. And so on and so on. The only way any kind of statement about days/lengths/places etc can have any value (in making a profit) is if the average odds of the winners having THAT attribute is greater than the proportion of the runners having THAT attribute. Thus fail all attempts to follow jockeys and trainers if you aren't VERY selective. Beadman may win 10 Group 1s this year and be touted as a"Big Race" jockey but of what use is it if he rode 40 times in G1s (ie he has both the most wins AND the best SR) if his 10 wins averaged out at $3 EACH. Meanwhile Zac Purton has only 1 win (say) in 40 rides (very few and rotten SR) but it was at 50-1. What if this happened every year for a decade?? All those Beadman victories would surely blind the majority of punters to the difference between CASHING A LOT OF TICKETS and MAKING MONEY!!
As for LSW it has more to do with the perceived "class" of the LSW than anything else. Some people may bet blindly on that "1" in the guide but their money is very DILUTED by all the "1"s you'll find most days. cheers.