Here's my contribution today. It follows from some of Baghwans older posts where he points out that #2s are in the money almost as often as #1 but pay better. This strategy romped through my sampling with a 7% profit on turnover unfiltered on places. (Wins were break even).

It is very simple. The target group is all #2 runners rated 4 or more points higher than #1 on the TABQ (AAP) ratings. Back to place. Pass races where #1 is scratched.

To filter the qualifier must meet any three of the following (usual) conditions that point to some talent:

*D or C form
*Inside or outside barrier
*Only 100 rater runner in race
*Third race from a spell
*Last start winner
*Two places over last three starts
*Also rated higher than #3
*Among the RadioTab top 2 selections
*Improving positions over last three races

A good strike rate. Check the results yesterday. Five bets. Five placegetters.

Mr Timbula 2.40/1.40
Shangos Image 1.20
Traditional Vain 1.50
Tenesse Tom 1.60
Dangerous Illusion 1.30

Even unfiltered it is a safe and simple placegetting strategy.

Hermes

hi hermes , i like the sound of your #2 place method and some random checks unfiltered gave 9%pot over approx 6mths of the random sample, maybe i ned to check filters and see what resuts thanks anyway

Hope you can make some money from it, Pardon. As usual the days after I posted the idea it crashed miserably. But it did perform well for placegetters in my samples and I'm glad your sampling matched mine. I don't have stats but I'm under the general impression that #2s are a good group as placegetters. Anyone know how often 2s run in the money overall?

Best of luck.

Hermes

hermes,

I did a sample today of this. I made one change to the rules...

If it is a 100 rater then it automatically is better rated than the #3 horse, so you gain one of the three requirements by default. I didn't include the #3 rule if the 32 was rated at 100.

I got two selections for today..

QR4 Vertara 3rd 1.60
PR4 Cartridge 2nd 1.60

There were a number of Number Twos that one today but could only manage to match two of the requirements ... c'est la vie...

Anyother testing done?


Regards,

OM

sorry it's getting late...

too many errors in the previous post..

this should be it...
"I didn't include the #3 rule if the #2 was rated at 100."

"There were a number of Number Twos that won today."