Pointers

[padman]

This is going along very nicely. <br>I have tried to do this on the RP site, but you can not get the latest/best/adjusted figure’s can you, any help would be appreciated.

Cheers,<br>Paul

[kersly]

Hi Paul,<br>I agree it is much easier using the paper than the site.Perhaps a way forward-Look at Postdata note any horse that is top rated by Topspeed"highest"and "best"(must be clear not joint )<br>Go to RPR ratings were you can obtain the "latest""best" and"adjusted" figures.The horse must be clear best in all three (must be clear not joint)<br>The horse must also be Postdata selection with no X’s<br>I also note how many ticks each qualifier is given I hope that this will indicate some trends in the future.Hope that helps.<br>————————————————————————

Only Procedure 2 selections posted from now on,record of Procedure 1 will still be monitored.

Selections -Friday 20th August

2.10 Chester-Tarfah(8 ticks)..Lost<br>2.20 Ayr-Spear(7 ticks)….Lost

kersly<br>   <br>

(Edited by kersly at 11:48 am on Sep. 1, 2004)

[andydawes]

Hi Kers,

I`ve been following procedure 2 for a while now with reasonable success.

Today I have Bayeux de Moi (Salis 6.05) as a selection but you don`t.

Maybe that`s the difference between the online RP and the paper version.

[andydawes]

Forget that nonsense in the last post.

Just spotted that its not the postdata selection so doesn`t qualify.

[kersly]

Hi Andy,<br>At times there is a difference between paper version and online don’t know why.<br>Regarding Bayeux de Moi there are a number of opportunities each day that show horses to be top on TS and RPR.They produce some reasonable winners.

Saturday 21st August<br>Definite selections for Procedure 2<br>2.25 M.Rasen-Wilfred……………..Lost<br>3.30 M.Rasen-Salinas……………..Lost<br>4.40 M.Rasen-Artane Boys………Won 5/4

Running Total(+16.75)

All these races have newcomers that can’t be rated but last year it proved profitable to stick with these qualifiers,heres hoping.<br>————————————————————————<br>Todays list of possibles…….<br>5.20 Ling-Sudden Dismissal(7)(8 ticks)Won 11/8<br>2.05 Chester-Aldente(7)(8 ticks)Lost<br>3.15 Chester-Swift Tango(6)(9 ticks)Won 5/1<br>3.50 Chester-One Putra(6)(8ticks)Lost<br>2.15 Sand-Leos Lucky Star(5)(5 ticks)Lost<br>2.50 Sand-Ryans Future(6)(9 ticks)Lost<br>3.25 Sand-Smokin Beau(6)(10 Ticks)Won 2/1<br>5.05 Sand-Anna Panna(6)(6 ticks)Lost

Staked..8 points..Returned 11.37(+3.37)

Working on various ideas to narrow down these basic qualifiers.This list is for information only maybe someone can spot a way of reducing this list.<br>On most days there is a reasonable list of horses that could be narrowed down.

kersly  <br>

(Edited by kersly at 12:03 pm on Aug. 22, 2004)

[Artemis]

This system is operating in an area that is very familiar to me. I have been using most of the RP data to compile my own ratings for many years with a limited amount of success.

I actually had a version of a ratings system I was using published in the Smart magazine several years ago.

The ratings utilise RP ratings, Topspeed, and information about the horse’s career record. I also add points for jockeyship and finally take account of the going and any track bias on the day.

It involves quite a bit of work, but I’m retired and have quite a bit of spare time. It is an absorbing hobby, although I cannot claim to have found any systematic way of getting rich. There are good times and bad, as with any systematic approach and I find changing going to be the main problem.

I used to post on the betting tips section of the forum, without any outstanding success, but found that there were not many other people giving reasoned opinions for their selections and it can also be time-consuming, even to someone with time to spare.    

Back to the RP ratings/Postdata. The main problem in using these as a basis for any system is that if you set too many restrictions (to eliminate horses with weaknesses), you will invariably lose the winners that are in the profitable price range of around 8/1+. What tends to remain are horses that are generally overbet and represent poor value.

I’m off on holiday shortly, but when I get back I’ll submit my current version of the ratings system I use and will be interested in any comments. I’m not really worried about anyone plagiarising my methods because there must be hundreds of people around the country doing similar things with ratings and other data, many using computerised models. Most of these models use the same data ‘ tweaked’ in different ways but often coming up with similar results. I find that these horses are almost always put in shorter than the RP forecast SP and frequently shorten up considerably before the off.

[kersly]

Hello Artemis,<br>I see your point about better price winners  if you ignore certain negative factors.Is it possible to remind me of the month and year your article  was published? I have all the copies of Smart sig and would be interested to review it.<br>As you state there must be numerous combinations of ratings that produce selections.Ideally the selections that are worked out should be supported by sound reasoning such as running style,pace of the race etc.<br>Do you think that a combination of ratings can be a starting point for further analysis?Or should we be looking for a less obvious starting point that might give a more individual approach hence better value.<br>I feel reasonably confident in the way I analyse ratings that winners are there among the top rated horses the problem is narrowing the list down.<br>It will be interesting to read your approach when you get chance to post.<br>Today the long list of rated horses provided 3 winners from 8 selections(5/1-2/1-11/8)the only way I would have benefitted from them was to have backed all 8.I need to research a more selective approach.<br>I’m hoping the Pointers selections will produce a sufficient winning percentage to produce a profit.<br>Look forward to your contributions.Good Luck.

kersly<br>

[kersly]

Sunday 22nd August<br>There are no Procedure 2 selections<br>————————————————————————Todays list of possibles..purely for investigation.

1.50 Folk-Innoc Splendour(7)(7ticks)Won 1/1<br>2.50 Folk-Danifah(6)(9ticks)Won 11/8<br>3.20 Folk-Azeme((5)(9ticks)Lost<br>4.10 N.Abb-Kalambari(6)(8ticks)Lost<br>4.30 S/W-Batoutoftheblue(6)(6ticks)Won 3/1<br>4.50 Folk-Coppice(4)(5ticks)Lost

Staked..6.00 Returned 8.37(+2.37)

Running Total(+5.74)

kersly

(Edited by kersly at 12:31 pm on Aug. 23, 2004)

[Artemis]

Kersly,<br>The article was published in Smart around about 1995, but I cannot remember the exact date. The title of the article was THE COLLATOR. I thought I had it copied on to a floppy but I cannot find it – will keep looking.

If you do manage to find it, there are some changes I have made with the benefit of more knowledge, but the basic ideas haven’t changed very much.  

[kersly]

Artemis,<br>Found the article on page 15 in ths August 1995 edition.<br>A comprehensive approach.It has already given me food for thought.<br>I also now have time to study following medical retirement from the teaching.I enjoy the daily challenge.<br>Despite the undoubted number of numerical approaches I believe that it is the numerical weighting put on to the various areas that may(hopefully)produce a winning approach.For example I believe the draw has a significant say in the outcome of many tightly knit races particularly at certain courses.<br>It will be interesting to note your contribution.<br>I will post basic daily lists that include horses that have negative factors  for example an X in certain postdata boxes also horses that  are top rated but can be matched by others but not bettered.<br>————————————————————————<br>Monday 23rd August<br>Definite Procedure 2 selection.I will be backing this

3.15 Ham-Just A Fluke(clear top in all areas of TS and RPR)…Lost(btn sht hd)

Running Total(+15.75)<br>————————————————————————<br>Basic List<br>5.40 S/W-Crocolat(7)(9 ticks)…………..Won 5/4<br>6.10 S/W-Paris Tapis(7)(8 ticks)……….Won 1/1<br>6.25 Windsor-Cree(6)(7 ticks)(1X)……Lost

Running Tota(+6.99)

kersly <br> <br>

(Edited by kersly at 11:17 am on Aug. 24, 2004)

[terencel]

Hi Andy & Kersley. Just looking thru the thread & saw remarks about Postdata selection being different in the paper to the on-line version.

I noticed this some 3 or 4 months ago and contacted the editor of the RP. The reply basically was that the on-line version is the early edition but the paper prints the up-dated/latest edition, which takes into account going changes, draw, jockey changes etc. The on-line edition is not amended/updated.

Strange then that in the few days following, when monitoring both versions, the on-line edition selected more winners than the amended (paper) selections, and at some decent prices.

Seems that "you pays your money and takes your choice"!

:)

[kersly]

Hi terencel,<br>It is very difficult to follow ideas using online and the paper version of the RP.It has to be one or the other.There are too many differences between the two.<br>————————————————————————<br>Procedure 2 selections-Tuesday 24th August<br>2.45 Yarm-Pianoforte………….Lost<br>6.30 Worc-River Pirate………..Won 5/4

Running Total(+16.00)<br>————————————————————————<br>Basic List<br>7.00 Worc-Dancer Life……………..Lost

Running Total(+5.99)

kersly

(Edited by kersly at 3:11 pm on Aug. 25, 2004)

[kersly]

Wednesday 25th August<br>Procedure 2-No selections<br>————————————————————————<br>Basic List<br>3.20 Perth-Billy Two Rivers……Won 11/8

Running Total(+7.36)

kersly<br>

(Edited by kersly at 2:42 pm on Aug. 26, 2004)

[kersly]

Thursday 26th August<br>Procedure 2<br>3.30 Muss-Wonderful Mind…….Lost(2nd)<br>4.50 Ling-Barton Sands…………Lost(2nd)

Running Total(+14.00)<br>————————————————————————<br>Basic List<br>2.40 Bangor-Saspys Lad…………Lost<br>3.00 Muss-Indibraun………………Lost<br>4.00 Muss-Yenaled…………………Won 3/1<br>5.00 Muss-Son Of Thunder………Lost

Running Total(+7.36)

kersly<br>

(Edited by kersly at 1:28 pm on Aug. 27, 2004)

[kersly]

Friday 27th August<br>Procedure 2<br>1.55 Thirsk-Northern Secret…………Lost<br>2.25 Thirsk-Stretford End…………….Lost<br>6.25 Newc-Bongoali……………………Lost(2nd)

Running Total(+11.00-the dreaded losing run strikes)<br>————————————————————————<br>Basic List<br>1.45 Newm-Singhalese………………Lost<br>2.15 Newm-Playful Act……………….Won 8/15<br>5.25 Newc-Wares Home…………….Lost<br>7.10 Bath-Queen Lucia………………Lost<br>7.40 Bath-Travellers Tale……………Lost

Running Total(+3.89)

kersly

(Edited by kersly at 7:49 pm on Aug. 27, 2004)

[kersly]

Saturday 28th August<br>Races with less than half the field rated have been ignored.

Procedure 2<br>2.05 Bev-Lake Charlotte………….Won 13/8<br>4.25 Cartmel-Apadi…………………Won 13/8<br>5.05 Cartmel-Basinet………………Won 2/1

Running Total(+16.24)<br>————————————————————————<br>Basic List<br>2.25 Newm-Grand Place………….Lost<br>3.15 Bev-Mutafanen……………….Lost<br>4.20 Bev-Locombe Hill…………….Lost<br>4.50 Goodw-Pangloss…………….Lost<br>5.20 Redcar-Tsaroxy………………Won 9/4<br>7.50 Redcar-Spring Breeze………Lost

Running Total(+1.14)

kersly

<br>(Edited by kersly at 11:47 am on Aug. 29, 2004)<br>

(Edited by kersly at 11:54 am on Sep. 1, 2004)

[kersly]

Sunday 29th August<br>Following discussion now using qualifiers that have one X in Postdata must qualify in every other respect.Didn’t have time to explain this yesterday.Lake Charlotte was a selection using the idea.The thinking behind it that it might produce slightly better prices.<br>————————————————————————<br>Procedure 2<br>2.20 Yarm-Sign Writer-enough horses rated to make this a selection.Looks well clear of those that have raced…Lost

Running Total(+15.24)<br>————————————————————————<br>Basic List -for investigation only<br>4.50 Bev-Megan’s Magic(5)(8ticks)(1X)…Lost

Running Total(+0.14)

kersly

(Edited by kersly at 11:21 am on Aug. 30, 2004)

[Author]

Posts