Someone recently mentioned this idea in this forum.That is,you take the strike rate and convert it to a betting price.ie.50% equals $2.00.You can check out the odds calculator to ge the full list.
It strikes me as common sense so long as your mule has had at least 5 starts and you are converting a career stat into something that applies to a very particular set of circumstances.However,I have found strike rates to be very useful overall.
Does anyone have any thoughts or stats on this one?

A truism of racing which remains as true now as it ever did is that horses who lose keep on losing, and vice versa.

This is true, however, what this doesn't factor in is horse's first up which may not be suited by the distance, and of course class. A Horse can have a 70% strike rate on country tracks, but is this better than a horse which has won 60% at Group level?

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Yeah. While strike rates are generally a good guide, in some circumstances, overall career statistics may actually be misleading when applying it to the conditions of today's race.

For example, there are some horses which are first up specialists and they don't perform nearly as well later on. Winning all those 1st up runs may give them a prett good overall strike rate which would be misleading when contesting other races. Similarly, what about stayers who might have a great record in 2400-3200 races. That has nothing to do with how they're going to go first up over 1400m or so. Also, there are many horses which are track specialists and their record at one track is no comparison to their overall record.

A perfect example is Regal Roller, a wonderful horse to back because his form is just so black and white. He absolutely LOVES Caulfield, especially over 1400m, and he's simply nowhere near as effective at any other track.

Regal Roller's overall stats are:
33 starts: 12 wins, 3 2nds, 4 3rds - That's a win strike rate of 36% which would convert to a true price of $2.80. Now, there's absolutely no way I'd even consider backing Regal Roller at $2.80 away from Caulfield. In fact, I wouldn't really consider backing Regal Roller at all away from Caulfield. His Caulfield record is 14 starts: 9 wins, 2 2nds, 1 3rd for a win strike rate of 64%. As for his record at Caulfield over 1400m, that's 11 starts: 8 wins, 1 2nd, 1 3rd and a win strike rate of 73%. Why would you bother backing him anywhere else???

If you have a horse that's had a fair number of starts and it's form is well exposed, it would be a good idea to look at it's strike rate under the conditions of today's race. In Regal Roller's case, based on past form, it's true price for a race at Caulfield over 1400m would be about $1.40.

It is statistically flawed and won't work.
Eg R7 at Flemington tomorrow: TAB numbers followed by strike rate converted to a betting price:

1- 25%=$4.00
2- 42%=$2.38
3- 26%= $3.85
4- 47%= $2.13
5- 33%= $3.00
6- 19%= $5.26
7- 38% =$2.63

That is already a market of 230% and there another 9 horses in the field. If you are creating your own betting prices any method which makes a market of over 100% is guaranteed to regularly give you betting prices which are huge unders - poor value.

Why worry about prices - just back every horse with a 100% strike rate - always getting value because they're all certainties. There are two at Randwick in just the first race, so both of them will win.

LOL just caught up with this thread again - lovely sarcasm infused with the last post.

NICKHANLON: Neil and Filante etc are right - you can't just use winning percentages. Even if taking Neil's example you convert it back to a 100% market you'll still do your ******** punting it.

Sportz what you said is correct. I would've thought all this was elementary and obvious stuff - of course you can't apply strike rates as a universal thing. What strike rates are good for is showing the heart of a horse, how much it tries. If you are using ratings for example and you can't decide whether to give a horse a certain figure or another one, and you notice it has a very low strike rate, give it the lower one. Horses with a 40% strike rate will continue to win 40% of the time, and those with a 2% s/r will continue to
win 2% of the time. So, when you find a race that's suitable for a horse, if it has a 40% strike rate bet with confidence, if it has a 2% strike rate leave it in the pocket b/c it's UNLIKELY to run to it's best, even with suitable conditions.

What does the forum think of the concept of horses being "followers". I've noticed a few come up top on my ratings lately based on a bunch of second and third places. Any strong opinions on this?

KV

What's that old saying?

"I like to follow the horses. Unfortunately, the horses I like to follow, like to follow other horses."

Are you for real? What you are saying is that you can't convert a horses strike rate into a price. Yet you think that a horse with a 40% strike rate will continue to win 40% of the time. Convert this to a price and you will have a horse that pays $2.50 and wins 40% of the time.?????
I suppose it sometimes is best to argue both sides in the one sentence......