Becareful,

I looked over wet tracks in my samples. A higher proportion of long shots but not my long shots unfortunately. But I need a bigger sample, as you say.

Bhagwan, any fresh ideas you can throw my way would be greatly appreciated.

Here's a rather weird idea, but of all the methods I've trialed lately it shows the best results. It comes from the idea that statistics refer to a mythical world of averages where there are, say, fourteen and a half horses in every race, and every race is over some mythical distance that only exists in average-land. I set off looking for the MOST mythical horse...

*Only look at races with 10-20 starters (field minus scratchings).
*If ten starters, watch the market for the runner nearest to $5. Its the selection. If eleven starters look for the runner nearest $5.20. And so on by the following scale:

12 = $5.50
13 = $5.90
14 = $6.25
15 = $6.60
16 = $7.15
17 = $7.60
18 = $8.30
19 = $9
20 = $10

This will place you in a nice band of runners with a 15% strike rate and average return of $6.50.

My sample was 342 races, return on wins of $352.50. (Places deliver a LOT).

With a bit of filtering this could make a substantial system I think. It is sometimes difficult to judge which of two or more runners will be nearest the target at jump but in most races there is a clear selection reliable from the 3 min. mark.

The price targets are taken from the inverse raw chances of a runner in a field that size. In a field of ten if all things were equal - they never are in the real world! - all runners have a 10% chance. In a field of 20, a five percent chance. Invert those. The runner nearest that is the horse most like the great mythical horse, Mr Average. In the mythical world this horse will run a dead heat with every other horse every race. In the real world this horse will win 15% of races and pay POT on unfiltered selections.

Like I said, a slightly weird idea, and probably based on totally silly reasoning, but it shows promise. Any suggestions most welcome.

Hermes