For those with a few brain cells left! It appears that some recent discussion has centred more on thinking laterrraaly, lateralee, latterully, ....... outside the square!!

Consider this.

Forget form, forget it! Look for a horse that is reaching peak fitness. Obviously you have got "buckleys" chance of assessing if a horse is race fit at its first or even second start from a spell. However my fellow bankrupts ...... go and have a butchers at horses third and fourth up, running over approx 1600 metres, without a win this time in, increasing in distance and running within a couple of weeks. We would have a "fit"(for want of a better definition) horse. There are not too many horses that win more than one race each preparation. With that in mind, when assessing the fields have a look at which horse may be ready to improve to it's optimal race fitness. Even if it had a crap run last time, it may have pulled, the race may have been run upside down, it doesn't matter too much. The trainer has mapped out a series of races designed to get it fit enough to win. If a horse was going to win over say 1400 to 1600 metres then you would reckon two races would be enough. It still has improvement in it ..... hence the surprise factor. Up to 2000 metres three lead up races should be ideal.

Is fitness more imprtant than exposed form?

Butternut, happened here in NZ on 1st Aug. Polski had 13 starts for a 2nd and a 3rd. Goes out for a spell. First time up over 1200m 11th July, 10th favourite for win and runs 3rd. Next up 25th July over 1200m runs down the track 11.8L (4th fav. for win). Starts on 1st Aug. stepping up to 1600m and home he rolls at $22.15.

Cosmos, I hope that my observations can help. You may also notice that the tote price of winners such as these is usually far greater than the odds that it starts at on track. Compare that with the tote prices of some of the more successful systems. A couple of the systems that I follow, which I've outlined here, produce winners that seem to pay unders. It makes me think that i'm not the only one doing the Topweight, number of days between runs, strike rate etc. There doesn't appear to be any value in it. You get value when a horse has a ********** run, but after you analyse the form, you realise that it is still getting fitter (son nothing has changed there!) and is a prospect for major improvement. The bookies must love form .........

Thanks for your post Cosmos.

Why not download all the free ratings from various sites then put a line through everyone of their selections then only bet whats left of the field if over $10.
I have always wanted to do that but never been game.
Cheers.
darky.

I’ve always wanted to narrow down fields to only those that ran "0" last start, then apply a few filters to establish the worst performed runner in the race - you know the type - 45 starts with 1 win.

I am sure a profit could be made, but would need a sizable bank to cover the enormous runs of outs that would occur. & some Prozac if I was to stake the selections.

Then again I reckon I could probably make a profit doing the exact opposite, but that would involve ANALYSING a bit of form which I now know is a waste of time.

NOT

davez

I'm really pleased to see that you have taken so positively to my post. The content of the post was directed to those that try to pick a winner from analysing form using a form guide, and nothing else. Can't be done!

Can you tell me what percentage of punters make a living from the punt. What percentage of trainers make a living from training, jockeys, owners? It's the same percentage across the board, and I know what it is. And when you find out the percentage of successful people in the racing industry, whether as a punter, jockey, trainer or owner, you will then realise how fortunate you are.

Care to take a stab at it?

didnt mean to come across all negative there bn, it's just that I find form guides can be a useful resource for letting me know vital info like what number me nag is! :smile:

Totally agree with Butternut,
And if it weren’t for racing industry we would be winning more often.
Have a look at today’s race 5--- 3 Yiasou Sydney at Canterbury.
Can you image how many people backed this horse? There was no way in the world it would win today.
It is pathetic; racing industry, books sellers and software floggers are laughing all the way to the bank as long as there are mugs like my self-round.
Cheers
Baco60


[ This Message was edited by: baco60 on 2004-08-04 17:50 ]

davez, I'm disappointed that you didn't take a stab at the percentage of successful punters, trainers, jockeys and owners in the racing industry. By successful I mean someone making the equivalent of average wages year in year out.

3% ..... yup three lousy percent.

Neurals, as they become increasingly popular and more widely used will have the effect of reducing the odds on top rated horses. OK, so there are a million combinations that could be used, but most punters will use the info in a similar fashion and will end up with similar top rated horses. Now I'm not saying these top rated horses wont win, in fact I believe they will have an impressive strike rate. It's just that the odds won't be there to support the punter to make a profit. So darkydog2002's idea might just be so far from left field that it may have some merit.

davez, I really would appreciate your opinion on my comments re neurals and their popularity, 'cause I rate you very highly indeed and like contrary opinions. Gets me thinking?!

3% of punters?, wouldn't have thought it was that high.

3% of jockeys & trainers?, now you're making things up.

Did you know that 38% of statistics are made up on the spot. :lol: