Hermes - 0/3
Lumbarsua - 1/11

Hermes, you still have 8 selections left to catch up to lumbarsua. Pressure's on but I think you can do it.

Becareful, would it be a stretch of the imagination if I said I got the quinella? Having already told you that Wagstaffe was my top rater, I guess not. Paid $43.20 in God's country.

By the way, I know all the winners for next weeks races, but have decided not to tell.

Placegetter

"Qualifiers must satisfy at least five of these seven parameters.

*A win strike rate better than 12.0%.
*A place strike rate better than 47%
*Won over this distance.(especially after five or more starts).
*Placed at this track (especially after three or more starts).
*No zeros in its form figures.
*1st to 6th place in its second last start.
*Saddlecloth 1, 2, 3 or 4."

Just realised something. Youthful met six of these parameters, and the place percentage was a lousy 1 point off even that!

Interesting.......

Placegetter

Placegetter, SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHH!

You might let the other 328 members of this forum know what you are backing, and then we will all blindly bet our houses on it with the leading rails bookies, and if that's not enough plunge it into favouritism on the tab with a win pool of over $600,000 in Victoria alone, never mind the other odd millions of "mug" punters in the TAB's who will change all their bets for the day coz they see we're onto a good thing!

:roll:

Regarding today's race I wrote:

"None of the other last start winners in the race can match it on paper. The best of them is #4 Youthful, but it fails on average prizewinnings. (But Past Blast's aren't that flash.)"

With hindsight the problem was here, wasn't it? In fact, as Placegetter points out, Youthful met all the criteria so Past Blast was not way ahead on paper. And average prizewinnings was no basis for ruling Youthful out in favour of Past Blast - ordinary prizewinnings too. I ignored the rule:

"A selection MUST have a strong prizewinning percentage to match its recent form."

Also reckon I failed on:

"Where there are several last start winners, read their detailed form. Which ran the better last race in times and lengths,at which track, carrying what weight? Compare and rate them."

Once I eliminated Youthful on prizewinnings I looked no further.

Another point:

"However, four last start winners in 14. A question mark..."

Four last start wiunners in fourteen runners. Too many. Tighten this parameter I think. A general failing this time was underestimating the last start winners. A sober assessment of the calibre of the competition should have led to a NO BET decision.

And finally:

"The magic ingredient is: DISCIPLINE. Chase a perfect strike rate. 100%. Bet as if your life depended on it and as if an out is the end of the world."

Failed miserably here. I looked at the race. Checked it out. And didn't like it. Didn't like the weight and the other last start winners. I should have listened to my own advice and rules. There were too many question marks against Past Blast. It came through the selection process but unconvincingly. For a selection you have to be CONVINCED.

I wasn't convinced, but I really wanted to try it out...

An undisciplined bet. That's the main reason I lost.

Hermes

Hermes,

I liked your system. I think you are being a little harsh on yourself. The problem with qualitative systems is they require human input and believe it or not, we make mistakes fairly often. (I made a costly one in the Doomben 10,000 recently!)

Stick with it, the rules are fine and you can only learn their application through experience. Eventually you will can a rule or two (you need to) but which ones will only be learnt through trial and error.

Good luck

Placegetter

Deleted as obviously of no value.

[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2002-07-11 15:38 ]

Here's a quick little idea for a super-cautious place system
RULE 1. Races of 9 starters or more at Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane meetings on Saturdays
RULE 2. To be a selection the horse must have a 90 percent or more placegetting record from at least 9 life starts, and its latest start must have been within the last 18 days
RULE 3. Be patient, really patient

1/6/02 No selections
8/6/02 No selections
15/6/02 1 selection. SR4/6 Irish Letter 3rd $1.80
22/6/02 No selections
29/6/02 No selections
6/7/02 3 selections
SR4/2 Marvilha 3rd $1.50
SR6/7 Paestum 2nd $4.20
SR7/7 Bulletproof Billy Won $5.90 & $2.40

You'd be hanging out for a selection but at least its super cautious. Possibly just a rough idea to bend and twist and play around with. I've cheated by testing it backwards, and it only makes sense testing these things on FUTURE events

Keep up all the interesting posts Hermes. Top stuff and always worth a read.

__________________
Bet for Fun
with 5*6*7*8*

Looking at past races to see how the method works.

Here's an eligible race. Race 8, Flemington, June 8th. An out.

The selection was #7 Moonah Brooke. A great set of numbers, but not there at the winning post. The other two last start winners were. Three in the race and I selected the one who didn't salute. But I can't see any reason I wouldn't have backed Moonah Brooke. Met all parameters. Neither of the other LSW were comparable.

Maybe my selection criteria find horses that are too good? Maybe such horses only exist on paper. In real life and the rough and tumble of a race maybe a horse needs a bad stat or two to make it a goer? Maybe I should add a final rule: eliminate any horse that meets ALL parameters. Real placegetters just aren't that good!

An example of the parameters working well to save me money was Eagle Farm, Race 5, June 8th. Three last start winners, Altiero, Forest Jim, Maltese Beauty. On first sights, one of them should be a selection. Alteiro has outstanding stats and meets all preferred parameters, including saddlecloth and highest weighted LSW, but fails on the essential parameter, nines. Recent form = 4x561. No way you can make 9 out of that. 4+5+1 = 10. Disqualified. This calculation really means there is a question mark about recent reliable form that is big enough question mark to rule a line through this one. Only one point, I know, but essential parameter. You can relax preferred ones but not essential ones. No nines - out.

Maltese Beauty likes to lead but has drawn barrier 12. Out.

So we turn to Forest Jim. Forest Jim looks promising. Essential parameters OK. But fails three of the preferred parameters. Saddlecloth - no. Highest weight LSW - no. 1st-6th second last start - no. Since Altiero is only eliminated on one criterion, and so you'd have to rate it a strong chance, Forest Jim would need to be compelling. But three fails. Out. So this race is no bet. And so it was. None of the qualifiers placed.

This does not take account of my innate capacity to over-ride my own rules and mess it up.

Finally, here's a winner. Eagle Farm, R2, #2, Smart Chariot. By my system, a sure thing. And so it was. Everyone agreed. It paid $1.20.

Was it Equine Investor who posted wise words about having an angle? I guess the angle in this system is sheer, monolithic patience. Bit by bit, $1.20 by $1.20 you wear the system down. Again, its the strike rate that counts, not the price, but you could set a price parameter too.

If Smart Chariot was eliminated on price grounds, then we turn to Race 6. Vic. Park. #2 Romadila. Meets the parameters, ran first, $1.70 place (Vic. TAB). ($3.40 win,). Almost as good as Smart Chariot on paper at a healthier price. But would I have bet that way on the day?

Not calculating my strike rate for this from old races though. I think with something like this you can only gauge a strike rate on future races.

Hermes

Thanks Numerator. The centre-piece in your system is the HI STRIKER. Don't you have other systems based on a high place percentage, or is it someone else on this forum?

Rule 3. is the hard one.

And of course if you can only gauge your strike rate on future events then you're itching for future events.

Hermes.

A few contenders tommorow and a selection.

Race 8 at Warwick Farm. Kurrajong Mist.

Meets all essential parameters but fails two preferred. Looking closer the last start win wasn't very convincing - a nose at Cessnock - and the start before that, tenth at Rosehill. In contrast see Coablo in this race. Third last start, but only by a tad at Rosehill. Coablo's last was better than Kurrajong Mist's despite the form figures. Jockey - an apprentice but still up in weight. Not convinced by the last start performance. Don't like it. No bet.


Race 6 Sandown #5 Power in Motion.

A winner at Donald last start up against a winner at Bendigo and a winner at Sale. But doesn't have the preferred place percentage. Worse, race on the pace, barrier 11. Out.

Race 2 Sandown #1 Stolen Crown.

Looks good all round but below the preferred place percentage which is a worry. Not a good place percentage. Also, no starts this track. But good form. Has put together three good results, 121 in last starts, all good races in Melb, all with apprentices, as this time. Running on the pace from barrier 5. OK. The other last start winner, Blamey, can't compare. And the competition isn't flash. Look at the zip ratings. Stolen Crown gets the zip star, three full zip points ahead of its nearest rival. The zip rater thinks its head and shoulders above the rest. And the top zip is 57. The bottom is 49. In ten runners! Most races are much, much tighter. Reflected in the prize winnings too. Top horse, the Doctor's Son = $3225. Bottom horse, Connemara Marble = $308. (Compare this to say Race 5. 6 zip points between top and bottom in 14 runners. Top prize = 3665, Bottom = 1087.)

The Doctor's Son ran 9th by over 12 lengths last up.

Rock of Ages should be up there but prefer Stolen Crown's record over the distance.

So selection is #1 Stolen Crown to place. Five stars with bells.

I'm less sure it will win though. But in the context of such a race I think its a selection to place for sure. My judgement is that in this field it will be there among the first three.

Boring but there it is. Hoping for something better than $1.20!

Hermes