Great stuff, becareful. Can't argue with a database like that. You wrote:

I need a faster PC as it took some time for each query!).

I'm doing it by pencil and green highliter! Gotta get me a program that sucks html data off the TAB site!

In your initial sample - 6094 qualifiers for total divs of 5291 (87% return) - you don't distinguish between runners per race? So if there are three qualifiers in a race, three bets? I don't suppose there's a quick and handy way to cut it down to one per race in your database, eg. lowest TAB number or best last start. If the sample counts all qualifiers, even several per race, then 87-90% return isn't too bad, I think. In many races there are two or three or more $10 jobs rated 95+. I wonder what proportion of races have two or more qualifiers? If ALL qualifiers net around 90% return there's hope of finding a mechanism to find the best of them where there's two or more in a race.

In my (midget) sample I found weekday country meetings best, metro Sat. meets worse.

You wrote:

Restricting the selection to 99 or 100 raters
made a very small profit (about 1% POT).

Again, if that includes scenarios of two or more qualifiers in a race, that's not too bad.


You wrote:

Including the 96, 97 & 98 raters still resulted in a profit (with the other conditions) but POT is significantly lower so wouldn't really recommend it.

How significant is significant? I'm wondering about strike/out patterns. Personally, I'Ii accept a lower POT if a system is more stable with shorter runs of outs and more happy evenings with that winning feeling.

Your findings on good and fast tracks was surprising, but there it is.

Your findings on greyhounds was very surprising and have saved me heaps of work and probably a few bucks as well.:smile:

Among those rated over 95 starting at $10 today I snared Maron Chevel ($13.90) and Idealistic ($18.50). Marstic, Calming and Senate Lease good placegetters. Ahead on the day.

Great analysis. Many thanks becareful.

Hermes