Systems

[walsworth]

Whatever happened to them?

Not just here but seemingly everywhere, did you all find one that worked, and are keeping it to yourself, or have you decided that they don't work?

I have tried so many over the years and I don't have a lot of faith in them now. Some seem to work for a limited period but eventually dry up, either because everybody catches on to them and prices collapse or they were just a passing trend that fizzled out.

I have been playing around with HRB trying to devise a couple of systems, I have been told it can be done, but I always seem to fall into the back fitting trap.

Must swot up on my form study!

[Desert Orchid]

I never had faith in systems but it didn't stop me trying them when I was younger.

I also had HRB (or something similar) on trial for a while about 30 years ago but found 'paper' systems never really worked in reality. I'm not sure how that happens.

Before the house move recently, I had a bit of a cathartic moment in throwing out every form book, bar the last two seasons, from my loft. (I did hold on to three "Racehorses" annuals from the '70s as these technically belong to the brothers.) Among the books I threw out were the VDW book, Stewart Simpson's and Clive Holt's.

From memory, only the latter claimed to be a 'system' as such but the others at least gave me some ideas and insights.

But, personally, analysing form for myself and making money from backing my own judgment is far more satisfying. Losing makes me more inclined to look into reasons why and learn from them.

Recently turned 66, I don't feel I'm ever too old to learn.

[barjon]

Many years ago I used to have a daily nap competition for the season (loser buys posh lunch) with a work pal and the boss caught us reading the racing pages one day. When he found out what we were up to he said he’d join in with the third horse down in the third race of the day at the main meeting. Much to our shame he won it by a street.

[reet hard]

Must swot up on my form study!

Answered your own question there,W.

[barjon]

Form’s one thing, ready to win is quite another.

[Len Madeiros]

There’s one I’ve been using for about six weeks now for the lower end races (flat and NH), where I go to the card on the Racing Post app. Each horse lists the recent (last 14 days) trainer and jockey form. I disregard any horse where the win percentage is lower than 10% for EITHER trainer or jockey; and I place less weight upon a small sample ie, 1-5. This reduces the field to just 2-3 runners (I tend to target the 8+ fields in handicaps), and then I can use other form determinants to make my final choice(s). You would expect the the first 2-3 in the betting to meet this criteria anyway; however, I’ve picked up one or two decent odds each-ways, who fit the category. The 5:25 at Newcastle looks a good example - Envisaging at 16/1 looks the play.

No guarantees, we know that, but it’s a bit of fun, and suits lazy short-cutters like me.

[reet hard]

Form’s one thing, ready to win is quite another.

But form can be one way to judge if a horse is ready to win; there are others, but that's for a separate discussion.

[2017diary]

Lazy short cutters? I thought I heard my name mentioned. These have contributed to my pension/pocket money for years

System 1 - lay mares which have fallen LTO (but must have fallen within the last month)

System 2 - back then lay fast starters for a % (but not possible any more the way liquidity & I/R have gone)

System 3 - follow Outsider blind ()

[walsworth]

Nice to see there is still some interest.
I’m still using my charts to rate each horse in a race by giving a numerical value to the various attributes of each horses past performances. I have changed my M.O. slightly as advised by one of our members to staking 1 point win/ 2 points place and this has improved returns but not as much as I expected.

[Len Madeiros]

There’s one I’ve been using for about six weeks now for the lower end races (flat and NH), where I go to the card on the Racing Post app. Each horse lists the recent (last 14 days) trainer and jockey form. I disregard any horse where the win percentage is lower than 10% for EITHER trainer or jockey; and I place less weight upon a small sample ie, 1-5. This reduces the field to just 2-3 runners (I tend to target the 8+ fields in handicaps), and then I can use other form determinants to make my final choice(s). You would expect the the first 2-3 in the betting to meet this criteria anyway; however, I’ve picked up one or two decent odds each-ways, who fit the category. The 5:25 at Newcastle looks a good example - Envisaging at 16/1 looks the play.

No guarantees, we know that, but it’s a bit of fun, and suits lazy short-cutters like me.

Envisaging was last. As I say, just a bit of fun.

[walsworth]

2:15 Wolv.

No.	Name	Rating	Fair Odds/1	Exchange	Odds
3	Rushmore	63.00	4.61	5.61	5.00
1	Amalfi Bay	60.00	4.93	5.93	6.00
6	Zhang Fei (FR)	51.00	6.24	7.24	6.00

[walsworth]

My main argument against using hard and fast rules to find selections is that if you miss a winner for whatever reason you then have to miss a corresponding number of losers, according to the price, to get back to where you started.