Forum Replies Created
- Posts
lookingforawinner,
On average, about 10 minutes. You are really only interested in horses with a recent good Topspeed rating and can safely eliminate any horse with an X or? against its name in the recent form column of Postdata.<br>A horse with no recent Topspeed figure can only get about 4 points max from its RPR, so would have to pick up at least 6 points from the rest of the procedure.<br>This would need the horse to be ridden by a top jockey and have a really good profile and then be able to get within three points of your top rated horse.<br>I always try to get my top rated horse’s points first, and it soon becomes obvious(with a little practise), if a horse with no recent form can get anywhere near it.
You can set up a spreadsheet and import the data from the RP, but it may cost. It’s easier to use the newspaper as your ‘scribbling -pad’. I work out the first part of the rating in the Postdata section, then transfer this figure to the racecard. I write the jockey’s points and the draw points straight on to the racecard, and the hose’s profile/today’s jockey points beside the horse’s lifetime form. Finally, I add them up and that’s it.
dave,
I am absorbing your questions and comments and the stuff about adrian massey(whom I’ve corresponded with in the past). Will reply soon.
I’m sorry I’ve missed most of this thread(holidays), because it’s an area in which I have an interest. I’m puzzled by the RP Haydock 5/6f Standard Time mystery and will have to look into it. Some very good posts.
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.
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.
I think you are in the right area, Dave.
From what I’ve seen of systems, those that seem to succeed are those finding bigger priced winners rather than those that stipulate a maximum (or even minimum)price.
RNF was doing quite well but had to give up when RP changed the content of its site. Most of his winners were 8/1+ and were generally not amongst the fancied horses in the early odds/newspaper tips.
Hope system goes well, Dave.
It would be interesting to know if the system has shown any worthwhile returns in the past while you’ve been keeping an eye on it. I suppose it must have indicated at least a few good priced winners to attract your attention.
I think this is quite a good approach and also a good way to use the RP.
I do my own ratings using the paper’s two ratings services and horse profiles and most of woody’s winners were top-rated, although I didn’t back all of them.
The only reservation is that the horses are frequently overbet because they are also top-rated in numerous other publications/computerised methods. As a result, it is hard to turn shorter priced selections into profit.
I’ve mentioned before on the forum that it’s better to be operating in the 5/1+ range, but good luck nevertheless.
Hi Rich,
I wasn’t trying to blow the cover on your system and knew that there was much more to it than just finding out horses that only one tipster has selected.
I’ll have a look over on the Adrian Massey forum and see what’s doing.
Best of Luck
I think Rich had the basis of quite a decent system and such things are very rare indeed so it is a great pity that he seems unable to get the information he needs to carry on.<br>I think Rich’s starting point was horses tipped up in the RP tipster’s summary box, but only tipped by ONE tipster from a select group.<br>I believe the group comprised RP ratings, Newmarket, The North, Rob Wright( The Times), Computerman, and Templegate.
The tip was then filtered using Rich’s rules and Adrian Massey’s ratings to provide a number of selections which were usually at decent odds if they obliged.
I think the reason for the system’s success lies in the fact that the selections are very seldom overbet. IMO, this is an essential condition for a successful system.<br>Even the tipping lines that advertise their success in the RP are rarely tipping horses below 8/1.<br>
Hi Rich,
Is the information you require not in the RP, or can you not get hold of the printed version. I get the RP every day (usually before 7.00 a.m.) and might be able to pass on information to you. Maybe others could help when I’m not available.
Good luck with this one, Steve, but I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for two reasons:
1. Newspaper tipsters like Newsboy and Bouverie are very good, but have to give a tip for every race which means giving about 36 selections each today. In the circumstances they do well to only lose around 10 % of their stakes over a long period.
2. Systems based on selections around the 5/2>4/1 area are very difficult to turn a profit with, mainly because such selections are popular and tend to be overbet.
It might be better to take the opposing view and frame a system around horses that are only tipped by one tipster. These horses tend to be decent odds and can prove profitable as Rich N Ford has proved.
Hi Rich
Long losing runs are to be expected, especially when your system is reliant on winners at decent odds. I am fairly sure that finding winners around the 8/1> 20/1 bracket is the right area to be in for a profitable system.<br>I’m not so sure about staking plans unless it’s a percentage of the bank method based on the Kelly Criterion.<br>Good Luck
Well done again, Rich, but hope filters don’t start eliminating winners. System seems to be doing well enough without them.
Hi Paul
Seems a reasonable strategy but needs you to be at your desk during racing. Could certainly be used as one ploy, amongst a range of other ploys, to play the markets. Now if you had about 10 or 12 of these little ploys on the go, you might just be in business. Maybe Rich’s system could be one to include on the backing side.
Hi Rich
Long term view in this game. A 12/1 winner (18.7 on Betfair) is lurking somewhere today or tomorrow. It’s written in the stars. I’m strictly a form/speed/ratings man but I have the feeling your system might shake my faith (well, almost).
