From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Thu Dec 24 11:14:16 2020 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 11:14:16 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Due to a shortage of Jockeys the meeting at Bowraville on Saturday 26/12 has been Abandoned. Message-ID: <008101d6d989$c109f310$431dd930$@ozemail.com.au> Due to a shortage of Jockeys the meeting at Bowraville on Saturday 26/12 has been Abandoned. Jockeys generally have to watch their weigh carefully and I reckon some have put Christmas Lunch higher in their priorities than earning a buck the next day. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Thu Dec 24 13:38:40 2020 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 10:38:40 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] The sailor failure and the sly drool - a system (seriously) Message-ID: <001501d6d99d$e42bd8e0$ac838aa0$@bigpond.com> The sailor failure and the sly drool. (From the papers in a private collection - 'The World from the IoM' - the adventures of some who came from the Isle of Man) David Taggart* was surprised he was not swinging from the gallows - that is how deserters (from the Navy) were dealt with, and I thought they would walk the plank or something (keel hauled?). The Army shot you, and the Air Force gave you over to the Army to be imprisoned, or shot perhaps. Anyway, it seems that young David was conscripted but decamped (the official word for deserting) and was chased through Sydney by the British Navy and he ran off up the tunnel between St James and Museum and stayed there for a day or more until he walked up to Central and boarded a train and sat in the toilet room for several hours until the conductor talked him out. David played dumb, he acted as though he was mentally deficient, he had a repaired cleft palate and lip anyway, and he had become deaf also. He just acted on these, he was sensible and normal underneath, except him playing the simpleton was working. Nobody asked where he was from, where he was going, just who was he and how did he feel. He got tea, toast and tobacco. He also got put off the train when it stopped for water somewhere. That night and the next day he rode on trucks up into the hills and ended up in the late afternoon in Bonalbo where there was a large forest fire burning close to the town. A farmer asked him to help him with moving stock, 7 cows, away from the oncoming fire, and he stayed on this property for the next 7 years. He went into town for essentials only, the doctor or dentist, and once to the hospital when he got kicked by a horse. He just worked, and read, and wrote, and stayed away from the ocean, and the Navy. He never voted, or got included in a census, there were two, or did a tax return, although he told his employer he did all of this. The farmer died and he worked for the new owner for a while until in the late 50's he ventured off the place and went to Brisbane for a while and worked for Evans Deakin under the Story Bridge. David went to the races at Eagle Farm and Doomben. These tracks are near each other on the coastal plain between the city and the coast. They seem to be similar, aligned east -west as they are, one is larger than the other, with longer, larger turns and longer finishing straight. He was a system player and used 4, at least, to sort runners into selections for backing. This system, shown below, may have been compiled by him. It seeks to find a runner at odds and back that runner to place. David's work at Evans Deakin exposed him to using a slide rule (the sly drool reference) and he was able to add, multiply, and divide numbers of varying complexity. The transistor and the electronic calculator were yet to be invented. He worked on Friday evening in the engineering office, but not for his employer that much, no, he and his FaberCastell slide rule worked on the following days race form - dividing and multiplying until he had selections in each race, then it was off to the Kangaroo Point pub for the remainder of the shift. David converted the distance of the form race ( eg the qualifying run) into yards then divided that figure by the time of the race - all of that information was in his race form paper, the race book? He had drawn, and xerox'd, sheets of paper specific to his method of calculation, with columns and rows, and it seems there was a flurry of industry those Friday evenings which nearly always ended with him walking to the Kangaroo Point hotel before his shift ended. With his calculator (the slide rule) he multiplied the distance of the race in furlongs by 220 (yards in a furlong) then divided this result by the timed value of the race (hand timed in this era, wonky) and the result gave him a value (bigger is best) for this runner. David scored all the field, all runners, but his bets for this method were applied to longer priced runners only, and then only on the Tote and for a place. He wrote that it was 'worthwhile' although no results are mentioned or tabulated. Summary: multiply distance of qualifying race (QR) in furlongs by 220 to obtain a distance value in yards. Divide this value (the product) by the time value for this run. Rank the results, bigger values are best. (a) All runners must have won a race - then modified to run in a race of similar distance (win/place irrelevant) (b) No wet tracks - modified to track condition then to track condition now must be the same/similar (c) Preference - same distance, same jockey, same barrier - senior rider this time unless the junior rider has experience with the runner. (d) No old form, he mentions 'this preparation' then writes about QR within 60 days. (e) Your selection is the runner with a high value and a long price after considering all runners, their values, and their available price. (f) David writes he modified his rules to score only longer priced runners irrespective of those favoured with better values - he meant he only worked out on runners with longer prices, so 5 runners say, from 14 overall. This was expeditious but doesn't seem to hold up in practice. Good scores, long prices means the market has missed something, and you haven't, and also means you excluded races where system selections ran, and lost. It seems a run in a fast race is one of the pre-requisites of a winning (placed) bet when the odds are outside the field numbers. David discusses the use of values from races of different distances (6f then, 7f now) and concludes that a fast run in a race less than todays distance is acceptable for several reasons: (i) The fast run is a component of todays race, it shows this runner is capable of a sustained sprint of a distance equal to that of it's QR at least, and this will be quicker than the calculation which was off a standing start, whereas the distance component within todays race is off a mobile start. It makes sense when read that way. (ii) The fast run over a distance greater than todays race is self explanatory, he writes. (iii) Often, nearly always, a longer priced horse has no, or none, form element to recommend it except this time value. He believes that all runners finish 'on their merits' if allowed. This is contentious, he writes, as runners often finish in a 'group' well behind the winner. Another of his systems deals with these as though they finished no less than 3 lengths from the winner - I may write about that next time - and in any event it involves more calculations using the rule. David had columns of figures to speed up his methods of calculations - the end columns showed his Logs from which he completed his summations Today we would divide the race distance in metres by the electronic timed score of the runner in a QR - and use a Canon F604 (and that's a skite!) to calculate a value. Does it work - maybe, and often enough to keep you interested. There is no bet in every race (yawn - because you quickly get sick of watching $9 place runners nearly getting in) When Jordan Childs steered one home at $151/$21 the runner was selected off these rules, it had little else to recommend it. Kate Walters also. Jamie Kah at $4.50 yesterday, then $5 although another had a higher value and an apprentice, Laura Lafferty $3.80 when three runners all had apprentices, another race had 10 runners over $3 place- the 'best' of these placed, and a close second value came fourth (it lost) at $101/20, when Black Beau Tie (2nd pick) came in at $9 I was on All Hard Wood, but it proves the rules somewhat - apprentices, then $5 win(place) in the last. Don't expect that result every time. SUMMARY (A) Divide the race distance by the time of the race amd record the result - runners paying more than $3 place are considered - only $3 place runners are scored (worked out). Rank the result, highest is best. No betting recommendation is made, most of us are grateful for a small dividend, and often. Cheers - and a very merry Xmas everyone Tony PS - most my collection of systems has been moved/translocated. I have photocopies of some of interest, and duplicates and triplicates of others which I will list here for free dispersal soon (necks cheer). Heading up to Perth and kids soon - I missed touring this year but so did everyone else actually Cheers again Sorry to destroy the quietness of December on Ausrace but * not his correct name - I don't know that either. David left Australia and went to New Zealand when he could without a passport and after that we don't know. He left the British Navy because of sickness on board/bullying because of his appearance/some other justifiable reason known only to him. His papers came into possession of an avid historian/collector and her husband knew of my unhealthy fascination with things on the punt and I read them 22 years ago today. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Thu Dec 31 23:24:41 2020 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 20:24:41 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Causes - software that no longer works Message-ID: <000001d6df6f$ea7cce20$bf766a60$@bigpond.com> Causes - a data access program for horse racing information (that no longer works) 'Causes' accessed AAP data through a common noticeboard -you didn't need to subscribe to AAP, just purchase the software, install it, and away you went. When the data supplier (AAP) either closed that portal, or, reacted to their data being accessed without payment by some, most, the program and its software went terminal. 'Causes' never drew conclusions from what was displayed, it just put a heap of runner data up for perusal and you, the user, could come to your own conclusions about the runner. First column (actually column G) was the win dividends ranked from lowest to highest Second column (H) was the place dividends ranked lowest to highest - both used NSW Tab data which was updated by the minute, pre-race of course Third column (I) was runners age ranked again, youngest got a 1 Fourth column (J) was barrier - 1 =1, 2=2, etc Fifth column was runner winner % ranked, highest to lowest Sixth column was runner place % ranked, highest to lowest Seventh column was API, then columns for days since last start ranked, most recent = 1, then weight allocated, ranked heaviest =1 no claims included, then Jockey off their win record, trainer likewise. Form data (previous starts information) was contentious and with there being no FAQ/guide/support you had to reverse engineer some of the data to ascertain how the values were arrived at. Assume the runner has four previous starts and finished 1-2-3-4. (P) was the four previous runs summed after subtracting off a base of 9 - 1-9 =A, A-2 =B, B-3 =C, C-4 = D so -8, -7,-6,-5.-5 is the score for this runner, all scores are ranked. This, and subsequent values, are obtained off the writings of VDW, an English form analyst, who did his darndest to complicate things, as you can see. (Q) was the form score subtracted from the finish position, essentially showing how many runners the subject horse had beaten in each of the last 4 runs. So 9-1+9-2+9-3+9-4 = 21 and this value was ranked in conjunction with all the other values, high numbers helped here (meaning it beat home up to 32 previously if it achieved 1111. Ranked highest to lowest (R) values are obtained when the scores are multiplied together (1*2*3*4 = 24) then divided by the worst score (24/4 =6) so this the value obtained when the best 3 of the last 4 scores are used- Little numbers help, and the results are ranked lowest to highest. (S) is the fining down of the runners previous form (over 4 starts) so that any 1 or 2 or 3 is given a value and these values are multiplied together and the results ranked. There is a morning line worked out of this value alone. It is a strong indicator of a result. (T) an attempt to allocate a final value to the runners 3 best runs (out of 4) by multiplying the finish position with supplied values, the origin of those values is not known (to me) (U) This is an extrapolation of (R) whereby the finish of 1*2*3*4 is known already (it's 24) however this seeks to increase this value by making the 4 a 5, then making the 4 a 3, and this numbers are multiplied together and the result ranked. It is voodoo (as if all of this isn't already) but strange new values do occur not that this seems to help us down the slippery slopes of winner finding. This is the ranking of the values which occurred after the last number was increased, the 4 became a 5 (V) This is the ranking of the values which occurred after the last number was decreased, the 4 became a 3. There are two other columns. Last start beaten margin is given a value and ranked. The other column is the strong indicator of a probable appearance in a finish. The Place dividend is divided by the win dividend and the result multiplied by 100 to get a percentage ranking - big numbers are good a,d big numbers are more likely to be involved with short dividends. It is an indication of the amount of money ratio, has the win tote had more on this than the place tote. While this factor, in various guises, has been around for a while, there are books about it, it can be a dynamite indicator, although not always (otherwise I wouldn't be telling you). Rankings greater than 36 are good and above 41 is better. The software doesn't work now, as sold, but I have copied its maths and machinations onto a sheet from DynamicOdds and have used that for a while now (5 years). I typed this for the avowed purpose of being the last post for 2020 The software was published by Crash!Bang!Wallop! which were based in Fiji The real purpose of the software was to select the winner (after the event now) and read along its line to find out why it did what it did - it's an education. The old chestnuts of win/place % and API have still got it. Long priced winners arrive from almost anywhere. Generally a winner will arrive when a lot of the data appears to be in its favour, say a total of 15 or more when the score rankings are restricted to 3 or 4 across the 20 fields. Cheers Tony -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com