[AusRace] Manfroi Methods - systems

[Tony Moffat]

In the 60's Manfroi was a race horse form analysis tutor based in Melbourne.
He had a course you signed up to, paid your money, and went to school a
couple of days a month (week?)

He considered the horse as a tertiary ( he could have said third) element in
form analysis. First was the trainer then the jockey, then the horse. His
course notes are listed as primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary (the
track), quinary (the distance), septenary (weight) etc .

Manfroi had quite a few systems. None of these will be examined in detail in
this.

One element he dwellt upon/over was barrier(s). This was sept something
(sepsis?).

He analysed form in a race in barrier order 1, then 2, etc. 
First he found out how many runners (and so barriers) then deducted one from
that - say 11 contestants - 1 =10

10 was the 'baseline' and from this were deductions for form elements
considered helpful to the chance of the horse

1. runs since a spell - no more than 5 - although today can be its 6th run
(from a spell) and can be included if it has not had more than 5 runs (up to
this point in time?)  10 -1 = 9
2. age - no runner older than 5 years. 9-1 = 8
3. distance - if it has raced over the distance or similar. 8-1 =7
4. track - it it has run at the track. 7-1 =6
5. jockey- if todays jockey has ridden it any time = 6-1 = 5
6. barrier - if the barrier today is helpful. 5- 1 = 4

That was it, primarily. 

To clarify the runs from a spell clause, today can be its 6th run and that
is acceptable, but the rules say one thing and the explanation says another
- no more than 5, or 6 if it has had 5 previous (which doesn't make much
sense)
Age, no older than 5, but in order to corral a good bet you could go to 6
years or 7 years if there was recent good form to draw upon, (and I don't
know what that means either), but it had to be a one off thing, once a race,
and applied to all runners.
Distance is self explanatory (D or d) in old form guides but that doesn't
allow for a run and a result down the back
Track is self explanatory (T or t) in old form guides but that doesn't allow
for a run and a result down the back
Jockey is self explanatory
Barrier is not explained - inside and including 7 is in the course notes.

Some results included

The jockey aspect was unique. Manfroi recorded the past 4 finish positions
of the jockeys under form investigation - eg the jockeys riding from
barriers 1 - 7 above and added that data to the other information to assist
him in deciding a bet. He used the last four starts.

At Sandown today, before racing started, Oliver had finish (form) figures of
3,2,6,1,3 - his last ride was a third, his second last ride was a win.
Manfroi took those finish figures and took them away from the number of
starters in each race. Last ride 3rd for Ollie shows he was in with 11
others in that race, 12 in all so he beat home 9 runners. Manfroi calculated
that he beat home 75% of the runners in that race (9/12 *100). He, Manfroi,
did that calculation for all 4 rides. The Oliver form finish figures are a
little bendable. This morning he was 32613, and next time out he will be
13308 after racing Thursday.

This morning Ollie had these figures (9-3
=6)+(9-2=7)+(9-6=3)+(9-1=8)+(9-3=6) and summing the residuals we got 
6+7+3+8+6 = 30. He ran in races against 8 other runners (he made up the 9)
so he opposed 40 other runners (5* 8) and beat 30 of those home - 30/40 *100
= 75 per cent.

RewardBet has a page where you can download jockey figures on a daily basis.
Greg Conroy has approved its use here 

See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/czh7rrm57fvwbi9/RB_Jockeyform.xlsm?dl=0

Thanks Greg and RewardBet

There are several ways to use the form data for jockeys. Each race is a
different event not linked to the race before.

(a) The form figures could be multiplied together to get a mass total -
small numbers are better
(b) Divide the total by the two bigger numbers - you are crediting the
jockey with two substandard performances, either of his making or the horse
s/he rode. 
(c) sum the form figures - small numbers are better. This was commonplace in
the hey day of systems.
(d) use slippage - using Ollies 32613 it goes 3-2+2-6+6-1+1-3 = 1+-4+5+-2 =
0. That shows that Ollie is neutral at this point. It also shows that races
are affected by results over time. They're not.

There is more - perhaps next time

Cheers

Tony





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