• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

Eric Bowers narrowing the field

Leodis Leodis

Perhaps I should have put up the full sentence to which I referred:

"Bowers did not claim 80% strike rate.His minimum acceptable odds were 2/1 . His average odds were 4/1 and never backed greater than 10/1."

I've no real knowledge of Bower's work and don't know whether the above is an accurate encapsulation or not, but my point, and it applies equally to gerry gerry's suggestion, is that both, if applied automatically, are arbitrary. Any decision to eliminate part of a field because one has an arbitrary screening rule is bound, sometimes, to exclude the winner before one really gets into studying the race. We are all looking to exclude most runners as we try to work out whether there is one or more worth backing, but there is a difference between doing so through the automatic application of a rule rather than as a result of appraisals based on all the factors one believes to be pertinent in finding winners.
 
Last edited:
I think somethings are taken out of context and unless one has actually read the Bowers Book, perhaps that causes the Confusion.

It was part of the chapter on using computers and back in 1990 the only readily available was RSB

A 5 year study that Bowers carried out using a computer

87% of winners= Odds less than the number of Runners

ie: 10 runners = 9/1 or less, 15 runners = 14 /1 or less, 20 runners = 19/1 or less


IMG_0085.jpeg


IMG_0086.jpegIMG_0087.jpeg
IMG_0176.jpeg
 
Rob Morris who demonstrated his odds lines to a small Yahoo group that I was fortunate to belong to. Over a week and posting up daily he was well in profit. Now Rob would only back up to his tissue of 9/2 if VFM was on offer. ie: Rob knew that even if his 9/2 tissue was accurate he would still have losing runs.

Of course Rob had a Bank that and the Psychological Mindset to withstand losing runs.

I don’t think Bowers was backing in races like some of those recently covered on this thread. In fact t yesterday’s York was not a balanced handicap and avoided. The Trends analysis did find the eventual winner.

The main thing is that this Bowers thread has enabled members to join in and try something a little different. Unlike VDW, 40 year old form books are not required to explore races that were all aftertimed, no having to find the “KEY”
 
Last edited:
JennyK JennyK
You Say Jakajaro was cut off, but if you added the pace factor it would have been a top pick.
I got AI to go through the race and it picked it as a top pick on bowers as when I asked it to go through the race it gave so a few and mentioned Jakajaro then I asked it to go through the race using the pace as well and give me who it thought was the best bet and it gave me Jakajaro. May be able to find it and put it up later. The thing I was looking at was how Bowers managed to get so many winners and I think you will find he went through his own way of picking his choice of the winner and like VDW he had other things taken into consideration, eg pace and head to head races. I did back it but only small wager as not used AI for this method before, it got that one but the next one I asked about was the 5:15York and the pick ended up last think it was the joint fav so shows not 100% just letting you know that there is more than one way to get the winner even with a draw bias.
I'm waffling now so enjoy the rest of your day.
 
Chesham has put most of the book’s salient points on here, Michael. I doubt that you’ll find more inspiration from the book. Just research all of Chesham’s posts on this subject. Like me, I’m sure you will be educated and enthralled.
 
"You Say Jakajaro was cut off"

Yes, Michael231 Michael231, but only if, for the race, one made a single-figure draw an arbitrary screening rule. As I pointed out:

".... in the twenty-three 19 and above runner York 5f handicaps that comprise the population in my base, seven were won by horses from double-figure stalls, so a single-figure stall winner, though likely, is by no means certain."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top