 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1
6th January 2011, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
A new angle on systems
I hope for some comments, and I'll follow up with further thoughts.
I’ve no doubt that some here are successful with a “systematic” approach to their selections. However, over the years I have compiled a list of valid excuses put forward by trainers / jockeys / scribes / owners why the horse didn’t win. I stopped adding to the list when it hit 100, and I probably could have gone to the double ton in even time if I was a vet. A lot of these are missed by the public. My top selection method relies on simplicity and following a horse for a predetermined number of runs depending on my assessment. I could back it for one run, then pick it up later, or back it for several runs. I take absolutely no notice when it puts in a shocker if it still qualifies to be in my stable. My list of 100 excuses affords me some patience. I don’t see any point backing short priced horses because the inevitable losing run will get at you. I’ll take serious note of any article about a horse in the mainstream newspapers and immediately put a line through it. Rightly or wrongly, I believe the bookies are able to use that publicity to their advantage and play the odds so that they’re well and truly in their favour. Similarly with “weight certainties” and “unlucky runners”. There’s value to be had with other runners in these races. A couple of good NZ’ers including Wall Street and one with form around Wall Street did OK during the spring. That’s a system and one that’s worked OK over the years. Horses with a decent strike rate from interstate can be over the odds because the fields they have been running in aren’t rated. I like consistent form from horses with 20 or more starts because, even though they probably don’t have improvement in them, they are consistent enough to exploit a couple of better runners who would appear in my 100 excuses. It’s not always about picking the best horse in a race. I currently follow a trainer who’s having a decent run with longshots. Bartholomew can get the odd longshot up with a sparingly raced neddie. I do believe that any horseracing stats or a combination thereof, that can be entered into a database and evaluated, can have a run of seriously underpriced winners. The SR may remain the same but the divs will be down for some inexplicable reason?! Having said that I see that the Dark Horse System still maintains it’s profitable, and it’s been going for 25+ years. I also note that the last start 7 day winner is claimed to still be successful. I doubt both these claims. Keep your selection methods simple and put in a logical rule that the computer cannot get at. Last edited by Barny : 6th January 2011 at 01:13 PM. 
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode