These neural things have really got me going.

Before I say anything else on this subject I wanted to recognize the efforts put in by "michealg". Thanks for all your time .....I remain amazed.

Enyhoo, can one of you bright sparks help me out in understanding the significant differences between the CP and $ entries.

__________________
"Not winning on a horse that came first is one thing.....Losing on a horse that didn't come first is something else entirely!!!"

Hi, Twobets.

Unfortunately I cannot help as I am at a loss here and seldom include either algorithym in any of my testing. It would appear that both should be related in some way but often the CP allocates high points to a certain horse whilst $ gives it almost no points.

I've tried to work out what factors the CP (and $) alogorithym are based even though the neural website explains it. However looking at a horse's career (for simplicity, those that have very few race starts) but am baffled at some of their CP points. The same with the $ alogrithym - I've looked at total prizemoney earned, comparison of races that offer larger prizemoney, and other factors - but there seems to be no rhyme or reason and am unable reconcile the $ points allocated. Maybe there is a key or master factor that governs both algorithyms but trying to determine it/them has so far eluded me.

I believe CP is a weight/class rating for it's career and assumed that $ was an average prize money rating. The ratings for a particular runner may be adjusted depending on it's opposition's ratings. Just guessing.

For the last 20 months or so, the horse with the highest CP rating produces the best ROI of all the criteria. The $ rating has the same strike rate but worse ROI.

Prizemoney ratings seem to be overbet, generally, whether it be consciously or not. The horse with the 2nd highest $ rating has a better ROI than the 1st. This may be the same for API - I don't have it in my database - maybe someone else could check.

Hey Chinbok, could you possibly to list the top 5 or 6 criteria in order based on ROI and strike rate? I'm working on something at the moment, and I was thinking of concentrating mainly on "CP", "CF" and "Tim" because they seemed to do well in trials that I did. But they were only very short trials. I would appreciate it if someone who's got a lot more info could tell me which criteria have had the best ROI and SR.

Just out of interest I had a look at the $ algorithym in conjunction with the default settings. If the top selection also had the most points in the $ category (outright, not equal top $), the Place results since last Monday are (I've not looked at last Wednesday as they were metro meetings):

Monday.
5 selections for 4 placegetters paying $5.40

Tuesday.
6 selections for 4 placegetters paying $6.20

Thursday.
8 selections for 7 placegetters paying $9.10

Total of 19 selections for 15 placegetters.
Strike rate of 78%
POT of 14%.

Chinbok, I might have a look at the above system but instead of using the top selection in $, I will see how it fares with the CP algorithym. I'll post today's selections for both methods, if there are any, in another thread. But I won't include Dombeen in the $ method.

Hi Sportz,

Here are the strike rates and returns over the last 12 months for each of the neural algorhythms on their own - betting on top horse.

CP.......23.4%.......89.4%
CF.......21.7%.......83.5%
Tim......16.7%.......84.3%
JA........18.0%.......84.0%
TA.......17.2%.......87.1%
JT........17.8%.......85.2%
BP.......11.9%.......78.7%
WT......14.0%.......79.8%
Crs.......16.2%.......82.9%
D.........16.7%.......85.9%
$.........22.8%.......83.0%
DLR......13.1%......85.1%

Thanks a lot. That's a great help.

The neural settings I concentrate on are Tim, JT, Crs, Dist, $ and DLR

The settings have produced:

499 Races
126 Winners (S/R 25.3%)
260 Places (S/R 52.1%)

Win POT is 9.9% or 49.35 units

......so I'm happy this system, although it did run into a negative in the middle of May.... so sometimes it pays to persevere.....

I've concentrated on these settings as I think, horses are a creature of repitition and therefore Tim, Crs and Dist are highly weighted and that JT, $ and DLR are also relatively important factors..... not to say they are the be all and end all..... as michaelg has alluded to, subtle variations and outside filters seem to improve results..... however I must note that I have not used any filters in this system - so regardless of track condition/field size/days break/first starters/points assigned yatta yatta they are all inclusive - warts and all !! - I like the turnover factor!

I too would also like to say well done to Michaelg for some excellent contribution to the forum, for it was because of him that I went back to the neurals.... and I am very happy (so far !!)

Good Luck people... (There is my 2 cents worth )

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!