Punters on course offer advice on how they pick their bets. These are some revelations. Jockeys, last start winners, public selectors, favourite numbers, horse names comparisons with kids, relatives, mothers-in-law are surprisingly popular.
There are studious punters too, winners no doubt and, frankly, keeping their information to themselves.
There is some distrust on course, some disbelief in how things occur, an ingrained belief that somebody knows the winner name. Plunges do occur, and score, sometimes there are 4 or more, in one race, and a non-plunge horse wins.
Distance (ability at) is a poor relation often, nobody/hardly anybody considers it when selecting, said somebody once. The trainer picks the races for them, they know what they’re doing, is another opinion.
Dark Feet
Seriously. If your runner has dark feet, it’s a classy beast. They said it and I’m telling you. It also rhymes.
Where is 7 at?
Count the starters, choose the horse with barrier number corresponding (eg 11 runners, barrier 5, back the runner from barrier 5.) They believed it.
According to the number of starters in this race the selection is the horse starting from the barrier indicated (IN BRACKETS)
24 STARTERS (12), 23 STARTERS (11), 22(11), 21(10) ,20(10), 19(9), 18(9), 17(8), 16(8), 15(7), 14(7), 13(6), 12(6), 11(5), 10(5), 9(4), 8(4) , 7(?), 6,(3).
The selected runner needs to have won a race within the last 5 starts, or placed in one of the last three starts. A win will qualify or a place will qualify.
Now priced at 15/1 if placed. Or now priced at less than 9/1 if won clause used. *The author ignores prices*
Suitable for all class of races, all locations. Where is 7?
Note well: Not recommended. No test or exam for results are known.
Handicaps
Sum the earnt values for runners.
Tab number – 1 = 10, Tab 2 = 9.5, Tab 3 = 9, etc, then half points (.5) in to Tab 20 – so ignore 20.24 if you must.
Barrier – 1-4,6 points, 5-8, 5 points, 9-12, 4 points – 1 point each greater/including 13 if you must.
Sum placings last 3 starts, regardless of date – lowest =20, 2nd lowest 19, 3rd lowest 18, continue until all runners have a score.
Sum each runners scores – high scores matter, bet several top scores to advantage if a winner is struck.
Note well: Individually Tab Number, Barrier, Placings Sum have been examined, tested and are helpful in locating a dividend.
Jockey
Use a method to choose the best three riding at the Course today. The author states the jockeys with the best place score (1,2,3) in last two starts is what they use – 3 minutes.
The chosen three are backed if their horses placed once in the last two starts
The chosen three are backed if the jockey has ridden the horse previously. The horses being ridden by the chosen three are less than 10/1 $11.00 this race.
Be strict with the rules. Bet several in each race to result in a profit if a winner is found.
Note well: No exam of this statistic is known.
Tote 1
Using the on course tote, divide the favorite win dividend into the other runners dividends – any result less than 3 is good, any result over three but with a tote dividend equal or less than the favourite, win dividend is good. Okay? (see Tote 2 also)
This also shows the ‘strength’ of the fav in relation to other runners. Eg theFav at $2.50, another at $5 so 5/2.5 = 2 – is the runner 2 times worse than the fav, probably. Another topic for another time.
Note well: No exam of this fact is known.
Tote 2
Divide the place dividend by the win dividend and multiply the quotient by 100. This represents the place dividend proportion in relation to the win dividend. It may show the runner being overbet for a win in relation to a place bet, this is confidence, surely. Go you good thing!
Note well: There are several (many) studious papers confirming this practice, so…
The author (the bloke who told me) had lined and ruled sheets stuck on cardboard with most combinations shown. I offered he could ‘extrapolate’ between two values to get a ‘rating’. He said it sounded illegal.
Tote 3
Find the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th favourite – back the longest (4th) to win, and the others each way to win $20 if they ‘salute’. Place divs give you profit, he said. Popular? – it was explained by several, so yes.
Form
Sum the past form in this manner – last 5 starts, each win 10, 2nd 7, 3rd,5, 4th or worse 1 – back only the runner with the BEST/MOST sum total. If runners with less form (less runs) sum to 15 points or less, back them to place.
Weight
You need weight and margin last start. Weight this race. Use 1.5kg per length. Losing margin/1.5 = a value to use. Subtract this value from the weight carried resulting in a second value. Subtract that second value from todays weight. This is the weight todays runner needs to win. Zero sum all scores until the field is treated like this. Low number (0) is the pick.
Example 57kg ran 4.7 lengths . So(a) 4.7/1.5= 3.1 (b) today’s weight 59-3.1 = 55.9 = todays value for this horse. Treat ALL runners similarly. Rank them least to most value. Low number(s) are good.
Last start
Where do you start? Every third discussion was about this topic. It is perfect for defining fitness perhaps.
Breeding
If the breeder is part of the ownership group, this is comforting, they show confidence.
If the trainer is part of the ownership group, this is comforting, they show confidence.
If the jockey family is part of the ownership group, this is good.
Not sure if the horses are too fussed too much!
Public selectors – newspaper (1)
Choose three tipsters. Choose the runner mentioned 5 times by them, starting from their 3rd pick. You might need figures like win 3, 2nd 1,3rd 1 = 3+1+1 =5 – ignore the favourite, pick the other runner that gets 5 mentions.
They pick 4 now but any results are shown for 3 picks (as it was way back).
Dozens (perhaps 100s) of selection schemes are based on public selector choices.
Clumping
See tote entries above. The order of favoritism may be an indicator of winning possibility.
Using Fibonacci values $2.50,$3.50,$5.50,$9.50 may be the natural order of favorite prices. Any other runners with prices ‘clumped’ at these price points may be an indication of indecision by punters as to who is the 1st, 2nd,3rd or 4th favorite. So 3 or more at $5.50 demonstrates some hesitation but also highlights how ‘strong’ the $2.50,$3.50 price tier is in this race.
Note well: There is a studious examination (and betting scheme) associated with this facet.
Ages of runners/winners
3YO V 3YO = 50% of their races are against 3YO ( there are 3yo in the field) and they beat 3yo 50% of the time, they beat 4yo 33% of the time when 3 and 4yo compete in the same race, they beat 5yo 15% of the time when 3 and 4 and 5 yo compete in the same race.
4yo v 4yo = 30% of their races are against 4yo (there are 4yo in the field) and they beat 4yo 30% of the time, they beat 3yo,5yo 40% when they (3+5yo) are in the same race.
5yo v 5yo beat other 5yo 35% of the time, otherwise the age range data is as above.
This is beat, not win. The age range horses beat others (finish in front of).
Confused? – me too. But the author had it printed on a sheet. Info from Melbourne racing in 60s.
Note Well: There is a studious exam of this that confirms the data scores.
Conclusion: Back 5yo or less.
Stats (1)
First up – confirm the number of campaigns this runners has had off its first up stat.
Compare that with is overall stat, meaning, 3 campaigns, and overall 5 wins, we have a serious race horse, and today it is $12/$5 – back it – values over 150% are strong. Here it is 5/3 *100 = 166.666%.
Stats are the punters friend often. Obscure numbers have been obtained from nefarious summings and used as the basis for a bet – watch this space.
Third run magic
(He said) If a runner had a ‘good’ run three runs ago, it is backed for a place. The ‘good’ run may be before a spell. It is expected that all horses will repeat or improve on their runs from 3 starts ago.
Example: R8 Doncaster 6,7,15 were best, 15,7,6 won and placed. 2 and 8 removed on a count back.
R9 Derby 5,10 were best finished 3rd and 4th – others had similar weak scores.
R10 Tomato Toastie top after count back placed$15.50. That’s newsworthy, surely.
R7 Discard Jolie Star, Mazu, remaining are likely suspects – nil. The winner was discarded.
R6 Winner discarded, 1 Fireball and another remained after countback –placed
Is this Ragozin bounce theory.
The Beeac Flyer Plan
Barrier – use 1 to 4
Weight – use the first three weight tier (say 57,56.5,56)
Tab Number – 1st 2, bottom three.
Runners associated with those figures are noted. Any appearing more than once are backed, three times are backed with $10. So, I (arksed) about the weight question, meaning how do the top three weights associate with the bottom three TAB numbers? Umm, then he swore.
Next time he was backing top weights in Hurdles and Steeples. The ‘Flyer’ was one of several truck drivers that took the morning papers out into the country, quickly.
Retired
Age of runners / winners – To clarify or not – information used with permission
2yo v 2yo race against 2yo (their age) 89.3% and win 87.4% – it can’t be 100% because they run in races with mixed ages as well
2yo v 3yo 6.8% starts in races against 3yo – win 9% of those races – mixed age races included
2yo v 4yo 2.8% starts in races against 4yo – win 2.7% – mixed age races included
2yo v 5yo minimal starts (.8%) and low win % as a result
3yo v 3yo 50.3 starts and 46.6% wins – mixed age races included
3yo v 4yo 30.7% – 33.8%, 3yo v 5yo 12.4% -13.4%, 3yo v 6yo 4.6% – 4.5%
4yo v 4yo 32.1/34.5, v5yo 38.8/39.8, v6yo 18.6/17.1, v >=7yo 10.5,8.5
5yo v 5yo 33.3/36, v6yo 38.6/38.2, v>=7yo 28.1,25.8
6yo v 6yo 35% starts in races against 6yo – win 36.5% of those races – mixed age races included
6yo v >=7y0 65% starts in races against these age group – win 63.3%
Information first attributed to Malcolm Knowles – Wiz Books ‘Weight” 1999 page 10 table 6 – thanks
EXCEL is your special little friend when decimal points are moved. This might be 100s of thousands of runs. My initial quote came from late 60’s punter who was using it then – information from Interstate Racing Records, Lonsdale Street Melbourne
After Eisler -formatting might be strange – (1st 8 odds – Clumping)
the table is showing that 1/1($2) will finish in front of 5/1($6) 78% of the times they contest the same race
the table is showing that ($3) will finish in front of 2/1 50% of the time. You’d expect that though 50/50.
That’s finish in front – winning is different and the odds for that can be calculated from this table.
win 1.3 1.5 1.6 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 |3
sp 1/3 1/2 4/6 (‘1/1)5/4 6/4 7/4
1/3 – – – – – – – – 1/3
1/2 – – – – – – – 33 1/2
4/6 – – – – – 40 37 35 4/6
1/1 – – – 50 48 44 42 38 1/1
5/4 – – – 53 50 47 44 40 5/4
6/4 – – 60 56 53 50 47 44 6/4
7/4 – – 63 58 56 53 50 47 7/4
2/1 – 67 66 62 60 56 53 2/1
5/2 – 72 70 64 63 60 57 53 5/2
3/1 79 76 73 67 66 64 61 57 3/1
7/2 81 78 75 71 68 66 64 61 7/2
4/1 83 80 77 74 71 68 66 64 4/1
9/2 85 82 79 76 72 70 68 65 9/2
5/1 87 84 81 (78) 74 72 70 67 5/1
6/1 89 86 83 80 77 75 72 70 6/1
8/1 90 87 85 82 80 78 76 74 8/1
10/1 91 89 87 85 83 82 80 78 10/1
12/1 92 90 88 87 86 85 84 81 12/1
15/1 93 91 90 89 88 87 86 84 15/1
20/1 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 86 20/1
25/1 96 95 94 92 92 91 90 89 25/1
33/1 97 96 95 94 94 93 92 91 33/1
50/1 98 97 97 96 96 95 94 94 50/1
100/199 98 98 98 98 97 97 97 100/1
Ycch! re above
Scroll to 33/1 and the numbers left to right attempt to show the values (1/3 should beat 33/1 – 97%) then 1/2,4/6,
(1/1- 94%), 5/4,6/4, (7/4 – 91%). At this price point (33/1) the values are not unexpected. It gets involved, (eg more important), as the ‘should beats’ (6/4 v 4/1 – 66%), (6/4 v 61 – 72%) strengths appear. The table is based on Hans Eisler. It’s just maths, somebody tell the horses (jockeys?) to comply, please. The spreadsheet used totaled 512 columns. I’m retired, it was raining. There is more!