Privateer,

You obviously know a lot about the caper and put a hell of a lot of time in your punting, but do you actually sit there watch tapes with the Sportsman in your hand and do form analysis?

Its all very well to have this systematic way of betting, however with the time you put in you could have watched e.g every horses last five starts. From this you can determine speed maps, time ratings, actual ability and so on. I believe this information to be much more valuable then if a horse has won more average prizemoney etc. Not saying i do but i have tried it and was quite successful, mostly with place betting, but the time got the better of me.

Above you mentioned that luck in running last start was not important, what i don't know is how you discern this from newspaper archives, you may get the (blocked for a run) comment but without videos how can you observe what impact this had on the result.

Glad your doing well mate, as you can see i'm not a fan of numerical systems for finding a winner, just think video analysis of races is that much superior because you see an actualisation of events and not take the word of the formguide.

Cheers ED

couldnt of said it better myself Mr Ed,,

Im a a video watcher religously,,,also have sectional times ect..for the full race,, i think most form guides list the last 600m but that can be misleading..

I'm a black book punter..i like the runner to have shown something the previous race...i'll forgive them 1 run sometimes (eg Enthusiast) but most of the time they'll have to show me something...
i then analyse every runner in the race ..do a speed map ..likely tempo...track conditions..jockey..ect..and if it all favours my runner its go for launch..
depending on the ratings it has (my own ratings that is) i then work out how much i'll outlay...if theres no value IMO no bet..

I do the ratings for the whole race this helps with my trifectas ect..

this is a great thread...i'm copying all this down

G'day Ed

I'll try and answer the questions you pose.

"speed maps, time ratings, actual ability and so on. I believe this information to be much more valuable then if a horse has won more average prizemoney etc"

The things you mention didn't work for me and in my view take up far too much time. My work provided me with a simple template from which to work. I simply have to find which horses meet all the criteria and there is the selection. I reckon it takes me about 45 minutes per race day to work them out. Let me say this....about two thirds of all winners and placegetters are within the top 5 average prizemoney earners.

"mostly with place betting"

I bet on a 1 win x 3 place ratio.

"Above you mentioned that luck in running last start was not important, what i don't know is how you discern this from newspaper archives, you may get the (blocked for a run) comment but without videos how can you observe what impact this had on the result."

I didn't exactly say it isn't important, I think I said that there are other factors that influence the result of a race that are more worthy of consideration.

I did my analysis for this stat via stewards reports. I simply listed all those that raced without luck according to the stewards report then tracked their next race start.

The stewards compile their reports from not only their own observations but from watching race replays and reported incidents from jockeys and trainers. There is no need to watch a replay to look for unlucky runners, it is documented and freely available.

I probably need to explain again that I checked stats over a two year period and then listed the most recurring. I apply these stats to a race field and look for those runners that fit all of the statistical criteria. That then gives me a horse that based on statistical analysis and the balance of probabilities, should go close to winning the race.


"Glad your doing well mate, as you can see i'm not a fan of numerical systems for finding a winner, just think video analysis of races is that much superior because you see an actualisation of events and not take the word of the formguide."

I'm ************ glad I'm doing well too!

It's not really a numerical system just an application of the most relevant statistical data.

I don't take the word of the formguide, I take my own info.

Hope that helps a bit Ed.

Not too many questions guys, my brain hurts and I need to rest it for Saturday! LOL

Cheers

Privateer

Mav,

I also watch the videos and note down points of interest. What do you use to make your ratings though? Some of the same factors we have been mentioning here?

Tubbs

__________________
Ever get the feeling that the world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes?

this thread has lived for awhile and perhaps its because we all learn something from it.
its obvious that the serious punters put a lot of work into their selections and deserve the results.

there are many different factors that deliver winners and in fact so many that i cannot always convince myself that it wasnt a co-incidence when my horse has won.

the compression of weight in modern racing is a factor that i hadnt considered and it is likely to be an accurate observation.
the discipline to stick to our own rules is a factor in our own results.
the issue of barriers does worry me even though more successful punters have proven they dont have the affect that some of us think.
a jockey drawn wide has few choices . to go early or to sit back.
both are risky.
good punting.

__________________
laurie

tubby its my own personal rating system taking into account all the factors..including points for there last 4 runs.,...you need to read dons scott method..
check him out he's great..
If you can take a look at some of sportz ratings idea's and Xpt ..there ratings systems are easy to use and work very well,,
if you search the archives you'll find them,

remember though ratings are always different...
eg. i rate Bowman and Seamer higher than Beadman....some people just go by the winning percentages for each state they are running in..but that can be misleading..
ratings only give me an idea for my multis...and i use only as a guide..

speedmaps and video study i've found is what has made me a more consistant winner..

Diamondsontheinside is an example.....his record on paper is outstanding but his last run on video i thought wasnt much chop,,,he had to work real hard to win that and to me looked over the top,,,he did cop interference on the weekend but he was never going to win....I even mentioned Willy not overly pleasing me with his last run....hmm and Face value..and Florigum.
maybe i should be laying horses ..
what do you rekon Mark ? betfair they way to go ?

Thanks Mav

I have heard of Don scott but am unsure of what he has written or where I would get hold of his work. Are his books still in print?

Your analysis of those horses' last runs was quite accurate and I had decided to "lay"them all last weekend for similar reasons. As mentioned here however, I find video watching very time consuming (but nevertheless fun with a nice glass of wine) and wanted to formulate a reproducible, easy to use method of narrowing down the chances in a race.

I did a very similar thing to privateer (i.e. sat down with pen and paper as my excel and access skills are not great) and "did the form" for the last 18 months.

I unfortunately just lacked the nous to know how to use my stats.

I love stats though...they are a big part of my job...and it is interesting when they challenge a belief you have had ever since you first started reaching to put your TAB card in the machine.

__________________
Ever get the feeling that the world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes?

This is a most interesting thread and thanks go to Maverick and Privateer & others for making it so.

However, there appears to be some confusion (maybe it's just me) between ratings and selections.

As I understand it by reading Privateer's offerings, he/she has done the hard yards in his/her research and come up with a set of criteria which is important in his/her SELECTION process, on which an investment is made when that criteria is met.

Others have mentioned various factors in a broader sense, more ratings (Scott methodology etc) then determining selections.

Personally, my methodology is ratings based looking at (perceived) value accordingly and my advice is similar to that of Privateer's, there are some factors that are of importance and some less so and there is no real need to include those factors at the margin as the addition of such factors add very little to the bottom line.

Unlike Privateer, I've found that beaten margin is more important than finishing position but I agree that API (top 4) is a significant factor, particularly earning in the last year or two. Concentrate on the major four, five or six factors and the result should be a sound ratings based process.

I haven't even come up with a system that I use mind you it isn't like I am punting fora living so that could have something to do with it. Most of my bets are done by watching video tapes and looking at patterns with certain horses the jockey normally doesn't worry me as long as it isn't one of a select few that I simply will not back under any circumstances.

I'll usually try to blackbook a horse that I really liked the run of and see if a race comes up were I think it has a good chance of winning and hope that no to many other people have managed to notice the previous runs.

It is however interesting reading what you guys have to say and maybe I should heed some of the advice I think I am more pigheaded when it comes to people trying to tell me what horses to back if I like something I will back it regardless of what most people tell me.

raw instinct reminds me of that wonderful movie.
where the punter wants to stake it all but doesnt know what to back so he takes a survey in the crowd at the track.
after the survey only one horse hasnt been tipped by the crowd. so he puts it all on and it wins.

i have found that no matter what you tip to someone else they wont listen (and i dont blame them).

else why are we still trying to work out something that has been going on for 200 years.
in racing i wonder what creates the great uncertainty. this is why consistency, courage and the belief in your method are so important.

__________________
laurie