I am not a big punter, but i do like to have a few bets on saturdays. The think i am finding is that i get a few winners but there is no consistency.

Currently how i do the form is go over all the factors i think are relevant in my head, jot down a few notes and circle what i think are the best chances.

This is obviously not the ideal way and i want to develope my own ratings.

I have read winning more by don scott and i agree with some of the things he does but not others.

I am stumped as to how i can set up my own ratings and where to start.

I just got foxtel so i have access to the videos and i am really interested in incorperating the video footage aswell as pace/times into the ratings.

If anyone can put some feedback in I would greatly appreciate it because I know there is a wealth of knowlege on this forum and everyone seems to do quite well for themselves.

Thanks alot,
Matt

Oh, one thing i would like to add, aimed at one person in particular. Xptdriver, i have been playing around and experimenting with your ratings and i find them a great help. I thought that because you devulge the ratings for free that you may be able to tell me a bit more info about the process you go through to arrive at them. I would understand if you would want to keep them private though.

Thanks

Tenacious spirit,

I trust you have read the "Eagle farm dribble" thread currently running. I am in a similar boat to you and have found it very interesting. It will at least give you an idea of which factors are "statistically significant".

Tubby

__________________
Ever get the feeling that the world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes?

Yeh tubby good thread that, some good iformation. I think IMO that finding the statistically imprtant factors is not the hardest part but more devising a systematic approach that weights each factor according to its merit, and finding the right balance that doesn't under/over compensate for a factor. The ratings i am trying to create are weight based and as such people suggest that 1kg = 1.5 lengths. But everything i investigate seems to be highly flawed. I will give you an example of what i mean. If you were looking at a factor such as weight increase. Obviously a weight increase disadavntages all horses to some degree. But a small filly is going to find 1kg a bigger burden than a large colt. This being the case i am finding it hard to adress these issues.

Cheers,
Matt

hey matt,,watching videos is a great tool,just as good as sectionals except you get see who had the biggest flogging down the straight..eg 20 hits from a senoir rider======gut buster and as a rule of thumb i stay away from that horse for two weeks so it can clear the latic acid out of its body......gazman...

Gday Ten...

I will try to help if I can... My ratings are derived from using not a lot factors.. I think that basically horses tend to repeat.. obviously that doesn't apply to first starters... so one of the most important factors for me is the horse's abilty at today's distance.. it is also handy if the animal has a like for the today's track.. My ratings sometimes get a bit skewed because I do take into account a horses lifetime performance, that can be dodgy because a horse may have a brilliant performance as a youngster but has done ************ all since... but in the main it tends to find the "class" animal.. what the horse has been doing the last few starts is pretty important, like if it has been getting beaten close up in say an open hcp, then drops back to a class 3 you need to take notice, mind you most other people who can read will have seen that as well... and as they say winning form is good form.. one flag tho...penalise horese trying for 3 wins in a row, statistically they are dodgy, some will win, but not enough to show profit.. quick backups can be a real plus, a deadly combo can be < 10 days and inside barrier 7 or 8 they can be very profitable

The human factors are important.. Jockey and Trainer and also don't underestimate the Jockey/trrainer combo.. Some of the combos are lethal. Example Beadman/O'shea.. exceptionaiall good, but usually no price, so look for others... Robinson/Hawkes... Freeman/Waterhouse, Newnham/Waterhouse, Graham/Prosser Greg Ryan/anyone.. they are a few

All the factors I have mentioned will need to be scored... how you do that is up to you... after all of that you should be left with a number to represent the chance of each horse..

When my ratings get to that stage I have a fair idea of the race.. It;s important to understand that a hores rated on top, is NOT necessarily the horse I think will win... all it is is that the numbers suggest it will win.. Horses with an * near their name are horses I am confident of getting a collect from.. they will never be a flash price but they will be a fairly reliable conveyance..

I have been intentionally vague so as to protect my exact formula, otherwise you and everybody else who tries to do the ratings (who have read this) will come up with the same results, but I hope I have been able to give you some pointers to get you going...

It is very important to remember that ratings are just the author's opinion expressed as a number, they are great for whittling the field down to a reasonable number of chances for the punter to concentrate on..

Hope this ramble helps

__________________
Good luck and good punting

xptdriver@hotmail.com

XPT, you can add the Nolan/Moody combo to that list as well - they have been very kind to me over the last couple of years.

As I wrote in anohter thread, keeping things as simple as possible can save a lot of time - concentrating on the major issues (no more than six in my opinion).