Thanks guys.
Appreciate your time to post your comments from your history of racing knowledge.

I've got heavy money on one today SR1-1 Rosie's Reward

Like the 7 myself Vortech, but you're on class runner, no doubt, good luck

So, how about this... Let's say that based on 3 months of data you come up with a system based on 3 factors; A, B and C. They could be anything such as last start winner within 7 days over less than 1400m, or any other oft talked about criteria. This is just an example, but lets say that A, B and C give you 300 selections in the 3 months with a win SR of 20% and a POT of 6%.

Then you notice that 50 of those selections had a maiden as there last start and only 5 of those backed up to win. So you add the filter that last start can't have been a maiden. You now have a win SR of 22% and a POT of 8%.

Then you notice that there were 50 of those selections that were ranked 7th or worse for place SR and only 5 of those won again. So you add a filter to consider only those ranked in the top 6 for place stike rate. You now have a Win SR of 25% and a POT of 10%, say.

Then you notice that there were 30 of those remaining selections with a win SR of less than 15%, of which only 4 won again. Add a filter that only considers horses with a win SR greater than 15%. You now have a win SR of 27% and a POT of 11%.

Then you notice that there are a further 30 selections that are outside the top 4 for neural ranking, of which only 5 won. Add a filter that only considers the top 4 neural ranked horses. You now have a win SR of 29% and a POT of 13%.

Then you notice that of the remaining 140 selections there are a further 25 that have a UniTAB rating of less than 95, of which only 5 won. Add a filter that only considers only horses rated more than 94. You now have a win SR of 31% and a POT of 14%.

Then, in a moment of inspiration, you notice that there are 20 of the remaining selections with a pre-post price of $6 or more. of which only 3 won. Filter them out and you have a win SR of 35% and a POT of 15%.

Then, in a moment akin to something that could only have been experienced before in human history by the likes of Newton, Tesla, or Eistein, you notice that there are 14 of the remaining selections that ran from barrier 11 or higher, NONE OF WHICH WON. Add a filter to consider only horses running from barrier 10 and lower.

You are left with 81 selections over 3 months and a win SR of 41% and a POT of 19%. BUT, you have 10 filters, most of which have been fitted to the existing historical data. Backfitting?

BUT, you have also only selected criteria that hones in on the best chances given your original starting point.

Yes, it's true that you are also honing in on the favourites, but with the confidence of a 41% SR...

Yes, it's true that 81 selections over 3 months isn't a lot of action, but it's hardly non-repeatable...

Can any of the more experienced punters offer comments on the above method?

This was my original arguement but in better detail.

Thankyou

Morning Kaiser Soze,

This is exactly the way many (most?) folks tackle backfit system manufacture, and because I know diddly squat about horse racing it's the way I went about it to the letter. It's a well known fact that you can't beat the odds this way and yet somehow I do???? (Betting Unitab!!!)

I'm down to an average of less than four bets a day (only 1 yesterday) and yet I'm doing nicely.

The only widget missing in your arsenal may be finding a filter that might not be as obvious as those types you mentioned or you run the risk of forever diminishing bets AND forever diminishing odds.

Having said that , I must admit that my average payout for the last three years is a meager $1.16(Unitab) or $1.09(Betfew). Place Divvies.

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

I think you are sifting through the data and relying on too many factors to make a profit.
With all due respect, it actually is classic backfitting.
You've gone from 300 selections to 81 selections with 8 additional rules.
Even if you did apply the rules, you'd need at least 10 times the sample size to have any real confidence about it repeating.
Just my opinion.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

I totally agree with the others here that a good system should have a few rules, 4 or 5 max and these rules must be logical. If you do the same as everyone else is doing regarding filters then surely you must lose though.

An example of an all too often used filter in a system is "days last start". You get the impression that almost everyone uses this filter, let's say it's Must have run within 21 days. All those horses that have run within 21 days (which incidentally will be a lot of the field) will be carrying far more money than they should compared to their "real odds / chances", and hence they'll be under the odds. Another example is Must have run within the first four at it's last 4 runs ..... A system has to have limits doesn't it, BUT, just to be different, and get value, why not allow the horse to have one of it's finishes to be 5th or 6th ? That will set you apart a little and give you a chance of some value.

Agree with you there CP. Or maybe 50 times the sample size.

I've tried to explain this before but everyone thought I was on drugs. Still, I'll have another go....... When backfitting systems it is impossible (almost then) to isolate a particular input factor. You may think you are adding only "first up last start" runners for example. But in fact within that group you have a million other factors that may or may not be having an input on the result.

Thus when you add or subtract any single input it actually affects the other input factors.....There, clear as a bell

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

Bingo.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

I'm actually experimenting a little at the moment with horses 2nd up.

1st run back from a spell - 1st or 2nd on settling, 1st or 2nd on turn and finished outside of top 3 but only 3 lengths max off the winner. 2nd run back often sees huge improvement. Some advise from the old punters in the west.

Some great results of late, but wanted to apply more filters. Should I keep it to this simple system and not apply any additional filters?