Impressive stats for such a large sample Michal and confirms my opinion that winners can be consistently selected, despite the going. Another myth to put in room 101? What I'm not sure about however is whether the professionals tend to stay away from tracks worse than Dead which I have heard from time to time - perhaps not?!


Cheers LG

Hi Moeee,

Our results shown here are based on every horse race covered by TAB every day over the last 3.5 years and 51,000 races, is that the case with the results that you quoted?

Kind Regards

Goodness me.
I would never have the desire , nor the aloofness to think that I am capable or have the knowledge to rate every single race run.

I know which races are most suitable and which ones certainly are not.
That is how I form an EDGE.
Betting on every single race run blunts that Edge and sounds , with respect , like madness and not Professionalism at all.

I choose to stick with my Home State and also only a limited number of races.
I have results of about 2 thousand races this year.

Hi LG

Personally I bet on all track conditions. The questions of whether to bet or not on rain affected tracks is more about each individual circumstance and not a generalisation. As can be said about many of the punting theories that exist, the evidence often does not support them over the long term when considering significant sample size and the expectations of the each horses performance v actual performance. For instance I would much rather support an odds on favourite carrying a big weight on a heavy track than any other track condition assuming that the horse qualifies as a selection from my form assessment.

Thanks PaulD01, suspected that might be the case and just another example of whispers vrs reality, logic vrs bias etc

Thanks LG

Yes LG .Quite interesting.
There was some discussion on the forum a long time back where the general consensus was that Good and Heavy TC were most suitable for Fav betting.

That seems to have been blown out of the water by Michal and Pauls results.

Another very good reason to follow their posts.

That is a wise and level headed approach Moeee, however in Post 20, you are comparing our over all rating performance to your system/selection method results, so yes it is deceptive. There is a distinct difference between RATINGS and SELECTIONS. If you want to compare selection methods then use the Favourites Thread that you already mentioned. There the Strike rate is 46.4% with a positive 4.63 POT, which just incidentally is WAY above your results.

The POT question is quite irrelevant when it comes to overall rating performance. As stated previously there is a distinct difference between RATING and SELECTIONS; since we don’t advocate blindly betting in every race, something echoed by yourself, then adding POT to the RATINGS results would be disadvantageous misinformation. The POT is relevant in the Favourite system SELECTION method and as such it is given there.

The Strike rate for RATINGS is relevant because it shows the accuracy of the rating to predict the winner on top or in top 3. The higher the accuracy the greater the level of success you can expect with your chosen SELECTIONS and the less fluctuation you will experience. Not only that; developing selection methods based on a solid rating will make it easier to create systems that will continue to work long-term.

We are quite proud of the Profit On Turnover results of our ratings and should someone who would want to compare their current commercial ratings performance to ours, want to include POT then we will be more then happy to give that information. Provided the comparison is done on like-for-like long term basis, and not over some fitted sample size or selection method then the POT has some relevance.

Of course this last statement is loaded, we are more than aware of our competitors ratings and POT performance.

Were I to only post my results for my top selections that started Favourite , I am confident that my results would prove an embarrassment to you.
Would you like me to post my results ?

Moeee,

If you feel like that's what you want to do, then start your own thread and go ahead.

What I would like to point out though is the following. Intentional or not, you started this big noting your final selection strike rate against our raw ratings as if they were comparable, so Michal provided you with something to compare that is actually comparable.

The raw selection process of the Favourite system has a strike rate of 37% and -1.31 POT (NSW/SP) which is STILL superior to your method, taking the favourites out of the picture.

We have no intention to debate a " my-system-is-better-than-your-system" scenario. What makes you think that we are actually using our best ratings/methods to provide FREE ratings/tips?

Only NSW has had 2,000 races this year so your statement about betting home state only and limited races and still having 2000 bets this year just doesn't compute.

You seem to be vague but confident that your results are better if they are favourite. Should you be making assumptions when making such a statement?
We are happy to compare verifiable results, but won't go into comparing stories.

The facts are that your results are not verifiable where as ours most definitely are.

Finally, your foul mouthed posts across this forum are not only defamatory in nature but make you an embarrassment to yourself and to those that know you.

My results are these

Strike rate increased to 44% and my Loss increased to -7.7%
That was with 1400 qualifying races