Try This

Only back last start winners TAB 1-7
With a 25% career win strike rate.

Test it over past 150+ races & see if this has any overall positive impact on the stats.

__________________
Cheers.

Hi EI,

I must say that U.S. tracks in general aren't looking very sharp with a few traditional ones still holding their ground.

The one near Toronto that I go to is doing quite well, however (Woodbine). It is a first class facility and has recognized that it's a business that needs to attract customers. They have slot machines now which brings in a few more stragglers and helps with the upkeep. I can't believe how full the parking lot gets on a Wednesday compared to 10 years ago when those areas weren't even parking lots!

Those institutions who recognize they are there for entertainment based in tradition -- I think -- are stronger than ever. If you were at the track at Woodbine you would be impressed. Everbody (including the many that come as whole families) is having a good time with very little 'scared' expressions revealing that the punter has gone beyond his means. We also have a group of Jamaican regulars that are absolutely hysterical.

So in summary, yes it has fallen off a bit. But I think that has made the others stronger. When our caller comes out in his pristine red outfit, lifts the higly polished horn, and plays a bit of 'Sesame Street' before the call to post you can see the crowd just loves it.

So how about Australia? And what's this about dog racing? You don't see much (if any?) of that in Canada.

-Duck

TheDuck, sounds like I'd love Woodbine.
Dirt track?

The trumpeter story made me laugh. We do have family days where the kids have face painting, pony rides, clowns etc. Basically though I would say that racing is more punter orientated.

Yes, we have Greyhound racing in every State of Australia. There are 8 greyhounds in each race (on average). They race over 340 metres to 728 metres, the most common distance being 511 metres, and chase a fake bunny (lure).
Sometimes it's hilarious when the electronics slow down the lure and the Greyhounds catch it. They call it a "no race." There's even a few hurdle races for the dogs and that's a great spectacle!


[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-25 02:36 ]

Hi Quacker: Ziemba, a professor of economics and mathematical guru spent a summer vacation trying to apply factor analysis to racetrack data in attempting to find the winner. Found that the more complex type of analysis did not work as well as simpler model with fewer variables. As far as I know he discontinued using factor analysis. Has written about another method he investigated in "Beat the Racetrack".

Hi guys,

Just dropped in for old time's sake and was immediately reminded of this story.

When I lived in Darwin I decided to go to the dogs for the very first time (and only time so far). It was Darwin Cup, biggest race of the year ($10,000!!).

There was no secret about the favourite, it was backed into about $1.40 from memory. Come race time, the lure broke down and the favourite, which was leading by about 6 lengths, caught the lure. The look of utter disappointment on the dogs face was priceless when it realised it had been conned for it's whole career. Scarred for life I'd say!

Good luck!

Placegetter

Placegetter,

Great to see you popping in to say hi.

Yes, catching the lure can actually spoil a greyhound for life, they are not as silly as one might think. They do learn that it isn't real if they catch it and sometimes remember. Some dogs have to be retrained again...in the bush (if you get my drift) to get back the impulse to chase!

Good to hear from you placegetter!----

Wednesday was an ordinary day. After scartchings, $21 on for $16.30 return. Running total now: outlay of $118 for a return of $114.80.

A full swag for tommorow.

Randwick

R1 #3 Inclusion = 3
R2 #1 Al Megdam = 2
R3 #2 Dashiki = 1
R4 #4 Play Mistress = 1
R5 #3 Conzeal = 1
R7 #6 Shantey = no bet
R8 #6 Just Imagine = no bet

Moonee Valley

R1 #2 Tycoon Ruler = 1
R2 #5 Dornach = 1
R3 #1 Steel King = 2
R4 #7 Sterling Knight = no bet
R5 #1 Bush Padre = 1
R6 #2 St Steven = 3
R7 #4 Green Pick = 2
R8 #2 My Lavina = 1

Eagle Farm

R1 #2 British Buska = no bet
R3 #1 Dancing On = 3
R4 #2 Sheer Devotion = no bet (barrier)
R6 #1 Smart Chariot = 2
R7 #1 Kenconcarne = 1
R8 #4 Bishop Bill = no bet (barrier)

Cheltenham

R1 #4 Social Glow = 3
R2 #1 Frenzel Rhomb = no bet
R3 #4 Shoppaholic = 1
R5 #2 Glenwest = no bet
R6 #2 Ikaros = 3
R7 #5 Onyx River = no bet
R8 #3 Lawful Poker = 2

Lots of action today and some good winners and placegetters again. Lowest tabbed last start winners were in the thick of it at all tracks bar Eagle Farm, one out of three. After scratchings, seventeen selections, eleven ran a place. Betting level stakes for places, a return of $22.50 for $17 outlay. Tycoon Ruler was the best result for the day.

**********************

I've watched this category of runners closely the last few weeks matching the live tests to past results. Live tests make past results much more useful. I'm happy that my ratings filter succesfully removes the dross. These are simple ratings based on the commonly considered factors like average prizewinnings, place percentage, days since last start. Nothing mysterious. If nothing else, they identify the no bets only missing the occasional strike.

With this no bet filter applied to the lowest tabbed last start winners the overall results on level stakes are quite OK for placebetting over a fair sample. I have full prices on 360 races:

360 races
192 place strikes = 53.3%
Return on places = $372
Average return = $1.94
POT = 3.33% for places

For win bets it shows just under break even:

76 win strikes = 21%
Return on wins = $357.60

This is not very exciting - except that getting anything to show POT on places over 360 races is a victory for me - BUT my rating system has revealed a way to improve on this dramatically. It happens that the runners I rate as 2, 3 or 4 - the better prospects to place - have a good strike rate but a very poor average return that is draining potential profit. Thus:

Rated 2, 3 or 4.

160 races
92 place strikes
40 win strikes
Return on places = $153.60
Average Return = $1.67
Return on wins = $120.40

This is why I've been having trouble squeezing out a profit from a good strike rate. In this sub-group we have an excellent strike rate but a loss on turnover. Too many lowest tabbed last start winners pay too little. The problem with this overall category of runners I realise is that it includes too many favourites - there is too much poor value in the category as a whole.

But the figures for those runners I rate as marginal - the rating 1s - show very good results in terms of value and here I think I have at last pinpointed the runners that attracted me to lowest numbered LSWs in the first place. I've isolated the action. Look at these figures:

Rated 1

200 races
100 place strikes = 50%
36 win strikes = 18%
Return on places = $218.40
Average place return = $2.10
POT on places = 9.20%

Return on wins = $237.20
Average win return = $6.58

Here are the value runners in this category! The marginal prospects - as opposed to the more certain bets - have about a 50% place strike rate, and a low win strike rate, but give healthy average returns and a good POT. An extraordinary average win return. I had to check it again. Comes to $6.58. Mostly $7 plus winners. Tycoon Ruler was today's example at $11. Eartear on 20th July = $7.80. Jestica - $8.40. Sly Rambler - $10.30. Final Shuffle - $14.40. Not many of them - 18% strike for wins in this sub-group - but this band pays well when they come home. And they come home often enough to give a return. Over 200 recent races.

So to extract value from this group you have to eliminate the dross, ignore the sure things and exploit the middle band. I know this is what various people on this forum have been telling me in different ways, but now I've worked it out for myself.

Who are the rated 1 runners? Conzeal was a good example today. Rated down because its last start win was more than 14 days ago and was not among the top three prizewinners, amongst other things against it. But not dross. Started fourth favourite. Paid $4 for the place. Tycoon Ruler is a perfect example too. St. Steven was an example of rated 2,3 or 4. Nothing against it on paper. A dead cert but not worth it. Shantey R7 Randwick today is an example of a horse with too much against it to be worth the bet. Started about 7th or 8th favourite, 26/1. No bet.

You can obviously achieve much the same filtering by observing the market. The rated 1 runners are usually your lowest tabbed LSWs starting at third or fourth favourite, or if second or first then usually at a good price.

But I'm happy that my ratings work without recourse to the market. Except of course that my ratings are exactly wrong. Don't bet by my ratings. Bet the opposite. If its only rated 1, back it!

In conclusion:

On further analysis, there are three types of runner in the category lowest tabbed last start winner and success or failure depends upon distinguishing between them.

1. Dross. Not likely to place at all. The category includes quite a few cases where the fact a horse is the lowest numbered LSW is meaningless in the context of the race - the Gungadin factor. They have very little chance. Often TAB numbers higher than 5. (Of course, sometimes these will win. Oh well.)

2. Marginal prospects. A fifty/fifty chance of placing and much less of winning but at a good price. Not standout selections and often borderline with the dross category. Or often strong on paper but with a black mark like poor prizewinning average. Not usually TABS 1, 2 or 3.

3. Heavily backed good prospects. A strong chance of placing and a good chance of winning, but at no value. There is a high proportion of heavily backed favourites among the lowest tabbed LSWs. Everyone likes a winner. This drains the value out of the category. Often TABs 1, 2, 3.

Might not be news to experienced punters, but its all news to me.

Maybe there are these three types of runners in whatever category of horse we look at . Anyway target the middle band. The shortcoming of the middle band will be more and longer runs of outs, not broken up by the sure things, and long waits between drinks for winners. But it should give POT.

In any case, should my figures once again level out over larger samples as promising figures have a tendency to do, I'm quietly confident that if I concentrate on those I rank as the marginal prospects it is near enough to profit at level stakes to warrant a staking plan. Lowest tabbed LSWs are a rich category of runner. Intelligent selection can isolate the band of value. Then intelligent staking can turn over profit. Open to suggestions as always.

Bhagwan, you wrote many posts back of betting 1,2,6,18. With six banks of $28? Can you explain further?

Hermes

That 1-2-6-18 places staking plan came from E.I.
1st. bet 1
2nd. bet 2
3rd. bet 6
4th. bet 18
Total 28
You stop, then start again as soon as you strike a place getter.
You should have 6 banks of 28=168 .

You will win on some runs & loose on others. But that does`nt matter, its the overall profit we are after , this is called sequence betting.

Have you thought about ignoring TAB No.1 all together & starting at TAB No.2 & down.
Quite often No.1 is at low value, if ever they get up .Its rare that they pay well therefore poor value & best ignored all together.
You will probably find that you have missed some very good payers because your selection was No.1 in that race & the other got up instead.

__________________
Cheers.

Hermes,

Congratulations on sticking with it and coming up with some useful filters. You seem to have come to a similar conclusion as me (although by a different route and using different selection criteria).

There is rarely value in the short priced horses simply because they are too obvious and everyone can see they are a good chance of winning - they do have a good strike rate but the poor dividends are not enough to make a profit on. The true longshots ($20 and up) generally deserve their status and rarely manage to win - you can occassionally get some great priced winners from this group but it is generally not worth spending time analysing them all. The real value is in the mid-ground - those horses that have the class to win the race but are out of favour with the punters for one reason or another. If you can successfully pick your winners from this group then you have a much better chance of developing a profitable system.

Anyway keep up the good work and best of luck.

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