Ditto,

Yes the last start winners ae overbet, the last start 2nds are underbet.

BUT look at the class of the opposition in regards to these horses.

CLUE.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 399,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/03/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

CP

I use the stat "raw" in my method (one of 9 criterion) and the class of opposition last start doesn't come into my equation at any point. ALL of my selections MUST have finished 1st or 2nd last start to qualify.

G'day to Baggy! Nice to hear from you old mate!

Cheers

Privateer

Horses who run 3rd <=0.5L are significantly better than 2nds > 3L.

ROT: 87.8% versus 84.0%

S/R: 15.2% versus 14.4%

Runs: 8,326 versus 11,421

That's an interesting stat because in my computerised system I take no account of finishing position in past races merely lengths from the winner. This would mean that a horse running 3rd at 0.5L would get a much better past rating than a horse running second at 3L. Your figures show there isn't a huge amount of difference.
The comments made by other posters was prompting me to do a little research on this one and this reinforces it.

KV

Actually I thought there was a significant difference in favour of the one that ran 3rd.

Anyway I'd hate anyone to read too much into those instances and totally revise their ratings calculations.

For a start you have to ponder what it really means when a horse runs a close 3rd or a distant 2nd.

Please can you justify your use of "significantly better". A 3.8 percentage point increaes in ROT and a 0.8 percentage point increase in S/R does not qualify as significant in my book. the dictionary defines significant as 1. having or likely to have a major effect; or 2. fairly large in amount or quantity. i don't think either increase qualifys defined like this and could easy be result of chance.
Thank you. Winston.

"significant" in this context is a statistical term and can only be defined mathematically.

Those 2 samples of ~10,000 each were extracted from a database of over 1 million runs. They are far bigger than any comparable ones here, therefore more significant.

As a check I have just examined the performance of all 110,487 runners with a previous start 2nd.

The strike rate is 16.2%. That is 12.5% better than the 14.4% distant 2nds in the original sample.

I also measure excess wins and places over expected:

-W- .. -P-
56.7% 40.3% _ All prev 2nd
31.5% 25.0% _ prev 2nd > 3L
52.4% 38.3% _ prev 3rd <= 0.5L

Again there are significant differences.

G'day all!
Once again everyone is falling for the stats and ratings approach. All this handwringing about beaten lengths vs last start placing etc etc is a waste of time for the following reason: RACING IS NOT A SPORT. It is a business. Comparing human athletes/sportsmen to one another on recent (or not so recent) performance makes sense BUT NOT IN HORSERACING. We should not be interested in picking winners but, rather, in making money. Get that fixed in your mind and then it will all become much clearer.
Last Saturday Barbara Joseph took a horse from Canberra to Sydney for a First-Up Start. This should have immediately started alarm bells ringing. She was CLEARLY intending to win the race despite "the ratings" and the odds. At 40s SHE DID. It's a business; get that straight. Everything has a purpose (ie to make money) The previous week Diane Poideven-Lane put two "donkeys" in the same race (also Sydney) They ran 1st (at 40s) and 3rd (at 60s). how could they BOTH come good at once?? Answer; It's a business!!
On 13th Dec 2003 Ms Poideven-Lane took Terrific Taurus and Terrible Taurus to Rosehill (last race) to get 1st at 70s and 2nd at 100-1. Ratings, last start performance,race class etc etc meant (and mean) NOTHING when it comes to winning on the punt. For the trainers (and US) it is a BUSINESS. We are not in the game to get it "right" (ie rate the horses). We are in it to make money when the others get it wrong!!! When you buy a house or a share OR bet on a horse, you make extraordinary profits by "seeing" what the others have missed. Since everyone CAN see the last start results and everything else in the form guide OUR JOB is to understand what is IMPLIED in the guide. we have to understand what the trainer is up to AND what makes the majority of punters back THE WRONG HORSE.
The "wrong horse" is not "the loser"; it's the overbet horse which wins more than it's share BUT AT POOR ODDS. The "wrong horse" is almost always the obvious horse, the close up finisher who was fancied etc (yes even the "beaten fav") or the LSW now expected to do it again. OR the horse UP IN WEIGHT (ie down in class or "improving"). All too obvious and sure-fired losing propositions long-term. In the horseracing business like any other, the "product" is less important than what "management" DOES with the product!!!! That's it for now. Cheers.

Sorry but just because the stats comes from 1 million runs does not make them "signficant.". you said "significantly better" and I ask you again to justify how you can make that claim.
And the stats at the bottom of your most recent post are useless. please define how you "measure excess wins and places over expected:". until you have a valid measurement of "expected" then those stats are worthless. and you should know better than to ask us to accept them without such explanation. this is the sort of thing you berate others for so please dont fall into their trap.
Thank you. Winston.