Original Message
From: NEIL
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:17 PM
To: Bruce
Subject: Re: Ratings Question

"Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your kind words. I agree with you. Fields of 16 are generally not ideal for trifectas and first four. You will most probably have also seen that on our members' pages of our site.

When we rate a race we don't just feed standardised information into a computer eg. penalise every horse x kilos for drawing barrier 10 at the Doomben 1000 etc. Fields are carefully looked at to see how suitable the race is for rating purposes, notes on horses in the field reviewed and then a judgement is made on whether or not to rate the race. A lot of fine judgements, assumptions etc. are then made in the ratings process. This means it takes a considerable amount of time to rate just one race.

If we were to no longer rate races of 16+ horses then races where there have been scratchings which reduce the field size to below 16 will not be rated, due to time involved in initially rating a race which might not be used.

Some of these races are also of great interest to punters - another reason for rating eg. like the Stradbroke.

From a personal point of view I also like the challenge of having some races rated which have big fields and are wide open. Our win staking for these races helps reduces risk - we might want $10.00 or more for the top rated selection and consequently only have a relatively small stake. Not like most tipping services which if they provide any form of price assessments will have double overlays for horse after horse in the race because of unrealistic or scam price assessments.

With sensible staking and pricing, if one can also snare the occasional winner, one should finish in front over the long term, though there will most likely be longer runs of outs. Eg. Spinning Hill backed in on track from $21.00 won in February this year.

Cheers, Neil
PS. Is it OK if I use your kind words on our site?"
Back to Testimonials.

Copyright ©1998-present. OZmium Pty. Ltd. All rights reserved.