[AusRace] FW: The Co-efficient of Uncertainty (2) - a system

[Tony Moffat]

Author Lowell Harbison (Munro) NZ - Part 8 Maths for Games

As explained in Part 1 Mr Harbison obtained mathematical values for past and
future runs for racehorses by using distance, weight, finish-1 in the
sequence

(a) Distance/ weight for future races
(b) Distance/weight/finish position-1 for past form

The variables obtained from these were used in an equation to determine a
likely bet or series of bets.

His workouts had schemes showing variables constricted to 1000m (he used
furlongs, however, and pounds weight but offered multiples to use when
converting - x200 and x.5).

The use of the value 1000m (alright, 5 furlongs) was to show the 'output' of
the horses exertion in the final part of the race. This output was not acted
upon by any multiplier or divider, it seems it was simply a figure for 5
furlongs (ok, 1000m then)

Concerning the future race/past race scheme used in Part 1

As a nod to the approaching decimal system (his words) the distance, weight
and finish spots were used in a different way (than that explained in detail
in Part 1) in a suggestion in his summary of his paper.

It goes like this

(a) FUTURE RACE-distance/weight over minimum - and he used 52 kilograms as a
minimum - so 1600m with 59kgs becomes 1600/7 (7kgs over minimum -WOM) =
228.57 and again this value was subjected to the square root clause
=sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(228.57) = 1.97

(b) PAST RACE/FORM - 1600,59, 5 becomes 1600/7/5 = 45.71 then applying the
square root clause = sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(45.71) = 1.61

Again the decimal digit of the first part are divided by those (the mantissa
or decimal digits) of the second to get a variable for an equation

Today, the minimum is usually 55kg.

NEW SUBJECT Price and position as a guide to ability in a future race.

Mr Harbison wrote and emphasized this method of determining 'fitness of
form' in a future race utilizing the finish position and starting price in a
form race.
 
A runner finishing 2nd at 9/1 is considered a good effort, under appreciated
by most form followers. There are many examples in each race. 

Here's another, in a race just finished at Pakenham 23/02 Race 3 Maiden
Shezatempest won after running 4 of 10 $101 in the form race. There was one
other in that race to be considered under this system, #3 Chiara something
which had been 5 of 9 at $17 last start. It placed at odds. Another, last
prep and not considered, ran in an Oaks 3 of 11 at $16 in its form race, and
this was too long ago, and too long in distance anyway. It ran second. 

I did cherry pick, back fit or some other cliché in that demonstration but
the point is made - finish close up at odds is a form positive. Really, any
finish, at any price, and anywhere closeup to the winner is a form positive
but we need odds in this future race and this system gets them. Shezatempest
is $34.30/5.30 - she was $8 place when I put my $15 on her. (Meganne, is
that you?) I had $5 on Chiara Da Luna as a saver.

Mr Harbison categorized his placed runners this way
1- showing better than 19.98%
2- showing better than 17.76%
3- showing better than 15.54%
4- showing better than 13.32%	
5- showing better than 11.1%
6- showing better than 8.88%
7- showing better than 6.66%
8- showing better than 4.44%
9 -showing better than 2.22%

The 9 includes all runners finishing 9 or worst (9-24th) Essentially if your
runner has book percentage of 14.09 it would be ranked 4th and show an sp of
7.10. There are three horses shorter than it, 3rd and 2nd favourite, and the
favourite, calculated at 2.50

He categorized a runner at odds, (say 15 - 6.66%) and finishing 4th, it then
earnt the value 13.32 (twice its earning). That differential (13.32-6.66) is
used in pricing it to place in an upcoming race.

The paper is based on NZ racing, so only tote odds are known and, agreeably,
resulted as 7th favourite or similar (this was then, remember) It was a
simple matter of reading the finish place and the tote rank (7th favourite
in this case) and ticking a box or moving on to the next.

In summary, the horses to consider are those who have form figures that
flatter them, even though their sp prices consider them dunces. Presumably
the 58 day since last race rule applies. Why 58? When 8 weeks is 56 days,
may be international date line or something!

In Pakenham R2 two runners were considered
15 Ardsley was 300 (in other words calculated from its price as 9, finished
6 @$61 - 9-3 =3 (*100)=300 -it was 148.50/22.90 so somewhat hopeful
11 Coast Princess was 200 (calculated from its sp to finish 5, finished 3 so
5-3 = 2 (*100= 200) In Race 4 Brazen Lady 200 was scratched In Race 5 too
many choices, 5214 featured, 5 won but short short In Race 6 10 & 9 were
selections 2nd and 3rd and short In Race 7 1,2,3 were selections, placed but
others disappointed In Race 8  11 and 7 selected, placed but short

It appears to me that Mr Harbison has used too narrow a percentage gap
between his selection criteria. In a book percentage of 100% he has a spread
less than 2.22 to a top of better than 19.98. It appears, or it seems, to be
a narrow band were dividends might be. Ok, 2.50 is 40% which is in the band
'better than 19.98% but so is 3.50, and 4.00, and 4.50,  and 5.00 and now
you are into or near an 'open' race.

For Pakenham today (see results above) the form winner average book
percentage was 26.88 (winners prices totaled 1774.15% and there were 66 of
them) =the spread however was $1.35 to $26 (74% to 3.85%). Normalised the
book percentage was 22 (calculated back to 100% from a carry of 122%) Horses
at that meeting running 7 th in their form lines 10.35/8.31 when normalized
and that div spread  was $101 to $2.1 Mr Harbison used 6.66% as the mean for
7th whereas today it was 10.35% - perhaps that is the issue I have with his
'narrow' selection gap

SUMMARY

The first version of the selection system used distance divided by weight
for future selections and distance divided by weight divided by finish
position to allot a value to finishes in the form line of a runner

This was amended later to distance/divided by WOM (off a 55kg base, 53kg in
the paper) divided by finish position to ascertain a form line value for
past runs.

The author uses a form analysis where he compares a horses finish position
to its expected finish position calculated from its sp - looking for a horse
with a long price which finishes well, it performed better than punters
thought it ought to and this information can be used to select a runner in
the future race which may be at a long price and win, or place more often.

Another way - probably

Cheers

Tony











-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com