- This topic has 74 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Billion….. in reply to your query….. I have NEVER used the Daily Mail ratings, because of this , I really don’t know if this is gonna help at all, but I posted because you had a lack of response…. that doesn’t seem to be the case now….. but I will answer some of your questions…..
Originally this was for horses that were running again within 4 days of its last outing and was also placed in the first 3 on its last outing…. any horse must have run at least twice…. and it was Handicaps only…..
This was modified to account for N/H racing and private ratings that I obtain, so the ceiling of 4 days was raised to 14 days, and the h/caps only was disregarded, there was never a limit on the amount of runners or the position in the betting……
The reasoning at the time was that if the trainer considered running a horse that had been placed in its previous race and was running it that soon, it was deemed obvious that the horse was trying to capitalise on its fitness peak…. if memory serves me correctly, a horse can only retain its present fitness peak for a period of about 3 weeks….. this method erred on the frugal side and gave it 14 days…… horses cost a tremendous amount of money and it is in the owners and trainers interest to run their horse at the fitness peak…. but please remember, I do not know how this works with ratings from the Daily papers….. you could paper trade it first, starting off with the 4 day plan on h/caps only and ignore the ratings…. and then just stretch your parameters so that you catch the majority of profitable winners…..
And "Value" is definitely NOT to be ignored, if you can get value for every bet you strike, you will win long term, the losers are the ones that don’t get value….. if one bookie is offering 5/2 and the other is offering 3/1, your bloody crackers if you take the 5/2 because that is NOT value….. it surprises me how many punters fail to understand such a simple concept….. if you get good value for every bet you strike, you will win….. but keep taking that 5/2 style bet and you will be broke pretty quickly…… hope all this helps a bit…..
Thank you
MrE
for a great posting.
It is going to take a ittle while to digest all aspects suggested and perhaps meld them into an individual style.
Just a couple of points, I do remember
"back in the day . . "
when Formcast top rated 78 was thought to be a good bet when 1LTO within 7 days on the flat and 4 over the jumps, it worked but as previously said was very much in and out, perhaps in accord with Mr Taylor being at his desk or not.
"VALUE", as I have said I do hate this word or at least the interpretations offered of it’s meaning but you have an understanding I can go along with "taking the value that is available" and with Best Odds Guaranteed I cannot see any way to lose, other than
picking the wrong horses
.
A great posting, thanks again and perhaps this time you will hang around and it may be worth sifting through some of them old postings you previously submitted.
Billy's Outback Shack
On a second reading of
MrE
‘s submission I would like to ask for readers opinion with regard to one point offered.
The suggestion made is any possible selection (via whatever rating used) should have a minimum of two previous runs.
I have always preferred races where ALL horses in the race have plenty of "form" and so my question to members is "If the top rated has run at least twice before as required can this be a true rating if racing against other horses who do not have the same minimum outings?"
Billy's Outback Shack
Suggested amalgam of previous postings: –
1) Formcast 78 (Daily Mail), perhaps applicable to other ratings.
2) Delete poor races and riders such as amatuers/lady/apprentice/sellers or selections where riders are amatuer or apprentice.
I wonder if this should include "claimer races"
3) Distance, min. 7f for flat races and 2m5f NH.
4) Selections must have at least 2 prior races in current season (
should this include all horses in the race?)
5) LTO 1.2.3 within 14 days but possible stake increase if within 4 days.
6) STAKING. Short prices win only, but 25/75 win and place should be determined if place price of 1.8 or more is available. If second rated is only horse credited with 77 back both.
Opinions and suggestions wanted.
Billy's Outback Shack
Couple of points, Billion…
Limiting your selection media to handicaps would normally overcome the problem of insufficient form to assess a rating….I suppose All-Aged Stakes would be a qualifier; I certainly have had some satisfactory outcomes from such races.
The question of jt and co-rated 77s is more problematic.
Someone less lazy than myself would probably have analysed the outcomes and come up with a satisfactory conclusion.
I personally prefer both selections to appear in the first 4 of the betting forecast…if more than 2 then abandon the race as a betting opportunity.
But some might say, with some validity, that the highest weighted 77 should accompany the 78.
Perhaps a contributor of a statistical persuasion might be sufficiently interested in the subject to perform such an analysis over a reasonable period of time.Powered by Linux
elcartero
, clarification.
In accord with postings so far I agree both Handicap & non handicap races should be considerations and am sorry if that was not clear. The only races eliminated from consideration are: –
Amateur/Ladies/Apprentice & Sellers.
I do wonder about NH Novice/Maidens & Claimer races
Thoughts regarding these are most welcome.
Second rated i.e. Formcast 77 I would have thought must be a stand alone and not joint as you say.
I think it is all adding up to a reasonable set of system rules . . .
so far!
I just cannot square the circle with regard to
Pompete
‘s suggestion re sellers but perhaps as suggested a separate log for these is the answer, it is so strange how one person can make things work and yet others cannot.
Billy's Outback Shack
elcartero
, clarification.
In accord with postings so far I agree both Handicap & non handicap races should be considerations and am sorry if that was not clear. The only races eliminated from consideration are: –
Amateur/Ladies/Apprentice & Sellers.
I do wonder about NH Novice/Maidens & Claimer races
Thoughts regarding these are most welcome.
No…I eliminate these races as well as those already mentioned above…I should mention that I don’t consider races of class 5 or worse.
Second rated i.e. Formcast 77 I would have thought must be a stand alone and not joint as you say.
There are very few standalone 77s so I defer to the expertise of the SP Forecast compiler to determine which I will select but as I said before, analysis of results may prove me to be entirely wrong.
I think it is all adding up to a reasonable set of system rules . . .
so far!
I just cannot square the circle with regard to
Pompete
‘s suggestion re sellers but perhaps as suggested a separate log for these is the answer, it is so strange how one person can make things work and yet others cannot.
Powered by Linux
Hi Billion, re my comments earlier – it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions without knowing how the ratings are arrived at – I don’t mean specifically, all the ins & outs, but roughly. Therefore, I can only speak generally but as I mentioned in my experience the ‘best’ horse in the race tends to win Conditional, Amateur & Lady Riders, races also Sellers and Claimers, therefore if the purpose of these ratings is to identify the ‘Best’ horse in the race then they should work.
Re, Novice and Maiden Hurdle if these ratings are any good at all they should clean up in these types of races – these races should be the bread & butter of any profitable system imv, of course.
While I do understand why people are quick to dismiss the types of races mentioned above along with other lower grade stuff I’m am always interested in discovering whether such a view is based upon actual personal experience or rather has been, somewhere along the line, simply accepted by the person as a ‘truism’ of horseracing without any real knowledge attached to it.
Pompete
,
One answer to why the so called poorer races are dismissed could be simply to make the total number of selections fewer and therefore more manageable.
Although I do not have it to hand it was suggested I buy and read "Braddocks guide to Horse Racing" (author and title I am uncertain of because it is not here where I am to check) but it was considered that both trainers and owners can, dare I suggest, massage the result in sellers with greater ease than other races.
Billy's Outback Shack
In the absence of Formcast Ratings for Sunday racing I checked Timeform Top Two Rated from the Oddschecker site against my selected races:
Handicaps of 10 or fewer runners.
Class 4 or better.
No other filters were applied.330 Stratford
Pickamus won 9/4
Baren de Doc345 Ascot
Fresh Air and Fun
Soulard won 2/1355 Wincanton
Sou’wester won 3/1
Bollitree Bob420 Ascot
Briery Fox won 11/4
KnowhereNo other bets
Yes, I know it’s only one isolated day’s racing but it may be of interest to those who prefer not to buy the Daily Mail or wish, like me on this occasion to have a small wager on a Sunday!
Powered by Linux
Well done
elcartero
, I like it and am sure others will do also.
Is Class 4+ something of a normal ruling for yourself?
I do like both suggestions, of staking 25/75,as suggested by
MrE
obviously only at longer prices but also like the idea of backing two top rated which as you demonstrate can be profitable and both provide a good safety net.
Billy's Outback Shack
Billion wrote:
Is Class 4+ something of a normal ruling for yourself?
Yes indeed….Interestingly, my top-two rated rarely provide a forecast as will be noted from my earlier post.
Powered by Linux
Thanks for your answer
elcartero
.
My guess is although you have suggested this as a Formcast 78/77 system and then demostrated profitabilty with Time Form (yes I do understand, just one day only) but could be used with any available ratings of personal choice.
Also the class 4 + reminds me so much of the late Robin Lloyd who created early computerised systems but told me he would never rate any race below £7,500 (not sure how this figure equates today) but his theory being that a) the races atracted better quality horses. b) the trainers were had fewer chances to use these races to there advantage.
Billy's Outback Shack
Oh dear…. here I go again, batting against the crowd….. nah, not really, but it’s an opposite side of the coin to what you guys are thinking…..
Why Class 4 and above????…. I get a lot of my success in the lower grade races…. the higher the Class of race your betting in means the more competitive the race, and the more competitive the race equals more chance of you NOT getting the winner…… surely the opposite should be the key…..
If you pick a low class race, the "blots" or the better horse begin to stand out more…. horses that are running in a lower class than they should be are still there for some easy pickings….. you just have to sort out the wheat from the chaff….. horses that never run in races any better than the grade they are in is one thing, but horses that are dropped in grade are worthy of a second look….. maybe there is a reason…. its usually because the horse had had a couple of falls and it needs an easier race as a confidence builder….. perhaps the horse has not transferred very well from A/W to turf or vice versa….. there are numerous reasons why you should bet in lower grade races, but the main reason is that in Class 3 and upwards, if there’s 12 horses running, you can find 8 runners where the winners will come from… that’s any 1 of 8…… in the crappier races you can find the winner of a 12 horse race in about 4 of the field, I know which I would fancy my chances at…..
This is what makes systems and methods so complex, there is no easy answer…. its another reason why there are system abounding in their thousands….. nobody’s got it right yet…… but what you can get right within any system requirements is value and staking…… but this is not the place to talk about that, I don’t want to hi-jack Billions thread….. you have got a great thread going here Billion, keep it going my friend…..
MrE
Hi Billion, while I understand that it maybe necessary to avoid certain types of races to cut down the total number of races played or the time taken to study them in addition to types of races that are unprofitable. I would suggest that this can only reasonable be done after a suitable large sample of races of all types had undergone an analysis.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the above mentioned races should be played and I have no idea whether as a group they are profitable or not but then, if I may say so – neither do you, at this moment in time.
Although again clearly, it is not for me to tell others what to do I am of the view that there are potentially plenty of profitable systems out there that people have prematurely given up on due to not exposing them to a rigorous analysis. I do appreciate that the collecting of data can be time consuming and in some cases laborious, boring even but turning a profit has never been easy and in my view to do so the groundwork is essential.
Sorry, to bang on about this and sound as if I’m preaching, that is not my intention.
Back with a BANG!
Don’t you worry about Hi-Jacking this thread
MrE
it will and can only survive with input no matter how diverse . . . you are more than welcome.
The start of a new week and hopes are high with expectations of a turn around anticipated.
Two selections today but posted too early for hoped for decent prices: –
Kempton 4.50 MASKED MAN
Windsor 7.40 CALYPSO STARI made the error and paid for it!
Billy's Outback Shack
Excellent post, Pompete…..Couldn’t agree more!
Hi Billion, while I understand that it maybe necessary to avoid certain types of races to cut down the total number of races played or the time taken to study them in addition to types of races that are unprofitable. I would suggest that this can only reasonable be done after a suitable large sample of races of all types had undergone an analysis.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the above mentioned races should be played and I have no idea whether as a group they are profitable or not but then, if I may say so – neither do you, at this moment in time.
Although again clearly, it is not for me to tell others what to do I am of the view that there are potentially plenty of profitable systems out there that people have prematurely given up on due to not exposing them to a rigorous analysis. I do appreciate that the collecting of data can be time consuming and in some cases laborious, boring even but turning a profit has never been easy and in my view to do so the groundwork is essential.
Sorry, to bang on about this and sound as if I’m preaching, that is not my intention.
Powered by Linux
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.