Thread: Simple Ratings
View Single Post
  #7  
Old 17th April 2006, 09:38 PM
lomaca lomaca is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 1,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duritz
There are far, far more reliable methods than the newspaper prices.

One of them is this:

Duritz's Simple Sooper Dooper You Beaut No Worries DIY "Lucky 7" Ratings:

1. Add up the horse's last three placings (if worse than ninth, use 9), and divide by the number of runs you added together. Multiply this figure by -1 then add 10.

2. Add up the horses prizemoney, divide by it's number of runs, and multiply by it's place strike rate, (expressed as a decimal, rounded to two places), and divide the figure by 1000.

3. Assign a days since last start quotient factorial to the number of days they have had since last start, where 1 is for 0-7 days and for every bracket of 7 days 1 over that 1 is added - if > 21 days since last start, use 4. Then multiply this figure by -1 and add 5.

4. If an apprentice jockey, assign a jockey quotient factorial of 1, otherwise assign a jockey quotient factorial of 2.

5. If horse is 1st up from a spell, assign a Runs From Spell (RFS) quotient factorial of 1, if 2nd up, 2, if 3rd, 4th or 5th up, 4, else 3.

6. If said member of equinity has barrier 11 or wider, assign a barrier quotient factorial of 1, else 2.

Write down these 6 Lucky figures in six separate columns in your Lucky 7 tabulator book, then multiply these 6 figures together and write the resulting figure in the Lucky 7 column.

Whoever is highest, is the top pick. Head for the bookies ring with ears back and caution sitting idly at home, and back it until your guts swell up.

And there you have it! A simple, Sooper Dooper You Beaut No Worries DIY "Lucky 7" Ratings method.


Hi Duritz!
Thank's for your extremely valuable input.
While for some! it may appear complex, I think this is actually the very essence of ratings, reduced to it's most comprehensive and at the same time to it's most simple form.
I whipped up a small programme and ran it through 3 years of past data.
I have to admit, I have taken a small liberty of multiplying the above mentioned quotiens by "-1" before doing the factorial permutations, in order to obtain a more realictic outcome.
Since it was your idea I do not feel empowered to publicly post the results, however, let me just say this, Duritz you have done it !!!!
Email sent!
Many thank's and please let them coming!
Reply With Quote