I FOUND IT!!!!

VANESSA JOHNSTON is a meagre 1.5 Rating

One that bothers me more if you watch out for it , is that occasionally the jockey and trainer ratings can be the complete opposite of what the neural values are saying. This I find hard to comprehend.

Maybe it is a warning that you cannot rely on a single data source?

__________________
"Not winning on a horse that came first is one thing.....Losing on a horse that didn't come first is something else entirely!!!"

Fair enough...thought there might be a reason but nothing obvious stood out for me at the time



Mooee, thought you might do a check on Ballybits as well

cheers

Trying my luck today with vr 8 no8. Going to record results starting next week

Just wondering, what did you have against C Puls in the first?
She won and paid over $5 for the win.

Basing my theory on a system at this stage. Jockey form must be 3.0. +
After a bit more data, will compare results to neurals and don scott prices to see if there is any correlation.

no offence but never heard of C Puls

Fair enough, but it's nothing like I've been doing
Good luck with it

She is a good SA jock coming to Vic for one race.

Christine Puls comes from the Western district of Victoria and is married to Dean Yendell.

Better still I knew she was racing a lot in SA and in the western part of Vic, she is not half bad as a jock.

lomaca your methods are based on a logical angle that can be argued from one punter to the next. Like one bank approving a loan and another not. Its judgemental.


This day and age, I like to emphasise more attention into a system of rules. (credit modelling in the banks). You list your rules for many systems, set up the database and away you go. At the end of the day, long term you won't hit more than 15% POT. The key is to do this with minimum effort. There must be 1000s of systems that can achieve the results long term.

If I can generate a system for the novice punter, based on a good variable you have listed then lets go with it.