[AusRace] NOT Read Rating - a system

[Tony Moffat]

This is NOT the method used by Read Ratings - info from Don Beggs
 Mr Read has not commented on what he does, two of his ex-staff have said
the following is nonsense and definitely NOT the Read Rating Method.


Anyway,  the NOT Read Rating system goes like this

(not first up) Won, 25, 2nd but within 1 length 25, 2nd otherwise 20, 3rd
15,4th 10, 5th or worse 5 - all runners get a score
(first up) if the runner has won first up score 25, if it has placed first
up (but not won) 20, if it has finished within 5 lengths after a spell, 10,
if it finished further than 5 lengths after a spell, 5.
Caution: it can only be one, or the other, First Up or Not First Up

(distance) if the runner has won at the distance (+/- 200m) 25, placed at
the distance 15, never raced at the distance 10, raced at the distance but
never placed 5

(track) as in distance - won 25, placed 15, never raced 10, raced but
unplaced 5

(strike rate) won 50+% 25, won 20% -50% 15, won 10% -20% 10, won <10% 5
(which included never won a race)

(earnings) use API and rank the top earners from this - top gets 25, 2nd
20,3rd 15, 4th 10, 5th or less 5 

(barrier) nil - no suggestions

(jockey) nil - no suggestions

(going) nil - no suggestions

Whiteways (Winning Post ratings) use a similar score earning when
calculating their ratings - the values differ but the form aspects are the
same except no barrier/going/jockey and there is a different sequence in
application of the elements.

What Mr Read does: http://www.markread.com.au/our-funds/technology.aspx
That is what not how though and there seems to be a lot of decimal points

Interesting that Joe and Zac (to a lesser degree) caused grief in yearly
returns for a while and that the jockey algorithm was based on Douglas
Whyte.
I don't know specifically what they did/or do. The firm was big on quinellas
when Allsports was operating for them. Exactas too, and the first picks in
exactas were supported as single win picks to a lesser degree.

The man is in need of a biographer Saintly, interested? And you'd be based
in Honkers may be.

Don Beggs wrote 'Walk away a Winner' which was his selection system(s) based
on Read Ratings which at that time were on screens in TABS (in NSW). RR gave
out four horses (as race number and horse number) and they had a pager set
up too which were allowed on course (whereas mobile telephones were banned
for a bit). The RR info came through late, twice in 10 minutes then with a
few minutes to the off. The second call may have included shorteners, and
their recommendations about them. Beggs showed that overall the RR were
money making. Not sure what happened in the end, doubt they fizzled because
of non-performance, and was it an attempt to steer the market, somehow? From
the ample records in Beggs book the picks were seldom favourites and
although not named the winners prices of RR selections were handy for the
pocket. Beggs mostly treated the RR as one half of a quinella and had
alternative picks to make up the other half, to score the dividend is what I
am trying to tell you. He didn't box the picks and makes a good case for
doing that. There is 100 plus spreadsheets (data sheets) in Beggs book, a
lot of work.

See Don Beggs submission to a commission here
https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling/submissions

Cheers

Tony


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