Show me a punter with 'accurate' [meaning exactly that and nothing less] ratings and I will show you the same man [very rich] who definitely has no need to back more than one horse per race. Why would he bother ?

The rule is always back overs and that is much harder than most punters think. There might be only one or two bets per meeting [or none] where the odds are plainly better than your selections real chance of winning [you have information from a handicapping angle or some other source not accessed by 'the public' and they don't miss much].
To find 2 horses in the same race that are genuine overs from your short list is la la land stuff. It happens so rarely that on most race days you would never find a bet.

My local TAB used to have Read's Ratings and I tested the top 3 system over a short period of time. It did not fare too well mainly because the divvies were unstable. Quite often the 3 horses were under the total percentage one minute prior to the race-start and therefore became a bet, but the final divvies showed that in reality it should have been a no-bet, and vice-versa.

But I did have some success betting only those that were "overs" even if it meant betting on only one horse in a particular race. I had even better success betting "overs" as stand-outs in exactas especially with races that had 11 starters or more.

My own view was very positive on Read Ratings, as is my view on Techform ratings, it is not how it goes overall, but as you suggest, how you personally use them.

I found the overs very hard to snag at the TAB, drifting prices meant very difficult to know what you'll end up with.

Your exotic strategy is the only way to take real advantage, unless you have a fixed price bookie that will give you a firm dividend.

Betfair is no longer the cash cow it once was.

Smarter punters
Smarter bookies
Number of users
Bots

Have killed a lot of the value.

A lot of users got burned early and have educated themselves or gone bust.

Try finding an arb situation on the races these days!

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Hi Chrome,
I'm interested to know what your attitude would be to your two horses in consecutive races. IF your ratings are accurate I imagine you would bet them both. Now IF your ratings are accurate I see no long term difference in betting the two bets in consecutive races or in the one race - IF your ratings are accurate.
Take your example horses.
Betting them in consecutive races we'll take a set of 42 bets (just to make the maths easy with the odds you chose). 21 bets on a 2-1 shot paying 5-2 and 21 bets on a 6-1 shot paying 12-1.
You would expect a third of the 2-1 shots to win giving you 7 wins from your 21 races and returning you 7 lots of $3.50 or $24.50. And you'd expect 1 in 7 of your 6-1 shots to win returning 3 winners at $13 each or $39.

Betting them in the same race again for 21 races I maintain you would have three wins by your 6-1 shot paying $39 and 7 wins by your 2-1 shot paying you $24.50 - same result (IF your ratings are accurate).
Why is this so if with two races you could conceivably have two winners while in a single race you always have one loser. Because immediately you declare that one of your horses didn't win it means the other one has a greater chance of being the winner.
Take the case of the 2-1 shot winning. This means in 7 of the 21 races the 6-1 shot didn't win. True. But take the other 14 races - because the 2-1 shot didn't win the chances of all the other horses winning increases proportionately. In fact since the chance of Mr 2-1 winning is exactly a third if you take him out the chance of the other horses winning improves by 3/2. The 6-1 horse who did have a 14.29% chance of winning suddenly has a 21.43% chance of winning or is now an 11-3 chance. If we take the 14 races that Mr 2-1 didn't win there is a chance that Mr 6-1 (who is now Mr 11-3) will win 3 of these races and thus will still return 3 times $13.
The same logic applies when the 6-1 shot doesn't win increasing the chances of the 2-1 shot winning in the remaining 18 races.

Now I confidently expect someone with more mathmatics and more patience than I have to shoot this argument down in flames but until that time I maintain that IF YOUR RATINGS ARE ACCURATE you have as much chance backing two over the odds horses in one race as you do backing two in two races.

Of course where this breaks down is that most peoples ratings aren't accurate so they find themselves betting into a negative expectation game.
KV

KV,

I do see your point, yes I would bet in consecutive races, but not in the same race, as I'm betting against myself, against my profit.

We are assuming that the ratings are accurate.

Further example is this:

I have a system that provides 40% win POT and around 7% place POT.

I could easily back eachway and get a better return, say $25 e/way, total outlay $50.00, but I am far better off putting that $50 straight on the win.

Eachway I am diminishing the win component.

Even if I find 20% overlay on two runners in a race, if I back them both, I am diminishing the return to 10% as only 1 winner can salute, in consecutive races I can have this result:

Both lose
One wins One Loses
One Loses One Wins
Both Win

The last possiblility is not a factor when backing multiple runners in the same race.

The problem is that most ratings are not accurate enough, therefore cannot distinguish which of the horses are overlays, only that this set of 3 or 5 is if you back them all at "overs".

Take for example the propun ratings (I don't use them, nor do I have experience with them), but personally I would much rather back the Gold Specials etc, than take overs on all rated horses.

I'll bet you'll find they perform far better in the longrun.

Neil may care to correct me on this, but I do know the Gold Specials are supplied with an odds and unit bet suggestion.

These are the identified overs, as opposed to the unidentified overs.

All sound ratings have a place, but it is how one uses them that is the key.

I know of one subscriber who uses the ratings with his own filters successfully.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

The problem with ratings [name you fancy] is everyone has access to them and like pp odds they mostly point to favourites that lose most of their races anyway, and do so at punishingly small odds.

Handicapping is the only way to come up with winners that pay well [Western Embrace $18.90w from Purser last Sat. in Brisb. and the Socialist from him the week before were particularly fine handicapping efforts]. Personally and like probably a lot of handicappers, I have no use for ratings at all. They are no more use than Newspaper tips, 'e*****' opinion, pp odds or any other opinion, except for use in messing with systems I guess or at most, a good starting point for handicapping.

Handicappers are looking at class of horse and race, form, trainer, jockey, running style of the horse and will the barrier suit it? Other very important things like gear changes, win cycles [not much point backing a last start winner with a 10% or less WSR] are just a few of the many things that rating producers don't take into account and make it impossible for the word 'accurate' to have anything more than a general at best association with the word 'ratings'.

Hmmm, very grey area crash.

Ratings versus handicapping versus systems.

I think each has a touch of the other

For example one of my systems uses ratings very successfully.

Another of my systems uses handicapping.

Where does it stop being one or the other?

I have successfully used statistics to identify a little known and "poo pooed" concept which is logically sound.

Add this to the ratings and vrooom - we have an outstanding result.

I'll leave you with this:

Entires and Geldings are more consistent, resiliant and stronger than Colts, Fillies and Mares. All things being equal a colt will beat a filly. An Entire or a Gelding will beat a Mare more often than not. When things are not equal in the male favour, they will beat the others remarkably more often than not.
Proven fact.

I do not mean that a superior Mare will get beaten by an average Male.
I do not mean that males have higher or better strike rates in general.

There is a "bounce back", "live up to", final 200m inner strength that is there, when other factors are taken into consideration, that the females and younger horses just don't have. Erratic preparations, eratic form etc. all play a part in what I've researched.

Finally, the handicapper penalises colts over fillies, Entires and Geldings over Mares - all things being equal- yet nobody believes this basic fact.

The weight impost is not enough to even level what I've discovered to an even playing field, so the statement is even stronger.

The role and impact of weight....well that's a whole other story...

Gee I'm having fun today

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Follow on questions for anyone that believes betting more than one horse per race is betting against yourself and wasting money :-

You never take more than one quinella/exacta/trifecta combination in any given race?

You never take multiple selections in quadrellas, trebles or race to race doubles?

You would never take a systems entry at lotto as you would be betting against yourself and wasting money?

You would never play more than one number per spin at roulette?

etc..

Wunfluova

Wunfluova, can you find me a race where backing two horses to win will give me 18/1 and they have a realistic chance of winning?

Lotto is betting against yourself, so is any other multi or exotic form of investment. The key factor is "do the odds have sufficient profit in them to make it worthwhile?"

You'll never find quaddie /trifecta/exacta/ lotto return percentages in a race by backing multiple runners.

Give me a race at Flemington where every runner is 1000/1 and I'll bet multiple selections

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Chrome said: "For example one of my systems uses ratings very successfully".

I covered that Chrome in my last post. They are great for systems as can be pp odds, Newspaper tipsters selection and lots of other available pointers etc. But ratings by themselves as a source of punting selections to bet on [and they can be good use for throwing into exotics as Wunfluova mentioned] would send a rich man broke. Regardless of how good their source. Thee are just too many paradigms involved in a horse race for ratings to replace reasoning.

PS:
Zoe [the handbrake] just piped up, 'all men should be rated long before the starting gates open' :-))