Thread: R & S Neurals
View Single Post
  #41  
Old 13th July 2020, 01:16 PM
entropy entropy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UselessBettor
I did a lot of analysis with the neural's on R+S.

I would suggest not bothering with them as they are not going to be profitable. There are niche cases where they work but they are hard to find.

Instead look at the ratings sheet which as EST, 12M, BL3, etc. These are much better if you combine them with some form analysis.

I use EST, 12M and BL3. I don't worry about LSR.

What you need to do is look at the ratings for the horse at the same distance, same track condition, same field size, (there are a few more but you can come up with what you like). This gives you a baseline of what you think is the base rating for this horse. it may be the same as EST or completely different. It should also give you a range of ratings that the horse is likely to produce. For example even though EST may be 30 you might find at this distance it usually produces a rating of 28-30 and on good tracks it produces a rating 29-34 and in similar field sizes it produces ratings of 26-29. This gives us a range of the horse producing a rating of 26 - 34. You can do this for all horses and now you have a range of ratings for each horse. You can then compare these and look across the last few races to determine if this horse is going to improve and run at the top of those ratings or whether it might struggle and run in the lower area of the ratings. This should give you a good idea of the chances to dutch to make a profit.

I hope that helps.


Thanks for an interesting post on the R&S ratings UB!

I know zilch about the R&S ratings other than they are compiled using Don Scott methods.
I hope they found some new good tweaks because, although profitable in earlier days, they went downhill and DS reportedly died broke.

Scanning the site I could not find any records of how the ratings have panned out in practice.
Just a passing comment where they say the results of their Computer Racecards are "astonishing".

Did your analysis show this?

Am I missing out on being astonished?

My recent efforts with my own ratings could also be called "astonishing", astonishingly feeble!
Reply With Quote