Exactly, unless you purchase a publication like the Sportsman, many daily formguides don't include wins in the place %

I don't buy the Wizard. Every other one has win % included as place %. It's not logical otherwise.

Here's some interesting stats on placegetters that should be of interest to place betters and those hunting trifectas. I know the stats have all been done before and I'm reinventing the wheel here, but you can learn a lot from doing a few stats yourself - it is a wheel worth reinventing.

What I did was examine a stack of races looking at placegetters vis-a-vis the MIDWEIGHT. The midweight is simply the middle weight in the race. If top weight = 56kg and bottom weight = 50 kg. Midweight = 53kg.

How many placegetters were above or below the midweight?

A. Three placegetters above the midweight = 17% of the sample.
B. Two placegetters above, and one below = 34% of sample.
C. Two below and one above = 25%
D. Three below = 6%

(If a placegetter was on the midweight I counted it above or below depending on the other two. Found no cases of three placegetters on the midweight.)

It was a small sample but trends are there in even small samples. There are four types of possible results: A, B, C and D.

I reckon the proportions will eventually pan out at about: 40/30/20/10. - with A = 20, B = 40, C = 30 and D = 10.

These stats match others that tell us, for example, that there is a distinct bias among placegetters for the lower saddlecloth numbers (topweights).

Similarly, I'm told (by a trifecta enthusiast) that trifectas are rarely filled by the three market favourites. More often, two of the three market favourites, and one other. Much the same pattern.

This could have many practical applications. For example, I rate horses in a race according to how likely I think they are to run a place. If, however, I have three selections above the midweight in my ratings, the rule should be: have a closer look. Only about 20% of races have three placegetters above the midweight. Is this race really one of them? Or is there a horse below the midweight that I've overlooked? If there is, chances are it will pay well (but it will be correspondingly more difficult to pick).

I haven't checked but I imagine prices follow much the same pattern. (Only talking about handicaps here.)

Three above the midweight = trifectas that pay the least.
Two above and one below = pay better
Two below, one above = pay better still
Three below = pay best.

In general I'm beginning to think that the long-term success of placebetting (and trifectas) depends on how many of the below midweight placegetters you can pick. So my next task is to try to find common characteristics of that allusive below midweight placegetter.

As always, constructive suggestions welcome..

Still at it.

Hermes

STATS APPLIED

All systems of selection must involve some mode or mechanism for eliminating non-prospects in a race. I'm interested in picking placegetters. All systems of picking placegetters must at some stage eliminate those horses you think have no chance of running a drum. (In fact, if its a starter, it has a chance, but you know what i mean.)

Using the stats I've been working on (and others kindly supplied by punters in this forum and elsewhere) I've been designing some coarse filters. (I'm building a system from the ground up - that's what I'm like. I'm fantatical about this. I want a 100% strike rate!). In my system (still under construction) I begin (step 1.) by identifying a fairly broad group of qualifiers. This is the first filter. Eliminate the rubbish.

But its harder than you think. I want a filter that eliminates the rubbish without taking out too many placegetters in the process. I've tried numerous combinations of factors, testing them out on my sample of old races. You tend to either lose too many placegetters or not enough of the rubbish. But I have found some good combinations. Here's a couple:

*Top 8 average place percentages.
*Last start finished 1st to 6th.

This will usually reduce a field to 7 or less qualifiers and net about 80-85% of placegetters. Gets a race down to manageable proportions.

*Above 33% place average
*Within 4 points of the top Zip rating (in the Sportsman)

Depends on the calibre of the race. It will net over 75% of the placegetters but often it won't reduce the field much. Occasionally, very good results where only a few horses are within 4 of Zip and you've still got sometimes up to 80% of the placegetters. (That's two and a bit horses!)

Another good one:

*Top seven average prize winners.
*Top seven average place percentage.
*Last start finished 1-6.

Good results. Reduces the field and nets a reliable number of the placegetting horses.

(I might add that I'm not all for stats. I'm looking for coarse filters as guides. My approach is to reduce the field step by step, filter by filter, but the ultimate decision is not a mechanical one. I'm increasingly convinced that you also have to know something about horses....)

Cheers

Hermes

SOME ZIP STATS

The zip system used in the Sportsman offers an alternative handicap assessment of runners. I compared the zip rating to the official weight, looking to see whether it was above, below or the same as. A surprising result but only in a small sample.

Looking at all runners the zip is overwhelmingly below the handicap - 74% of runners. In 15% of runners the zip rated over, and in only 10% of cases zip and handicapper were in agreement.

But among placegetters you get quite different stats:

Placegetters where the zip was above handicap = 33%
Placegetters below = 48%
The same = 18%

So, in the mass of runners you get the (rough) proportions: 70/20/10. In placegetters: 50/30/20.

Conclusion:

Where the zip is below the handicap, it counter-indicates a placegetter. Zip below handicap is more characteristic of all runners than it is of those runners who place. But
where the zip is above or agees with handicap, a pointer to a placegetter.

Not a strong pointer, but a pointer all the same. Keep a look out for horses with zip over or the same as the handicap weight.

A strong trend in a small sample (187 all races), no hurdles.

Another possible path to placegetters???

Hermes

The average zip rating of placegetters, by the way, is about 52, but 51 and 53 are by far the most common zip numbers in my sample.The numbers fall right off below 50. Virtually no placegetters with zips below 50 - couldn't find a single one below 48. Which is useful to know because there will often be two or three runners below 50 which you can therefore safely eliminate. Very few placegetters with zips over 57. The range is 57-50. A tighter range of 56-51 would still net the vast majority of placegetters.