13th July 2020, 07:51 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,474
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by entropy
Thanks for an interesting post on the R&S ratings UB!
I know zilch about the R&S ratings other than they are compiled using Don Scott methods.
I hope they found some new good tweaks because, although profitable in earlier days, they went downhill and DS reportedly died broke.
Scanning the site I could not find any records of how the ratings have panned out in practice.
Just a passing comment where they say the results of their Computer Racecards are "astonishing".
Did your analysis show this?
Am I missing out on being astonished?
My recent efforts with my own ratings could also be called "astonishing", astonishingly feeble!
|
They are based on DS Ratings but its just the initial base rating. Most ratings don't work and most people who follow the ones on R+S will lose money too. You can't just pick up a rating and hope it works. As I said you need to find the ratings this horse produced in similar conditions, similar distances, similar field sizes, etc. That takes work. Most punters won't do that work but anyone who takes the time to do it can use any set of "reasonable" ratings and come up with a derived set of ratings that can then be dutched.
I use lots of sources of data and R+S is one of them. I wouldn't say their ratings are astonishing, but I wouldn't say that about any of the ratings I get. But when I apply my process to the ratings, and then dutch the profitable situations I can easily profit.
|