FAVS.FC - The Rules

[Godspot]

This is a simple free (so I don't think I'm in breach of any copyright) ratings system I picked up off the web & have been following for the last month or so. I tried it on the AW but soon found it didn't quite work as well as when applied to Jump racing.

All we need for this is the Racing Post forecast favourite & access to the number of tips given by the racing press, again given out on the Racing Post site.

What we do is note how many betting points clear of the next in the betting the forecast favourite is. Say the fcf is evens & the next in the betting is 5/1, our fcf gets 5 points.
We then add those points to the number of tips that our fcf receives.
So, if our 5 point fcf gets 9 tips it amasses a grand total of 14 points.

What I have noticed from the last 120 races covered, is that horses that get 17 points or more, are pretty well unopposable. 8 winners from 9 selections so far, including h'caps, 6/6 non-h'caps.

In future, when you see FAVS.FC in the thread below, I'll just say the time of the race & you'll know the fcf has 17 points or more.

If anyone is thinking of backing these selections, what I have noticed is that they come in for a lot of support, just before the off - so I should take a price before that happens.

I'm also thinking that we must be due a loser, so may not begin to operate until we have one but I will post qualifiers & results forthwith.

Well, that's passed a bit of time waiting to find out whether Hereford is still on. :ermmm

[mathare]

What we do is note how many betting points clear of the next in the betting the forecast favourite is. Say the fcf is evens & the next in the betting is 5/1, our fcf gets 5 points.Surely the fav gets 4pts there, not 5. He's 4 points clear in the market, not 5 points.

[Godspot]

I think you're technically right, that would mean adjusting the qualifying score to 16 then? & that don't mean more qualifiers cos all others would lose a point as well, the way I've been adding it up.

[mathare]

I think you're technically right, that would mean adjusting the qualifying score to 16 then?That depends on how you have back-tested it. If you have back-tested it using the wrong calculation then yes, under the correct rules the qualifying mark would have to shift to 16. If you back-tested under the correct rules then the mark stays at 17

[TheOldhamWhisper]

I personally think this is fundamentally flawed.

If a horse is so far clear in the market, it will attract more 'tips' anyway and is therefore not adding any value into the system.

Also, there is a major difference in prices as you get lower down the scale. A horse backed in from (say) 9/4 to 5/4 has attracted far more money than a 50/1 shot backed in to 14/1. I believe a better way would be to 'band' your prices and work solely on how many 'bands' clear in the betting the horse is.

[mathare]

Another point here is that an evens favourite may be 4 points clear of the second fav at 5/1. But suppose the fav was odds on, say 1/2, and the second fav was still 5/1. That's only a half point gain for the system but seems to me to make the fav much more likely to win that the extra half point would suggest.

[TheOldhamWhisper]

That was more or less the point I was trying to get across - but you put it so much better :)

[mathare]

That was more or less the point I was trying to get across - but you put it so much better :)I thought it was along the same lines, aye. Banding the prices is worth a go.

And you're 100% right about the price and the number of tips being related

[Godspot]

After today then, sticking with 17 pts as a qualifier for a minute, the process has given 18 selections, 13 winners, roughly 72%. The highest price was 5/4, most of them though are less than 1/2, they returned at SP, $19.00, representing 5.5% but if you do this on Betfair, the commision would negate any profit.

Are you suggesting that I band the prices, say like <1/2, 4/6-evs & come up with another points rating plan? All I was trying to do originally was highlight strong favourites that had a higher s/r than the usual.

[TheOldhamWhisper]

By all means stick with what you have got - but I feel it could be quite risky as most are very short prices anyway.

I have a decent little book called Secrets of Successful Betting by Michael Adams. It has some useful info and breaks down the 'bands' as follows:

1/28 - 2/5
40/95 - 4/5
5/6 - 6/4
13/8 - 3/1
100/30 - 15/2
8/1 - 16/1
18/1 - 60/1
66/1+

These are only suggestions but provide a basis on which you could experiment using data already collected.

[Godspot]

Like Keith says, 'Give me 100 bets.'

If this levels off at 70&#37; s/r with an average price of 1.45, minus commission, it's not profitable. I need to get the s/r up & the way to do that would be to remove h'cap selections. I'll look into it.....

[mathare]

I need to get the s/r up & the way to do that would be to remove h'cap selections. I'll look into it.....The easiest way to get the SR up is to ignore any losers :rolleyes:

[Godspot]

The easiest way to get the SR up is to ignore any losers

Or, have more winners!

[Godspot]

I need to get the s/r up & the way to do that would be to remove h'cap selections. I'll look into it.....

No it wouldn't. What might work is what I've just applied to a new little system I've been experimenting with on the Fun Bets Thread, So Clear: I figured that the higher the ratings, whatever you use, TS, RPR, even OR's the more reliable the horse & it seems, so far to work. As I'm just about to spend a couple of days doing form study catch up - I will analyse the ratings of this system qualifiers & see if that variable can be brought in with this one.