furthermore
 

Here are the numbers for all non-metro tracks Australia wide on every day except Saturdays, July 2003 thru July 2005 - no filters just starters $2.00 or less for the WIN, results are for the PLACE:

bets 2513
placed 2063
SR% 82.1%
P/L -141.74
PoT -5.6%

Just to reiterate the point - a horse-race market inefficiency was identified (and widely published) over twenty years ago on the other side of the planet. That market inefficiency is alive and well within Australian racing today EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Even if you did not attempt to exploit the inefficiency yourself, what right thinking punter would attempt to profit from place bets in races where the favourite was showing $2.00 or less? (The effect of rounding down dividends renders the position even worse for hapless punters in such races)


.....

Dr Pangloss, my figures are far more accurate , because "your" program only uses win / place dividends from nswtab and the closing price of all runners SP.

My "unsubstantiated" figures are substantiated by TAB realtime records of win/place dividends and accurate TAB closing prices.

I know which it is... and so do all my customers. :D


And just where did this unsubstantiated figure come from.

Remember we are talking odds on favourites for the place - 7c on a $1.04 shot???

You just proved your own argument to be incorrect.

And using available SP is a completely different story to using TAB prices.

There are that many myths and fallacies printed, that I can prove to be wrong using actual substantiated figures, it's not funny.

Guess which track condition is the worst result for favourites?

Dr. Pangloss,

We are not promoting the software programme you mentioned provided you with your data.

Please do not mention it in your posts. We are not giving it a free plug here.

Moderator.

C P,

I'll have a stab that the track conditions that are the worst for favourites winning is a good or fast track.
I know in the UK the best results for favourites are in maiden and 2 year old events on a slow track.
If the stats here are the same and I cannot see why not then that just shows all the crap that is shoved down our throats about which races to bet on are just that CRAP.

Hi kenchar,

we are force fed "stay away from heavy tracks"

The stats do not support this...

FAST - 32%
GOOD - 31.11%
DEAD - 29.33%
SLOW - 28.65%
HEAVY - 29.36%

So ranking them in order best to worst...

FAST
GOOD
HEAVY***
DEAD
SLOW

No reason to avoid Heavy, better to avoid June/July than July/August.

It's amazing how some punters' mindsets are.

A bolter wins in Spring, and it's "How did I miss that, better go back over the form!"

A bolter wins in August, and it's "Should stay away from Heavy tracks, all the nags come in!"

:D

Chrome,

Those figures regarding track conditions are a bit of mischief, though I'm not doubting they are correct.

What happens to field sizes on rain effected tracks? They go down [and so do the odds by the way]. The more rain affected ground, the more scratchings. The smaller the field size the more favorites win regardless of conditions.

Your stats. support a deceptive conclusion only, they certainly don't disprove that it is easier to win on good and dead tracks.

There is a mathematics professor in the USA who at the start of every year 'proves' to his new students that 2+2=3.99 !!!

You are comparing apples and oranges using smoke and mirrors and stats. are a great way to do it [just ask any politician] :-)

muddled
 

Chrome

you are confused. Taking the 'best TAB' price will always generate a premium over and above the base NSW TAB used in the data base. The value of that premium must necessarily range from .01 thru .99 - experience demonstrates on the odds range under discussion it is worth .07 to the punter.

The data base I use has been subjected to wide ranging public scrutiny, on this very Forum in the not too distant past, and currently on another very public racing Forum. Such scrutiny would quickly expose any flaws especially in the record keeping and results.

May I suggest you subject your own database to such scrutiny. What have you got to worry about - what have you got to lose?


........

[QUOTE=Sahasastar]Can the systemites tell me the odds of this one continuing..

It's purely mechanical.. over 9 weeks Saturday Metro, averaging just under
2 bets per Saturday, many filters have reduced it to this..


Sahasastar based on my expierence and what you yourself posted i would say no it will not continue at its current rate.

The reason i make this assumption is your words "many filters have reduced it to this" i've been there done that,some call it retro fitting,basicly the mistake we make is designing filter after filter to eliminate as many losers in our research peiod as possible,sure it may look good on paper but unless each and every additional filter is tested for soundness over hundreds of races how can you really tell if each filter is sensible and suits this current system.

Lets say you ruled out horses outside barrier 6 because in your short research period there were no winners outside barrier 6,a couple of weeks later you will start missing heaps of good priced winners in barriers outside 6,the frustration and self doubt set in and the system is one step from the scrap heap.

Mate keep it simple think very carefully about additional filters you apply and only add them once their worth has been tested over a couple of hundred races.

Hi Crash,

Agreed about the field sizes, however, more favourites win on Heavy tracks than Dead or Slow. This means that the secondary benefit is strike rate and return.

Let me run less than 10 runners and see how we go....

FAST - 36.70%
GOOD - 36.31%
DEAD - 33.84%
SLOW - 35.26%
HEAVY - 34.64%

Dead still being the poor cousin.

There still is no great dip in the Heavy stats to suggest to not bet.

It's the shifting track condition which is the bugbear. Trainers will often run horses to see how they go on Dead/Slow, but would definitely scratch on a Heavy track, which is bourne out by the number of scratchings.