29th December 2005, 10:20 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 135
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KennyVictor
Why not tell us what you really think?
These rules seem quite logical and sensible. They choose horses that have been around long enough to have established form. They show that the horse is capable of winning although its price indicates it has the patchy form most punters shy away from. I didn't understand the weight thing but looks like it might mean the horse is coming down in class. Good work Dr P. I'm a little worried by your Sat and Mon rule, it looks like you could be retrofitting (God that's a dirty word).
KV
|
I was having a joke Kenny but the joke (the important part) got edited from my original post and all that got left was the system. Strange world.
The system may have some legs but I won't be betting it. I thought the Sat and Mon only criteria was indeed valid being the main dates for the best class races. Leaving out Mondays (public Holidays) would be cherry picking.
The 4,5,and 6yo animals with WIN% >10% concentrates selections on horses which have some proven past ability and are not too old to take advantage of it. The career starts restriction 10-40 reinforces this criteria.
Going down in weight suggests to me a class rise or at least a handicapping anonamly. Either way the I think we can assume the Trainer is not completely oblivious to the situation. My theory is along the lines that the last run was the "dean'un" aimed at setting up the "kill". (Oh dear God I'm starting to sound like p57 - please forgive me) Hence the rule no last start winners.
At the end of the day most of the rules were backfitted to suit. 2, 3 and 7yo+ all lost money. Field size under 10 starters lost money. Career starts under 10 and over 40 lost money. WIN% under 10 lost money. And to crown it all horses under $21.0 lost money!!!
SYDNEY lost money. Perth got murdered. Without SYD the numbers look like:
races 1,379
bets 2,200
profit 812
PoT 36.9%
Go to it Dreamweavers.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|