Glenno,
May I suggest on each system you have posted to include the URL of the originating thread ?
This would benefit an option if readers might prefer to read the entire debate on a particular archived post.

That's a good idea.

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=75

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=112

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=325

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=400


http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=427

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=492

excuse my encouragement, woops now i wasnt sposed to put that here, was i.....

That's okay, though I will still implement the URL addresses for the systems in the future.

Xanadu writes
""I appreciate your attempts to submit possible profit-making strategies for the uninitiated but let's face it, any mechanical betting selection method will not work in the long term. There are a multitude of selection methods which are generally devised retrospectively, meaning there is no guarantee that this pattern of winners will continue in the future.
Accordingly, the punter must give due attention to the true indication of future performance....stable support."'
____________________________________________
Stable support can be a factor, I guess, but Ive never been in a position to identify it and use it well.

How does the ordinary punter know if a short price, or a shortening price is due to stable support and not other factors? I know some people make it thier own business to get on side with particular stables with their ear to the ground, but I cannot imagine that the stable always knows when their horse is going to beat every other horse in a particular race.

Same goes for jockeys. They might know their own horse well, but do they have an unbiased and complete knowledge of their horses's competitors?

Another factor to consider is that I maintain that the stable doesnt always know the true winning chance of their horses. Lee Freedman was one trainer who appeared to me to do a lot of form assessement, and I suspect more trainers are heavily into that now than in days gone by, but as I mentioned elsewhere, some horses appear to win with little , if any ,stable support whatsoever.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

""any mechanical betting selection method will not work in the long term. There are a multitude of selection methods which are generally devised retrospectively, meaning there is no guarantee that this pattern of winners will continue in the future"

Many a mechanical system is created retrospectively and Yes that in itself is is no guarrantee that the trend will continue, however the more selections this has been tested on prior, surely the better the chances of it being a success?

There are some factors that dont seem to change much over the years. favourites, I imagine, are still winning approx 30% of all races?

I'd like to know what todays cummulative updated winning percentages are for last start winners :in Melb, Syd ,Bris and Adeleaide,

:and also winners which were last start winners in the past 7 days or less, 14 days or less , and 21 days or less.

Anyone here know what those percentages are are today and what they were say 10 years ago? ...Perhaps this is all listed on a website somewhere..

There used to be publications avail in australia that would produce these
tables but living overseas means that I know longer have this info at my finger tips

I like the word "filter'" that is used on this forum to describe a refinement of selections, and I am still an advocate of applying mechanical filters to ratings services selections. The trick, I guess, is to use a ratings service that genuinely does its own form and is not swayed by its competitors' selections.

Back in the mid 80's when I bought an existing ratings service and retained the handicapper, I learned much about racing services. The handicapper was able to show me how some ratings services would play games and withold their final ratings and assesed odds until after their competitors had posted. Within the group of ratings services operating at that time, some would would freely exchange their race codes with their opposition, each service closely monitoring each others ratings.

I am sure there is a place for mechanics, esp when applied to consistent ratings services selections. Ive proved that to myself over the years. It took me awhile to adopt that concept..use relaible ratings as a basis for selection and then apply rigid mechanical criteria to come up with a selection and then further apply additional filters, and then backing that horse as many times as it comes up in a filtered plan....ie, each filter being a stand alone plan in itself.


The end result is a portfolio of identical plans for each chosen rating service., and you have the possibility of a horse coming up in several portfolio plans for one particaulr ratings service, but not necessarily that same horse coming up in a different ratings service plans. What I found is that the ratings service does not have to be brilliant, nor show consistent profits or performance in say the Punters Choice assessment tables. This is because I am not betting all of their selections, and staying away from the short priced selections. The main thing I looked for was their ability to rate horses that were double overlays at 8-1 or better in their top three.

Running three services gave me more bets and a better spread of risk.

The Double overlay approach seemed to have got hammered over the years, and I mentioned elsewhere the decline in average winning prices of my bets in Melbourne.

Today, I dont actually use the double overlay method in the same way that i used to. I just select from the top 3 rated horses of the chosen ratings service and then only decide to back them if they are 8-1 or better when the win pool hits the 10 k mark. This is not as accurate as I would like, because I should really be converting the ratings numbers into prices and then looking for double overlays at 8-1 or better if I was to follow the exact path of days gone by..

Some of my selections end up shortening considerably in price over the course of the day so I often end up with winners lat less than 9.00. I prefer this selection method because my initial selections are not starting out as fancied horses or false favourites, and therefore not connected in any way to the considerable media and bookmaker hype that performs its predictable farce.

When in Oz, I used the Australian newspaper market prices as a filter to nab "double overlays" from the ratings services selections and assessed prices. I also used to use the Computercard tables as a filter. I am not saying that either the overnight market prices nor computercard tables were all that marvelous but they formed a constant of mechanical refinement and it produced consistent results over the six years that I backed them with real money and discipline. There is no doubt that by going to the track and securing the best prices, I helped my P.o.t enormously.


Much of what I did ,and do today, may not make much sense. To me it still seems risky to base multiple plans upon a main raw plan...because of the fact that if the raw selections dont win, the refined ones cannot possibly produce a winner either.What those refined plans do, however, is usually capitalise on those winning raw selections. i dont place any staking plan or bet according to price.

Does anyone else operate a portfolio like this..ie. betting a selection according to the number of filters it survives? I would be interested to know.

below is an example:


plan 1. Q
the raw selection..the single selection qualifier is any ratings service rated race after considering their top three ratings in a race, after scratchings, and applying filtering such as no first or 2nd up from a spell, and only one qualifier in in any race.

plan 2 QLSW where the raw selection (Q) is also a Last Start Winner

plan 3 TRQ the raw selection (Q) is also Top Rated by the rating service

plan 4 QNR
the raw selection (Q) which also is Not Rated in the first 4 by the nswtab.com.au tipster

plan 5 QLSWNR
the raw selection (Q) which is also a Last Start Winner and Not Rated

plan 6 TRQLSW

selection which is last start winner and top rated

plan 7 TRQNRLSW
the raw selection which also is Top Rated , Last Start Winner and Not Rated in the first 4 selections on nswtab.com.au

__________________________________________________ ______________


I am also monitoring how many of my winners are not tipped as a " Late Mail" selection on nswtab.com.au. It seems that the late mail co-inciding selections are not faring too well at all, but I dont have enough form history to know for sure.

I am also recording previous winning percentages of each selected horse and their ability on course, distance and track condition, but doubt that I will ever use any of those factors as further filters. In many respects these factors should already have been well taken into account when the ratings service did its initial work.

I invite your ideas and comments

Cheers
Steve

This system, located at http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=588 was originally posted by Bhagwan on 29/3/2002. The rules of the system are as follows:

Rule 1: Operate on races with 12 or more runners.
Rule 2: Using the Wizard formguide, consider those horses on the bottom five places in their poll.
Rule 3: Back all that are paying $6.00 or more before the jump.

This system, located at http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=588 was originally posted by Bhagwan on 29/3/2002. The rules of the system are as follows:

Rule 1: Operate on races where every horse has had eight or more starts.
Rule 2: Consider those horses on the top four in tha average prizemoney.
Rule 3: Of those horses in the top four average prizemoney, back the horse with the highest win/place percentage (back the selection each way).

This system, located at http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=682, was originally posted by Bhagwan on 22/4/2002. The rules of the system are as follows:

Selection plan
Rule 1: Operate on races with eight to 12 runners inclusive.
Rule 2: Consider only horses who are sole 100-pointers in the race on UniTAB ratings (http://www.tabonline.com.au). No bet if more than one horse are 100-pointers.
Rule 3: Must be paying $3.00 or more for the win.

Staking plan
Rule 1: Back the final selections for the place.
Rule 2: The first bet is one unit.
Rule 3: If the selections is unplaced, the next bet is the same as the previous bet.
Rule 3: If the selection places, increase the next bet by one unit unless there is a profit in the series.
Rule 4: If there is a profit in the current series, then start a new betting series.

The recommended starting bank is 150 times the starting bet.

If you have a comment on a system, please do so at either the URL thread for the system or on http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=9935.

This system, located at http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=873, was originally posted by Bhagwan on 1/6/2002. The rules of the system are as follows:

Rule 1: Consider only the first three TAB favourites two minutes before the jump, as shown on the Teletext screen.
Rule 2: Selection is the middle barrier of the three.
Rule 3: Back it each way, but only if it is paying $3.30 or more for the win. Otherwise, no bet for the race.