This Follow The Top 10 Sires thread is an absolute beaut and has inspired me to start this thread. I want to develop a list, preferably manageable when doing form, of say 10 rules to eliminate a horse. I've suggested only applying the rule to a horse because we could have 10 rules to eliminate a race before we even get started on the horse.

I have read a book called Systems By Design by Ian Barns that has 33 eliminating rules !! Thirty Three !! But the book is quite good.

My number one rule is not to back any horse second up. For more years than I can remember I've tested second up as I thought with a terrible run first up you could get any old price on the basis that punters might have thought the horse hasn't come up this time in. To indicate just how much work I went to, I developed a list of over 100 reasons given by trainers and media as to why a certain horse got beaten, it was primarily aimed at a horse flopping first up. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in all forms of sporting endeavours, second up usually produces a flat run. AFL footallers are a prime example.

So: Eliminate any horse second up.

If you don't agree with this rule, fire up !!!!!!!!

Eliminate ANY Horse that is Under the Odds.

Here's my contribution, eliminate any horse that has not won in the conditions. Unfortunately this means that you can't decide on whether you bet or not until not long before the race but all the statistics i've looked at in my endeavors to find a profitable system show that if a horse hasn't ran or won in the conditions previously theres a good chance it wont win this time around. Obviously horses have to win in conditions at some stage to meet this rule but as I generally do my ratings on quality races with horses that have had at least 3-4 starts it seems to work quite well.

Would you be looking at rules to improve strike rate or return?

Interesting Facts: 57% of winning horses finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd in previous race.

71% of winners were 4 or older
76% of winners were male
73% of winners raced within previous 14 days
78% of winners carried the same weight or less at their last race
84% of winners ran in the same class or lower at their last race
49% of winners ran the same distance as last start
63% of winners finished within 2L last start

But the problem here is in combination they don't necessarily improve or if you bet outside these variable ranges you can often find so much more value.

A few years ago, I would agree totally. Today, I am not so sure. I think we might have to now factor in the trainer and his training set up.

Most trainers have become more scientific, have better facilities and have better access to the actual physiolgy of the horse and its recovery from stress which includes ,racing, training and viruses.

A horses ability to recover after a first up run depends on its state of fitness going into that first race. Years ago most trainers used races to get their horses fit, today, only the less sophisticated do that or those trainers that do not have full facilities available to them.

The top and better trainers have all their horses pre trained for them, so when they arrive in the stable they are fit and ready to race. Their recovery rate is the same or maybe slightly less then a race fit horse. So, by being a little bit patient for the second up the horse will come to hand a lot quicker.

Because of a different training stratergy then years ago, horses come to hand a lot quicker. Statistics might prove me wrong, but I am fairly confident I am on the right track.

Pete

I agree Star, especially in Sydney.
More so now than in the past, Sydney trained horses seem to have more trials leading to their first up run and are therefore fitter when having their second up run.
Following the patterns of certain stables may be the key here.

Here is another maxim I have difficulty with. My query is, how can we quantify what is the true odds of a horse in a race is.

Let's say that we are in the in, and we know our horse is going well, this is the race. we have the right jockey ( we think ) the price is right and the Bank Manager gives us his blessing.

But, in this race, this same senario is being played out in possibly up to six to eight stables in a fourteen horse or so field.

Their is only one winner. I am firming in my thinking that if on form only two horses should win, but I expect their are at least four others that might, then taking under the odds might well be close to $6 or $7 dollars otherwise we are kidding ourselves.

If others disagree, I would like to hear the arguments against. At the moment that is my view, mind you, next week it might change.

Pete

Ok Barny here's something that gives you a decent summary if you click on:

Race Analysis Card.

Only two meeting each day but it gives you an insight into each horses strengths.

Site is free to join.

http://www.australianracing.com/

Chas

__________________
At the feast of ego everyone leaves hungry

Couldn,t agree more Star.

Interesting thread Star,
As to 2nd up, my observation is in fact contrary to what you might expect if you believe a horse has been flattened by a first up run. Although I've not taken stats on it I believe that a first up 2nd or 3rd beaten less than say half a length bodes well for the next start whereas a greater beaten margin does not.
But the most outstanding (by far) elimination criterion is price fluctuation. If you're looking at the pointy end of the market any serious drifter, especially if there is a serious shortener in the same race, should be wiped.
Obviously this cannot be applied until just before the jump so maybe it's your eleventh elimination rule.


Cheers
Ron