Hi all forum users -

I am fairly new in here and to horse racing so my questions may appear stupid...but if you dont ask you dont find out.
My query is races to eliminate.

Numerous postings have chatted about not betting on 2yr olds, 3yr olds, maidens,hurdles,cups,classics and other black tie type events..

But ..where do we draw the line with the rest of the races other than those mentioned.
I concentrate on BM63+ and Class3 + thus eliminating a lot of what I consider hard races to back on. Am I to harsh or to soft with these filters?
Another question that might be answered by a lot of learned punters in here is... which classes do most of the long priced winners come from?

Hoping for some help
Regards
Ted

ive never found any class of races that deliver longer or shorter priced winners & in fact often find days like today an easier proposition than your average metro saturday meets

maidens & the like can be very ordinary racing spectacles & lack of market liquidity is often an issue but theres still got to be a winner etc etc

I,m inclined to agree with Stugouts.
Probably though I,d throw out races where there are a number of 1st up starters
or races where there are a number of no form horses .(having their 1st race start)
And races like today where the Don Scott ratings are for dead tracks whereas the TC are good.

Everything else is a go for me.

Cheers
darky

I've had a go at saying this before a couple of years back.....nobody thought I was lucid then, but I'll try again anyhow.

The thing is with any systematic approach is that it doesn't take into account the flipping obvious. I've got nothing against system requirements as a theory, but it is simply far too simplistic to rule out any race because of such and such. In the same way it is far too simplistic to rule out any runner because of some rule that you might have discovered gave you a better strike rate or whatever.

All system inputs should be treated as indicators perhaps but not as stand alone judicial criteria. The minute you start treating these inputs in a black and white sense then you will tend to end up with what everyone else ends up with. That will lead you to a poor dividend to strike rate ratio.

I hope there's someone here that doesn't think I'm still standing too close to the exhaust fumes.

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

From TWOBETS ..... "The minute you start treating these inputs in a black and white sense then you will tend to end up with what everyone else ends up with. That will lead you to a poor dividend to strike rate ratio."

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Absolutely 100% correct !! Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Absolutely 100% correct !! Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Absolutely 100% correct !! Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Absolutely 100% correct !! Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Absolutely 100% correct !! Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Absolutely 100% correct !! Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Absolutely 100% correct !!

Spot on there stugots,
The only races I do not rate are the ones, where there are first starters.

As long as a horse has a record it can be rated.
Now, AND it's important, what do you do with that rating?

I personally only bet on races where my first (and maybe the sec.) selections are a set number of points above the rest.

I have to mention that I deliberately skew my rating for horses that
are not going to be short, but have a very good chance of winning.
Sometimes it just works out that they are both, then so be it, favs. win too!

This way I wind up with, maybe 15-20 bets a week, certainly not enough for a gambler, but I play for money, not the thrill of a wager.

Where you get more than 3 or 4 horses close to each other in rating, those are the races to avoid unless you are prepared to bet on more than one for a win.

Sorry darky, I only bet on one horse/race for the win, and if the price is right for the place, and no multiples,
I keep very good records and know, multiples do not pay!

We remember the odd good trifecta, but forget how many times we have a three legged quadie, first four etc.

But each to his own and good luck to all.

Here is one of those black & white answers that some may feel more comfortable with.

I feel targeting races where the whole field has had 2+ runs , seems to make rating based plans perform stronger.

__________________
Cheers.

Gee we are opposite ends of the pole lomaca.
1 horse a race is a disaster for me yet multiples pay a handsome yearly profit.

Not sure yet about the odds on rated horse at $2 + .Need a years results for that one.

Cheers
darky

The answer is to each their own.

I tend to agree with some of the points psted but also disagree with most of the points.

Two bets has some idea of what he is talking about but is generalising regarding systems. I can give you form factors that make a profit on their own over thousands of bets but they are not the form factors most people use. Read the probability thread a few days back and you will see what I mean regarding form factors which enhance strike rate and those that enhance profit.

The types of races you focus on are going to depend on your skillset and where you make your profits. It might be maidens, it might be group 1s, it might be set weights or it might be open handicaps. The answer is it depends.

Nearly all races have some angle that can be exploited if studied hard enough.