Selection:

1. Must have raced at same track LS.
2. Must have won at both the track and the distance (separately is ok).
3. Carrying less than 54kgs
4. Odds of 7/1 or more.
5. Finished top 5 LS or beaten less than 4 lengths.

I won't tear your system to shreds. Good on ya for putting it up. What I will say is I never look at a system that has a rule concerning lengths from the winner.

Experience has told me that if the horse is not going to win so far out from the winning post most jockeys give up and the finishing position in lengths is never a true gauge. Just my opinion.

Lumbarsua,

Does this method throw up many selections on a 4 state Saturday metro (Syd, Mlb, Brs, Adl) day?

I'm interested from the perspective that my own analysis of past results doesn't identify 'won at track' or 'won at distance' as important criteria in selecting a horse.

Your thoughts?

LB

I only just put it together for a bit of fun.

It has however picked a few longshots at country/prov meetings where home town horses can upset the more favoured horses at good odds.

You often see city horses run on country tracks for the first time and flop due to their weight or trouble handling the track or whatever. With locals, you also don't have to worry about horses travelling too far.

I used to play a lot of golf, I found it hard to take my game on the road. I don't know if it affects horses as much, but there must be a greater risk of failure if a horse has to travel to a different track, even its it only 100km or so.

The elite horses can win at almost any venue just like the top golfers, but the avg ones can't. That's the theory anyway.

It may work on metro meetings - I don't know.

Distance is one of my criteria when rating a horse. Not the most important but still worth looking at. Why bet on a horse if its 0 from 4 starts at a certain distance???

As for track stats - it depends on the particular track.

I certainly wouldn't back a horse which is 0 from 5 at a certain track. Odds are stacked against it.

If track has an effect it has a big effect. Take this example from Daily Racing Form's "Winning Techniques"...

"Some horses just love certain racetracks and aren't nearly as successful elsewhere. A great example is Lemon Drop Kid, who won the Futurity at Belmont as a 2-year-old but never threatened in subsequent stakes races in Kentucky. When he returned home to Belmont he ran a huge race and won the Belmont Stakes at 29-1! Lemon Drop Kid was a horse for the course. He loved Belmont Park. Daily Racing Form provides crucial data in the career box...If you see a horse who shows a particularly strong record at today's track, take note because he may be a horse for the course."

There are some courses that are definitely different; some tight and some with long, sweeping corners. In general I don't think there's that much of a difference -- but there are some out there that notice it.

I would have to agree with you there Duck!

Some horses really aren't effect by different track significantly, others shine when it comes to one specific track. You just have to look at it's record.

The one consideration is, to make sure it's not significantly rising in weight, class or distance.

__________________
Treat your selection and staking methods not with optimism, nor with pessimism, but with realism.

This is very similar to a system I came across a few years ago called the Dejavu system (for obvious reasons). The theory is that horses are creatures of habit and tries to target runners that are running at the same scenario of past successes. It goes like this:

1. The horse must have WON ITS LAST START AT THIS TRACK, DURING THIS CAMPAIGN. This win is called the QUALIFYING RUN.

2. It must have WON A RACE WITHIN 90m of today's race.

3. Must not be going back AT ALL in distance from the qualifying run.

4. Must not be carrying more than 1.5kg in excess of the weight actually carried in the
qualifying run.

5. Must have either: a) Won at today's track condition or b) Placed at least 30% of starts on today's track condition.

6. If today's prizemoney is more than $30,000 then the horse must have: a) Won at least 33% of the prizemoney of today's race or: b) Averaged $5,000 or more per career race start.

7. Do not consider Mares or Fillies in races open to male horses.

8. Do not consider a Welter run as a qualifying run for a Non Welter race today.

9. Do not consider a Non W.F.A race win for a W.F.A race today unless the horse has won a W.F.A race during the past year.

Thoughts?

On 2002-07-17 15:52, Reenster wrote:
The theory is that horses are creatures of habit .........

Something to think about:
To what extent are horses "creatures of habit" because their trainers are "creatures of habit" - pardon calling trainers creatures! But you get my drift.

Very good point about the trainers. I have found that there are often as many or more telling angles when considering the trainer. A horse inching up in classes to suddenly drop down for the try; a horse that always seems to 'tire in the stretch' in higher claimers -- then cleans up at 17:1; a horse that has been off for 7 months and shows inconclusive workouts; and so on.

The bottom line is that trainers are into horse racing to make money. It's their business -- their livelihood! The horse wants food and likes to run. The jockey wants to be known for doing what is asked and winning some races looks good on the resume. But the trainer puts his supper on the table by correctly mixing all the factors.

Hmmm, I suddenly have an urge to start looking into a more-than-less mechanical 'trainer-based' system. Though I'm sure this has been done before. Anybody know of these types of posts -- or more importantly, their outcome -- before?

As far as trainers go, some seem to be creatures of habit also.
I generally look for example a horse engaged in two different States on the same day. Then it is scratched from one race to run in the other. For some reason this scenario has a good record.
Also many trainers will run their horses through the same pattern of races each preparation and you can almost predict with some horses, where they are placed to win.

As a general rule, and many may think I am crazy, but I never back horses dropping back in distance, back in class significantly.

These horses are placed in these races, and sometimes win because they are not up to a higher level this preparation. I just like the horses up in class and distance and travelling between States, because the trainer obviously has a high opinion of the horse and is happy with it's preparation.

Just something to consider.

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-23 01:36 ]