On the inside of the lid of a VB stubby it says "This VB was taste tested six times before we bottled it" ..... that's verbatim.

I certainly hope they didn't backwash ......

Based on my premise that you must allow for ONE bad / unlucky run, (any more than that and the nag may be out of form), then most of the statistical systems with strict parameters as their base (such as first 4 in last 4 starts, or last 4 runs = no more than 9, or must not have finished more than 3 lengths from the winner at any run within it's last four runs ..... etc, etc, etc) CANNOT show a consistent POT because a) they'll be overbet and / or b) they're far too restrictive in their nature and miss out on what SHOULD BE a system horse other than that ONE bad / unlucky run ..... if that makes any sense !!

ie; You're missing a "system" horse because of ONE bad / unlucky run.

I think you need to ask yourself, "What is it I'm looking for in this particular system ?"

More this arvo .....

And ???
Does eliminating these selections improve the System? Or does it degrade the System? Or does it make no discernible difference.

I wonder what Gem of Wisdom turns up after the next sixpack gets consumed.

You may be missing the point moeee, I accept I may not be explaining myself too well. An analogy.

Backyard cricket;

We pick all the kids from the neighbourhood who usually play cricket so we can have a 'cricket team' and play a match against the kids in the next neighbourhood. We have a plan. however, one of our kids goes home unwell and is replaced by the dude down the road who doesn't really play cricket at all but prefers marbles. He takes an extradordinary catch to dismiss the opposition captain ..... We're onto something !! We immediately go looking for any others in the neighbourhood who play marbles. We give one of the poorer performing cricketers the flick (ie; that one bad run), and now we have a squad of mostly cricketers but several marble players.

What happened to our original plan?
Is our 'new' side (mostly cricketers but some marble players) going to perform better that if we had just stuck with cricketers?
How do we monitor this new side? - Do we go and get kids who play tennis exclusively and whack them in as well?
Could we monitor a side of just cricketers better and look for ways to improve?

If that don't do your head in moeee, then nothing will. Want another list ? lol

When taking a systematic approach to the form, I like to begin with what I feel is the classiest horse in the race and apparently currently out of form and ask a a few simple questions?

1/ Has it been unlucky last few runs? (check Stewards report)
2/ Was the racing surface/track unsuitable?
3/ Are there any significant gear changes? e.g. Blinkers back on, when that has proved a winning ploy in the past etc.
4/ Top jockey/winning jockey getting on?

If the answer is no to all 4 questions, move on. If there is a yes in there, mark the horse down for further scrutiny.

- A simple value play idea from here if you like the horse:

Take it's win %age, distance %age and %age in the going and add them up:
20 career starts 4 wins +
5 distance starts 2 wins +
10 in the going for 4 wins.

20 + 5 + 10 =35

Then divide the starts by the wins

35 / (4 + 2 + 4) 10= $3.5

For value, times this by 1.2 so $3.5 x 1.2 = $4.20

This is your acceptable price.

Using this technique, you'll find many suitable opportunities for value. Probably best to aim at the horses with 20-40 starts for more consistent data.

The Schmile

*Please if any magazine writers out there wish to print this in any shape or form, be kind enough to contact me first.

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

I have a "consistency" system where one of the rules is >= 20 starts to <=50 starts. I know 50 starts is a lot, and they're probably not going to improve, but if they fall into my couple of other filters (which incidentally don't include the ONE bad run I've been banging on about) then they do OK.

Thanks TheSchmille

Hi Barny,

Finding the value selections indeed is not an exact science. The one bad run theory can work, however it will often be factored into the market.

The market can often go overboard on factors like track conditions and a horses ability to handle them. One recent example was Raspberries where trainer Peter Snowden almost scratched the horse due to the wet track. What happens? Raspberries kills them at what is now a tasty price of $12+.

Best of luck with your system development Barny and have a mighty fine Easter one and all!!

The Schmile

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty