Reading another thread got me to wondering what the actual definition for a system would actually be. Whilst the dictionary offers these interpretations:

1. A group of related things or parts that function together as a whole.
2. An ordered set of doctrines, ideas, or principles.
3. A particular method of procedure, organization, or classification.

For our purposes a racing 'system' seems to be something different again. I know what I think a racing system should be and am wondering what you think?

For starters, here is an off the top of my head definition.

My racing system should be any collection of data that once analysed gives an indication of a horse which represents a better chance of winning a race than the other horses in the same race.

That's a bit wordy but I am sure I could rephrase it if I thought about it, but the sense is clear, it should be able to assist you to select a winning chance. However the purpose of selecting a winner is not always the only consideration. I know you need to make a profit, and sometimes this does not involve selecting the winner per se, but perhaps just a minor placing or an exotic selection etc.

What about gut-feeling, the most powerful weapon yet devised by man for picking winners? Anyone have that little voice inside that screams at you DON'T back that one, PEN this one, NOT with your money, and so on. How do you program that into your system?

Systems are different things to different folks, so what are the commonalities? When speaking in specific computer terms, what are the prime factors, secondary factors and so on? Is a system better if it involves more factors, or does the KISS principle work here as well?

As some of you know I am formulating a system, I have some computer skills and lack in other areas, but don't lack experience on and off the tracks. So I am asking for a set of criteria from each of you, what makes your system tick? What is important to you. Not only will I benefit from your answers in compiling my own system, but the sharing of ideas may force some of you to rethink your own systems and modify them and perhaps improve them in terms of profitability.

I don't think the telling of what defines your system will harm you, the game is to big and there is no such thing as the perfect system, but that should not stop all of us from striving for it anyway :-)

Tailwag

I just wrote a reply to this and realised that what I came up with was a complete contradiction to my opening paragraph.

A system depends on what criteria you look at. If you look at the form, you should get the same selection every time. There will be no "gut feeling". However, I look at the prices, so sometimes there is a need to pick the "most likely" selection.

I've done that many times lately myself. The reason I mentioned gut feeling was more as a handbrake against making a system so all encompassing that it becomes just too complex. I guess I shouldn't have really mentioned it because gut feeling really has no part in a computerised system for obvious reasons.

What I am trying to do is get some discussion going about what individual factors people think are important in a system, things like the obvious weight, latest form and so on, and things perhaps not so obvious like the ratio of winners to losers at certain odds to tote turnover etc.

Tailwag

Tailwag, if you look for obvious things "like the obvious weight, latest form and so on", you are wasting your time. It is all there for you free, reflected by the odds, tipsters polls etc.
To find that elusive angle, you have to look outside the square.
I worked long and hard on my original rating only to find, that I was getting the same horses almost in the same order as everyone else, so I stopped using it.
Now for the last 4 or so years I've been using a different method altogether AND making profit. All I am prepared to disclose is, look at the reason, why some horses are shunned by punters?
Once you selected those, you can still put them through a proper rating to sort them in ranking order.
Good luck!

Tailwag, as well as considering which factors to use you should look closely at how these factors are applied.

Most mechanical systems use benchmark rules like 'horse must have a 40% win strike rate'. What sounds like a good logical rule falls down in practice in that it doesn't properly evaluate a horse's strike rate relative to other horses in this race.
e.g. in race A one horse might have a 40% strike rate and next best might be 10% yet in race B the same 40% horse might be opposed by five other runners with strike rates of 39%.

Of course in this instance you also have the problem that strike rate is not necessarily a good measure of current form or ability.

wunfluova

Oh my God, the wheel is being re-invented here.

OK lets define [re-define?] other commonly well known meanings in racing now that 'system' no longer means system as most of us know it: A method of punting following a strict set of clear rules to determine selection[s].

!. Handicap race ? A race for disabled horses.

2. Dead-heat ? The temp. at a Dead track.

3. Welter ? Race for horses in a certain weight bracket.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Many would argue that definition should finish as ....a horse who's odds are better than that horses chances of winning the race.

Gut feelings can work two ways.
One school of thought would be that the mighty computer that is our brain is seeing things our conscious mind fails to see. This gives the nagging sensation I think YOU are referring to tailwag and that is a good thing.
Alternately the data that your brain may be using to give you a good nagging can be false. It remembers isolated incidents and makes too much of them. For example it remembers that time you took a punt on the outside barrier (no sleight intended to outside barrier proponents) and got a big win, then it falsely thinks anything not from the outside barrier is suspect.
It would be interesting for an individual to make a note of any "Gut Feeling" bets they make and see how successful they really are, you may end up hating your own guts.

KV