I've had a few small things go my way recently for the first time for yonks. Had a horror year or two losing my better half this year after a long battle with cancer. I've found many people in the same boat, it's unusual, and I'm posting this 'coz someone who needs a lift may just get something out of it, and it may be just the distraction they need.

Sit down with a drink, you're in for a treat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’ve invented the mother of all systems and I’m prepared to share the concept.



Every conceivable method of testing, has this in serious profit. It’s definitely outside the square as far as systems go, but it is a system in it’s true sense, with definite rules. It’s a system where an original base of six filters is consistently used for the purpose of “following a horse” for a certain number of starts with the introduction of different filters at various stages of it’s campaign / each run after the original base of filters. It’s absolutely brilliant in that it “accepts” bad luck, bad placement by the trainer etc, etc, and feeds off the increased odds when the form “looks bad”, but this only happens at one run in the campaign. Good form is taken into account in only one of the horse’s runs after it qualifies. The other two runs after the original base filters, the form doesn’t matter. One run has poor form allocated as a filter. When these horses qualify the system shows a healthy POT, and after these horses qualify, the system shows a POT on their first run, the system shows a POT on the second run and so on, every run for the next four starts !!!!! Not for each individual horse obviously, but the overall system for each and every start turns a profit. The original base filters have six rules. For runs one, two, three and four after the horse qualifies, there are additional filters included, three filters for run number one and two after qualifying, two filters for runs number three and four, after qualification.



A further example of how this works. Horse qualifies, we back it – 1st run after it qualifies we add three additional filters to the base filters, 2nd run we add three different filters to the original base filters (we take out the three additional filters for the 1st run after the horse qualifies and replace it with a different set of three additional filters ….. in this case we take advantage of the horse being overlooked by the market for one bad run) …. , 3rd & 4th run after qualification we add two filters (nothing to do with form) to the original base filters. Note; whenever we add filters, they’re only added to the original base filters. The additional filters for 1st run after qualification for instance, is the only time those particular filters are used. They’re not added permanently, the only permanent filters are the base filters, of which there are six and they are included in all runs.



It’s the ideal system really, it takes into account everything that the races can throw at you and returns the favour with better odds when the horse runs poorly, and also takes into account natural progression / improvement / good form of horses as they go through the classes. The key are the factors around the qualifying race.

Hi Barny,

I congratulate you on your hard work to get a system that shows a POT at each and every stage. The nay sayers will want to you to release the rules. I say keep them to yourself and reap the benefits you have worked so hard to achieve. Others could also achieve similar results if they are willing to work at it. It's funny that the harder you work the better the results you get.

Good on you.

Sorry to hear about your loss this year. I hope 2013 will be your year!

The rules are pretty simple really. The concept is about "following" a horse, so if you stay on that theme you're in the ball park. I've no problems discussing the concept. After the horse qualifies you obviously back it. If it runs poorly, you get better odds at it's next start, and it's a chance too, coz the "qualifying run" will indicate it's a good horse. The following rules are sound too.

I don't mind the nay sayers having a dig in this instance 'coz this is something that can be debated and because I'm not going to post the rules, they can go for their lives. They'll be arguing against a concept, not data.

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll wear you down and beat you with experience"

I am interested in the concept. For the qualifying run does the horse have to win or do you find several horses could qualify from the same race?

That's an extremely interesting thought Try Try Again. I've spent years looking at single races and wondering what would happen if you followed the first three for the next campaign. But no, not in this case.

The qualifying run is NOT the run with the best POT. It could be the run with a sensational POT, but then it restricts the number of selections for runs two, three and four after qualifying, and it's not representative of what is seen as a normal campaign for a 3, 4 or even 5 year old. I've sacrificed a really good POT on the qualifying run so that the rest of the runs have what would be a normal campaign, one or two bad runs, maybe not, it caters for a succession of wins too, increasing in class and maybe distance, not that it matters. I'll give you an example ..... The qualifying run includes a minimum and maximum number of runs, then the next run will have horses who have their number of runs in the range increase from the previous run (obviously) so on until the 5 th run of the campaign. These form one of the base filters. If a horse is still running at "at least" its 5th run this time in, then the trainer must think it's a chance.

The qualifying run is the key. I'm sure that this concept could be applied differently in terms of the filters I use for the qualifying run, but my filters select horses that produce a POT overall, that is over their next few runs prior to going for a spell.

Hi Barny,

So you are looking for lightly raced horses that have won in the Metro area (I'm basing this on one of your previous threads that horses will win again within 5 starts).

The qualifying race is obviously the key otherwise you would have to follow too many last start winners.

Food for thought Barny. Thanks

The thread you are referring to was an original by Shaun, who had observed that a horse that had won in the city would win again 70% of the time within five runs. But you're right Try Try Again, I do like someone who can join the dots, well done!

Hi Barny,

Do you just concentrate on one city, say Melbourne. or do you follow this concept throughout Australia (or maybe overseas)?

Metro Australia.

The beauty of this system is that you can look (??) for the qualifying run, in the Sportsman for example, for investigative purposes, for any one of the horses last five runs and see how you would have fared. I quite frequently look though old Sportsmans & HS form guides for "the qualifying run" and spot when it won after "the qualifying run" and it's random. Good form, poor form, freshened, up in distance, down in distance ..... It is a "follow the horse" system without any doubt, BUT, it's off a base set of filters with parameters broad enough to include a large number of selections going forward. There's also a large enough number of selections at any "run" to satisfy those on here who've dismissed some of my systems because they don't have enough selections. There's no way I'm going to nominate how many selections 'coz it'll only result in nitpicking. Take it or leave it, but some on here will re-adjust their thinking and investigation as a result of this system I've put up.

Speaking of beasts, did anyone watch "The Royle Family" when it was on telly?

One particular episode Jim was o the couch and happened to have his fly open.
When Barb pointed it out, he stated that "The cage may be open but the beast is asleep".
To which Barb remarks "Beast my a-r-s-e"

Funny stuff IMO.

__________________
Jose'.