Something Interesting?
 

If these two rules had been applied to yesterday's racing:

1) A minimum gap of 4.5 kilos between top and bottom weight,
2) Bet the top half of the field,

then there were 24 races in which the winner was struck in 19 of them.

Total outlay of $142
Total return of $186 on Unitab.

When I get time I'll have a further look at it. However I'm sure that if the system had merit then someone would know about it by now.

Hi master blaster,

Hope you have been blasting of late with your lay machine. Any joy over the pond?

Always interesting are the patterns you discover regards where the winners most come from(and loosers don't!)

How many runners does the 'top half' of the field relate to if there are an odd number of runners? Have done something similar to this before on R+S and added 1 to complete the top slice

eg 9 runners => top half = 5


Cheers LG

PS speaking of winners, what chance you guys to overturn the poms in the 1st.. out of 10?

LG

Hi, L.G.

The way the W.I. have been playing I give them little chance of beating the Poms, but I can't lay them. It seems the older Chanderpaul gets the better he becomes. I heard last night he is currently the world's top batsman in test cricket.

I didn't win last night in the U.K because the prices changed too dramatically so I'll give it a rest. However, I recouped the loss in a couple of U.S. races. Later this a.m. I'll list today's selections because the prices I estimate don't seem to change too much.

As to your query about the number of runners in a field for the "weight" system, I include the "odd" number.

And if an extra number is added, for example in a field of 12, we include the seventh number, then yesterday the system would have had a 100% Win strike rate. The exotics also would've won, the trifecta of Scone R8 would've been snared - it paid $5,000 on Unitab.