I'm still testing my Neuralmania System. My computer fouled-up and was off-air for 9 days which resulted in lost info. I started anew from Mon 13 Sept. All three weeks have been profitable using the dividends on Maxi Divi, and this week (from Monday) is also in profit. Even the Place system has won each week.

However from the ongoing testing, I am noticing a consistency that is doing quite well. The rules are:

1)Races between 5 and 8 starters inclusive.
2)1,200 metres maximum distance.
3)No metropolitan tracks.
4)No Maiden or 2 year old races.
5)Bet the top 3 TAB nos.

The results available to me, and using NSW TAB dividends (Maxi Divi and Austote are vastly superior) are:

Wed 6 Oct. Bet $15 - return $17.90
Tues 5 Oct. Bet $15 - return $40.40
Mon 4 Oct. Bet $3 - return $7.60
Sun 3 Oct. Bet $12 - return $32.80
Sat 2 Oct. Bet $12 - return $11.90
Fri 1 Oct. Bet $3 - return $12.60
Thurs 30 Sept. Bet $9 - return $3.50
Wed 29 Sept. Bet $9 - return $8.40
Tues 28 Sept. Bet $3 - return $1.70
Mon 27 Sept. Bet $3 - return $3.90

Results from other days.
Wed 22 Sept. Bet $3 - return $0.00
Tues 21 Sept. Bet $6 - return $11.20
Thurs 16 Sept. Bet $6 - return $3.10

If someone has a data base that can accomodate the system rules maybe he/she can have a look at it?

I would like to comment as to why certain rules seem to eliminate the losers from the winners.
Am just thinking sometimes there is no logic in why a certain rule should improve the profit ratio.
Could it be a coincidence,or perhaps a bias in designers mind due to the fact that the designer already knows the past results.

Seems the major criteria in your system is that the horse be in the top 3 saddlecloth numbers.
All other rules are only there to sort out which races are inferior.

Rule 1. 5 to 8 starters.
Certainly cuts down on the number of opportunities.Can't quite see how it improves the top 3 numbers' chances.
Less interference in running perhaps.

Rule 2.Up to 1200 metres.
Still not sure how this rule works.Something to do with speed rather than stamina.

Rule 3.Country tracks only.
Could this perhaps be related to prizemoney awarded.How badly do the lower weighted jockeys really want to win.

Rule 4.No maidens or 2yo's
The top weighted horses in these events are quite often there because their name begins with the letter "a".

Please do not get the impression that I am trying to degrade you in any way.
I am well known for designing a system that came up with 11 losers in a row,many at short priced favourites.

Hi, Moeee.

Maybe it's not a matter of eliminating inferior races but identifying races where the topweights might have an advantage.

Rule 1 - I agree, there is less opportunity for interference, but this would also be true for the lower TAB numbers.
Rule 2. Races in excess of 1,200 metres could enable a front runner to slow down the pace or conversely set an unrealisticly fast pace. Maybe the possibility for a "truly run race" in sprint races is greater. I have looked at races from 1,250 to 1,600 metres, and whilst there are some good priced winners the strike rate is approx 50/50 compared to 79%. There were 34 races for 27 winners. 15 of those winners were in excess of the total outlay of $3.00, so the few high dividends (there were three dividends over $10) did not really distort the results.
Rule 3 - Maybe better class races provide an even chance for lower weighted horses?
Rule 4 - I agree. Also they do not have an extensive racing history that would justify them being allocated higher weights.

Of course, as you say, the results could be a coincidence. It might even crash from today, but with an approximately 50% POT over the test period of 34 races it might be worthwile looking at it. Time will tell. Or maybe someone with a data base could prove the sytem a flop or having merit.

If anyone's interested, today's selections are:
Wangaratta R6 nos. 1, 2, 3



[ This Message was edited by: michaelg on 2004-10-07 11:54 ]

Just thought about rule number 5.
It can in fact be broken up into Rules 5,6 and 7 without affecting the results.
Let it become:
Rule 5.Only TAB number 1
Rule 6.Only TAB number 2
Rule 7.Only TAB number 3
The combined returns will be your current profit return.
But just wonder if by separating the results in this way,will show something like a loss perhaps,for instance on the topweight?
You only have a small sample of races so far.Could you go through the results and see what comes of it?

Hi, Moeee.

I have taken scratchings into account, so that if no.1 is scratched no.2 then becomes the topweight. Also nos.4, 5, 6 etc were a couple of times included in the results depending on the amount of scratchings. The breakdown of the 34 races is:

Topweight - 13 winners for a return of $52.20.

2nd Topweight - 7 winners for a return of $24.30

3rd Topweight - 6 winners for a return of 46.60.

There were two winners ($21.50 and $8.20) not included in the above results because even though they were both TAB no.2 there was the late scratching of no.1 in both races. So no.2 was in fact the topweight, but at the time of betting no.1 would have been regarded as the topweight.
Only backing TAB nos. 1, 2, and 3 as you have requested as rules 5, 6, and 7 would also have been successful but slightly less profitable as opposed to backing the three topweights after scratchings have been accounted for.

I only had very few metropolitan races to look at. Last Sat the results were:
Randwick R2 - winner of $4.50
Randwick R6 - lost.
Flemington R2 - winner of $9.60
Dombeen R2 - lost.
Result: $12 bet - $14.10 return

Monday 4 Oct
Warwick F. R1 - winner of $1.70
Eagle F. R7 - lost
Eagle F. R8 - winner of $6.90
Result: $9 bet - $8.60 return

Last night
Canterbury R1 - winner of $2.50
M.valley R1 - winner $6.60
M.Valley R2 - lost.
Result: $9 bet - $9.10 return

Overall, a small profit. I will record these races also, but separate to the lower class races.

Boxing the three selections in quinellas have produced a profit too, but the strike rate is only about 26%. Yesterday the only race in the system struck the quinella of $15, and last Saturday the system had the Flemington R2 quinella of $26.

I will post the daily selections here on the forum in case any one is interested.

I'm confused about something Michael. Do these horses have anything at all to do with the Neurals? Or did you just look at this when researching the Neurals?

Hi, Sportznut.

No, this "Simple System" is not related to the neurals in any way. It's just that I'm testing the neurals with small fields and it has been performing very well using Maxi Divi. During the testing I notice that the top 3 TAB nos. have also been doing well in races up to 1,200 metres - I have applied the TAB divvies, so Maxi Divi would produce even greater profits.

I have this a.m. looked at several Saturdays metrop races which have produced a loss. But when I remove the top class races of Listed and Group the result is slightly better than break-even, although the strike rate (and profit) is nowhere as high as non-metrop races. I have also noticed that in the results posted at the beginning of this thread that Race 6 and onwards have performed miserably. Maybe R6 and onwards are for better class horses while races 1 to 5 are for a lower class where the topweights have a distinct advantage? or it might be coincidence. There have been 27 of these races (R1 to R5) for 24 winners (not a bad strike rate) - an outlay of 81 for a return of $146; whilst there have been 7 races for R6 and onwards for only 4 winners for a return of $9.

Today's races are:
Goulburn R1 nos. 1, 2, 3
Port Mac R2 nos. 1, 2, 3
Port Mac R6 nos. 1, 2, 3.

Starting to think,because the better class of races have a more consistent type of horse,but more to the point,the variables available to analyse are easier to to comprehend,then the markets are more closely related to the starting price.
In the poor quality races,the guiding factors that influence punters possibly aren't as important as usual.Especially when there are horses with few runs.So the market tends to throw up a few long priced winners to give a bonus to people who fancy topweights.

Hi, Moeee.

Your thoughts certainly make sense. However, I still cannot think of any valid reason why these weaker races seem to strongly favor the topweights. In my limited testing, their strike rate has been much higher than the better races. My thoughts on this would only be assumptions with nothing really to support them - apart from the results which might be pure coincidence.

We struck a good winner today in R2 at Port Mac - it paid $10.60, while at Maxi Divi it paid $12.12. R6 was a loser which seems to mirror previous results of the later races.

Unfortunately "we" did not include me at this point in time,but congratulations to you michaelg if it brought a smile to your face.
About the topweights.The reason they are in fact higher weighted,is along the lines of they have demonstrated over time that they are superior animals than those lower in weights.
So if the handicapper thinks they are better,who are we to argue!