H3 system rules

[TheOldhamWhisper]

This system has shown best returns by backing the qualifiers EW or place only on the exchanges. Several big price winners have been thrown up by the system.

1. 'True' handicaps only...no Maiden, Novice, Conditional Jockeys etc.

2. The horse MUST have been placed 3rd in a handicap in its previous outing and finished no more than 10 lengths behind the winner.

3. The selection MUST NOT be 'out of the handicap'.

4. Where there is more than one qualifier in a race, stakes are split.

5. If there are insufficient runners in the race for EW or Place betting it is probably best to ignore the selection.

Happy Profits to all system users and if you find a modification to this system that will increase profits further, please publish them here.

[toploader]

What does 'out of the handicap' mean?

[TheOldhamWhisper]

Out of the handicap means that the horse is handicapped to carry a weight less than the lowest allowed weight for the race. In effect, it is putting up overweight. The Racing Post clearly states if a horse is 'out of the handicap'.

[wifesmoney]

Very impressed with your posts is this system only for national hunt if not how far beaten by the winner on the flat? Without getting to technical with different distances.

wifesmoney

[TheOldhamWhisper]

Thanks for bringing this up...I notice the nearly all the 'losers' have been in AW flat races. I will have to look into it further, but at first glance, I would say 5 lengths looks a likely distance. I will amend this if research proves otherwise.

[MarcusMel]

It seems to be usual to cut A.W tracks from systems.

Would this be an additional rule?

The problem with A.W seems to be that it suits runners that 'like' the going to be Heavy but I have yet to really prove this. It seems that a lot of A.W. racing now have the horses specialising for this type of track.

I also keep wondering if the rain does affect the race on a A.W track. Wet sand and dry sand have diferent properties. If you have ever been to the beach (with sand) you will know it is easier to run on wet sand than on dry sand. Then there is the 'kick back', I certainly would not like to run when sand is being flung into my eyes! So I am guessing that the phrase 'Standard' really is not strictly speaking always true.

Many thanks for posting the system and its rules, it is much appreciated.

[TheOldhamWhisper]

AW has shown 2 winners (11/2 and 6/1) and a couple of places out of 9 qualifiers. I think just applying the 5 length rule should keep the AW qualifiers to the optimum level.

In US racing, the dirt surfaces are far more predictable...but only up to a point. If it is raining, the track goes from 'fast' to 'sloppy'. This actually seems to favour the speed horses as the ground beneath is still highly compacted with just a layer of very wet sand on top of it. If the rain soaks through to the compacted layer however, the track becomes 'muddy' and it is like running through treacle. Once again, speed horses have a slight advantage as it is very difficult to close on muddy tracks. Of course this does not apply to races over 7f as much because a speed horse is unlikely to last that far no matter what the surface.

In the UK, the synthetic sand we use is supposed to drain off water to the point where the track conditions remain constant but I agree with you...there must be a point where the sand becomes saturated and the 'going' must change.