I just read Aussielongboats contribution and one thing that stood out to me was "to look where no-one else is looking" ..... My mantra for quite a while now. Easier said than done, or is it? Aussie longboat also said "It is rare if one of my selections is first up - gives too much advantage to the trainer or stable. I am at a disadvantage because I don't know how it has been going. They do - I don't"

My philosophy of getting together a stable of horses is that you're IN THE KNOW without really trying. Let old Barny explain. Say a stable is setting the horse for a first up win. It's in your stable, you back it ..... You're in EXACTLY the same position as the stable ..... aren't you ??? If they set the nag for a second up win, it's in the stable you back it ..... You're in EXACTLY the same position as the stable ..... aren't you ??? Almost ..... BUT you need to take into account the failure first up, so you've comparatively lost one point of odds. So if the nag wins at 10 / 1 you've got the equivalent of 9 / 1 taking into account it's first up run.

So you're essentially giving up one point in the betting market for every run your stable horse has prior to the run they've set it for.

You only have to ask yourself "Is it worth me giving up one point in the betting market for each run the horse has to be on the same page as the stable ???"

There are many methods associated with developing a "stable" of horses to follow and I believe easier to be more disciplined than a mechanical system aimed at individual races.

I don't have the data base to do this but take all horses that have placed in a Stakes race or higher and divide the total runs by the total odds of all the wins and see if there was a level stakes profit.

I am sure you will find that most are in profit, if you look for better class horses and are willing to follow them and have a big enough bank to keep you going then the rest is easy.

__________________
One Drive

"If the corporates are treating you poorly , just go elsewhere."
"If they need you , they will soon find out."
"If you need them , you will soon find out." --moeee
_______________________________________________

shaun, someone on here used to put a 'value" next to each horses placing in Listed > Group races (maybe even listed as well) and used that "value" as a rating. Interesting way to rate a horse but he / she backed them at every start (only the highest rated in the field tho' so not really a "stable" but close).

There were many good winners he / she backed simply by "rating" all Listed > group race placegetters (incl winners of course). Not all races would be of equal value, some S.A. races were given a lesser value than say if the same race were in Melbourne ..... I might go and look for this coz' it's interesting reading, and they got some big priced winners up.

Further to your post shaun, it may be easier to be more disciplined following this method. This requires no tinkering.

Just for interest sake a couple of years ago now, I decided to put about ten of Gai W's horses into a "stable". They all had to be entering a new preparation and hence backing them from their first up start that particular prep.

I thought I'll outlay $30 on each horse in the stable on the basis of $2, $4, $6, $8 and $10 for each horse. When and if a horse got into profit, that horse leaves the stable. I do recall once she had a horse in a big race down in Melbourne, won and paid around $33 for the win, put me well in front.

I know Gai W likes to have her horses race well fresh. But I think I gave this up as most of hers were too short. I am sure there must be some other idea in this format.

Regards, Paul

I assume here that one is talking about betting 1 horse a race.

Now this is the quickest way to the poorhouse.

Every race has at least 3 or more chances in it and most races 5 or 6.

Whats required is to cover all bases with a price that makes a profit and disregarding those under that price.

This is Basic mathematics.

Funny thing is that plenty of people will tell you all of Gai's horses are short, but what of Bart's ??? He get's some nice winners up at good odds, sometimes up to 33 / 1 in obscure places at midweek events. I'm going to add a couple of 'Fastnet Rock" horses this spring, and try to build my stable up to 10 horses, giving each of them 5 runs.

Worth noting that horses to follow in PPM was always in front - that says a lot in itself, and proves that it can be done. I'm sure 99.9% of their systems were failures.

The Herald Sun spring stables usually lose but only because they've got horses aimed at one particular event, and popular horses too.

One filter you could have is not back anything under $4.00 ?

Don't want to get to much involved here as i have never,
Attempted this before but i will just say this.

A person from when i used to attend the track,
A fair while ago used to do this.

He went back several years and noted the winners,
And placegetters from all Listed, gr-3-2-1 races,
Over several years.

He noticed a trend where in "certain races" of this calibre,
These horses could successfully be followed for a certain nos of starts.

Some races he would only follow the winners,
Other races he would only follow the placegetters.

He would note the trainers of these horses age etc,
And would then put them into a stable.

He was back then very very successful.

Finding long priced horses that most of us would ignore.

One day at Flemington after he had knocked me off,
In a photo finish on a $26.0 pop i asked him how did you back that??.

Form was something like 0-8 and 3rd up his reply it ran 3rd,
In a gr-3 race last year and place getters from whatever race,
It was usually win within there next 5 starts.

Certain races only and group-listed from around Australia,
Winners or placegetters was how he gathered his stable.

Does this make sense???.

Makes a lot of sense to me garyf, thanks.

Thought you might be interested Barny

http://www.sartinmethodology.com/pu...WinningPMTR.pdf