I have been thinking that by concentrating on factors that the handicapper doesn't factor into his calculations when setting weights, a new angle might deliver some value horses. My own method of handicapping often throws up TAB no. 1 horse, which means I agree with the handicapper.....its when it throws up a number greater than 5 (or at least a horse near the limit) that I get interested. Does the handicapper take into account Jockey, trainer, days since last run etc?

None of the above

__________________
Jose'.

Neither does he have any say in set weights or WFA races either but you can also add track conditions, running style and pace to the list as well.

Recent form and days since last run.

__________________
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

Maybe I should have just asked how the handicapper does his ratings. From your replies I gather that he rates the horses purely on past performance but not recent(last few weeks maybe?) form? If that is his brief does it really stick to it? A friend of mine invited me to the members at Caulfield once and I found myself not three empty seats from the handicapper, should have asked him then......but then again, I'm sure its Not The Done Thing.

That's not quite correct about recent form. The handicapper certainly takes that into account. If the horse won or placed it would receive a penalty and if it failed it could even drop down in the weights. The penalites are explained on the Racing Victoria web site at:

http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/

In part, the handicapping policy reads

"In normal circumstances expect the winner to be elevated by 1½ to 2½kg and in terms of the beaten margins the second horse may go up 1kg, the third horse increased by ½kg whilst 4th and 5th horses may remain unchanged. All other runners may incur a weight decrease."

Somehow this doesn't translate to reality. There are many horses up in the topweight area, but have very poor recent form. Perhaps because they have achieved in that class before, whereas others haven't even contested that class.
For mine, the whole thing is flawed because the handicapper does a poor job, more topweights win than any other handicapped horse. It should be somewhere around level if the impost is correct - which it's not.

__________________
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

I agree that the system is flawed and that is what got me thinking about ways to exploit the flaws. Another point is that the range of weights available can't be sufficient to accurately cover the range in horses abilities i.e. there's a bunch of horses on the limit but some are okay and others would be better off on the dole. At the other end I would argue that some horses should be carrying 65kg or more but you just never see it.

The approach I'm considering is targeting horses which are in the middle to low weights that rate the best considering only the factors the handicapper DOESN'T use.

Spot on Dirk, I also think this is where a great deal of value lies.
It's just getting the right handicapping method to sort them out correctly.

Good Luck.

__________________
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

I think the main factor the handicapper doesn't use is luck in running, if a horse gets trapped three wide without cover, and boxes on gamely, or gets trapped for a runs but flies home and just misses out.