[AusRace] NOT Read Rating - a system

[norsaintpublishing at gmail.com]

I did think he'd slowed down a bit. Said a couple of things whereby I
thought his memory had played him wrong.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 23:28, Race Stats <RaceStats at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure, but perhaps, how did he seem when interviewed?
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *
> norsaintpublishing at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, 25 February 2023 8:37 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] NOT Read Rating - a system
>
>
>
> Ah, I didn't know that. Does that mean his HK venture has finished?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 16:42, Race Stats <RaceStats at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Read had a stroke a few years back perhaps, that explains it.
>
> When he ran the bookie website his ratings were the best.
>
>
>
> *From:* Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> *On Behalf Of *
> norsaintpublishing at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Friday, 24 February 2023 8:22 PM
> *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing at ausrace.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] NOT Read Rating - a system
>
>
>
> Had the Beggs book years ago but somehow it disappeared into the ether.
> Saw Read interviewed recently courtesy of the Wolfden racing club and he
> appeared to be lounging around in the Yarra Valley somewhere.
>
> I notice he hasn't updated his HK managed fund website for a couple of
> years now. Hard to imagine he's run aground.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 19:56, Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20230226/e9d4b0f2/attachment.html>