Rain Lover,

Many thanks. I have no experience with sprints having always avoided them. Why choose to punt on sprints? What is the advantage?

Can you explain what you mean by convertying ratings to prices as a bookie does - total = 120%. I'm new to the mysteries of bookmaking.

The tip about the spreadsheet is too true. I record bets in a notebook. Until I started recording it I had no idea how much I was losing. You can be deceived by psychologically satisfying but financially meaningless wins. You can seem to be winning when in fact over the long term you are way down. Must learn spreadsheet basics (or get the kids onto it).

Thanks again.

Hermes....if you want I can provide you with a spreadsheet in Excel format and all you have to do is enter the information and it will calculate it all for you.

E.G.
Date
Venue
Race#
Horse#
Horse Name
Amount Bet
Dividend
Won
Lost
Account Balance.

Email me : mrdavidking@hotmail.com
And I will be glad to send it to anyone who would like it.


[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-12 18:28 ]

Try this.

1)Only target races where every runner has had 8 career starts or more.(We are hoping their career results mean something although their previous one or two starts may have been ordinary)

2)Pick 2-3 horses to beat the paper pre-post favorite.
You will be amazed how many times the overated favs. get rolled in these sort of races, with some big payers.

3)If there are any runners with less than 8 career starts in this field. No bet that race.

4)No more than 13 runners.

You will end up with approx.3 qualifying races in every 8 races.

__________________
Cheers.

Wow! Didn't realise the ready reckoner would be so popular!

Thanks to all those who provided feedback.

Hope it helps you win.

:wink:

Cash donations, tips, creditcard numbers and recommendations for Knighthood all welcome!
:lol:

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-13 11:24 ]

Brumby supplied the (potentially) useful stat: 73% of winners are within four zip points of the starred zip horse (in the Sportsman Chartform).

How do we make this figure useful? Brumby suggests perhaps we set a limit (percent) of runners that can be within 4 points of the top zip. So, for example:

Race 6 at Cheltenham last week.
Top zip (starred) = 56
Four from the star = 52
Runners within range 56-52 = 8
Number of runners = 15
i.e. 8/15 runners are in that range of those horses winning 73% of races.

In theory if there are too many such horses in a race it will be a tough one to pick and conversely if there are few of them it will be compasratively easier.

Baghwan has just pointed ouit how often favourites get beaten. Actually I think its about 70% of the time, isn't it? If we are looking for horses likely to beat the favourite look to that top group of horses within four of the top zip. (The top zip is often but not always the favourite. A good bet when it is not.)

BUT, races don't always go to plan. Because the other significant stat here is that in 27% of races winners were beyond a range of four points from top zip. These are the cases where, in review, you can't find anything in the form guide that mighgt have given you a clue that this horse would win. As Baghwan says in his posts, form will usually lead the experts to the same conclusion, with no surprises. But in fact races are full of surprises. The problem becomes:

in races with a small percentage of the field in the top four points, there is a corresponding larger percentage of the field in that group of horses causing upsets 27% of the time. The fewer the class runners the more likely a roughie will get home. Isnt that right?

So might this be a measure of what races are likely to go to roughies? If you have a field of, say, 15 but only three horses are within four points of the top zip, isn't it more likely a roughie will win, simply because there is proportionately more of them? Its an inherent problem. Races with few decent runners are easier to pick, but only up to a point, because there are also more dark horses to cause an upset. And upsets happen in what, at least 20% of all races just because the universe is made that way and no amount of form analysis can change it?

In race selection, how can we try to predict races likely to go to roughies? It doesn't take much skill to calculate the "best" horse in a race, but the "best" horse doesn't always win.

Perhaps I'm fumbling here for a system of grading races into:

*Those likely to go to the favourites
*Those likely to go to a non-favourite among the top group of horses
*Those likely to go to an outsider.

All suggestions welcome.

Brumby? How often do starred zip horses win? Better than 30%. I'm interested in any stats on the zip rating's performance. Thanks.

Cheers

While these stats are a very useful guide, you must ask yourself which roughies were REAL roughies and which were overlooked by the betting public.

Some roughies deserve to be roughies...they pop up once in a blue moon with no real form or class.

Others have class races to their credit and their form may not be as bad as what the formguide says.

For example, Form is 5963. The horse may have finished 9th on a track surface which did not suit (Heavy etc) and in reality may have finished no further back than 4 lengths at those starts.

A horse can finish 4th 15 lengths behind the winner or a length behind.

My point is that upsets in races USUALLY occur because of a misinterpretation of data.
The real odds of a horse may be well under what is on offer. That is where the value lies and at the end of the day where the profit lies.
There is no value betting the favorite or the first four in betting always and disregarding those at longer prices.

The odds are stacked against punters and that is why the vast majority lose. The only way to turn the odds in your favour is to get the "overs".

Now I am not saying don't back the favorite because if you rate it an even money chance and you can get 5/2 on it then it is a good bet.

My over-all strategy is simple: to establish a reliable selection method backed with a reliable staking method. The selection method starts with selecting races. I realkise there are limits. I also know it is not entiorely a mug's game because study and analysis will improve your strike rate and average dividend. But only to a point. I'm open to suggestions on a reliable selection method backed with a reliable staking method. I'm impressed with the "Retirement" Plan of Barry Hughes as posted by EI, I think. Going back through old TAB results on-line, it gives a reasonable profit on favourites. If I had a selection method that does better than favourites...

As I say, I'm open to suggestions and very grateful for all the advice so far.

Cheers