[AusRace] System 1 and System 2 - a system

[L.B.Loveday]

Tony,

Somewhat vague, 3/4 "top trainers".

With most winners?
With highest win percent?
With best return at level stake SP?
With best return to win $100 each run?

What did you understand to be the basis for ranking?

LBL


-----Original Message-----
From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2020 20:42 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: [AusRace] System 1 and System 2 - a system

Sometimes, (alright, mostly) you can criticise horse racing system sellers
as snake oil salespersons living in a P O Box, in some other State. 

These next two systems were offered to buyers as a 'promotion'. If you were
considered royalty, or something else, you were offered the use of the
system, and when it paid you handsomely you repaid the faith by repaying the
ownership price, 50 pounds, with instalments if you cared for that. It
wasn't a P O Box either, but you sent money orders to a street address in
Bellambi and the accounting for that was your job too, you stopped when you
sent off the last instalment for a total of the 50. Who did that? 

I paid $10 for 8 system booklets, pre-owned, which included the first
version of this system, and I presume the original owner of mine did pay his
total.

Both systems are authored by the same persons I reckon, although they are
different to a degree. Forensically!, what is exact is the results, a year
almost of expanded results, and a dissertation on 5 years operation of the
first system.

System 1: For Sydney metro racing only, races for 3yo, and/or fillies and
mares races, or fillies, or mares, up to a mile (1600m)
(a) Consider only the three top trainers and their entries in this race -
there may be multiple entries (a la Waller, say, these days) (b)Those
entries are again examined and included if they meet certain criteria
(i) weight less than 60 kg (133 pounds, 8 stones, 8 pounds) and that pounds
reference is an indicator of the systems origin in some other racing
jurisdiction, overseas somewhere.
(ii)last start finished less than 6th, second last start finished less than
6th.
(iii)contested a race within the last 56 days
(iv) it is not the favourite.

The essay on the workings of the system states that over a large number of
events the system scored 40+% winners at average odds of 4/1. Placegetters
scored 83%. 100 out 166? back.
Win betting was restricted to 9/1 or less - place betting was capped at 15/1
or less. Those figures quoted are not mine - I have tried to duplicate those
types of results for a while.

System 2: see summary for more explanations
(a) consider only the 4 top trainers and their entries this race. Score 1 -
4.
>From those contenders:
(b) weight less than 8 stones 8 pounds (60kg) Top weights 1, 2nd top weight
2 etc. Score 1 - 4
(c) last start finished less than 6th - Rank the finish 1-4
(d) second last start finished less than 6th - Rank the finish 1-4
(e) last start within 20 days =1, last start between 21-31 days =4, last
start between 32-55 days=2, last start after 55 days = 3
(f) 3yo's won in the city = 1, elsewhere = 2, placed in the city = 3, run
anywhere (without a place in the city) =4

Summary: re (F) if the runner has placed in the country =4 (harsh) Re (B)
runner at 60kg+ = 4, a runner at 59.5 would score a 1, a runner at 59 = 2, a
runner at 58.5 =3.
Re (C) and (D) - it is presumed/assumed there will only be 4 or less runners
fitting the criteria? Although 6 can be catered for.
Re (E) notice the ranking for runners between 21-31 days away = 4 Re (A) It
is the 4 four top trainers (however the ranking is decided) for system 2.

System 2 used the ranking as a score line. Your runner, a contender, might
be 2 (for B), 3 (for C), 4 (for D) , 1(for E), 2(for F) which when
combined/concatenated reads as 23412.

The authors give some advice on the regularity of various combinations that
result in a dividend (a result not necessarily a win, a place, which is
again what a win is, a place - they wrote that)

Combinations run from 11111 out to 44444 - neither has been seen in 1208
results (from the essay in the booklet). Occurences/frequency are apparent
but I will leave that information aside, except combinations starting with 2
or 3 are prevalent winners (meaning placers). Importance/ability is decided
by adding the numbers (2+3+4+1+2 = 12)- lower numbers matter.

I think the score line can be improved by multiplying the elements, thereby
giving full value to 1 scores, and incremental less importance to increasing
number values. Eg 2*3*4*1*2 =48.

The systems do have names, other than #1 and #2 (it is not Surefire,
Goldrush, Super Special Bewdy - that would be a Queensland system wouldn't
it?)

Cheers

Tony




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com