Maria understandably will not reveal her selection method but she may have given us a few clues. I would say she's done so willingly otherwise she would have not made the comments.

A ) On page 6 (26/09/05) she mentions Barney Curley whom I assume is a trainer.

B ) On page 7 (30/09/05) she talks about the horse Catch The Perk - "it was 0/7 on today's ground, it's sires progeny's are 5% on the ground and 5% at the distance and the trainer hadn't a winner for 6 months."

C ) On page 17 (19/10/05) she talks about the horse Bathwick Emmy:
1 - was unplaced on EVERY start over today's going.
2 - sire's progeny's record on this going only about 5%.
3 - also unplaced on EVERY start over this distance.
4 - sire's progeny's record over this distance also only about 5%.
5 - had a bad draw (only 5% record for this draw at this racecourse in relevant races.
6 - trainer's form was only 1 win from the last 30+ races.

It would seem that she considers important:
Trainer's strike rate.
Distance of race.
Condition of track.
Progeny.
The particular track.
Barrier.

She mentions "trainer" in all three posts which would indicate this could be very important to her.

Maybe she said all the above as a smokescreen for anyone trying to discover her selection method. These selections won their respective races, and as she lists valid reasons why she selected them as Lays, this would suggest they are important factors to her and she has no compunctions in informing everyone.

Just thought I'd mention it. Food for thought???

ty michaelg vey interesting in deed, ran it through neurals just picking the runners that r likely 2 start 4 dollars or less set it at ta crs dst very interesting results for todays racing at least

Hi, **************.

I'm looking at something similar with the neurals. Have only checked yesterday's results - 11 selections with only one accident paying $3.90 on Unitab.

When I have time I'll check the other days, and if it shows promise I'll state exactly what I've done.

Based on Maria's perceived main factors I have looked at our racing for the last three days using the CP, TA, CRS & DIST neural algorithyms. I used CP hoping it would somehow compensate for Progeny as we do not apply (IMHO) much importance on this when calculating our ratings or markets, and there is no neural category to reflect a sire's/mare's progeny.

I also looked at Unitab's prices using a cut-off price of $6.90 as this would more or less equate to $9.00 on betfair. My method was to look at the bottom-third of the neural rankings using the above-named four categories. So a selection would have to be under $7.00 on Unitab and also be in the bottom-third of the neural rankings. The only filter I applied was to look at races where every starter had a minimum of 2 previous race starts.

The results are quite promising:
Tuesday - 3 selections for no accidents.
Wednesday - 11 selections for one accident paying $3.90 on Unitab.
Thursday - 5 selections for no accidents.

So over the past three days there have been 19 selections for 1 accident of $3.90.

The drawback with this method is having to be at one's computer for every qualifying race. If we had the same volumes in betting as England does, we could more or less tell by midday which horses would be selections.

Michael, towards the end she was quite often laying more than one horse in a race.

Interesting to note that yesterday blindly laying numbers 1,2 & 3, using Maria's staking, would have produced a profit. This despite a 25% strike rate. Adding number 4 would have increased the profit as it only won 1 race, and that was odds on.

Mark, did you use Betfair prices? Because if you did that would be amazing. There were 31 races, and as I think there were 9 scratchings, there would have been 84 selections.

Do you know how your four price bands would have fared compared to Maria's three?

I would assume there would have to be a limit on the lay price otherwise one bad accident could do terrible damage. Maybe even having many price bands to cater for the $100 prices even though one would not expect to have a $100 horse in the top three TAB numbers?

Are you also going to look at today's racing for the three numbers?

Sorry Michael, I may have led you astray a bit here.
I used Unitab prices plus 20%.
I used my updated price bands.
Limit price 10.

Number 4 had several shorties get beat.

No time to check today, too busy betting and doing the form for tomorrow.

This is a little off topic, but I had to respond to this sentence.

The UK volumes are astounding at times, in fact I would say that as a group they are more intelligent than Aussies (don't take offence, I'm talking about volume). Their prices are extremely close to prepost prices - within 10%, while over here, some of the odds are just ridiculous.

In short, I can hardly make a profit from Australian races laying horses, I wait for a long odds on horse to surface, yet I can make easy profits from the UK up to $2.20.

As an example my australian wallet is in negative territory, and my uk wallet is twice that in profit.

This could say something about MY skill, but I doubt it, as the mechanical rules and formula do not change.

The difference between the two markets is astounding and there is so much money for jam available here, that I've now reversed the whole process in Australia with excelllent results.

I back in Australian markets and lay UK in markets.
Anyone else noticed this?

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 402,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/05/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

]

It's the public volume that creates the closer market in the UK, not smarter punters!