- This topic has 22 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
<b>Oh no! </b>’Fraid so…
Without going into too much detail, the idea is that the recent form of stables can have a big impact on the success rates of their subsequent runners.
Also, I don’t like straightforward ‘wins, places, unplaced’ assessments for a variety of reasons (in particular that this does not take into account the relative strength of the horses from that yard). Thus, I have come up with a very quick way of rating trainers based on the finishing position and starting price of all their recent runners.
Today, I have looked at Kempton, and the ratings are as follows…
+19.46 – FANSHAWE J R (4)
+17.42 – DASCOMBE TOM (5)
+17.42 – HOWLING P (16)
+16.41 – TURNELL ANDREW (15)
+14.58 – USHER M D I (11)
+14.20 – HANNON R (18.)
+13.97 – AKEHURST J (5)
+13.00 – PEARCE J (8.)
+11.97 – LIDDIARD STEF (10)
+11.87 – SMITH V (2)
+11.70 – RIMELL M G (3)
+11.25 – WEST MISS SHEENA (5)
+11.09 – DACE L A (3)
+10.39 – JARVIS A P (6)
+8.36 – DUNLOP E A L (2)
+7.57 – WOOD I A (13)
+7.37 – BRITTAIN C E (6)
+7.34 – BLAKE G D (3)
+6.26 – BOYLE J R (8.)
+5.33 – POWELL B G (27)
+4.65 – DWYER C A (1)
+3.49 – JOHNSTON M (17)
+3.16 – MOORE J S (2)
+0.89 – IVORY D K (5)
+0.63 – BOTTI M (7)
+0.33 – BRADLEY J M (8.)[/color:39vd7ktn]= – CUNNINGHAM-BROWN K O (0)
= – DUTFIELD MRS P N (0)
= – O’GORMAN P J (0)[/color:39vd7ktn]-1.27 – BURGOYNE P (3)
-2.03 – ATTWATER M J (5)
-2.14 – HAYNES A B (13)
-2.27 – MOORE G L (27)
-3.30 – SHAW D (37)
-3.97 – CARROLL A W (21)
-4.28 – OSBORNE J A (9)
-4.51 – CHANCE NOEL T (6)
-6.07 – CHANNON M R (14)
-6.54 – RYAN K A (17)
-7.99 – MEEHAN B J (2)[/color:39vd7ktn]The figure in brackets is the number of assessed runners (in the last fortnight). Ideally, the ratings would pivot around 0.00, but they are actually slightly positively biased, although this is not a major problem and might be the subject of future tinkering.
Obviously, the more runners a stable has had, the more we might be able to infer about their form. As such, the raw rating is pushed back towards zero (proportionately) where they have had less than 5 runners in the two weeks.
At this stage, the figures have not been strenuously tested, and I confess that I haven’t really played around with how they might be most useful. Originally, the idea was to come up with a laying system to highlight short-priced horses to oppose, so there is a big ‘value’ angle incorporated.
As an initial attempt then, I have looked at the trainer ratings in conjunction with some elementary speed figure data, and in the context of the market. Certainly these are three of the key factors I normally take into account when analysing a forthcoming event, so it seems a reasonable starting point.
A 100% tissue has been suggested, using purely the trainer/speed data, with a proportioned 200% book used to identify lays (where the trainer rating is negative), and a 50% book used to identify backs (where the trainer rating is positive).
Based on this, the tissue/selections for today (omitting the maiden) are:
<u>2:00</u>
2.9 – TURNER’S TOUCH
3.3 – GENEROUS LAD
5.3 – OUTLANDISH
<b>6.1 – SOL ROJO (BACK)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]<u>2:30</u>
<b>3.7 – GREZIE (BACK)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]
9.4 – STRAIGHT FACE
10.2 – DOCTOR NED
10.6 – RAISE AGAIN
11.1 – PRINCE VALENTINE
11.2 – A TEEN
11.5 – ONLY IF I LAUGH
14.0 – CAYMAN BREEZE
<b>23.0 – FUN IN THE SUN (LAY)
27.1 – PRETTILINI (LAY)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]
77.9 – RAIHANAH<u>3:30</u>
4.4 – VALHILLEN
5.1 – LIEUTENANT PIGEON
8.0 – SOUTHWEST STAR
10.0 – FLY IN JOHNNY
11.4 – ASIAN POWER
14.4 – ROCKFIELD LODGE
18.0 – WEE BUNS
19.3 – YOUNG IVANHOE
29.8 – STOREY HILL
31.9 – WAVE HILL
<b>40.9 – TOBAR SUIL LADY (LAY)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]<u>4:00</u>
3.5 – FINANCIAL TIMES
4.5 – BENLLECH
5.8 – FROMSONG
12.9 – TONY JAMES
14.6 – CRYSTAL GAZER
15.2 – BABY STRANGE
<b>17.4 – AJIGOLO (LAY)
20.0 – DISTINCTLY GAME (LAY)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]<u>4:30</u>
<b>2.6 – GROSS PROPHET (BACK)
4.9 – ALWAYS READY (BACK)
6.0 – TIA MIA (BACK)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]
8.7 – TADALAVIL
15.0 – GRAND FLEET
<b>15.6 – MISTER NEW YORK (LAY)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]<u>5:00</u>
<b>2.6 – CROSSBOW CREEK (BACK)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]
4.9 – AWATUKI
5.7 – PRIME NUMBER
10.6 – ROYAL FANTASY
13.2 – LISATHEDADDY
<b>15.2 – ART MAN (LAY)</b>[/color:39vd7ktn]<i>This is (as stated) just an experiment, and in future I will only publish the ratings (because I do have a tendency to waffle). I realise this is almost a ‘system’, but I think because of the complexity, it is more of a lays and plays thing.
I will track the results both for the backs and the lays, and review things after about 20 meetings.
Any views or comments most welcome, especially if anyone has done or tried to do something similar…</i> <!– s:D –>
<!– s:D –>Looking forward to this, NV. Current trainerform is one of THE major winner finders imo, though how you assess this is key. Best of luck.
To track the results simply, I will assume each lay to be a risk of 1pt at SP, and each back to be a risk of 1pt also at SP. I realise that using SP is not ideal (and it will be slightly generous to the lays and slightly punitive to the backs) but it should give a good idea of what this selection ‘system’ is capable of – if anything…
Meeting 1 Update
Horses backed = 6
Winners = 2 [14/1, 7/1]
[b:1pmigkd6]Profit/Loss = +17.00pts[/color:1pmigkd6][/b:1pmigkd6]Horses laid = 6
Successful lays = 5
[b:1pmigkd6]Profit/Loss = +1.19pts[/b:1pmigkd6][/color:1pmigkd6]Overall bets = 12
[b:1pmigkd6]Profit/Loss = +18.19pts[/b:1pmigkd6][/color:1pmigkd6]Thanks David – yes, a good day but could be one of those ‘almost-too-promising’ starts!
I have looked at Lingfield today…
+21.82 – MCBRIDE P J (4)
+19.65 – MONGAN MRS L J (4)
+18.78 – BLANSHARD M (4)
+18.65 – GEORGE KAREN (7)
+16.65 – TOOTH MISS J R (3)
+15.58 – DOYLE MS J S (3)
+13.00 – AKEHURST J (3)
+11.25 – WEST MISS SHEENA (5)
+10.56 – JARVIS W (5)
+9.06 – SMITH V (1)
+9.02 – BOYLE J R (9)
+8.22 – BRITTAIN C E (7)
+7.68 – BRIDGER J J (7)
+7.57 – WOOD I A (13)
+7.53 – STRONGE R M (2)
+7.11 – HERRIES LADY (1)
+6.75 – ALLEN M A (3)
+5.92 – BOTTI M (6)
+5.92 – COLLINGRIDGE H J (2)
+5.46 – POWELL B G (26)
+4.14 – TOLLER J A R (1)
+3.87 – SIMPSON R (1)
+3.69 – POULTON JAMIE (5)
+3.06 – DOW S (4)
+3.05 – BURKE K R (18.)
+2.47 – EDDERY PAT (2)
+1.65 – DUKE B W (4)
+0.60 – ARBUTHNOT D W P (7)
+0.22 – MOORE G L (25)[/color:3gjw8jee]= – GUBBY B (0)
= – MCCARTHY T D (0)
= – WALL C F (0)[/color:3gjw8jee]-0.68 – JOHNSTON M (17)
-0.93 – HIATT P W (11)
-1.15 – SHAW D (35)
-1.27 – BURGOYNE P (3)
-2.03 – ATTWATER M J (5)
-3.37 – EVANS P D (19)
-3.62 – MITCHELL N R (4)
-3.97 – CARROLL A W (20)
-4.13 – CREIGHTON E J (2)
-4.87 – JOHNSON B R (3)
-4.90 – HOAD M R (3)
-6.05 – HILLS J W (7)
-10.62 – WILLIAMS S C (6)
-11.71 – INGRAM R (3)[/color:3gjw8jee]And so onto the races (again omitting the maiden due to a paucity of form with two unraced runners)…
2:30
2.5 – HANSOMELLE (BACK)[/color:3gjw8jee]
6.3 – PRINCE CHARLEMAGNE
12.2 – IMPERIAL AMBER
13.4 – GROUND PATROL
14.1 – PAB SPECIAL
15.3 – LORD OF DREAMS
16.0 – COMPETITOR
19.8 – SEKULA PATA
27.1 – STRATN JACK (BACK) – !!! I think a filter might be required !!![/color:3gjw8jee]3:35
2.9 – BALERNO (BACK)[/color:3gjw8jee]
7.1 – STRUT THE STAGE
9.9 – METROPOLITAN CHIEF
11.1 – COMPULSION
11.6 – NAPOLETANO
15.4 – TUNING FORK
19.7 – ZAZOUS
23.8 – DOUBLE VALENTINE (LAY)[/color:3gjw8jee]
24.7 – MA RIDGE
28.4 – JESSICA WIGMO (LAY)[/color:3gjw8jee]4:10
5.0 – HIGH ‘N DRY
6.4 – CHARLOTTEBUTTERFLY
8.3 – WAQAARR
8.6 – BINNION BAY
8.9 – UNLIMITED
14.6 – DAWSON CREEK
16.8 – JOSR’S MAGIC
22.7 – ALI BRUCE
27.4 – SUBADAR
28.4 – DANCING DUO
34.9 – DREAM FOREST
44.8 – CLIMATE (LAY)[/color:3gjw8jee]4:45
3.0 – COMPTON CLASSIC
3.6 – TRISKAIDEKAPHOBIA
5.5 – KEMPSEY
11.2 – GAME LADY
15.6 – SANDS CROONER (LAY)[/color:3gjw8jee]
18.9 – DON’T TELL SUE5:20
3.9 – ROSY DAWN (BACK)
4.9 – DAWN WIND (BACK)
5.5 – TOBAGO BAY (BACK)[/color:3gjw8jee]
9.5 – WARMING UP
12.9 – I CERTAINLY MAY
18.4 – WHITCOMBE SPIRIT
21.8 – CORAL SHORES (LAY)[/color:3gjw8jee]
21.9 – LORD’S BIDDING
33.0 – LOVE EMPIRE (LAY)[/color:3gjw8jee]5:50
4.2 – SHOGUN PRINCE
5.2 – STARK CONTRAST
5.9 – MOST DEFINITELY
7.3 – OBRIGADO
15.3 – SCRIPTED
21.1 – MR NAPOLEON
24.7 – CALMING WATERS
25.7 – NOTHINGTODECLAIRE
25.9 – WATERLINE TWENTY (LAY)[/color:3gjw8jee]
29.2 – BASSINETAnd selections for Kempton, with the later maiden omitted (two unraced runners) this evening…
18:20
2.3 – SHATTER RESISTANT (BACK)[/color:nynalrth]
4.0 – THE MAGIC BLANKET
9.0 – STONEACRE CHRIS
11.1 – BEN (LAY)[/color:nynalrth]
16.6 – HONEST VALUE
20.9 – WALRAGNEK18:50
4.4 – BALLINTENI
4.5 – MR AVIATOR
4.6 – RAPID CITY
7.7 – MATARAM
11.2 – NEARDOWN BEAUTY
16.6 – REGIONAL COUNSEL
18.7 – SCAMPERDALE (LAY)[/color:nynalrth]19:20
5.8 – TETRAGON (BACK)[/color:nynalrth]
7.4 – AMNESTY
8.9 – HIGH COUNTRY
9.5 – SOVIETTA
9.9 – ITSAWINDUP
13.8 – FARADAY
15.4 – HUGGLE
17.8 – THE POWER OF PHIL
18.7 – RUBILINI (BACK)[/color:nynalrth]
32.9 – MARIAVERDI
32.9 – NANOSECOND
34.4 – DOT’S DELIGHT
51.4 – MUSICAL AFFAIR
58.9 – ALLEZ MELINA20:20
2.4 – DHHAMAAN
2.9 – CAPRIO
6.2 – MILEAMINUTEMURPHY
14.6 – STONEACRE MA20:50
4.4 – SHERJAWY
5.4 – TILSWORTH CHARLIE
7.8 – REGAL ROYALE
10.6 – DESERT HUNTER
13.5 – SIMPSONS GAMBLE
14.1 – PICCOSTAR
17.3 – DESERT LIGHT (LAY)[/color:nynalrth]
20.5 – STORMBURST
24.2 – CALLOFF THE SEARCH
24.6 – ZORN
32.7 – GREENWOOD (LAY)[/color:nynalrth]21:20
4.2 – MEDIEVAL MAIDEN
7.4 – GRANARY GIRL
10.1 – OCEAN ROCK
11.1 – LITTLE RICHARD
14.8 – HIAWATHA
15.9 – MID VALLEY
16.1 – ERNMOOR
16.2 – GLOBAL TRAFFIC
20.5 – WIZARD LOOKING
24.1 – LOVE ANGEL
35.1 – MEOHMY
37.2 – SUMMER BOUNTY
54.2 – SIR JAKE
57.1 – STAR OF POMPEY (LAY) !!!Again, a filter may be in order, for big priced lays!!![/color:nynalrth]Poorer results yesterday, and I haven’t tried anything to do with jumps meetings yet. Am also still thinking about maiden races with unraced runners…
No time today, so just selections:
Southwell
2:10 – LAURO (BACK)[/color:bu8bpamq]
2:40 – WHITCOMBE FLYER (LAY)
2:40 – MISTRESS RIO (LAY)
2:40 – DISTANT NOBLE (LAY)[/color:bu8bpamq]3:10 – GRIMES FAITH (LAY)[/color:bu8bpamq]
3:40 – PLANET PARADISE (BACK)[/color:bu8bpamq]
4:10 – hmmm SHENANDOAH GIRL (BACK)
4:10 – hmmm CHEVALIERS DREAM (BACK)
4:10 – hmmm ADMIRAL TROY (BACK)[/color:bu8bpamq]
4:10 – DAYS OF PLEASURE (LAY)[/color:bu8bpamq]4:40 – LEYTE GULF (BACK)
4:40 – HABITUAL DANCER (BACK)[/color:bu8bpamq]
4:40 – BLUE HILLS (LAY)
4:40 – PHEIDIAS (LAY)[/color:bu8bpamq]A particular note of caution is sounded, with Southwell being such a specialist surface…
Are you prepared to say how you arrive at the trainer ratings NV? is it some kind of subjective assessment of each horse’s run for them versus your expectation, or the market’s? does it differ significantly from the Post’s rather crude version comparing pre and post race RPRs?
Carvillshill,
In essence (there is a ‘complicated’ Excel calculation), the trainer rating is assessed by comparing the market expectation (measured by S.P.) with finishing position (% of field beaten).
The idea is that this should provide a guide to whether a horse has run above or below par. Things which might challenge this would include stables whose runners are consistently over- or under-bet, and the treatment of horses who fail to finish (at present those pulling up are placed last, and everything else is ignored for assessment purposes).
What is generated is a score between (theoretically) +100 and -100 for each runner. All the scores for the trainer are then averaged to provide the rating, and as previously mentioned, adjusted ‘inwards’ where they have had less than 5 qualifying runners. All starts for the yard (i.e. jumps and flat) are included in the calculation.
It is completely statistical and objective and I am reluctant to either overcomplicate or ‘personalise’ things too much. Currently, a single macro enables me to assess an entire cards-worth of trainers in about 5-6 minutes, and builds a table of figures as it goes. That seems pretty nifty for a non-tekkie like me! The keystroke process is click – copy – macro button – close window (and then repeat)…
nv
Ok, early review (very early, but I’m itching to crack on with this)…
After four meetings
Horses backed = 22
Winners = 2 [14/1, 7/1]
[b:2102geyp]Profit/Loss = +1pt[/b:2102geyp][/color:2102geyp]Horses laid = 25
Successful lays = 21
[b:2102geyp]Profit/Loss = +1.71pts[/b:2102geyp][/color:2102geyp]Overall bets = 47
[b:2102geyp]Profit/Loss = +2.71pts[/b:2102geyp][/color:2102geyp]Not disastrous but not worth the effort, and profits reliant (on the BACK side particularly, and thus overall) on Ms.Bruning’s comparative wherewithall.
What I have noted is that sometimes horses are designated as ‘backs’ despite having virtually no chance where the system rates their chance as remote (say 40.0 or thereabouts), but the market offers them at much bigger odds.
I have also noted that those ‘lays’ which have resulted in losing bets have thus far been those with very small negative trainer ratings. To a lesser extent, a similar trend is suggested in the ‘backs’ where those with smaller positive ratings may be less likely to win. Where the trainer rating figures are closer to 0.0, the trainer may be very close to ‘normal’ form, rather than a small variation being truly indicative of anything else.
Finally, I like the idea of some increased filtering because I feel the system is generating slightly too many selections for comfortable operation and risk.
Essentially, I still see this as a laying mechanism, but will carry on analysing the results of the ‘backs’ because there is no logical reason why, if the system is in anyway valid, these should not do ok.
Whilst acknowledging that backfitting conditions to fit a system can be dangerous, especially with relatively small amounts of tested data, I am reasonably happy to do some early tinkering based on the facts that the process was completely raw and untested to start with, and that there are clear logical arguments in support of these modifications.
The changes I propose are:
1. Ignore any ‘backs’ where that horse’s best recent topspeed figure is less than two-thirds of the overall best topspeed figure for any runner in the race.
(No condition regarding this was in place)2. Select ‘lays’ only where the trainer rating is -2.5 or lower.
(Previously, this was set at -0.01 or lower)
3. Select ‘backs’ only where the trainer rating is +6.0 or higher.
(Previously, this was set at +0.01 or higher)With these minor alterations, over the four meetings to date the figures would read:
Horses backed = 14
Winners = 2 [14/1,7/1]
Profit/Loss = +9.0ptsHorses laid = 17
Successful lays = 17
Profit/Loss = +4.47ptsOverall = 31 bets
Profit/Loss = +13.47pts[/color:2102geyp]From Saturday, tying in nicely with the start of the flat season, I will start from scratch using these conditions…
[b:52trrd6j]Wolverhampton[/b:52trrd6j] tonight…
6:50 – Blackheath (BACK)
6:50 – Lithaam (BACK)
7:20 – Blushing Russian (BACK)[/color:52trrd6j]
7:20 – Pauvic (LAY)
7:20 – Keon (LAY)
7:20 – Avoncreek (LAY)
7:50 – Morbick (LAY)[/color:52trrd6j]
8:50 – Ten Pole Tudor (BACK)[/color:52trrd6j]
8:50 – Underworld (LAY)[/color:52trrd6j]Fingers crossed, although the Johnston horse in the 8:50 looks a dodgy lay to say the least…
Southwell today…
2:50 – SAVILE’S DELIGHT (LAY)[/color:3opkgig2]
3:25 – CHJIMES (BACK)[/color:3opkgig2]
3:25 – CAME BACK (LAY)[/color:3opkgig2]4:00 – OWED (LAY)
4:00 – MAGIC AMOUR (LAY)
4:00 – JOHNSTON’S GLORY (LAY)[/color:3opkgig2]4:35 – BERTS MEMORY (BACK)[/color:3opkgig2]
4:35 – SHIFTY (LAY)
4:35 – RAWAABET (LAY)
4:35 – THE LONDON GANG (LAY)
4:35 – CAPE DANCER (LAY)
4:35 – MOORSIDE DIAMOND (LAY)[/color:3opkgig2]5:10 – BENTLEY BROOK (LAY)
5:10 – TARTAN TIE (LAY)
5:10 – THEY ALL LAUGHED (LAY)[/color:3opkgig2]Bangor today, with a couple of minor filters added. Really an experiment to see whether this could be applied to jump racing. I’ll try and do a ‘progress report’ tomorrow…
2:30 – Delightfully (LAY)[/color:26lua48e]
3:00 – Island Key (BACK)[/color:26lua48e]
3:00 – Isn’t That Lucky (LAY)[/color:26lua48e]3:30 – Contact Dancer (LAY)
4:40 – Quality Control (LAY)[/color:26lua48e]
5:10 – Curran (BACK)[/color:26lua48e]
Hexham
2:40 – KALIC D’ALM (back)[/color:2425g6im]
2:40 – STARK RAVEN (lay)[/color:2425g6im]3:50 – PIRAEUS (back)[/color:2425g6im]
3:50 – ETCHED IN STONE (lay)[/color:2425g6im]
3:50 – TREASURED MEMORIES (lay)[/color:2425g6im]4:25 – CYBORA (lay)[/color:2425g6im]
4:55 – ROMAN BURY (back)[/color:2425g6im]
The progress report will have to wait for the time being, but I am less confident about NH racing as opposed to the flat stuff at the moment, so I will concentrate on the flat.
I am also wary that extremes of going may have a large impact on the fortunes of certain runners, so will probably be more selective about what meetings/races I assess, and stick to the sand or ground between GS and GF.
Anyway, for tomorrow…
Lingfield
2:10 – Samuel Charles (LAY)[/color:x704plel]
3:40 – Teen Ager (BACK)
3:40 – Art Market (BACK)
4:10 – Atheer Dubai (BACK)
4:10 – Artsu (BACK)[/color:x704plel]
4:10 – Maslaha (LAY)[/color:x704plel]
5:10 – Elizabeth’s Quest (BACK)[/color:x704plel]Southwell
2:30 – Blue Empire (LAY)
3:00 – Copper Bottomed (LAY)[/color:x704plel]
4:30 – Swallow Forest (BACK)[/color:x704plel]and for reference, these are the complete trainer ratings (in alphabetical order) per track…
Lingfield
+22.98 – PEARCE J (6)
+18.93 – DUNLOP E A L (9)
+16.39 – MULLINS J W (11)
+14.05 – BRITTAIN C E (14)
+12.69 – EVANS P D (23)
+12.66 – BELL M L W (13)
+9.88 – TURNER W G M (8.)
+8.96 – SIMPSON R (2)
+8.94 – BURGOYNE P (5)
+7.00 – CROWLEY MISS JO (3)
+5.71 – TINKLER C (1)
+5.57 – STUBBS MRS L (1)
+5.29 – TOLLER J A R (1)
+5.23 – SWINBURN W R (5)
+5.21 – HANNON R (22)
+4.17 – VAUGHAN E F (1)
+2.67 – HILLS J W (7)
+2.25 – HARRIS R A (14)
+1.53 – MUIR W R (2)
+1.00 – INGRAM R (6)
+0.61 – WEST MISS SHEENA (12)
+0.10 – GOLLINGS S (4)[/color:3etdj326]= – BALDING J (0)
= – HOUGHTON EVE JOHNSON (0)[/color:3etdj326]-0.16 – DWYER C A (3)
-0.66 – WRAGG G (5)
-1.15 – COLE P F I (4)
-1.58 – BUTLER P (4)
-2.11 – MORRISON H (1)
-2.19 – DOW S (6)
-3.81 – DORE C R (9)
-3.98 – OSBORNE J A (8.)
-4.14 – BEST JIM (14)
-4.44 – MADGWICK M (1)
-4.88 – MEEHAN B J (6)
-5.63 – JOHNSTON M (36)
-6.82 – MOORE J S (9)
-9.11 – IVORY D K (6)
-11.17 – JARVIS M A (8.)
-13.56 – MILLS T G (1)
-21.83 – GINGELL M J (5)
-25.01 – ELSWORTH D R C (5)[/color:3etdj326]Southwell
+17.41 – BROWN A D (3)
+12.69 – EVANS P D (23)
+9.88 – TURNER W G M (8.)
+9.58 – BARRON T D (11)
+9.22 – BRITTAIN M (9)
+8.79 – JAY J (1)
+7.41 – FEILDEN MISS J (4)
+7.11 – HALES A M (9)
+6.25 – MCINNES I W (10)
+5.54 – SMITH V (9)
+5.37 – NICHOLLS D (40)
+4.55 – TEAGUE C J (5)
+3.65 – MULLINEAUX M (5)
+3.39 – KITTOW W S (1)
+3.08 – SWINBANK G A (15)
+3.00 – WAGGOTT MISS TRACY (1)
+2.61 – KELLETT C N (1)
+2.20 – MIDGLEY P T (14)
+1.53 – MUIR W R (2)
+0.69 – GUEST R C (10)[/color:3etdj326]= – JUCKES A G (0)
= – LAMYMAN MRS S (0)[/color:3etdj326]-0.65 – RYAN K A (26)
-1.44 – BRISBOURNE W M (13)
-1.45 – MORRIS D (1)
-1.83 – JAMES L R (1)
-1.88 – BEALBY C C (6)
-2.14 – SHAW D (27)
-3.33 – EASTERBY M W (9)
-3.98 – OSBORNE J A (8.)
-4.29 – MURPHY P G (7)
-4.62 – GASK J R (6)
-5.90 – GRAYSON PETER (11)
-6.07 – CARROLL A W (17)
-7.75 – HARRIS JOHN A (7)
-8.76 – BURKE K J (6)
-11.40 – BASTIMAN R (2)
-15.56 – BOYLE J R (10)[/color:3etdj326]Still in the development phase. I have made the conditions for selecting a back or a lay a little more stringent in order to try and restrict the number of bets thrown up and improve the quality/solidity of those that are generated.
Kempton today…
6:50 – GOODBYE CASH (back)[/color:1pef46rh]
7:50 – AMWELL BRAVE (back)[/color:1pef46rh]
7:50 – LOUGH BEG (lay)
7:50 – NANOSECOND (lay)[/color:1pef46rh]8:20 – MISTER BENJI (lay)[/color:1pef46rh]
8:50 – MIZOOKA (back)[/color:1pef46rh]
9:20 – MAN OF LETTERS (back)[/color:1pef46rh]
9:20 – AGGBAG (lay)
9:20 – COLOSO (lay)[/color:1pef46rh]
<!– s:D –>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.