claimer alert - lilibourne prince clear top weight and no old hands in this contest -2 40 Leicester 5/1 current odds
Yea, I think we'll have to exclude duff claimers Seriously though, I think it might be worth looking at the ORs and the weights In that race, if you adjust the OR based on a weight of (for convenience) 9.0 you get these "ratings" Whilst it didn't produce the winner, it would have shown you that the top weight was not well in at the weights. Eg it would have shown that the winner was 10lb well in compared to the top weight. Enough to put you off the top weight?
I'm not too sure I'm on the right tram here. Please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. We pick out the worst possible field we can find, select the miscreant that has to carry the weight of the grandstand, and then make sure we secure the crappiest odds on offer when lumping our hard earned on the conveyance that can only be described as, a useless piece of ****? And if things don't pan out, we then amend the rules to keep us in the game. I have to say, I'm tremendously impressed with people who enjoy punching themselves in the face.
Not amending any Rules Cyc. Just seeing if there is any mileage in the suggested system, albeit with tweaks. There is some logic in the system but it needs refining, which can only be done by studying results and seeing if there are leaks in the logic. We might end up with a decent system based on logic rather than pure stats; we might not. This is trial time PS the odds weren't included in the criteria
Have been down in Devon for 5 days so haven’t been following the system that closely but I think there was just one runner in that time – the one detailed above by Rudebwoy. Cyc, the whole point of this system, its very raison d’etre, is that it revolves around bad horses in bad races! That is what gives it, for want of a better word, its ‘angle’. And don’t forget that just like good races, bad ones, have winners too. By my reckoning in the 4 and a half weeks of trialling this system its strike rate is 3/7 (or 3/5 if excluding 2YO races who’s inclusion Ron has been so unconvinced about). That’s healthy by anyone’s standards and a decent profit still exists despite a couple of reversals lately. I do wonder though if we are perhaps trying to amend things too far and getting away from what made the system so attractive in the first place – its simplicity (cor blimey the rules are so simple even I can follow it!). I think if you can too much away from the 2 golden rules (is the race a claimer??? and is there an outright top weight???) then you are perhaps taking this away from the system. And let’s face it just by applying these guidelines results ain’t been bad at all. Claimers in recent times have been a bit thin on the ground but I see the next is on Sunday – and for the first time, since looking at the system, it’s over the sticks - at Huntingdon. Nebula Storm, from a decent barn in the county is entered, but he’ll need a few to come out in order to be a qualifier!
Morning Sir Barney hope you had a enjoyable stay at your Devon Estate! Whilst perusing last nights results I noticed the first race at Dundalk was a claimer won by the top weight at 15/8. Not a 2-Y-O in sight so 4 from 5 ie. 80% strike rate
I understand Barney but I'm trying to stick to the underlying logic, which is, I think: I want to sell this horse at a good price and I therefore want it to win. So, I'll put it in a race it can win with top weight. Now if, according to the OR, it is top rated then it should win on all known form so, "knowing" it will have been trained to win, it should win. However, if another horse have been thrown in at the weights it's easy to argue that the trainer of that horse has found a good race where he can "get rid of " it and is not too fussed how much he gets for it. I will continue with the post race analysis to see if I can justify any further refinement, always adhering to the logic underlying the system. It could be that this system has been around for a long time and the game has changed a bit. Hence the simple rule that maybe once was adequate may need refining
Qualifier for the system at Huntingdon on Sunday (1.20). It’s the first, since detailed on here, in the NH sphere. Looks a well dodgy affair but the one who ticks the 2 boxes is ULIS DE VASSY.
I don't know if NH is included in the system as so much can go wrong. However, looking at the ORs anf adjusting to 11.0 (for convenience) Cotillion heads the ratings on 130 followed by Ulis De Vassy on 119 On the face of it it would seem Cotillon is 11lb well in cf Ulis De Vassy However, since 2012 all wins (4) of Ulis De Vassy have been on good ground or faster whereas all of turf wins of Cotillion have been on soft or softer Cotillon Going into the G3 Coral Cup at Cheltenham in 2012 Cotillion had risen to an OR of 134. Between then and last December he ran on the flat. Returning to NH on a rating of 124, he went into his most recent run (30 Sep) on 133 and came out of it on 130. He sports a visor for the first time Ulis De Vassy Since last June his OR has risen steadily from 111 to 130 (going into his recent race 12 Oct with the highest OR but finished 6th of 9 beaten 10l and knocked down to 125 as a result). The ground on Sunday is predicted a good which will clearly suit Ulis De Vassy but he has that 11lb to overcome. I think I would dutch the 2 if forced to bet - provided I could effectively get evens the 2
This system, if switched between NH & Flat, seems unworkable. Too many unknowns. Constantly changing the parameters in any sphere is just shooting in the dark. Even if anyone settled on a consistent method of betting on these selections the prices are poor. Too much effort for too little return. Shoot me down! I don't mind
please log in to view this image You may be right BM but we are trialling it to see how it goes. Provided we stick to the logic as to why the horse is entered, at we least we think we know that the horse will be trying - which is more than can be assumed in a very high % of races.
Don't forget Aristotle's theory of waste. Not too many people know that his guardian Proxenus was an avid punter and racecourse tout who had a tremendous influence on Aristotle's upbringing. Young Ari quickly spotted that Proxenus was utter rubbish when it came to sticking his coin on a winner, so with adoration filling his heart for the elderly gentlemen, Aristotle turned his towering intellect toward the problem. His keen eye quickly spotted what can only be described as a bit of mind boggling brilliance. Horses just couldn't stop ****ting. Sometimes they defecated a dozen times a day. Using a slide rule, a shovel and a set of scales, he found to his utter amazement that neddies can ooze out as much as three and a half stone of dung a day at an average of about four to five pounds per dump. This was the information that Aristotle needed to turn around poor Proxenus' gambling fortunes. All they needed to do, was look for a form animal who'd just just discharged a gastrointestinal load and bingo ... they got in four pounds under. If it's good enough for the great thinker, then surely it's good enough for us. As Aristotle was oft heard to proclaim. "Let number twos be your number one!"
Yesterday’s ‘jumping boy’ certainly failed to deliver finishing last of the 5 finishers. What do we think of tomorrow’s qualifier though??? Must say he looks extremely strong although I guess the SP is going to be far, and I do mean far, from generous. It’s the David O’Meara trained HARD TO HANDEL (3.10 Redcar). Only 4 runners and on official ratings the heat looks an almost ‘match’ between he and Mark Johnston’s runner.
Barney. Whilst I am gradually trying to refine the system to best reflect the underlying logic, I have to step back and actually question that logic. The logic is, as I understand it and as stated earlier: I want to sell this horse at a good price and I therefore want it to win. So, I'll put it in a race it can win with top weight. Now, let's ask ourselves Why are the other horses entered? Haven't they been put in on a weight where they stand the best chance of winning, so they can be sold? Particularly horses that (maybe) are considered a liability and any price will do. After all, if they have had no luck selling the horse, maybe getting it in a race where it can win will improve the chances of selling it at whatever price. It might be worth checking to see if the horse has previously been up for sale and whether or not it was sold. When you consider that all these runners are in the race because they need to be sold, maybe the logic underlying the system isn't as sound as first thought. Just to hammer the point, if someone has a horse they can no longer afford to keep (prize money - running costs = large negative number) they can afford to give it away. But why would anyone want to buy it? Maybe only a win will do the trick. So put it in a race on bottom weight, win easily = bargain for someone? I think "I'm Out"
I don't like this at all. It's hard enough to find a winner as it is, so why without resort to punting on an animal that couldn't run out of sight on a dark night?
Another win for the old system yesterday then albeit at the prohibitive odds of 8/11. After 10 races then the breakdown of results, by my reckoning, has been – Top weight in 2YO claimers – 0/2 Top weight in 3YO+ claimers run on the Flat – 5/7 Top weight in Claimers run in the NH sphere – 0/1 Not a huge sample size, by any means, but I think it’s pretty clear, in conclusion, where the successes and profits thus far have been achieved.
