[AusRace] System 1 and System 2 - a system

Mon Oct 19 13:48:00 AEDT 2020

My figures are real, the basis makes sense TO ME, and I have used very large
numbers - I don't go beyond three things, positive betting expectations,
large numbers and my common sense. 

Roger Biggs did research on this, over many runs and races, and he
determines that the barrier effect is linear, which means that at barrier 10
a runner has to make up 1 length

I did research on over 5,000,000 runs (and I use my results to bet with, not
to flog). The above is far too simplistic - at barrier 10 a runner has to
make up the same 1 length whether down the old Victoria Park straight 5 or
over 1450m at the same course where the barrier was just before the first of
2 bends and "everyone" knew barrier was all-important?! It is, in my
opinion, nonsense to suggest that track and distance does not affect the
effect of barrier. My calculated Impact Values of barriers at various Track
and Distances were a Maximum of 2.19, a Minimum of 0.56. And that is
massive. 

Lump them all together as if all tracks and distances are the same, and
looking only at fields of exactly 10, Impact Value of Barrier 1 is 1.15, of
Barrier 10 is 0.92, vastly different from looking at each track and distance
individually. 

Impact Value of leading at the turn (from TRB positions, don't know where
they source them) 2.51; of being last at turn 0.21. Who wouldn't love to get
on at SP at the home turn?

From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Monday, 19 October 2020 12:02 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] System 1 and System 2 - a system

Yeah but is the barrier effect enough to cause a result Len. Start with the
proposition that the result will be determined, or at least influenced by
how far apart they stand at the start, a mile away and back around two
turns. It can't, surely.

Or the barrier effect ceases within 100 metres of the start, and that is
conceding it has an influence, and the effect is more likely, seen more
often, down in the low numbers, the very places where there is an advantage,
if the pundits are to be believed.

Roger Biggs did research on this, over many runs and races, and he
determines that the barrier effect is linear, which means that at barrier 10
a runner has to make up 1 length. 

If you go inside, or outside barrier 10 you involve decimals and I'm not
doing that. I don't use barrier as a factor (one less thing!)

The barrier may cause the rider to go forward for position, not a bad thing
if position at the turn is an element in 88%? of winners, and of course the
rider can go back and depend on luck in the finish. Is that the barrier
though?

The barrier effect has been used by racing operatives as an excuse often or
is it real and therefore justified. 

Tony

Sent: Monday, 19 October 2020 4:52 AM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' <racing at ausrace.com
<mailto:racing at ausrace.com> >
Subject: Re: [AusRace] System 1 and System 2 - a system

There is no involvement of barrier position, this is often an aspect of
systems

Tony,

Barriers are important; anyone else remember Victoria Park 1450m? Draw
barrier one halve the pre-draw odds; draw outside, double the pre-draw odds
- the worst bias I've come across.

That's history, but there are still advantages/disadvantages with barriers,
and I've not developed and used any bet-selection system that ignores them.

I use, but of course won't post, a system based solely on Track, Distance
and Barrier that has returned the following:

Last 2 years:

3216 selections, profit 11.1% at level stake, 10.7% at MBL

For Saturday only punters,

1052 selections, profit 17.7% at level stake, 13.9% at MBL

Last year:

1536 selections, profit 14.0% at level stake, 11.6% at MBL

For Saturday only punters,

479 selections, profit 28.8% at level stake, 19.8% at MBL; not large n, but
it's 9 bets a day and every little counts in today's betting climate.

I make it 335 tracks that were raced at in the past year, 177 of which I bet
on (335 includes Picnic meetings and the like) and calculated the figures
above from.

-----Original Message-----
From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2020 22:51 PM
To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
racing at ausrace.com>
Subject: Re: [AusRace] System 1 and System 2 - a system

Len -

The essay mentioned does have a paragraph advising that the ranking is
decided from the yearly results - TJ won a few way back and that was from
the number of winners, more than anybody.

So the leader may be that person, those with the most winners last year,
although their worthiness as a title holder, or 2nd, 3rd, or 4th would be 11
months removed at some point.

For vagueness, try Sydney metro racing, races for 3 year olds (any
distance), for fillies, for mares, for F & M out to a mile (1600m) - when
punctuation removal/replacement/substitution changes the emphasis.

There is no involvement of barrier position, this is often an aspect of
systems.

The favourite is also removed as a contender, if that was the case and it
was a horse trained by the Big 4.

The system starts with the four runners (at least) of the four better
trainers (from last years results) then applies filters to those runners.

The supply and purchase of the system is novel, nearly quirky.

You paid once also, the second system was a gift. The first system book is
numbered, mine is 16, written in ink in a box on the front cover. 

Cheers

-----Original Message-----

From: Racing [ <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com>
mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday

Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2020 7:00 PM

To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
racing at ausrace.com>

Subject: Re: [AusRace] System 1 and System 2 - a system

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' < <mailto:racing at ausrace.com>
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> https://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________

Racing mailing list

 <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> Racing at ausrace.com

 <http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com>
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

_______________________________________________

Racing mailing list

 <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> Racing at ausrace.com

 <http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com>
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

--

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.

 <https://www.avg.com> https://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________

Racing mailing list

 <mailto:Racing at ausrace.com> Racing at ausrace.com

 <http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com>
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20201019/21bed970/attachment.html>