10 Elimination Rules
 

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

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

Sorry Barny,
My previous post credited this thread to Star. I was diverted by Darky's post. My most humble apologies.
Ron

So you have 2 horses with equal chances and another 4 with some sort of Chance.
Then you have the possible Unknowns.
I would have your 4 possible upsets at $12
The 2 Main Chances at $3.30

Agree totally Barny. I also eliminate all first uppers for the same reason. It's just a question of fitness. When it comes to systems, my personal preference is for between 2 and 5 runs from a spell.

Not saying I never back a horse first up or 2nd up, but for my systems, I utilize the 2-5 runs from spell rule.

Heres a very simple elimination rule: 4yo or 5yo's only.
I'd be surprised if that doesn't improve any system.

Here is my problem, note, I said mine. On my past history their is no way I can accurately rate a horses winning chance based on what I think others do. I have as much confidence with a $7 or bigger then I do with a $3 to $4 shot.

Obviously, I rate horses differently to everybody else, if rate is the correct word, which I think in my case it is not.

What I think id the correct pricing does not really matter, what matters is that the price I get pays for the losses along the way plus a bit left over to pay the bills.

Picking winners is not my major Number One issue, getting an insufficient return for my strike rate is. The shorter the price the more winners I need, and I cannot see, on my past form, how I can achieve that.

But that is just me and at the moment I am speaking from my high horse, but realise I can get thrown at any time, but providing I can get a strike rate of 5% I do not need a zillion winners, Just one in twenty.

Pete

When I was attending meetings I'd often have someone come up to me and say " The owner of Peter Pan says his horse is a certainty today ". My question would always be "What do the owners of the other 11 horses say about theirs?"

If I was to go without a Winner for 20 races , I would simply inflammate myself ( that thing where you poor petrol over yourself then ignite it)

But what you say is true Star - just doesn't suit me.

Or what did the trainers say about their horse or the others?

[QUOTE=moeee]If I was to go without a Winner for 20 races , I would simply inflammate myself ( that thing where you poor petrol over yourself then ignite it)

But what you say is true Star - just doesn't suit me.[/QUOTE]

I agree moeee.

But then, you would not be on the $44 winner at Warwick Farm which was my 18th loss in a row, but with $8 dollars bet it recovered my $39 loss from previous bets and it gave me a return of $352.80 leaving a profit for the series of $305.80.

I remember you saying in a previous reply to one of my threads that if I am not comfortable doing what has been suggested then that idea is probably not for me. Ain't that the truth.

I am only a small punter now, I bet just for an interest, so it is more important for me to have a small dabble, control the worst case senario and see if I can have some fun.

I used to have good success with the Treble years ago betting multiple horses. Today, the returns are just not there for me and I was burning money.

Pete

You mean your money became inflamed? :D

[QUOTE=The Ocho]You mean your money became inflamed? :D[/QUOTE

It is good to see that this site still has some humour in it. I was getting a bit worried for awhile. We can get a bit inflammated here, cant't we?

That might be our new word for the week. Thanks moeee.

Pete

Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

LOLLLL!! Jose!!!

Hi Barny,

Here's some food for thought using the 'power of ten':

1/ Must be within the top 10% of Average prizemony - e.g. Top av. Prizemoney is $3000, only those who've earned average $2700+ qualify.

2/ Must be priced under $10 prep-post.

3/ Racing within 10 days of last start and previously won with this pattern.

4/ Over 10% win strike rate.

Eliminate anything backed 'sensationally' ie 'market movers', as pronounced by anyone in the media.

Cheers LG

PS also, eliminate anything on the front cover of the Sportsman

Some of my observations.

It is a waste of effort worrying about first up and second up. I recently spoke to a trainer who pointed out that these days most horses have a couple of barrier trials prior to racing and are generally quite fit when fresh. These horses give better odds because of the old beliefs about first starters.

It is really difficult to assess a field accurately and come up with meaningful overs on a regular basis. The only punters who achieve a good return this way appear to have a large staff to help and rely on relatively small returns with massive outlays. I think setting a minimum price is just as good like nothing under average odds which is about $7.

I believe punters have to think outside the square and develop an individual strategy forgetting about trying to refine the well tried factors which just lead to bankruptcy by a thousand cuts.

It is extremely difficult to achieve a profitable one bet strike rate better than 10%. When UB had his site up I tested lots of combinations of factors and generally only got a +POT only with 10% methods.

My contribution to elimination ideas is to subtract api rank from actual weight rank and eliminate horses if the answer is minus 3 or worse.

Gunny's reply above is very timely for me. Because I am up to loss number 16 with my $7 dollar minimum price sequence betting. You could say I was losing my nerve after looking at my strike rate which is now down to 8%.

I am thinking that luck was on my side when that $44 winner came at bet 18 in the previous sequence and having $8 on it gave me a handsome buffer. I have checked my records since early November and have made a profit of $450 which has been withdrawn.

The majority of this come from two massive returns and then a dribble back by only a hundred cuts or so. It is not the twenty loss streak that bothers me that much but the fact that I do not like those bets all on within a few hours. The time taken up sitting infront of a computer can turn you into a recluse and their are a lot of other important things that have to be done that seem to be neglected.

An Automated bot is not my answer because I have a dodgy telephone exchange and the internet drops out quite often and I have to refresh, We know it is in the Telstra land line as the condition has a name. It only affects the internet not telephone calls.

It is frustrating that you think you can sniff out " nice little earner " as Arthur was wont to say, but these little inconveniences seem to be placed infront of you.

This punting game ain't easy.

Pete

To follow on from my previous post: With a strike rate of 8 to 10% and a minimum price of $7 means that if the return was an actual $7 you would lose between $3 and $5 for every ten to 12 bets if placed at level stakes.

Now, hopefully when that winner comes we hope for more then a $7 return. The key is stopping at a winner then restarting the series as far as I can see. But his means you have to be near a computer or have a mobile glued to your ear.

I can't see level bets or % of bank being the answer but progression betting has its limits and has to be micro managed which is not always possible.

Any ideas?

Pete

Hi Star.

You need an automated bot which can then increase your stakes how you need them to and then return back to the normal stake once a winner is struck.

As you have a dodgy internet connection I think you would need to go through a Virtual Private Server (VPS). I don't know anything about them but at least your dodgy internet problem would be taken care of.

You can then log in from anywhere to check how your nice little earner is going and to update your next lot of picks, etc.

If there were enough Profits to pay others to do the neglected , then that would work.
But seems a neglected recluse Life is my Destiny.
Be Careful Star - don't let it happen to you.

Just for you Star .....

"It's the risk element that makes it all worthwhile. Some people go through life walking down the middle of the road, to them, that's their life's highway. But it's not my way. The cliff edge is where you'll find me. Taking the risks, dreaming the dreams"

Sound familiar ????????

It does to me.
A LEMMING.
I thought about it as well myself on occasions Barny.

Well, you convinced me. I will push on with the series. I have grown a set and have three bets lined up two at Rosehill and Race 8 in Brisbane.

First bet today is Rosehill R4 No 4 Al's Gold.

Pete

moeee and Star, it's one of Arthur Daley's most famous lines. He was running short of cash, everything was going wrong, so he ran a darts tournament and backed the winner to get himself out of one big hole. That little speech he gave is right up there with the best that Shakespeare ever had to offer. You are a Minder fan Star? moeee, if you ever need inspiration just watch an episode or two of Minder! Re; Lemmings .... when you're going over that well known cliff moeee keep your elbows in 'coz I don't need a black eye on my way down!!! lol ;)

Star, as I pointed out somewhere else recently you would be much better off chasing prices rather than chasing losses by increasing stakes. Psychology will get you in the end as your stake magnifies. Your $44 winner would have sustained 44 losses without loss at level stakes and your run of outs was much less so you would have made a profit on the sequence probably with fewer bets and a lot less anguish. A 10% strike rate gives a 95% of getting a winner in 30 races.

I would have to second that, Gunny. The operator often fails before the recovery method. Some people may succeed with loss chasing methods but I'm not a fan.

Star, as I pointed out somewhere else recently you would be much better off chasing prices rather than increasing stakes to chase losses. Psychology will get you in the end as your stakes magnify. Your $44 winner would have sustained 44 losses without loss at level stakes and your run of outs was much less so you would have made a profit on the sequence probably with fewer bets and a lot less anguish. By the way, a run of up to about 45 outs can be expected with a 10% SR in 99 out of 100 sequences.

Sorry about the repetition. Too many reds after winning today has made my hand unsteady.

Thanks Gunny I need all the advise I can get at the moment.

It's unfortunate that we cannot PM each other here, because while what we might want to discuss a subject in a civilised manner it can sometimes become, what we all know is true here, " Inflammated "

Their's that word for the month again. I had to work it in here some how.

Pete

Have a few more Gunny as I am enjoying our conversation.

Pete.

Star, I sincerely believe that level staking is the only sound approach, both mathematically and psychologically. Of course if you get enough winners like your $44 one you can increase the level of your level staking when your profit is high enough.

I do like the fact that you score longshots because I think it is the only type of system worth following. I pass on short priced selections. It takes a lot of $3 winners to make $44 or the $24.50 I got on one of my two winners on Sat.