GENERAL RACING CHIT CHAT

[Valiant Thor]

23 hours ago, The Equaliser said:

Hence, what sort of advice would you suggest to punters for them to carry out in addition to pure stats/ratings before putting their hard earned cash on a horse?

 

A harp player spend 90% of the time tuning their harp
and only 10% of the time making music

Therein lies your answer,put the work in reap the rewards

Edited August 9, 2020 by Valiant Thor
spelling

[The Equaliser]

16 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

A harp player spend 90% of the time tuning their harp
and only 10% of the time making music

Therein lies your answer,put the work in reap the rewards

Haha, I much prefer your previous reply that people should use statistics sensibly.  E.g It may correct to say that 33% of favourites win on the AW over the summer months and in most years that they show a profit.  However, placing a bet blindly on the favourite will not necessarily yield a long term summer profit.  And, suppose someone thinks that getting 4/1 plus about a favourite is bound to make them a profit in the long run because the dumb bookies are offering 20% odds about a 33% chance is still wrong.  This is because mixed up in the 33%  winners figures are odds on shots and even money all the way through to 2/1 (33%) shots.  So one has to remove all those winners and look at the stats again to find a value bet.

I think if I were to pin my hope on such stats I would look at the favourite, But not look at any of the opposition horses.  Then, I would consider all aspect of this favourite under today's conditions e.g recent form, reliability, whether race fit, if the going is OK, the Mark OK, the Distance OK, the Course OK, the Class OK, the Surface OK, Under the right racing code and whether the trainer/Jockey is in good form as well.  I would apply the same approach to using ratings methods     

However, this is not my approach to choosing betting selections. I prefer to focus on either horses at the front end of the racing market and use expert opinion both for the well fancied horses and also for horse selections around 10/1 plus in the betting.

I don't like the idea of my fellow punters placing bets on stats and/or top ratings, in this regard, I agree that they should work at tuning their harps

   

[Valiant Thor]

5 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Haha, I much prefer your previous reply that people should use statistics sensibly.  E.g It may correct to say that 33% of favourites win on the AW over the summer months and in most years that they show a profit.  However, placing a bet blindly on the favourite will not necessarily yield a long term summer profit.  And, suppose someone thinks that getting 4/1 plus about a favourite is bound to make them a profit in the long run because the dumb bookies are offering 20% odds about a 33% chance is still wrong.  This is because mixed up in the 33%  winners figures are odds on shots and even money all the way through to 2/1 (33%) shots.  So one has to remove all those winners and look at the stats again to find a value bet.

I think if I were to pin my hope on such stats I would look at the favourite, But not look at any of the opposition horses.  Then, I would consider all aspect of this favourite under today's conditions e.g recent form, reliability, whether race fit, if the going is OK, the Mark OK, the Distance OK, the Course OK, the Class OK, the Surface OK, Under the right racing code and whether the trainer/Jockey is in good form as well.  I would apply the same approach to using ratings methods     

However, this is not my approach to choosing betting selections. I prefer to focus on either horses at the front end of the racing market and use expert opinion both for the well fancied horses and also for horse selections around 10/1 plus in the betting.

I don't like the idea of my fellow punters placing bets on stats and/or top ratings, in this regard, I agree that they should work at tuning their harps

   

Do 2nd , 3rd , 4th favs etc not have stats ?
I stated stats should be used correctly , which would incorporate all available to create the best overall stat for top rated/fav whatever you wish to call it.

[The Equaliser]

15 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Haha, I much prefer your previous reply that people should use statistics sensibly.  E.g It may correct to say that 33% of favourites win on the AW over the summer months and in most years that they show a profit.  However, placing a bet blindly on the favourite will not necessarily yield a long term summer profit.  And, suppose someone thinks that getting 4/1 plus about a favourite is bound to make them a profit in the long run because the dumb bookies are offering 20% odds about a 33% chance is still wrong.  This is because mixed up in the 33%  winners figures are odds on shots and even money all the way through to 2/1 (33%) shots.  So one has to remove all those winners and look at the stats again to find a value bet.

I think if I were to pin my hope on such stats I would look at the favourite, But not look at any of the opposition horses.  Then, I would consider all aspect of this favourite under today's conditions e.g recent form, reliability, whether race fit, if the going is OK, the Mark OK, the Distance OK, the Course OK, the Class OK, the Surface OK, Under the right racing code and whether the trainer/Jockey is in good form as well.  I would apply the same approach to using ratings methods     

However, this is not my approach to choosing betting selections. I prefer to focus on either horses at the front end of the racing market and use expert opinion both for the well fancied horses and also for horse selections around 10/1 plus in the betting.

I don't like the idea of my fellow punters placing bets on purely on just stats and/or top ratings, in this regard, I agree that they should work at tuning their harps

   

 

[The Equaliser]

3 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

Do 2nd , 3rd , 4th favs etc not have stats ?
I stated stats should be used correctly , which would incorporate all available to create the best overall stat for top rated/fav whatever you wish to call it.

Yes, I get that but what is the point of using stats or top rated selections if one is still having to plough through all the other horses in the race before coming to decision as whether to take notice of them. A waste of time and expense.  If one is going to do that then much better just to focus on the leading market contenders and work from there

 

[Valiant Thor]

44 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Yes, I get that but what is the point of using stats or top rated selections if one is still having to plough through all the other horses in the race before coming to decision as whether to take notice of them. A waste of time and expense.  If one is going to do that then much better just to focus on the leading market contenders and work from there

 

If you keep dissing stats and say there's no point  then why keep asking.......... ?

Q1

Quote

Yes, I get that but what is the point of using stats or top rated selections if one is still having to plough through all the other horses in the race before coming to decision as whether to take notice of them.

As I stated before (so tedious having to repeat oneself) I have a ML program linked to my Access DB which does it all for me in minutes.

 Q 2

Quote

If one is going to do that then much better just to focus on the leading market contenders and work from there

Its because MY market leader from MY stats MAY NOT be the newspaper / racing post / tipster market leader which are widely followed and usually over-bet by the sheep, and therein lies the opportunity for profit
 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Valiant Thor
info

[BillyHills]

On 8/7/2020 at 10:43 PM, The Equaliser said:

Haha, it occurs to me that you could write up a compendium of FAQ's so that we can all assimilate it so as to avoid putting forward repetitive questions  

No we could just have the Punters Bible according to The Equaliser published.

 

[The Equaliser]

2 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

If you keep dissing stats and say there's no point  then why keep asking.......... ?

Q1

As I stated before (so tedious having to repeat oneself) I have a ML program linked to my Access DB which does it all for me in minutes.

 Q 2

Its because MY market leader from MY stats MAY NOT be the newspaper / racing post / tipster market leader which are widely followed and usually over-bet by the sheep, and therein lies the opportunity for profit
 

Just to reassure you I am not putting you and your statistics down.

Let's now say that you VT is the benchmark of stats that we all should follow.  Hence the question on that point is that if you shared your method with other punters and they followed it would they have made a level stakes profit over the last 5 years.  If so how much?

I am not being sarcastic.  I really appreciate that you are applying a statistical solution to a real life betting problem. The reason that I ask is so as to give other punters encouragement and hope that if they go along your path they can be successful.

Now contrast this with the all too many private services out there that are fleecing punters on the basis that there wonderful rating services are banging in winners of 20/1 plus. As far as I can tell these services are trying to dupe punters into believing that a 10/1 shot is tantamount to uncovering a horse with a 50% chance of winning.  I can't help feeling that in reality their 10/1 shots do not perform any better than anyone else's 10/1 shots.  They don't give a breakdown of all there proposed 10/1 shots combined do they?

 

 

 

     

[The Equaliser]

55 minutes ago, BillyHills said:

No we could just have the Punters Bible according to The Equaliser published.

 

Haha, it was a bit tongue in cheek of you to suggest that all too many questions have been asked and answered over the years.  Times change and new punters come on board all the time in the hope of making their fortune in horse racing.  If we can shed some light on the fallacies in racing along the way and try and help punters to either not waste their money or possibly make a small profit then this can't be bad can it?

 

[Valiant Thor]

29 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Let's now say that you VT is the benchmark of stats that we all should follow

Im not asking nor do I want anyone to follow me in any way shape or form (if you need to follow someone , I suggest join a marching band its a lot less stressful than punting)

31 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Hence the question on that point is that if you shared your method with other punters

I find as in most things life people who constantly go on about sharing usually have very little to offer in return and just want to take or are too bone idle to put in the time and effort do it themselves, either way not my problem

44 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

would they have made a level stakes profit over the last 5 years.  If so how much?

You'd have made a profit @ level stakes over the last 20yr , How much Ive made has nothing to do with my wife never mind some random poster on a message board.
As I am not trying to sell anything or prove anything to anyone whatsoever then I find the question particularly bad etiquette and usually the sort of thing akin to the dickswingers who've had a winner and feel the need to tell every-man and his dog. If you want that sort of crap go to BF forum full of them

57 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Now contrast this with the all too many private services out there that are fleecing punters on the basis that there wonderful rating services

That's the problem of the people who sign up to these clowns not mine , Im not a Dear Deardrie for the idiots who lose money to these shysters its there money to do with as they wish.

[The Equaliser]

10 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

Im not asking nor do I want anyone to follow me in any way shape or form (if you need to follow someone , I suggest join a marching band its a lot less stressful than punting)

I find as in most things life people who constantly go on about sharing usually have very little to offer in return and just want to take or are too bone idle to put in the time and effort do it themselves, either way not my problem

You'd have made a profit @ level stakes over the last 20yr , How much Ive made has nothing to do with my wife never mind some random poster on a message board.
As I am not trying to sell anything or prove anything to anyone whatsoever then I find the question particularly bad etiquette and usually the sort of thing akin to the dickswingers who've had a winner and feel the need to tell every-man and his dog. If you want that sort of crap go to BF forum full of them

That's the problem of the people who sign up to these clowns not mine , Im not a Dear Deardrie for the idiots who lose money to these shysters its there money to do with as they wish.

Well I am very pleased that you have a profitable method.  I wish you another 20 years plus success.  You give the stats user encouragement and very many thanks for sharing the information that you have.

I guess I do feel for the poor Dear Deardrie idiots that you mention.  It is my quest to help them when I can.

Very best wishes for the future

 

[Valiant Thor]

6 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

I guess I do feel for the poor Dear Deardrie idiots that you mention.  It is my quest to help them when I can.

Some geezer named Jesus had the same quest some time ago apparently and look what happened to him. (allegedly)

[Alley Cat Glover]

On 8/5/2020 at 2:46 PM, Valiant Thor said:

In the database I have 149K flat races

Which is over 1.5 million horses raced against each other

Edited 5 August 2020 2:49pm by Valiant Thor

Is this a database that you have personally built up over numbers of years for you to do all your research with. Do you do your own inputs or download race results, or do you still Watch the races and give your own ratings. Only asking please go gentle with me. No way do I do that much work, I personally try to watch previous races and try to find an angle which I like, just trying to improve. Some races are a lot easier than others. Seems covering your options by backing 2 or even 3 selections in a race can still be profitable which seems counter intuitive, judging by some very reliable contributors on here.

 

[Valiant Thor]

1 minute ago, Alley Cat Glover said:

Is this a database that you have personally built up over numbers of years for you to do all your research with. Do you do your own inputs or download race results, or do you still Watch the races and give your own ratings. Only asking please go gentle with me. No way do I do that much work, I personally try to watch previous races and try to find an angle which I like, just trying to improve. Some races are a lot easier than others. Seems covering your options by backing 2 or even 3 selections in a race can still be profitable which seems counter intuitive, judging by some very reliable contributors on here.

 

Its my own ACG 
Built up over the years and it started out as a simple project to keep me occupied when I had to spend a long time at home after serious illness but ended up occupying nearly every spare minute I had even after I had recovered
Once you see a light at the end of the tunnel unfortunately it becomes an obsession( or it did with me)
This is how it sort of escalated
Project 1 many years ago ,There were plenty of databases you could purchase but they could only be used the way the seller wanted you to use it (ie tick box for this, tick box for that crap) , I wanted a personalised one that could do things my own way so learnt how to create a database to run the way I wanted it to.
Project 2 was to create an optimised ratings type that I thought would be the most advantageous to my needs
Project 3 was learn to automate ratings so that everything updated as soon as new data was input
Project 4 Build an accurate formula to price up the race according to my ratings and build into rating result
Project 5 was the easiest bit as all the hard work had been done, as soon as I updated the days racing the algorithm picked the top rated horse and price up against the rest of the field (top rated in my ratings opinion is the only 1 Im interested in after all its supposed to be the best option in the race )
Project 6 (Hardest part of all and took me what felt like a lifetime) Learn machine learning and get it to read all the stats created and optimise ratings for the best bets.
Project 7 Get myself set up on a VPS (virtual private server) and get my ML prog running on it and connect it to betfair so it runs 24/7 even when my computer at home is off and has next to no downtime (unlike virgin)
Project 8 Load up with some cash and let it run unattended backing MY top rated for a couple of months at min stake to test for bugs (if certain conditions are met of course)
Overall
I run three systems / methods / algorithms/ ratings whatever you want to call them.
2 of them  I tend to back manually for various reasons and 1 runs on its own on a VPS and backs whatever it decides is the optimum bet and meets all its criteria , its built to keep running the stats and checking the prices untill 15 seconds before the off ,then decides if everything is the best it can be , if there's a bet it then triggers one, if not moves on to next race.
I have no input whatsoever though I can check on VPS site to see whats happening but as Ive had it running now for a few year I know its stable enough so just leave it be and update the results after racing.
As for backing 2 or 3 in a race if its statistically viable for a bet then why not  (ie If one of them wins and you can make a designated profit in line with your percieved odds chance). If others disagree thats there prerogative
Very rarely watch a race unless theres zip on the telly or Ive nothing better to do (Like a lot of stats players,I know very little about horses, I only play the numbers)
hope thats answered your Q

[Alley Cat Glover]

11 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

hope thats answered your Q

Christ that’s some achievement. So do you mean any input ratings from the results have nothing to do with how The actual race was run or panned out. I don’t watch much live races but I do like to see how they have run before. Been learning and improving but a way to go yet.

I assume you were already heavily into maths and statistics before this series of projects or was it all self taught.

Thanks for your reply again, going to have to read it several times to get the most out of it. But it’s way above my capability. Certainly now.

[Valiant Thor]

 

37 minutes ago, Alley Cat Glover said:

I assume you were already heavily into maths and statistics before this series of projects or was it all self taught.

Engineer (toolmaker by trade ), then moved in to non destructive diagnostic maintenance  ( thats a lot like the condition monitoring system on your car) you fix things before theyre due to break so as not to cause even more damage,
Self taught , I had over 12months having to drag an oxygen cylinder everywhere so I tended to sit down a lot at my computer 

Quote

 But it’s way above my capability. Certainly now.

No it isnt , If you want it bad enough and set your mind to it anything's possible , just do things in baby steps, you dont need to learn everything in one go
 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Valiant Thor

[MCLARKE]

On 8/8/2020 at 10:14 AM, The Equaliser said:

Many thanks M for a balanced view for us punters.

One question occurs to me with regards to all these stats.  Would you place a bet based purely upon the stats? 

Also, you mentioned earlier you would be re-visiting "horses returning to racing within 5 days" I don't think that you would blindly back horses despite the wonderful stats.  However, it occurs to me that many punters would because they are looking to minimise the time they spend on researching their betting.  The same goes for punters looking for top rated horses which I must confess I find a dubious way of selecting horses to bet on   

Hence, what sort of advice would you suggest to punters for them to carry out in addition to pure stats/ratings before putting their hard earned cash on a horse?

Sorry, this is a tough question.

 

All my bets are based on statistics. I will develop a system based on 4 years data and then test it on a further year's data. Only if it proves profitable on the test data will I then bet real money on it, initially at low stakes. 99% of my time is spent on system development. 

 

 

[Hit 1st, Fell 2nd]

For The Equaliser - Just a quick question mate.  I have read through quite a bit of this  and noted that you say you use "expert opinion".  What would you class as "expert opinion" ?

Cheers.

[The Equaliser]

2 hours ago, Hit 1st, Fell 2nd said:

For The Equaliser - Just a quick question mate.  I have read through quite a bit of this  and noted that you say you use "expert opinion".  What would you class as "expert opinion" ?

Cheers.

Hi there H,  by this I mean The Racing Post verdicts and commentaries, The Sporting Life website verdicts and detailed commentaries and the Timeform star rating comments and selections on the ATR website on the "race card" tab.  I also read the ATR verdict which is the same as reading the Oddschecker verdict on the Oddschecker website, though you do get a 3rd preference on the Oddschecker website.  One thing you will notice if you check out the Sporting Life website and the Sporting Life preview on the Oddschecker website is that very often the selections are completely different!!!  I also acknowledge the Racing Post's RPR top rated and RPDTA top rated along with the Predictor's ratings on the ATR website.

In addition to these I also take account of the main newspaper tips as shown on the Nap checker website.

The conflicts of opinion take quite a bit of getting used to but I find that if one regularly reads these details and only concentrates on what is relevant to the horse(s) that one is interested in then this can be very rewarding.

If these guys don't know what's going on in racing then there is no hope for any of us apart from the statisticians.

I hope this answers your question?

 

 

[The Equaliser]

17 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

All my bets are based on statistics. I will develop a system based on 4 years data and then test it on a further year's data. Only if it proves profitable on the test data will I then bet real money on it, initially at low stakes. 99% of my time is spent on system development. 

 

 

 " On 8/8/2020 at 12:00 AM, MCLARKE said:

This may be the case in the winter months. In the summer months the strike rate is 33% and backing the AW favourites generates a profit.

One note of caution, 2019 showed a loss."

This is my kind of my worry when one is using stats (sorry if I haven't copied your quote properly).  Hence, you could have accurately compiled your four years of data and then have a bad year as 2019 summer months on the All Weather.

What I am wondering is whether you could include "on the day" factors so as to enhance your statistical and historical findings.  By this I mean such things as the horse(s) being race fit, reliable, on a realistic Mark and/or not having to shoulder a too stiff penalty, Ok with the Distance, Class, Going, Course and Surface etc.  I don't think that this would take too long to check out for just one horse that you wish to focus on?

I guess I'm a belt and braces type of person.

I don't know if any of the above appeals to you?

99% of your time spent on system development.  Wow!

 

 

 

[Hit 1st, Fell 2nd]

28 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Hi there H,  by this I mean The Racing Post verdicts and commentaries, The Sporting Life website verdicts and detailed commentaries and the Timeform star rating comments and selections on the ATR website on the "race card" tab.  I also read the ATR verdict which is the same as reading the Oddschecker verdict on the Oddschecker website, though you do get a 3rd preference on the Oddschecker website.  One thing you will notice if you check out the Sporting Life website and the Sporting Life preview on the Oddschecker website is that very often the selections are completely different!!!  I also acknowledge the Racing Post's RPR top rated and RPDTA top rated along with the Predictor's ratings on the ATR website.

In addition to these I also take account of the main newspaper tips as shown on the Nap checker website.

The conflicts of opinion take quite a bit of getting used to but I find that if one regularly reads these details and only concentrates on what is relevant to the horse(s) that one is interested in then this can be very rewarding.

If these guys don't know what's going on in racing then there is no hope for any of us apart from the statisticians.

I hope this answers your question?

Thank you for taking the time to reply. But i have to say that i would never class the RP or the Sporting Life commentaries or quotes as "expert". Many a time you will see them differ on how a race was run and/or how a horse ran. Its as if sometimes Stevie Wonder did the write ups. By taking those into consideration, you are basically factoring their thoughts of how a race was run into your calculations.  When studying, i watch the last race (and usually more) of EVERY horse that is running in the race. For me, that is the ONLY way to do it. 

28 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

 

 

 

[The Equaliser]

5 minutes ago, Hit 1st, Fell 2nd said:

Thank you for taking the time to reply. But i have to say that i would never class the RP or the Sporting Life commentaries or quotes as "expert". Many a time you will see them differ on how a race was run and/or how a horse ran. Its as if sometimes Stevie Wonder did the write ups. By taking those into consideration, you are basically factoring their thoughts of how a race was run into your calculations.  When studying, i watch the last race (and usually more) of EVERY horse that is running in the race. For me, that is the ONLY way to do it. 

 

I hope that you find your approach very rewarding.  I tend to look at a lot of races and I dread to think how long it would take me to look at the way in which all of the runners ran last time out.

I also take very much notice of what is happening in the betting market for the races I'm interested in.  Despite expert opinion(s) I believe that the market is the best guide to finding winners, especially favourites.  There is a lot of hype created by the experts and so called people in the know which can influence the prices of a race. The trick for me is to decide what is relevant and what is not.  A lovely puzzle for all of us to solve.

Sorry, I couldn't help you.

 

 

[Hit 1st, Fell 2nd]

57 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

I hope that you find your approach very rewarding.  I tend to look at a lot of races and I dread to think how long it would take me to look at the way in which all of the runners ran last time out.

I also take very much notice of what is happening in the betting market for the races I'm interested in.  Despite expert opinion(s) I believe that the market is the best guide to finding winners, especially favourites.  There is a lot of hype created by the experts and so called people in the know which can influence the prices of a race. The trick for me is to decide what is relevant and what is not.  A lovely puzzle for all of us to solve.

Sorry, I couldn't help you.

 

 

You are right to dread how long it would take to watch the relevant races. It is very time consuming but it is the only way i know how. But then again, i do it for a living so i am not tied down to other things. 

Reading the markets is a lot harder these days than many years ago. A lot of so called "moves" these days are actually price corrections due to the inability of most firms to price a race up. I dont know how many professional tissue men are still around these days but there cant be any more than two or three.  If you go on Oddschecker now and pick any race you will see plenty of horses with their prices in blue. Up to six or seven in some races. But of course, that doesnt mean there are six or seven "gambles". Its just that the price was wrong in the first place and is now righting itself.  Similarly, there is plenty of ones in pink who were put in too low and are now drifting. and many people see this and say drifters never win. But if a genuine 7/2 chance has been put in at 2/1, it is obviously going to drift and will more than likely end up at where it should have been in the first place. And in reality, its not actually a "drifter".

Good luck

[The Equaliser]

39 minutes ago, Hit 1st, Fell 2nd said:

You are right to dread how long it would take to watch the relevant races. It is very time consuming but it is the only way i know how. But then again, i do it for a living so i am not tied down to other things. 

Reading the markets is a lot harder these days than many years ago. A lot of so called "moves" these days are actually price corrections due to the inability of most firms to price a race up. I dont know how many professional tissue men are still around these days but there cant be any more than two or three.  If you go on Oddschecker now and pick any race you will see plenty of horses with their prices in blue. Up to six or seven in some races. But of course, that doesnt mean there are six or seven "gambles". Its just that the price was wrong in the first place and is now righting itself.  Similarly, there is plenty of ones in pink who were put in too low and are now drifting. and many people see this and say drifters never win. But if a genuine 7/2 chance has been put in at 2/1, it is obviously going to drift and will more than likely end up at where it should have been in the first place. And in reality, its not actually a "drifter".

Good luck

Many thanks for your interesting reply.  I believe that there was a man in the Evening Standard many years ago and as soon as he published his betting forecasts very many bookie firms would repeat his prices.  Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

I am wondering if you may wish to enter the Punters Lounge Naps competition here each month.  It is quite fun and has a knockout competition in the following month for qualifiers.  I think it would be interesting to see how your bets fair up against PL's finest?

 

[Hit 1st, Fell 2nd]

9 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Many thanks for your interesting reply.  I believe that there was a man in the Evening Standard many years ago and as soon as he published his betting forecasts very many bookie firms would repeat his prices.  Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

I am wondering if you may wish to enter the Punters Lounge Naps competition here each month.  It is quite fun and has a knockout competition in the following month for qualifiers.  I think it would be interesting to see how your bets fair up against PL's finest?

 

"The Evening Standard" ? 

Looking at some of the prices that are churned out by bookmakers these days,  i reckon they use the Morning Star. 

[The Equaliser]

49 minutes ago, Hit 1st, Fell 2nd said:

"The Evening Standard" ? 

Looking at some of the prices that are churned out by bookmakers these days,  i reckon they use the Morning Star. 

Well, I do remember people waiting around for the early edition of the Evening Standard showing prices.  Maybe someone on here remembers who the famous fellow was? I could only find  https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/tissue-man-cleans-up-6336451.html

Anyway, it seems to me that you could make quite a bit of money by cashing in on the wrong prices given by bookmakers if you so wished.

 

[MCLARKE]

6 hours ago, The Equaliser said:

 " On 8/8/2020 at 12:00 AM, MCLARKE said:

This may be the case in the winter months. In the summer months the strike rate is 33% and backing the AW favourites generates a profit.

One note of caution, 2019 showed a loss."

This is my kind of my worry when one is using stats (sorry if I haven't copied your quote properly).  Hence, you could have accurately compiled your four years of data and then have a bad year as 2019 summer months on the All Weather.

What I am wondering is whether you could include "on the day" factors so as to enhance your statistical and historical findings.  By this I mean such things as the horse(s) being race fit, reliable, on a realistic Mark and/or not having to shoulder a too stiff penalty, Ok with the Distance, Class, Going, Course and Surface etc.  I don't think that this would take too long to check out for just one horse that you wish to focus on?

I guess I'm a belt and braces type of person.

I don't know if any of the above appeals to you?

99% of your time spent on system development.  Wow!

 

 

 

I would not use this one statistic, I would delve further and include other criteria.

I do not include the "on the day" factors that you are mention, to me they are too subjective, how do you define race fitness, reliability etc.

[The Equaliser]

13 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

I would not use this one statistic, I would delve further and include other criteria.

I do not include the "on the day" factors that you are mention, to me they are too subjective, how do you define race fitness, reliability etc.

Hi M, sorry if I have been clumsy in my suggestions.  Great that you will delve further and include other criteria.

When I suggest things such as race fitness all I mean is what is known e.g a flat race horse having had a run within the last 30 days etc; though I know that horses that are entered in classic races by top yards can have greater gaps between races.  Also, I believe that horses over the jumps hold their form longer so a longer absence than 30 days is OK.  Possibly subjective, I know but I'm happy with it.

As far as reliability is concerned I mean a horse that has recently shown good place and winning form.  Also, that in the write ups one learns that the horse is a battler and doesn't just give way to its rivals. To me this is the mark of a future winning horse.

I would have thought that factors on the day such as Distance, Going , Class, Mark, penalties, surface etc in addition to the historical data that the favourite will win this particular type of race would be relevant.

Only trying to help.

 

 

[MCLARKE]

If any of these factors are significant then they should be highlighted in my detailed analysis.

I will often go against perceived wisdom, for instance you suggest that a horse should have had a run in the last 30 days but the statistics for favourites shows that those that haven't run in the last 21 days show the best profit. This is the sort of statistic I really like, one that goes against the crowd. I am not looking for the winner of a race, I am looking for the horse that provides the best value in a race.

In terms of form, what is the definition of form ? Is the form of a horse that is 2nd in a field of 5 better than the form of a horse that finishes 4th in a field of 18? 

 

[The Equaliser]

8 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

If any of these factors are significant then they should be highlighted in my detailed analysis.

I will often go against perceived wisdom, for instance you suggest that a horse should have had a run in the last 30 days but the statistics for favourites shows that those that haven't run in the last 21 days show the best profit. This is the sort of statistic I really like, one that goes against the crowd. I am not looking for the winner of a race, I am looking for the horse that provides the best value in a race.

In terms of form, what is the definition of form ? Is the form of a horse that is 2nd in a field of 5 better than the form of a horse that finishes 4th in a field of 18? 

 

Yes, you are right that is indeed a lovely stat for you to work with.

With regards to form I am reminded about a race on Monday, the 6.00 at Chester. Zamaani had previously won a class 2 race at Goodwood by 1.5 lengths.  It was sent off as 4/7 favourite.  On the other hand Mystery Smiles had previously won a class 5 event by 2 3/4 lengths at 5/6 favourite.  Almost all of the tipsters went for Zamaani to win.  It was only the Racing Post and a minor tipster that suggested that Mystery Smiles could beat Zamaani.  Mystery Smiles cosily beat Zamaani by 3/4 length at a price of 5/2.  This seems to illustrate the complexities of form and class.  I think that it must be difficult to work out how a class 5 winner can now put its best foot forward and beat a class 2 winner.  I guess it comes down to the ability of a shrewd person to be able to assess the expected improvement for this type of runner.  I don't know if it was luck on the part of the RP tipster or whether there is any practical way one can reliably predict expected improved performance?