 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#21
2nd November 2005, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Horse to consider 1/11/2005:
Flemington race 3 # 1 Brace Lancer no bet as was under $3.50. Result third at $1.40 Eagle Farm race 1 # 3 La Bella Mer no bet as was under $3.50. Result won. $2.10 $1.40 Morphettville race 7 # 8 Oahu no bet as was under $3.50. Result unplaced. outlay $0 Return $0 accumulative -$247.50 
|
|
#22
4th November 2005, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Horse to consider 5/11/2005:
Flemington race 4 # 1 Zipping Flemington race 9 # 18 Barricades Randwick race 2 # 3 Rationalize Randwick race 9 # 3 Triple Dee
|
|
#23
4th November 2005, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi C.E.
Your method has the basis of being "doable" but I respectfully offer the following considerations and thoughts: Perhaps only bet on Metro events? The "within 4 lengths" theory is one of the most over rated around. You are better off considering a horse that finished in the first 4 last start regardless of lengths from the winner. Ruling out apprentices means missing a lot of good value bets. Barrier positions are not overly important in the overall scheme of race results. People will point out that numbers 1 - 5 have the highest strike rate but there are always horses in barriers 1 - 5. There are not always horses in barrier 10+ because field sizes determine this stat. If you want to bet 50 units, try 15 x 35 maybe. Even 20 x 30. Have a look at runners listed in the newspaper market between and including $3.50 & $11.00. Have a play around with your method and try and refine it here and there. Good luck Privateer
|
|
#24
18th November 2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for the advice. I have taken some on board an amended my original rules as I was of the same belief yet wanted to let it play for a while. Comments:
Perhaps only bet on Metro events? Yes, great idea and one that I have adopted. The "within 4 lengths" theory is one of the most over rated around. You are better off considering a horse that finished in the first 4 last start regardless of lengths from the winner. Perhaps, but it also a nice filter so will choose to keep it. Ruling out apprentices means missing a lot of good value bets. Very true but two fold, one it is a good filter and secondly an apprentice is an apprentice. I would much rather $50 on Beadman than Pearson. Experience is worth it's weight. A fortnight ago I took a risk and backed the John Hawkes trained Barricades. The jockey went hammer and tong on the thing and it was a spent force halfway down the straight. I am not looking for value but consistency. Barrier positions are not overly important in the overall scheme of race results. People will point out that numbers 1 - 5 have the highest strike rate but there are always horses in barriers 1 - 5. There are not always horses in barrier 10+ because field sizes determine this stat. Again, this is true but works as a great filter. This is not a concrete rule though. In an eight horse field I would have no problems taking a horse that had drawn barrier 8. In a sixteen horse field I would rule out a horse drawing barrier 10. As said above, I mainly looking for consistency rather than value. Granted I may find a $4.00 place horse but I may not. If you want to bet 50 units, try 15 x 35 maybe. Even 20 x 30. This was an original plan that I was going to try but then I guess I got greedy and went evens each way. Last week I changed it to $15 a win and $35 and lo and behold I backed Love and Money in Brisbane for my first win. That is the way it goes though. Had I originally started this way I would probably be doing better. Have a look at runners listed in the newspaper market between and including $3.50 & $11.00. I have changed to horses over $2.50 as I found I had missed a few that won at odds of between $2.50 and $3.50 I am not going to post here any more but will pop in and share my results if I am going OK. For those that post on the msn forum the link is http://groups.msn.com/TheNewHorseRa...547415916044933 Thanks for the advice.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
