When you say betting on the top horse in each category, is this the outright top selection in each category because quite often there is more than one horse with equal top points? In the method I'm currently testing with CP and $, I eliminated any equal-top selections as they did not perform, even though there were only a few selections. If the neurals are accurate, then being equal top does not really give any one horse a distinct advantage over every other horse in the race.

Hi Chinbok,


Only have data since 1/6/05 (not 100% complete but not missing many races) which I only collected a couple of weeks ago. I have it set up so that I can run queries which set a value to any of the neural algorhythms, can set a minimum value to any of them, set a minimum total and a few other things like must have had x number of races, metro / country / provincial, FGDSH going, etc.
I try various combinations to see how the top horse fares and then I bet a little experimental money on the selections and usually watch my balance go down. I've found a few combinations that show up to 20% profit over the last year but they haven't performed over the last fortnight. Only time will tell.
Of course there is a conspiracy theory that the neural guys have a great system for picking winners but they have shares in the TABs and online bookies - so they get you hopeful with winning systems and then change the algorhythms to make you lose and their shares go up. Well, no there wasn't really a theory of that sort but there is now.

KV

HI michaelg

I set the neural multiplier to 5 for maximum accuracy (lower figures get rounded to the nearest whole number of course) then picked the first highest score. YOu're quite right, sometimes they do come out the same and I didn't test for that. If there were 2 the same it would have picked the one with the lowest tab number. Not 100% accurate but good enough to give you an idea of which neurals perform best on their own.
KV

I have seen you all talk about this but i realy have no understanding, where is the best place to read up on it please.

The neural settings I concentrate on are Tim, JT, Crs, Dist, $ and DLR

The settings have produced:

499 Races
126 Winners (S/R 25.3%)
260 Places (S/R 52.1%)

Win POT is 9.9% or 49.35 units

......so I'm happy this system, although it did run into a negative in the middle of May.... so sometimes it pays to persevere.....

I've concentrated on these settings as I think, horses are a creature of repitition and therefore Tim, Crs and Dist are highly weighted and that JT, $ and DLR are also relatively important factors..... not to say they are the be all and end all..... as michaelg has alluded to, subtle variations and outside filters seem to improve results..... however I must note that I have not used any filters in this system - so regardless of track condition/field size/days break/first starters/points assigned yatta yatta they are all inclusive - warts and all !! - I like the turnover factor!

I too would also like to say well done to Michaelg for some excellent contribution to the forum, for it was because of him that I went back to the neurals.... and I am very happy (so far !!)

Good Luck people... (There is my 2 cents worth )

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

Hi KV,

I like your conspricay theory. I've had a few systems go really well and then couldn't believe how it could turn around. I had a few on the go a while back and made alot of paper money but gave most of it back.

I've also started recording the Winner In Six Ratings but only have ~4months. They've got a pretty good strike rate from the top 2 and manage to find some good priced winners. Hopefully I can use them in conjunction with the neurals - need more data though.

Cheers

KV,

I was wondering if you had progressed with your 'intellectual exercise' idea from a while ago.

I got my brother involved in a similar project recently using the neurals plus Unitab rating and Weight carried below the toppy. He wrote some code that could try 10,000 variations in less than a minute and optimise the factors automatically. He ended up with a set of factors that produced a 4% loss on turnover betting in every race over 16months. The factors were optimised for POT though and the results weren't reproducible in the 4 months of test data that I had. The strike rate was exactly the same though. We'll try again, optimising for SR instead of POT and see how it goes. I don't think it will match the -4%.

Cheers

Thanks Masters Chinbok & michealg for your help. I am somewhat amazed at the level of interest generated by this subject, and it suggests to me that the neurals must have shone a little beacon of hope into many a forumite's calculations. You wizz kids with neural data on file must surely have some interesting anomolies within your data.

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

I must admit, all this neural talk has also had me spending alot of time on the neural site. For what its worth, the major thing that struck me was the strike rate of the top 3 or 4 in the CP factor. Just from what I've seen it seems like it would be around the 65-70 % mark, but that was from a random sample so it may not be the norm. What seemed more remarkable was that many winners in the $10 to $20 bracket could be found in the top 4 CP. So if your out there KV, would you be able to run the following query on your results please, if your able to.

Top 4 CP
$10-$20

Also Kenny, have you noticed the strike rates for any factor are above average in certain circumstances, such things like barriers on some courses may have above average reults, especially narrow tight circuits or short straights. Also DLR with different distances.

Sorry Dr Ron, not going to be much help. I'm only set up to monitor top horse at the moment and don't really have the programming time to change it to top 4. If I do I'll put a note in here.
As for the other more esoteric stuff you mentioned I haven't tried those options and suggest that a year's worth of data probably wouldn't give enough data in any one set to produce meaningful results.

Chinbok, had a few ideas after the intellectual excersise thread but as soon as I thought of a strategy the goalposts moved - I found a bunch of other variables that needed factoring in. I find that rather than say five neural figures with a minimum total for example - it's better to perhaps set a minimum for 2 or 3 of those neural categories to be sure the horse has (say) at least reasonable recent form and has earned some prizemoney. I've only been playing with the neurals for a short time and am still trying new things willy nilly at the moment.

KV