A SIMPLE SELECTION METHOD

See my placegetter stats posts on this forum for some background info what I am doing. I'm trying different factors, running them through sample races, looking for the factors that score hits.

Here's a simple method that seems to work surprisingly well. A lazy approach to punting but as I say my stats say that it works.

It combines two simple factors:

*A high proportion of placegetters (and weinners) were last start winners.
*There is a bias towards the lower saddlecloth numbers (weights in handicaps).

So, the selection rule is:

Select the last start winner with the lowest saddlecloth number. If you have two last start winners, numbers 2 and 5, number 2 is the selection.

Don't look at anything else, just those two factors. I didn't expect it would come to much, but I was surprised.

Tried it over 180 races, all races, any races. Results were about 54% place strike and about 30% win strike rate. (53 winners in 180)

The highest win pay was $17.80, the highest place pay was $3.80. The lowest place pay was $1 (three times).

After 180 races betting $1 to win, $4 to place each race. That's 180 x $5 = $900 outlay. Total returns were a healthy $1095. A result not to be sneezed at for such a simple selection method. The average return per race is $6.08 (less your $5 bet) which is a comfortable return rate (for such a simple selection method).

Would it be sustained over a larger sample? Don't know. But on first inspection it provides a good volume of hits, with not too long runs of outs, and prices sufficient to give a return.

I tried other modes of staking. $1 to win, $4 to place works best (for reasons given by other contributors to this forum). I was really after placegetters but this method throws up a good proportion of winners too. You need the winners to make it profitable. No good for placebetting alone- margins are too fine.

But the thing is, it must be done *raw*. I've tried to be smart and find other factors to add to try to improve the results. I tried being more selective about races, for instance. But no good. I tried making the selections more intelligent. Read the form of the qualifier before betting. But I think you get better results if you leave it as it is. The method works precisely because it catches those suprise hits you wouldn't normally have bet on, and it catches a good number of hits in races with big fields which pay better. And it works in steeples, hurdles, 2yo, country, metro, whatever - these races have the same statistical bias this system exploits. If you add more filters and only bet on the safe ones you tend to slash your average return because you miss the surprise winners.

The sample races I tried this on are the same races I've tested other selection methods on. This method often turns up totally different horses, ones missed by other more rational systems. I've trialled a couple of methods based on last start winners, but this one works best. This is a bit annoying actually. I put in hours and hours of stats, I apply logical rules in logical ways, I read up on form, I try to make intelligent, deliberate selections -- and this irrational selection method gives better results. Doh!

Actually, it is not quite irrational. Picking numbers out of a hat is irrational. There is at least some rational basis for this method: it exzploits a bias towards last start winners and lower saddlecloth numbers. Happily, this seems to follow a line of least resistance through the stats, including the market stats, so it just happens you come out ahead.

And the results are very even. It gives a consistent volume of hits, even if only low paying placegetters, that keeps you in the black rather than having long runs of outs that dip you in and out of the red. Some systems will pay in the long run provided you can sustain periods in the red. In this system you stay in the black and your profits gather slowly. Or that's what happened in the sample.

In any case, it works better than other lazy methods like backing favourites. Favourites at $1 to win, $4 to place over the same sample gives you a loss. The Zip Star horse (from the Sportsman) at $1 to win, $4 to place gives you a loss (and a couple of very nasty runs of outs).

Try it out. On paper.

I am aware of this though. Most, if not all, simple systems will *eventually* send you bust. It is just that some will do it quicker than others. If this system "works" that might just mean that it postpones bankrupotcy longer than similiar methods. The difference between a perceived "good" system and a bad system is the time it takes to kill you.

Time wounds all heels - Groucho Marx.

Hermes.

So today (Wednesday 3rd July) the selections are:


Wednesday 3rd July 2002

Selection method: Top weighted last start winner.

Betting: $1 to win, $4 to place.

Canterbury

Race 1

# 1 Baroness Britney.

Race 2

#3 Boon Moon

Race 3

4 Houlihan

Race 6

#4 Grand Raj

Race 7

#5 Isim


Moonee Valley

Race 3.

5 Quasi Stellar


Race 4

#1 Silver Birch

Race 5

#1 Gold Boom

Race 7

#3 Datari

Race 8

#2 Mystic Melody


Doomben

Race 1

#1 Akers

Race 5

#2 My True North

Race 6

#4 Grace's Roses


Murray Bridge

Race 4

#3 Telbon Lotto

Race 5

#1 Prince of Revelry


We'll see.

Hermes

A small thing:

Its not quite all races, every race. Some races don't have any last start winners. In that case, no bet. That's why there's some races missing in the selections above.

If you want to reduce the number of races to bet on I suggest selecting races at random. If you set parameters like "Fewer than 14 runners" you change the mix of selections. And the method depends absolutely upon getting a felicitous mix of the good, the bad and the ugly (with the good predominating) - see selections above. If you take any steps to change that mix, won't work.

In the long run though I suspect the success or failure of something like this will depend upon finding a mechanism to select fewer races that have the same mix of selections but targetting the better prices.

Cheers

Hermes

Hi, Hermes.

A few years ago Equestrian Publishing sold a system similar to yours. In the package there were about half-a-dozen sub systems all based on the last start winner with the lowest TAB number, each sub system had its own rules. All the systems in their testing period (almost a year) showed a profit in both Win and Place wagering.

hermes you got my 5 STAR special in that lot....Silver Birch.

Good Luck.

By the way, don't be put off by just random numbers with that system. The laws of random numbers say that you will find winners that others won't merely because you are oblivious to certain form factors.

Missed one, plus one small correction.

Murray Bridge.

Race 5 should be #2 Nafir and of course Prince of Revelry is running in race 6, not 5.

Thought I'd point out the correction before the race rather than after.

Good punting

Hermes

Thanks for that michaelg. You mean someone has already thought of packaging this up as a "system" to sell to lazy punters? Damn! I was thinking of tweaking it a bit to make it more complicated and mysterious, naming it something like "Hermes Miracle Punting Plan" and selling "Hermes Turbo Tips" to subscribers for $10 a week each. After which I could forget about punting and retire in Fiji. But you say its already been done. Oh well... :smile:

System doing great so far today. Hope this doesn't cruel things!

5 races so far --- two winners ($6.50, $8.70 NSW Tab), and one third ($1.90). Couple of scrachings. Do you then look for the next qualifier, or just forget that race. I guess you will say it doesn't really matter. Serendipity!!

Thanks for the system. While I appreciate it might fall down tomorrow, it does seem to have quite a few pluses going for it.
Personally I like to have a few bets --- for interest sake if nothing else. Couldn't be one of those who only have one bet a day; yet don't believe in backing the card everywhere there are races. Thanks again.

Merriguy, you need two banks. One that will make you rich and one that will probably send you broke. If you ever get serious you will easily see why, otherwise, I hope you are at least having fun.

Hermes, my wife found the elusive filter you need in your system.

Lowest saddlecloth number from last start winners

PLUS

Cutest name.

Works every time she reckons.

Placegetter

Results:

Baroness Brittany - scratched.
Akers - unplaced
Boon Moon - $5.50 win, $2.60 place.
Houlihan - unplaced
Quasi Stellar - $9.20 win, $2.50 place. (Yeah!)
Silver Birch - $1.70 place (Equine Investor's five star beauty.)
Telbon Lotto - unplaced
My True North - third, NTD. (Blast!)
Gold Boom - scratched.
Nafir - $5.90 win, $1.90 place. (Lucky I double checked the selections or I'd missed this one.)
Grand Raj - unplaced.
Graces Roses - unplaced.
Prince of Revelry - unplaced.
Isim - unplaced.
Detari - $2.10 place.
Mystic Melody - $5.80 win, $2.00 place.

By my reckoning that's $70 outlay ($1 win, $4 place on 14 races) with a return of $77.60.

The system is $7.60 up after fourteen races.

If we'd added Placegetters wife's filter (see post above) we would have eliminated Akers and saved an extra five bucks.

Today's results - fortunately for me - illustrate what I see as all the best features of this hot little system. A good number of reasonably priced placegetters gets you by while you wait for a healthy share of winners and the occasional good one like Quasi Stellar, race 3 Moonee Valley, $9.20 the win, which I would never have selected in a million years. Who selected Quasi Stellar? And it isn't a one-off. This method gets winners like that often enough. Just check back through batches of old races and see. It surprises me.

I reckon you could expect one return like Quasi Stellar every one or two race days with this system. On a day to day basis you *should* be ahead two days out of three. And there is high fun value in this too.

And all with a selection system that is so simple George Bush junior could do it without having to hardly look up from his pretzels.

A couple of refinements:

*It wouldn't hurt to eliminate races less than 8 runners to avoid the dreaded NTD as in Doomben race 5, #2 My True North, today. It shouldn't upset the stats. On the other hand, you should be able to pick two horses in a field of seven. I don't think it matters, but NTDs really irk me.

*If you want to include a safety device, I suggest stop betting after four outs and only resume after a strike. The chances are that the strike you miss by doing so will be one of the small priced placegetters this system collects and missing it won't cost you as much as you saved on outs, and the chances are also that you'll collect the next winner after the one you missed because this system throws up its share of doubles (two strikes in a row). Maybe. I haven't tested this. Today you might have missed Quasi Stellar and picked up Silver Birch, or you might have missed Detari and picked up Mystic Melody, if these strikes had of been the resumes from the break.

In any case, in my sampling this system seems remarkably resilient against long runs of outs. It breaks up the runs of outs with lots of short priced placegetters. In my sample of 180 races there was one run of seven outs, two of six, none of five, three of four outs, three runs of three outs and twelve sets of two outs. That is pretty stable. A safety device wouldn't have saved you much. No doubt you'll hit runs of eight outs, nine, ten, etc. but again the sheer volume of placegetters this system gathers guards against it happening too often.

So I don't think spectacular and catastrophic runs of outs are the weakness in this system. More likely it will strangle you slowly with a slipping average return.

The good number of double strikes and triple strikes the system yields is promising for the apllication of various staking schemes that depend on doubles and triples. Then the system will either strangle you very rapidly, or it will show itself to be a true weakness in the fabric of horseracing that will get you rich with little effort. Which do you think it is?

And remember: Like all systems it is self-defeating. The more it succeeds the less it works. There is no solid ground. You push one side and the other side moves to compensate.

A good day. But I remember last Wednesday.

Hermes