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 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

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