Just a couple of ideas for those out there keen to land those horses at big odds.Ive only been investing in horses some 18 months but have noticed horse that are third back from a spell( eg 9x53 or 8x00 etc ) more often than not get up to win at big odds. Some examples of this of resent times were in Brisbane ,Lord Dennings form last starts read 7x04 he was last on the turn and won by half a length he paid $25.00 on the tri paid $4500 s,tab,Goodrums form read 5x00 he won ,and paid a wopping $44.00.Another way I pick the roughies on days win I get to the Tab late and theres say to races left at each main venue and no roughies have come in yet Ill back the 5 roughest horses at each track , youd be surprised how many get up to win .You only need one to get up and your well in front.Three weeks ago I was in N.Wwest W.A just got to the tab for the last race in brisbane hardy a roughie had come in yet so $10 wins on the 5 roughest horses and what do you know Quinn the Eskimo gets up to win at $59.00 on super tab.I find this method works beeter if you wiat for the last couple of races otherwise you end up chasing roughies in every race and youll do your doe for sure ,sometimes they come in the firsty couple of races ,you cant help that.

3rd up,

Horses often start peaking at their 3rd run in - due to fitness.

Sprinters (1000-1200m) are often best fresh = 1,2,3 runs in a campaign. But some can hold form if their runs are spaced.

Middle distance horses (1500-2000m) best runs are often 3-5 in a campaign.

Stayers best runs are often in the 4-7 range.

3rd up, Your message was hard to read. Maybe you could use a few more paragraphs and spaces next time. Just a suggestion.

Your system has some merit, based on the theory that horses which do not race well first up, and second up are a little "flat", so logically third up they should strip fitter. I think you can't back every horse in this way, but by applying some small filters, you may be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.

E.G.
1. Regardless of how it finished in it's last 2 starts, if it's third up it becomes an initial qualifier, but not won in those 2 starts.

2. Has it won in this class previously in it's career, and within 200m of today's distance?

3. Is it's strike rate greater than 25%?

3. Does it's average prizemoney per start rank in the top third of the field.

What do you think?

The example of Lord Denning illustrates the importance of a horse's record over the race distance. I don't kknow why some of you don't regard it as important, because plenty of winners had good distance stats prior to a race.

Lord Denning
1st up run (14th April) - 4th beaten 1.25 lengths over 1250m at Canterbury

2nd up run (11th May) - 13th beaten 8.75 lengths over 1400m at Randwick (blundered at start, examined by vet, injured during the race)

3rd run (1st June) - 1st over 1500m at EF at big odds.

Points to consider:

1. Dist: 1 win and a 3rd from 2 starts. Had also won 3 race at 1550m. (4 out of 5 career wins at 1500-1550m) So 1500-1550m distance range is the horse's best range!

2. Dropped 3kgs in weight

3. Trained by Hawkes

4. Career: 22% win and 45% place.

5. Retained the same jockey despite going from Randwick to EF.

6. Prizemoney stats not good though - 2nd last in a field of 17

7. Rising from a 3yo+ Welter to an open handicap - thus the weight drop. Field not that strong though.

8. Sydney form prior to LS failure was good. I know some people don't like formlines, but it worked here - ran a good 4th to Kootoomootoo and a good 5th to Terrible Taurus. Neither horses are world beaters, but none of the horses in the EF race were either.

9. pre-post odds of 25/1

Given the horses ability over the distance, if you overlooked the LS failure where it had excuses, the horse was massive overs.



[ This Message was edited by: lumbarsua on 2002-07-12 12:09 ]