My latest angle involves what i beleive to be the key to a good horse,good horses win more then they place,they seem to have the will to win that uncanny knack of sticking their head out at the right time.

So how do we find the ones with that will to win and avoid the ones that seem to run too many placings?

My way is to divide the amount of career wins by the amount of total career placings and only considering for further examination those that end up with a win of place % 66.66 or more.

I dont have the means to check this over an extended period of time but after keeping occasional records and refining this approach over the last couple of years i think i'm onto something.

Does anyone use a variation of this?
and
What do you guys honestly think of this angle?

Thanks for the replies not,as i said i'm after honesty so if you think it's a stupid idea say so i wont mind.

Perhaps a few winners from last saturday might back up what i'm saying;

BR7=Panzer=$5.10(uni tab) 20starts-8wins-11placings-WofP%=72.72%

BR8=Our Fabio=$6.90 6st-3wins-4places=WofP%75%

SR5=Private Steer=$2.20 10st-6w-8p=WofP%=75%

SR7=Domine=$3.20 15st-6w-9p=WofP%=66.66%

MR2=Yvonne=$6.90 6st-5w-5p=WofP%=100%

MR4=Cahuita=$42.80 5st-2w-3p=WofP%=66.66%

Add to these some nice place divys and youv'e got yourself a nice day on the punt.

Let's examine these noble sentiments in light of your recent efforts.

Now it's:

"Talking about tossing things around can one of you ************s ......

If i offended anybody i'm not sorry,you guys who ruin every theoretic discussion and stiffle almost every thread with your negative it cant be done attitude offend me on a daily basis."

Presumably you don't mind people calling your ideas stupid, providing they don't do it in a negative manner.

I don't mind a challenge. So here goes.

The more I riffle through on-line dictionaries the more positive I become that no one will again stiffle threads.

Can this be for real? Jumping on Dale for some innocuous remark made TWO YEARS AGO? This is sad, and surely not in the spirit of helping each other out by throwing ideas around for CONSIDERED comment. Bear in mind, one and all, that the "gentle" Jfc has only recently labelled an (outside the square) idea as "Grotesque". This idea, by the way, had nothing to do with dressing up in horses undies. Cold showers anyone??

Anyone with basic reasoning powers will conclude I am not jumping on Dale for his original remark.

It clearly intended to contrast with Dale's current ones.

In those recent remarks Dale was not throwing ideas around for CONSIDERED comment.

Punter57 began the day throwing around false accusations, and I now have to waste time dealing with them.

Meanwhile he's found his confronting his mischief too tedious, and vanishes like a gambler's lucky streak.

Oooh a post that is 2 years old,obviously someone got a little upset lmao.

I like your approach which is in fact looking at the ratio of win% to place%. You are selecting consistent horses that tend to win when they run well. I obtained similar results to you last Sat but I have to admit you got more winners overall, hence my interest.

I have looked at consistency for several years and can honestly say that using it has allowed me to at least beat the take.i.e. I may not be winning but I don't lose either and I have accurate records to prove this over the years. Like you I need another angle to superimpose on the consistency approach to produce a profit.

I have concluded that most of the factors one sees discussed so far have very little relevance because if they did surely several punters would have found a successful way to use them by now and the whole betting world would have collapsed. The only factor I have been able to apply is the principle of obtaining value, so I have been backing the longest price of my top three selections based on consistency.

One other factor that I feel has some bearing is weight analysis a la Don Scott method. I used this for a while and so do a lot of others hence there is little value on selections. Also, I feel the handicapper gets it right most of the time anyway so looking for class-weight anomolies is tedious and time consuming. It worked for Don Scott et al until the method became well known and value went down the gurgler.

There is another angle that I would like to see more discussion on and that is fitness because I feel it is the other major factor apart from value and consistency.

Well I hope you enjoyed my comments.

Yeah thanks Gunny,

I agree that weight ratings and the like are over used but if one could apply their own unique slant on them they hold a lot of merit.

A couple of the winners mentioned above would not pass my final test with one of those rules devised to reduce the bad value winners and losers and another rule designed to stick to horses with good recent form and fitness.

Time will tell how things hold up but i've been around long enough and tried many approaches to know that this one has a chance.

I guess i'll have to get out the old form guides and see if i'm right.

Merit in this approach-horse has to have had a reasonable number of starts- hard to apply to 3y-o-s. Also need to consider prizemoney in conjunction with this figure and the class of race in which the horse wins compared to the class of horse it is racing against. A very consistent bush galloper may have difficulty against a less consistent group or w.fa. performer. Nonetheless if the horses are roughly of the same class your ratio does separate winners from professional placegetters that just don't seem to win.

Dale,

Point taken in that other thread so I'll put my two Bobs worth here.

Your idea is good but class of race [as pointed out] is the key.

You have a good starting point to build on.

Throw in suitability at track, condt., distance, jocky, is the horse race fit[?] and anything ealse you think important and you end up with good handicapping.

Handicapping alone will produce more winners than any other "angle" or system. Just good old hard work and to make it a lot eaiser [and EVERYBODY agrees with this and then ignores it, including me now and then], Don't bet on a slow or heavy tracks, 1000m. races, hurdles, maidens, 2yr.olds, 3yr. olds [until the end of Nov.], stakes or cups, fillies and mares and fillies races, transitional [nsw], class one races, Sunday races, any race day without a good form guide, progression beting, exotics, E/W [ unless you are a place specialist] and NEVER bet at the PUB. Drink at the pub, but put your bets on as you go in [level stakes to win on one or two selections per race] sober and hopefuly collect as you leave or [better] the next day when sober and NEVER chase losses.
If you bet on any races above that I have mentioned, have an interest bet [$1 or $2 only] regardless of the chance you think the horse[s] have of winning [you will be amazed at how often you are WRONG in these races] and save your serious money for the races your handicapping efforts have a good chance in.

Don't ever fall into the trap of following breeding [unless you are buying a horse] to look for winners. Follow form [Tarzans brother drowned in the bath].

The above is the only way that I and many others know of to possibly make a profit from punting [and all that depends on your handicapping ability]. If you want to just have fun and don't mind paying for it, ignore all of the above.

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-05 08:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-05 08:22 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-06 09:23 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-06 09:27 ]