Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Quote: from lineform on 7:38 pm on Feb. 7, 2005[br]i could’nt grasp only because it did’nt show how many loses the system had
lineform
Lineform,<br>Hi,
If you have a glance at Cormack’s daily score update you will notice that he does, in fact, record the losers per qualifiers for each contestant ……………. in the style of 1/6 or 0/9. This info is directly following the contestant’s name. And this is cumulatively adjusted each day.
The minus-100% thing is an overall view — a snapshot if you like — and the most accurate assessment possible of each competitors in-running profitability (or lack of!). A negative 100% is effectively "nul pointe" but there is no limit to a plus percentage ………….. LOOKINGFORAWINNER will probably be in the vicinity of 47,450% by the end of this fun exercise (judging by the way he is performing so far!!)
Regards,<br>Hoof.
That’s great, Seagull. Thanks for that.
Actually, I’ve just noticed my original post did not make sense ……….. I wrote: "  – a trainer (who has not had a RUNNER at an A/W track"). Should of course had read "a Winner". Now edited.
Thanks again.
(Edited by hoofhearted at 10:01 am on Feb. 4, 2005)<br>
(Edited by hoofhearted at 10:03 am on Feb. 4, 2005)
Hello Seagull,<br>May I ask a question please?
Do you recommend that a trainer (who has not had a winner at an A/W track for six years) should have had a minimum number of runners in those years for that trainer to qualify ? I mean, I presume you would not consider a trainer who has had a strike-rate of, say, 0-3 over the six years. Am I correct?
Thanks in advance.<br>
(Edited by hoofhearted at 9:52 am on Feb. 4, 2005)
