Good post, Fryingpan. I'm interested in the QTAB ratings, and in Bhagwan's crappy horse system. I like the filters you suggest. I'II give it a try. Plenty of crappy races around during the week to try it on.

Increasingly I'm thinking 180 deg. to what I used to think. I used to think the name of the game was finding quality horses to bet on. But EVERYONE is trying to find quality horses to bet on, so if you find quality horses it is really hard to make a profit long term unless you are that bit better than everyone else. (I'm not.)

I've been making a (small) profit on long shots and crappy horses lately. Its much more satisfying.

I realised that there are two sides to every statistic. If 30% of favourites win, that means that 70% don't. If 87% or so of winners have QTAB ratings of 93-100, then 13% of winners have ratings of 92 or less - there might be an opportunity in that 13%.

Keep us posted on how you do with this, Fryingpan. I'm interested. There might be a race or two suitable at Sale today so I'II give it a try.

Hermes

Welcome to the Dark Side Hermes!

People will raise their eyebrows when you tell them you prefer midweek racing to Saturday, snigger when you say you are aiming for a 10% strike rate and laugh out loud when you tell them the horses you have bet on. But just remember most of these people will be losing their money and you will be winning it!

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

Helllo everyone.

Sale's selections according to the modified TABQ filters are
R1 7
R4 2,3,4
R6 3,6,7

Dalby
R2 3,5,6
R3 7
R5 7
R7 3,7

Warwick Farm
R2 2,3,4,5,6 (quite a few and something I'm still pondering over.... the lolly scramble bet/collect meltdown)
R3 2,5,6,7
R4 2,5,6,7
R5 2,7 (No.1 is not included but I think is a strong bet)
R6 2,3,6,7

When there are more than 3 selections I get a little nervous playing them. Maybe there needs to be a rule for that. I guess what the House of Crap is leaning on is the handicapper's way of sorting the race out versus the bias we give towards last start placegetters.

Results and quick review.

Some parts worked others didn't.

So I'm adding two new rules to tighten the ship a bit further for tomorrow.

1) No maiden races. (I don't think the ratings have much bearing on these as much as handicap type races). OR (as a second perspective take consider all selections 2-7 irrespective of the ratings) I'll go with the former for a start.
2) Take the lowest two TAB numbers as bets only. I know this is drastic but hopefully it will relieve the extra betting.

Adapt the above to today's selections does this
Sale

R4 2,3...2 won $3.30
R6 3,6...3 won $6.40

Dalby

R5 7
R7 3,7

Warwick Farm
R2 2,3...2 won $3.40
R3 2,5
R4 2,6 (late scratching of 5) 6 won $6.40
R5 2,7
R6 2,3

I did this with yesterday's selections and it brought up a surplus. Coupled with Bhagwan's stake the above would have cost
(2-3)@$44 + (4-5)@3 + (6-7)@$10 = $57 for a return of $65.2

Well done Fryingpan ,
Keep up the positive research.

__________________
Cheers.

Here`s another idea that might have some merit , using the Crappy Horse staking plan.

1)Target the 2nd.3rd.4th.5th Fav. 2min. before jump (leaving out the Fav.) from the Teletext.
This works particulaly well where the Fav. is paying $4.00+ 2 min. before jump.
They have a good track record of falling over when you want them to .

2)We only bet on the ones that fall into the TAB No. area of 2-7 .Then bet accordingly ,using the staking plan discussed, ignoring their past positioning.

We are taking the assumption that the handicapper has some input of form study.
You will find that you are usually left with 2-3 runners .


You could use the market from the paper, that way all bets could be placed at once , with some good prices to be had.

__________________
Cheers.

"People will raise their eyebrows when you tell them you prefer midweek racing to Saturday, snigger when you say you are aiming for a 10% strike rate and laugh out loud when you tell them the horses you have bet on."

Yep, already the object of local derision. As the spring starts people are itching for the big races and the champions. I'm looking around for lousy races and crappy horses.


Fryingpan,

Again, I think your filters are just what's needed. Its great to see constructive research on this forum. Someone throws in an idea, other people bounce it around, someone else refines it, everyone takes it away to do as they will with it. Profitable punting Fryingpan.

Cheers

Hermes

Good on you guys for going against the trend.
I was advocating the idea of looking at everything in reverse and got "run out of town" so to speak by other ignorant people (who shall remain nameless).

Keep plugging away because it works if you refine it a little.

:wink:

Bhagwan and everyone,

Thanks for the kind words of support. It is fun trying out lots of different ways and attempting to slice the pie from a new angle to see if the pickup is better. I have mettled with the filters for some time and believe I've strangled the crap out of the picks. So after a little more thought realised that it's still important to contain "ability" and find this amongt the others which isn't the favourite. I've always wondered what the ULTIMATE outcome of assessing form, and somehow it might just be a road to finding ...... the favourite. (most of the time at least).

So I'm going to take on the 2nd 3rd 4th and possibly 5th favourite consideration, but also instead of using a filter, come up with a 'funnel'( new concept) which doesn't eliminate like a filter, rather works out the distribution of ability amongst the runners in the field. More on this later.

Memories ...