It strikes me that there is an increasing need to identify "false" favourites.

To qualify...

1. Must be in top 5 average prizemoney.

2. Must have wins in today's class or higher.
(E.G. Group 1...must have won a Group 1 prior)

3. Must not have been beaten by more than 3 lengths last start.

4. Must have minimum of 40% place strike rate.

5.No hurdles, maidens, wet tracks.

Any criticism or additional rules or ideas?

This system throws up quite a few winners and erradicates many false favs.

One thing I have noticed (but don't have any figures for yet) is this formline...
141
121
161
etc.
There seem to be not many winners % wise that string consecutive wins together. Usually, they tend to win, run a place or worse and then win again. A high percentage seem to go this way. As I say not a lot of data on this yet but could be worth consideration.

Also got this off a U.K. horseracing guy, here is his "system" and it's doing very well trialled over two months!

The basic idea is to look at a horses last run. Note the the prize money for the race. If that race is more than double the price of todays race ,we then go on to see if that animal was placed,
if so we have a basic selection.



Still can't sleep, so I have more ideas......

:lol:

Favourites tend to have a better record in say Open or Group 1 races. Maidens class 1 etc seem to have a much lower strike rate. I have just seen a U.K. punter who swears by backing the Fave in the highest class / prizemoney race of the day. I suspect he is doubling up though.
More thoughts welcome.

I need a sleeping tablet!


________________




[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-08-08 06:02 ]