My "Inform Racing" System - Mk II

[Sandhog]

Yes, @ dave58,
I think that's a good approach.
Just retain what works; I do that even if I don't fully understand why.

In my experience, I think many punters wonder why systems sometimes decline in efficacy. Although I haven't yet found the answer , I really do think it's largely down to the passage of time, and, the "fact" that the world changes.
I could be wrong, of course. And if any have different explanations, I'd be delighted to hear about it.

 

[MartinK]

THUR 25 MARCH
Chepstow 2.07 Dancing Shadow, 4-1
Ludlow 2.45 Ginistrelli, 4-1
Sedgefield 3.55 Victory Echo, 8-1

 

[Nocturno44]

Yes, @ dave58,
I think that's a good approach.
Just retain what works; I do that even if I don't fully understand why.

In my experience, I think many punters wonder why systems sometimes decline in efficacy. Although I haven't yet found the answer , I really do think it's largely down to the passage of time, and, the "fact" that the world changes.
I could be wrong, of course. And if any have different explanations, I'd be delighted to hear about it.

It is clear that systems stop working over time. But others appear, or at least that is what I have seen reviewing some. When I focused on looking for systems with 3 years of benefits after reviewing some, I verified that although in 2018 they had given losses the last two years were positive and also for 2021.

On the other hand, it is clear that when jockeys and coaches are included in the systems, they will end up changing whether or not

On the other hand it is true that the new season is coming and these last races are quite complicated. I'm looking forward to testing Ian's flat systems and some that I have in store.

 

[greyabbey]

I think how they perform over time depends on what the metric is. A system works if it's strike rate x avg win odds are above 100% of the outlay. If the strike rate is changing over time, that would suggest either a change in conditions or something else was happening/results to date are coincidental. If the strike rate remains the same but the profits decline, the market may have worked out occasionally what's going on.

 

[OnTheNod]

I think it is down to things changing as well, nothing stays constant and also maybe it is down evolution, tiny changes that gradually mount up all the time within things, with breeding systems this even more noticeable i have found so they may need an upgrade every couple of years or so.

Also i believe some things stay more constant than others which is good really, and as dave58 has found out through trial and error i suppose but i must admit i dont put the work in nowadays much.

 

[dave58]

It depends on what you base your ideas on.
Some of mine come from trying to get inside the trainer's head, for example why enter this horse in this race - it may be for a non racing reason, but whatever, some trainers are creatures of habit.
Others of mine involve trying to get inside the mind of the horse - sounds a bit bizarre but it has worked for me.
There's a thread called 'thinking outside the box' where myself and others have outlined a few ideas.

 

[Sandhog]

Is that thread - Thinking Outside the Box" - available in the open forum, dave58 ?
I'm very interested in that sort of thing.

--
Undoubtedly, racing changes over time. Just look at old films of races - the course, the tack, the jockey's kit; all different nowadays.
Also, the method and style of racing.
Even today, American racing is so different from that in Europe. And, in Ireland, they tend to race hell for leather.

I'm pretty sure "systems" and "approaches" have to change to accommodate.

All very interesting.

 

[Chesham]

Is that thread - Thinking Outside the Box" - available in the open forum, dave58 ?
I'm very interested in that sort of thing.

--
Undoubtedly, racing changes over time. Just look at old films of races - the course, the tack, the jockey's kit; all different nowadays.
Also, the method and style of racing.
Even today, American racing is so different from that in Europe. And, in Ireland, they tend to race hell for leather.

I'm pretty sure "systems" and "approaches" have to change to accommodate.

All very interesting.

See Thinking outside the box - horse racing

 

[Steve18]

I think systems can decline over time but what is hard to understand is why sometimes they just drop off a cliff, I have one on the flat which covers short favs and has consistently hit high 40% every year since 2012. Last year it plunged to 26% and a big loss. The only theory I can come up with is the Covid break which left many of the young horses unable to race until June. It must have put back the whole flat season. I'm hoping it will go back to normal this year but it will have to be a watching brief to start with as its possible it may never recover for reasons unknown.

 

[Sigster]

I think systems can decline over time but what is hard to understand is why sometimes they just drop off a cliff, I have one on the flat which covers short favs and has consistently hit high 40% every year since 2012. Last year it plunged to 26% and a big loss. The only theory I can come up with is the Covid break which left many of the young horses unable to race until June. It must have put back the whole flat season. I'm hoping it will go back to normal this year but it will have to be a watching brief to start with as its possible it may never recover for reasons unknown.

I have several systems from which I have decided to omit 2020 results including some which track long lay offs from the track. Obviously the racing shutdown and then the difficulty of travelling long distances has skewed results. Could non-racing factors influence a systems results In a negative way leading to a potential decline? Depending on system rules i would suggest so.

 

[OnTheNod]

It depends on what you base your ideas on.
Some of mine come from trying to get inside the trainer's head, for example why enter this horse in this race - it may be for a non racing reason, but whatever, some trainers are creatures of habit.
Others of mine involve trying to get inside the mind of the horse - sounds a bit bizarre but it has worked for me.
There's a thread called 'thinking outside the box' where myself and others have outlined a few ideas.

Is this concept a real system idea though or more a method of selection, i know years ago i use to wait for winning horses to drop right down the h'cap sometimes into the 7 stone range even, and thought to myself this is what trainer has waited for and also the horse thinking i like this course and setup it seemed to work well.

Anyhow Good Luck! to you if you have found a recent way of doing something similar.

 

[dave58]

Is this concept a real system idea though or more a method of selection, i know years ago i use to wait for winning horses to drop right down the h'cap sometimes into the 7 stone range even, and thought to myself this is what trainer has waited for and also the horse thinking i like this course and setup it seemed to work well.

Anyhow Good Luck! to you if you have found a recent way of doing something similar.

Yes, I only use systems to find my selections.

 

[Sigster]

It depends on what you base your ideas on.
Some of mine come from trying to get inside the trainer's head, for example why enter this horse in this race - it may be for a non racing reason, but whatever, some trainers are creatures of habit.
Others of mine involve trying to get inside the mind of the horse - sounds a bit bizarre but it has worked for me.
There's a thread called 'thinking outside the box' where myself and others have outlined a few ideas.

This just reminds me of a horse I used to follow called Kylkenny trained by Hughie Morrison. Bear in mind this was before the internet became the behemoth it is now with so much information freely available. All my records were written out the long way and the RP weekly results section was my God. I was lucky enough to spot what I perceived to be a Modus Operandi of sorts with the horse and back then I won what was to me at the time a fair wedge on him.
Over his career his Southwell figures..

113211212111431521326411211471677412842451. 17 wins from 42 starts and a further 11 places. All wins at 1M3F or 1M4F

and at Pontefract ..

12021631103632440. 4 wins from 17 and a further 6 places. All wins at 1M2F

He ran 129 times and I don’t think I’ve ever loved a horse as much as I loved this one. Every body loves a trier, but this one gave his all and frequently brought home the bacon. Back then I used to really concentrate on the AW specialist horses. Now with the use of databases like HRB and Flatstats I very much doubt the horse would have the success he did as everyone would be wise to it.

I watched his last race(unfortunately only on TV) on 10/11/2008. Clearly in the twilight of his career(at 13yo) he went at Southwell over 1M4F carrying a virtual featherweight, a seven pound claimer and a fair wedge of my sentimental money. He went to the front just over 2F out and never looked back winning by 7 lengths at 14/1 which promoted connections to retire him while on top. Have to say I might have had something in my eye while he was romping home and watching him afterwards in the winners enclosure as I seem to remember ATR making a big deal of it.

Apologies for the reminiscences and the rambling....

 

[dave58]

Good for you Sigster, please don't apologise - we all like to hear good stories especially with such a happy ending.

 

[OnTheNod]

This just reminds me of a horse I used to follow called Kylkenny trained by Hughie Morrison. Bear in mind this was before the internet became the behemoth it is now with so much information freely available. All my records were written out the long way and the RP weekly results section was my God. I was lucky enough to spot what I perceived to be a Modus Operandi of sorts with the horse and back then I won what was to me at the time a fair wedge on him.
Over his career his Southwell figures..

113211212111431521326411211471677412842451. 17 wins from 42 starts and a further 11 places. All wins at 1M3F or 1M4F

and at Pontefract ..

12021631103632440. 4 wins from 17 and a further 6 places. All wins at 1M2F

He ran 129 times and I don’t think I’ve ever loved a horse as much as I loved this one. Every body loves a trier, but this one gave his all and frequently brought home the bacon. Back then I used to really concentrate on the AW specialist horses. Now with the use of databases like HRB and Flatstats I very much doubt the horse would have the success he did as everyone would be wise to it.

I watched his last race(unfortunately only on TV) on 10/11/2008. Clearly in the twilight of his career(at 13yo) he went at Southwell over 1M4F carrying a virtual featherweight, a seven pound claimer and a fair wedge of my sentimental money. He went to the front just over 2F out and never looked back winning by 7 lengths at 14/1 which promoted connections to retire him while on top. Have to say I might have had something in my eye while he was romping home and watching him afterwards in the winners enclosure as I seem to remember ATR making a big deal of it.

Apologies for the reminiscences and the rambling....

Thats i nice story their Sigster that was my theory way back the lighter the better, i remember Glencroft he use to go miles of in front and rarely got caught, is a good feeling that when an easy winner. Also i remember Lester Piggott when riding horses that seemed good on form he nearly always got them home with a flourish. Great Days those!

 

[Sandhog]

Thanks to all for the interesting and informative replies!

I suppose there is a technical difference between systematic, methodical approach and a pure system. In my case, I use almost anything and everything to try to get an edge.

One possibly major slewer of stats ( with the consequent disruption of systems) must be the likes of DJ Jeffreys' runners.
I've often read about "SP being the best predictor of performance", but, the sort off stuff that's been going on lately ( and forever, perhaps) makes me wonder.
As there is no way I can control things like that, I tend to try to ignore it: ie. the Bobby Charlton approach to hair loss ; brush it all to one side and try to forget all about it.
That method came from the old Smartsig ( from George, I believe. He was a great wag).
Come o think of it , that's got a different meaning and connotation nowadays.

I can't keep up with all the changes. Maybe I ain't "woke" enough or something.
Not to worry, I'm going to look up that "thinking Outside the Box" thread now.

 

[MartinK]

Chepstow 2.07 Dancing Shadow, 4-1 ... u/r
Ludlow 2.45 Ginistrelli, 4-1 ... fell
Sedgefield 3.55 Victory Echo, 8-1 ... 3rd

Day 26: loss 3 pts
March total: profit 1.58 pts

 

[MartinK]

FRI 26 MARCH
Newbury 1.30 Jersey Bean, 15-2
Newbury 2.40 Premiumaccess, 11-2
Lingfield 5.00 Tomahawk Ridge, 7-1

 

[OnTheNod]

Thanks to all for the interesting and informative replies!

I suppose there is a technical difference between systematic, methodical approach and a pure system. In my case, I use almost anything and everything to try to get an edge.

One possibly major slewer of stats ( with the consequent disruption of systems) must be the likes of DJ Jeffreys' runners.
I've often read about "SP being the best predictor of performance", but, the sort off stuff that's been going on lately ( and forever, perhaps) makes me wonder.
As there is no way I can control things like that, I tend to try to ignore it: ie. the Bobby Charlton approach to hair loss ; brush it all to one side and try to forget all about it.
That method came from the old Smartsig ( from George, I believe. He was a great wag).
Come o think of it , that's got a different meaning and connotation nowadays.

I can't keep up with all the changes. Maybe I ain't "woke" enough or something.
Not to worry, I'm going to look up that "thinking Outside the Box" thread now.

To me a system is a pure mechanically approach no final touches or digging or the like, not saying that is a bad thing to do many on here use that procedure to good effects.

But still the proof of the pudding is in the eating long term, their are fine lines in many things and it is never easy now and somtimes good runs can fool one, maybe even the system was not that good to start with, one must stay solid and be objective, that is not easy with gambling for some it can be a very emotive thing.

 

[Sandhog]

Yep, OnTheNod ,

I'll go along with your definition.
Note how the thread-owner, MartinK , just keeps putting them up as the system demands. No wavering or pee ing about.

It's that kind of discipline that I find difficult. tend to tweak and footer about like an old woman. When this happens, it's often an indicator of a losing bet coming up.
I know it's corny, but, I actually get a gut-feeling when a bet is right.

Today, I haven't got that feeling.
I've looked at the 1.30 Newbury , where @ MartinK has put up Jersey Bean. in fact, that was the one that struck me initially - way ahead on the ratings.
However, I was determined to back a Henderson runner today at Newbury, so I looked further down and selected one of his, which I've backed small and also in an EW Double with another of Chem ical Nickie's.
Whatever kind of a system is that?!