#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() How about targeting first starters? As revealed in my posts of the past...
Taking my Maiden System involving 2&3yo first starters by certain sires and looking at female line and cross etc. All horses only backed for a maximum of 4 runs or the first win, whichever comes first. A tidy sum can be made using a bank and betting 5% on each. All horses racing in New Zealand. Horse Warrior 1st start $1.60 (2nd), 2nd start $1.80 $1.00 Kash For Lass 1st start Unplaced, 2nd start $34.10 $8.10 King's Rock 1st start $4.70 $1.90 Lotto 1st start $2.10 (3rd), 2nd start unplaced, 3rd start $2.10 (3rd), 4th start unplaced Ringo 1st start $3.60 (2nd), 2nd start $2.40 $1.40 Ruthless Lady 1st start $3.00 (2nd), 2nd start $1.70 (3rd), 3rd start $1.90 $1.30 Satay 1st start unplaced, 2nd start $9.10 (3rd), 3rd start $2.40 (2nd), 4th start $2.70 $1.30 Whistling Dixie 1st start $3.30 (2nd), 2nd start $8.90 $2.90 Postnthyme 1st start $1.70 (3rd). 2nd start $1.90 (2nd), 3rd start $1.70 $1.10 Dillinger 1st 3 starts unplaced, 4th start $11.10 $3.10 Saint Kitt 1st 3 starts unplaced, 4th start $9.40 (2nd) Cookie Monster 1st start $3.90 $1.50 Lamason 1st start $3.40 $1.60 Lincoln Sun only one start unplaced Keepaflight 3 starts unplaced Glamazon 1st start unplaced Shuthegate 1st start unplaced, 2nd start $3.90 (3rd)
__________________
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() seeing how there is no interest anymore in my efforts I will run along. Thanks to the very few who interacted when I first gave an insight in to using breeding to select winners. I will continue to study and refine my syste.
Rich
__________________
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() CosMos, of course there is interest. The fact that you had no replies, possibly means that there is nothing to add, but I'm sure many like myself are interested in your progress. Especially because it's something a little different.
My Breeding Training Punting thread had a lot of views but very little replies, but the horses selected have now won nearly 3 million in prizemoney, but only broke even punting wise. Perhaps only winning systems create replies. But the astute, would soon realize that owners are throwing money at well bred stock and for the most part failing. There is a moral to my thread, but I'm not going to spell it out. Just let the smart ones figure it out for themselves. Sometimes one thinks there is nobody watching, but they are watching from the sidelines ![]()
__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software. Now with over 405,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races! http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html *RaceCensus now updated to 31/07/2024 Video overview of RaceCensus here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Sad to see another one go CosMos. You're specialty is .....well very specialized....and few are prepared to put the effort in nowadays to research breeding, myself included. Off chasing other tangents. I post some whacky stuff, more to stimulate the mind, but seldom get many replies, not like yesteryear. But I'm heartened by the number of guests that are online. The average number of members might be 2 at any one time, but guests 40-50. I can only assume they're from overseas, so a silent majority. Just remember that whatever you post is there for the world to view, for posterity (I think?), so don't be too disheartened. You can google breeding and suchlike and your name comes up all the time! Stick at it ![]() |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() thanks guys, sorry but was a little down as we lost a young local photographer to suicide, has been a rough week.
My study has been based on NZ horses, this system works really well there for some reason. I am trying to identify Australian sires that I can apply it to so hopefully I can come up with something new very soon. cheers Rich
__________________
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Inspired by your earlier posts, I tried to do something similar - but met with little success.
It was the volume of work that was the real problem though, I can see why you've heretofore limited yourself to NZ Racing. I pursued it for just over 2 months of Aus/NZ racing and identified waaaay too many possible stable runners. Of course this number would vary depending on the number of sires/broodmare sires you judge worthy of following: my list eventually comprised around 30 of each, judged by winner to runner, and blacktype winner to runner statistics. To pare the list further I also looked at each sire's stats for the last couple of seasons (to see their quality wasn't dropping off) and their record for young horses (to ensure I was getting a fair chance of early maturers). A qualifier had to have both their sire and broodmare sires on the two lists. Once the lists were compiled, finding qualifiers was automatic. But then the manual process began.... I wanted their dosage index above 20 (using the list of Aus/NZ sires), a dam or granddam that had at least placed in blacktype races, at least 1 chef in its last couple of generations....all hints you either dropped in your own threads, or that I had picked up elsewhere. In the end, it left me with a stable of 36 debutantes. I abandoned the effort due to not getting immediate results ( ![]() I had noted Cross stats (i.e. results from previous breeding between the same sire and brooodmare sire, if any) and there was little correlation. Actually, the worse, the better, as far as debut victories went. The less chefs in the last couple of generations, the better, was another unexpected result (so ruling out runners with 0 chefs may have been a bad move). 7 of the 36 won their debut (without any further investigation re trial form, or their competitors). But there did seem to be a clear sweet spot at a certain range of DIs or CDs (and you'd imagine that would be the case, as most horses debut in sprint races - and you'd assume those best suited to sprints to perform better; if this methodology reflects reality). A particular DI range contained 6 of the 7 winners and 3 misses - 2 of which were seconds. Sounds awesome, right? Not really... There must have been some good trial form, or a "name" trainer attached to what were likely premium purchases per paper pedigree (or alot of people doing handicapping in much the same way as I was) as the odds in this range were quite low: $1.80, $2.00, $2.20, $3.70, $3.80 and $6.50. The 2 seconds were also short; the miss was at $13. Basically, if a stable runner didn't win their first race, you were doing your best to make your money back. After its first run, the rest of the market was clued in regarding its ability. Given the amount of time spent identifying prospects, my particular method wasn't worth the effort. Certainly, as CosMos has demonstrated, there are ways to have some success at pedigree handicapping, but it ain't for me.... ...not unless there's a source that I can scrape dosage profiles from (that include Aus/NZ chefs; I struggle to see the use otherwise... Apparently Black Caviar's "official" dosage indicates she was a 1650m runner, it's not until the local chefs are added to the mix that her Brilliance comes to the fore). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]() well done for persevering but way too many rules mate. Have been there done that and the simpler you can make it the better. When dealing with maidens, winners can come from anywhere, class of sire may not enter in to it.
The first two dams are important and I also look at the cross which must have at least 50%+ winners to runners or yet to have any runners (excluding the maiden in question). In other words, if the cross has 'failed' under my criteria I leave the maiden alone. I found that 2 and 3yos are the better bets though an not dismissing 4-5yos, just that they seemed to hit sooner. I don't touch dosage or pedigree patterns etc, nor do I factor in race stats such as days since last start or weight etc. I also dont look at form or trials, just back them from 1st start to first win or 4 starts. This gives me a better dividend overall as some place prices can be huge. Once I have found a sire that produces winners early on, I follow the qualifiers. I do not look at the Sires list to see their winners to runners strike rates as I am not backing everything by that sire, I have culled those that dont qualify and am hopefully on the better potential runners. For instance the sire Keeper has an average strike rate of total winners to total runs. But I am only betting his 2&3yos and qualifying on female line and cross. Pins is another. Backing each horse in isolation does OK overall but backing all horses as part of a management plan pays better. 5% of the bank on each horse in turn earns well, so far anyway as the winners make up for the losers. Still a work in progress
__________________
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() walkermac...
http://forum.thoroughbredvillage.co...topic32589.html http://www.chef-de-race.com/main_menu.htm
__________________
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Code:
In my small sample (36) no horse won their debut when the cross winners to runners was greater than 66.2% (12 total). Winning debutantes were either 0/0 (2 from 3 possibilities) or 50-66.1% (5 from 16). Previously "failed" crosses were 0 from 3 possibilities. Code:
My original sires/broodmare sires lists were just based on their overall stats. For that reason Keeper didn't make it. Afterwards, I considered I was only interested in the results of their young so looked at their 2 and 3yo stats and culled those that were poorer from the existing lists. For that reason Pins stayed there. I wasn't interested in going back and finding sires like Keeper that I'd missed on the first sweep, as those I had were still throwing up plenty of possibilities. Regarding my comment on scraping dosage profiles from a website, pedigreequery produces a plaintext "family tree" that I could probably parse (whereas most other sources are pdf files). I can then automate calculation of each horses's dosage profile, DI, CD, etc. One day I'll do it and see if there's any statistical significance to these figures.... Regarding "name" trainers possibly being associated with debutantes in my sweetspot range accounting for their low winning odds, I went back and checked who they were (actually, *are*, I suppose they could've changed trainers in the 6-8 months between debut and now...) : Gai Waterhouse - $6.50 winner, David Murphy - 2nd @ short odds, Robert Smerdon - 2nd @ short odds, JE & C Ledger - $2.20 winner, Kris Lees - $2 winner, Patrick J Webster - miss @ long odds, David Hayes and Tom Dabernig - $1.80 winner, David Hayes - $3.70 winner, Tony McEvoy - $3.80 winner. Given that I know ************-all about trainers yet recognise most of these names...was I right? If you or anyone else has an inkling to cast their eye over the following, the "sweetspot" horses were: Nayeli Gold Buttons Reldas Red Kaoru Lunar Snitzel L'amoureuse Urban Bourbon Wawail Kayjay's Joy All of which have gone on to win since they're debut (at short odds) asides from L'amoureuse. This filly was the long odds loser at its first run and hasn't been sighted since. It's also got the lowest CD of the lot. The highest CD is claimed by one of the 2nd placegetters; funnily enough. *insert statement here regarding small sample size, normal statistical variation, etc ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|