Hello Everyone

The attached fiqures are for all the B Joesph trained horses first up using best of the three totes remember though my database constitutes a spell as 56 Days or more!

Anyway still a very profitable first up trainer, might start follwing it myself...thanks p57...
WPOT 53.9%
LLWS 22

I tried to post the selection but the file size was too large if anyone would like to see it let us know how I can post it up?
Happy punting
Nanook

Attached Files

MS B JOESPH 1.txt (7.4 KB, 866 views)

Nanook,

That is interesting and valuable stuff, for me particularly, as I can contrast those results with mine.

But the first issue I need to raise is what does this have to do with p57?

The $20 minimum is about the only constant in p57's pindownproof rules. Yet your figures are for all runs.

Furthermore Goulbourn is the clear star track in your figures. That hardly qualifies as a country to city gambit. In fact the opposite is more likely.

And the star prizemoney is the next-to-bottom $6,000 group. Presumably not suggestive of a strong ring for a sting, nor healthy tote pools.

But I hope others study those figures as there might be some lessons there.

Nanook. Very interesting results; especially that you are using 8 weeks as a "spell". In the Sportsman they use the terms "Spell", "Let-Up" etc for the varying breaks a horse has. This is fertile ground as I often look at the trainers who space the runs a bit, without actually putting the horse away in the paddock OR who put them away for 4-8 weeks.. This is frowned-upon by many punters (especially those who follow systems with "Must've run in past 14 days/21 days/4 days" etc etc as a rule) as "breaks" are seen as indicative of "problems". Sometimes, however, a trainer has a more "fragile" horse which the trainer 'knows" needs rests between races (ie from experience) and will only put that horse back on the track when he/she is "sure" it's ready to perform. Alternately there are trainers who "push" their horses from the First Up start to win QUICKLY. These trainers already know their horse will be needing a "let-up" but calculate this into the campaign.
JFC. If you look at racing from several angles AT ONCE, you can be amazed how you get the "whole picture" and then find leads to other interesting (and profitable) ideas. Since we already had our Gai Waterhouse mix-up elsewhere AND I mentioned it there, I'll repeat an observation: look at the races where the "Big Trainer" get longshot winners and work out why the public were ignoring them (the trainer) that day.
This whole thing with Barbara Joseph came about simply because I mentioned her as a First Up Sydney specialist (in passing). Nanook has looked further into it and discovered she is a First Up specialist IN GENERAL. That's the nature of all progress.You are obsessed with "one thing at a time", he said/she said instead of trying to discover WHERE that "one thing" might lead. Just for a while, you could perhaps give us some of your "observations" (rather than "stats" I mean) about racing, so we could look into them. Thanks

I would have hoped that by now someone would have expressed caution about those figures. Guess I'd better before the nation's welfare bill rises.

My figures from 1998 to August 2005 return a ROT of only 89.9%.

So which is right - my POT of -10.1% versus Nanook's +53.9%.

First I should remind most about how I produce my figure.

I stake each selection in inverse proportion to (non-fractional) SP - i.e. 1/SP.

I payout on Best( SP, NSW ).

This avoids the big nagging problem of fluke longshots distorting small samples.

Nanook's level stake analysis appears to depend on at least 3 big results.

$4,360
$7,310 (both mentioned earlier)
$6,690 (or more) from Silver Laddie Goulburn 16/2/2001

$18,360 Total


Without all those 3 there would have been a small loss.

I may have further to say once I consider stuff, but right now I see no need to get carried away with this idea.

An interesting control is to examine the higher priced half of these runners.

For SP > 8/1, there are 366 runs.

ROT = 82.2% which is worse than the full 89.9%.

Hello jfc

As p57 mentioned in his last paragraph he made a reference to it so I thought I'd run a test and post the results. I did it for all her first up runners because:
a) interesting facts.
b) I could've analyzed 20/1 and above but only SP, and that would not be a true reflection ie. a horse starts at 14/1 sp but can pay nearly double on totes.
c) I like posting actual fiqures for people to see for themselves.

Nanook

Hi JFC,

Could you explain that in plain english please.

I dont get - "inverse proportion to (non-fractional) SP - i.e. 1/SP"

and what are you doing that aims to avoid the supposed trouble of fluke longshots.


Yeah i said supposed,it seems silly to me to have a system that tries to latch on to longshots and then when they arrive treat them as flukes,we are dealing with first up horses,of course there is going to be some very big priced winners.

I'm sorry if it looks like i am taking P57's side all the time but again he raises a very good point.

A few weeks back Nanook provided proof that all this must have raced within the last 21 days rubish is a myth.

This myth that probably started when a certain popular punting magaizine used to preach this rule edition after edition and thesedasy is just foolishly taken for granted by so many is a classic example of why so many struggle to turn a profit.

Everyone is following the herd,perhaps they are too scared to look for angles that are unique,perhaps they lack imigination or a mind of their own,who knows.

All i know is that i agree with the way P57 tries to find unique angles,its what i do.


P.S. Nanook,thanks for your contributions to this forum,i always find your figures without bias and agenda,not to mention timely and topical.

Thanks Nanook -very neat - but could you double check the Rosehill
line please - is that a typo or will it affect the Totals ?

TIA,

Kind Regards.

to Dale and anyone else unfamiliar with my type of notional staking when analysing results:

http://www.flatstats.co.uk/stats_guide_3.html

It roughly matches the A/E Value Index described above.

Some may term it "Dutching". I really wouldn't know as I've never bothered with that vague 2-edged sword.

Betting to implied probabilities might be a better term, but again that may illuminate some and confound others.

Anyway I recommend you read it and get a feel for it with a few examples.

Then later I'll try to show why this is far better than level stakes for analysis.


The link uses fractional odds like 7/4.

By non-fractional I meant decimal odds where 2.75 is "the same as" the above 7/4.

Racer

What appears to be the problem at Rosehill?

nanook

Attached Files

Rosehill.txt (1,004 Bytes, 720 views)