Racehorse TALK

Continuing the discussion from http://www.racehorsetalk.com.au/index.php/topic,2720.msg375497.html#msg375497

I had been receiving Chad Redwin's Ratings for about 6 weeks for free. He lets you know that "soon" he "may be opening up" his gold Membership again "for a few new members."

As I generally like to dutch runners at value, this appealed to me. His first 4 rated horses supplied the winner in just over 50% of races rated. His free service rates 2 runners in each of Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane/Perth and occasionally Adelaide.

I had been happy enough with his free service, so when he "opened up the Gold Membership" again, offering a 30-day money-back guarantee, no questions asked, this served as an opportunity to see if his expanded, top-shelf service was any better.

We have not seen good track conditions fora a few weeks, so I expected the odd bolter to get up, and they have. But Redwin takes account of track conditions, and therefore there can be no excuses on that score. I think I have another week or two before my "money-back" period expires, so will stick with him for one more week. He also rates Hong Kong races through his "man on the ground" there, but the day I looked at those, they didn't impress. Could spot the odd winner at odds.

He rates several races "just for interest" but does not recommend a bet in those.

But in the races he thinks he has the winner, he recommends to bet either outright, each way, or back the one on top and save on the next 2 at odds (modified dutching). The bloke does tip value on top at times - he got the Villiers winner on the day, and also at good odds at its previous start. There have been reasonably-priced winners on top too.

My problem with his service is that out of so many races rated (he says he uses his own ratings plus his experience) he is inconsistent. I'll copy/paste his 11th Feb 2012 Brisbane selections below. Out of respect for the man, I would not post his selections prior to the races, but he should not mind standing by his posted selections after the event. The Sydney/Melb ratings can be provided too - past tense - if anyone is interested in taking a look.

It's a pity I didn't join the service when the weather was more disposed to provide better racing surfaces. But if I do opt for my money back ($47/month ... and if you go for 3 months, the third month is nearly free - $97 for 3 months) I will do so after considering his record under all conditions.

The ratings: Winner (if any) posted in red:

RACE 1

5:  Honourable Aussie - 96 ............ Redwin's comment: "Too many chances here so we'll watch."

4:  Gold Rating - 95 ................................ No winner rated in top 4 (Won by Winmara Tatts QLD: $24.40)

2:  Jazz Heart - 92

3:  Za Magic - 90


RACE 2 Not rated

RACE 3 Not rated


RACE 4

1:  Achievements - 96 .............  Redwin's comment: "A number of chances here and too many to save on."

6:  Santo De Lago - 93 Won paying $6.50 Tatts QLD

3:  Emoticon - 92

4:  Catashee - 89

FULL Comment:

Achievements held on gamely in a strong open handicap last week and is on the seven day back up here but does drop in grade. Interesting the stable have elected not to claim anything off the big weight but Chris Munce staying anchored on his back is a good sign. He'll run very well here. Santo De Lago just couldn't seem to find the line at his last few runs and maybe after a quick freshen he will be more switched on. Anymore rain and his chances will be be significantly increased. Emoticon was solid without threatening last start and will get his chance to show some form here. This looks a bit easier than last week so definitely include him among the main chances. Catashee was very good behind Skating On Ice at the Gold Coast two back but you can put a line through her run last start where she was outclassed at listed level. Much better suited here and look for a better run.

Please note - Redwin still has not recommended a bet.

RACE 5

3:  Save A Buck - 97 ... Redwin's comment: "Huge odds of around 60-1 about Save A Buck so we'll have to have a tickle each way."

7:  Just A Piccolo - 94 .... No winner rated in top 4 ... (Won by General Purple Tatts QLD $12.80)

12:  Slice And Dice - 92 .... Not one rated horse in first 4

15:  Magic Tartan - 89


Full Comment

Well we have a runner here at a huge price and I am not sure why they have missed him. Save A Buck has run some very good races in the past including a run that was only 3 lengths from the winner in the Eye Liner at Ipswich last year. He goes well on all surfaces and is four from six second up. With the kid taking three off his back he could cause a huge boilover here. Just A Piccolo has put in two good runs back from a spell and I can't see him going backwards here. He is in much the same grade as he was last time so he has to be given a chance. Slice And Dice was a bit unlucky not to have finished closer last start but gets his chance in this race. Has the chance to get off the rail with this barrier so don't overlook his hopes. Magic Tartan has form around Achievements and Just A Piccolo and with them being in the mix in a few races here today then she must be given a hope. Include.

RACE 6

1:  Essington - 100  ......... Redwin's comment: "I think Essington is a really good price so have a go on the nose."

5:  The Sixties - 95 ............................................ Missed the winner. (Won by Mr Armstrong Tatts QLD $15.90)

2:  Meet George - 94

3:  Tierqualo - 91

Full comment

This is a big drop in class for Essington here and I can see him returning to the winners circle here. Eagle Farm is his track and after two unlucky runs in strong races he looks very well placed in this race with only 59kgs. He'll run very well and I think he'll win easily. The Sixties has been good at his last two winning one and running second in the other. He was beaten by a handy type last start so he has to rate a big mention in this. Meet George is first up here after a good winter carnival which saw plenty of good runs but didn't yield a win. Hasn't trialled but has a handy fresh record so he is one to watch closely. Tierqualo was outclassed in the Goldmarket and this is more to his liking. He'll go better but is only a solid place hope.

RACE 7

3:  Risk Aversion - 99 ............ Redwin's comment: "We'll back Risk Aversion and save on Jasminka and Whateverwhenever."

6:  Whateverwhenever - 96 ......... There were excuses for Risk Aversion, but not at $2.30. (Won by Crystal Doll Tatts QLD $54.00)

1:  Jasminka - 94

5:  Cariad - 90 ........ (Almost got there ... third rated ... Tatts QLD $12.00)

Full Comment

We see the return of the very promising mare Risk Aversion here. She is well bred and looks as though she will live up to that breeding and I dare say should she run well here first up then a trip to Sydney for some black type is on the agenda. She is all quality and I think she will go very close first up in this. Whateverwhenever really improved last start to run an excellent second at Listed level. She just keeps improving all the time and cannot be left out of the mix in this race. Jasminka was never a chance last start so put a line through the run. She is too good a mare to be ignored and has a great record here. Definite winning hope. Cariad ran home strongly in a quality filed of fillies and mares at Toowoomba last start. Might just be a length below these better mares but she certainly is capable of filling a placing.

RACE 8

5:  Empress Me - 95............ Redwin's comment: "Anything could happen here so we'll pull up stumps early."

1: Double Impact - 94 .... Won paying $10.20 TATTS QLD

2:  Kilwinning Option - 92

3:  Black Cash - 88

Full Comment

A very open 3yo race to finish and while there looks to be only 4 or 5 chances there are a lot of unknowns. Empress Me was first up for nearly 6 months when she won impressively here three weeks back. This field is no different to that one so she will have solid chances again. Double Impact also won a 3yo open last start but that was over the road. That followed a solid performance in the MM 3yo where he wasn't far from the winner in 7th spot. Big weight but he does have ability. Kilwinning Option was a couple of lengths second behind Empress Me last start but has drawn a lot better here. He will finish a lot closer to her this time and it would surprise me if he won. Black Cash was a very close second to Double Impact last start but has drawn the car park here. He'll have to go right back and be ridden for luck and if he gets some he can make an impact.

I am not attempting to Rubbish Chad Redwin's Ratings by any stretch. He provides a very good quality commentary, and does get good winners at odds occasionally.

But a paid-for ratings and tipping service needs to be consistent and accurate, within the bounds of reality. That reality is that anything can happen in racing (eg Risk Aversion might have won had it been luckier in running).

No one regularly tips the card, and no one is going to give you too much when every race is rated in 5 states. That is another reality.

But if these blokes want to keep and grow their businesses they need to be close to the money in their top 2 more often.

I think I was doing better with Redwin's free service.

And I definitely did better with my own picks a week earlier, snagging a $20 winner and a $10 winner as savers for my dutching plays.

 In the absence of any other form of "good" info ... yes I did ... with a money-back after 30 days if not happy ... no questions asked.

I have had a look at some of your comments in this thread and although you lean towards people like Howard Walter and Chris Nelson from Best Bets when they manage to tip good winners, the reality is that there are 24 - 25 races on a Saturday, and no one tips the card. I don't expect that either. Just good old reliability and consistency.

I bought a Best Bets booklet a few weeks back, but they no longer use the clear type they used to, and they no longer have the short form wrap-up they used to under the stats of each runner. To me that is 2 strikes against them, and I would rather get my tips online than pay for a magazine that doesn't give reasons why they plonk for their on-top pick.

Then we come to Best Bets on-line ... they have been taken over by Telstra ... of all corporates - Telstra and horse-racing ... what a mix. My first reaction was to make the sign of the cross, and click out of there FAST because if ever there was an organisation that took your money and gave zero service, Telstra would be the one!

Joining this site just to get the odd tip, would be like breaking a years-long principle for me ... but maybe I am missing something. I'll donate $100 to charity if I am not targeted to be up-sold on something after joining! That's the Telstra culture ... that's the banking culture ... sell, sell, sell! Service? What's that??

But I will take a second look, and see what the fuss is about. Maybe I judge too quickly.

EDIT: Apologies - I have corrected Chris Nelson' name. 

Have just registered on Best bets/Telstra Racing network site ... and I am not impressed.

I think I'll just buy the booklet at the news stand.

I wouldnt expect much from racecallers- there job would be hard enough, without the extra ardous form study a top analyst may do. Respect them-tough job.
I have been analysing some tipsters last few months.
The guys at the top bet on nearly every race and have a high avg. win dividend.

www.thegreattipoff.com

Adam Olanzski has a good ROI

DD - thanks you for your thoughtful response - those basic home truths should be repeated often.

I guess we have to choose between getting plenty of action ... and specialising.

Or put another way - betting for fun as opposed to betting as a business.

I like to dutch my bets, as mentioned elsewhere, so getting the winner in the top selection is less important to me, than say, getting the winner in the third or 4th pick.
In other words, coming up with a winner in 4 picks would start my engine.

As I get to become more familiar with the horses running today, and get back a feel for class and ability, trainers and jockeys, and track conditions, the better I am becoming at selecting my own again, as well as discerning the value in the selections of the tipsters and ratings people.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I will certainly give more feedback as things develop with Redwin ratings.

Whispering: Thanks for the link. Right now they are off-line for some reason, will check it later.

Janice,

I suggest you use as a benchmark the strike rate for the top 4 horses in the final market. In larger fields this will well exceed 60% so any 'service' that cant beat that should not be considered as a matter of course. Of the races I looked at on the weekend the top 4 won 15 out of 21 or 71%.

Dubbledee.... go on give youself a shameless plug why don't you!

Fours

Fours - that is exactly  ... EXACTLY ... my method of selection.

I worked on this for 3 years in 1984 - 1987, curve-fitting unashamedly, until I had it perfected.

By "perfected" I mean taking the strategy and forward testing it successfully. I was doubling the bank every 4 weeks, on average. I am "sold" on dutching, and am getting back to that method again, gradually.

I say "gradually" because it seems to me that the fields are smaller today - particularly Sydney fields, and the odds % higher than in 1986. This leaves fewer races to engage, and smaller odds to manage. I am unsure why the TAB averages are down, but I suspect it is because of computers, and the influence of last-minute pro-punters at work. Ron Dufficy will know what is meant by that, if any of you understand his background. It's where the money is today (TAB pools) ... to the (further) detriment of the mug player. See also the thread(s) on Zeljko Ranogajec.

I used to sell my strategy in "The Sportsman" for $50, and would still be doing so today, had life not intervened as I was having fun.

I wonder if anyone on this forum remembers "Owen Pommec?" ... that was me using a nomme de plume.

I was as honest as the day is long, and posted every result faithfully in The Sportsman, because I was ultra confident the strategy was the bees knees ... and it still is. I don't mean to set myself on any pedestal here, but that's the ethic I had, and still do - nothing old fashioned about being honest, and not to be scorned. We all have this as a basic tenet, else we would never function, or keep friends. But I tried to offer an alternative to the fluff and fairy dust put out by the urgers, and have it based on price.

Price to me, was and still is, an indication of support for a horse that may be in with a chance.

But the system came under scrutiny, which I had no other answer for, than to say "swings and merry-go-rounds" because on occasions, the price one had to accept as a system bet, 2 minutes before the jump, was occasionally NOT the final SP the system relied on for its published results. SP was the only umpire I could use as a universal measure, but it was not infallible as far as selections went.

In other words, I was forced to publish a price of 9/2 ($5.50) about a horse I may not have backed, because the price I took was not the final SP.

Similarly, a horse at SP of 7/2 ($4.50 today) may NOT have qualified as the winner, because at the time the bet was placed, it may have been too short to qualify as a selection. It may have blown out to a qualifying value price moments before they jumped, but of course we "should" have already been set with the strategy selection by then.

We won some and missed some ... but it averaged out pretty fairly, and my clients accepted that.

Ultimately, my honesty (self-praise, I know) caused me to stop selling the strategy, because advertising costs were creeping up and nearly matching what I was making from sales. Had I not been as naive as I was a a young 'un then, and known something more about life and marketing strategies, I might have been more economical with the advertising - eg "send me your address, and I'll send you the info etc."

That might have cost $15 instead of $120/week a la George Gray's "Fortune-on-Four" adverts. But if I say it myself - one thing I would not - as a well-brought-up Methodist - have compromised myself on the truth. If it didn't work, I couldn't have sold it, and remained true to myself. There are many people who have these kinds of principles, and I believe I have met some of you on this forum - no BS.

You either get the truth ... or silence.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who bought my strategy - it was called "HOBBY GOLD" and I still have an original copy of it as sold. It mentions horses like Fix the Date ... Colour Page and Periscope for those who remember.

Janice,

I'm only quoting stats rather than a method.

However a simply look at field depth will show when the top 4 may not do so well and of course one can set upper and lower limits on dutch book percentages that are acceptable 'per number of selections taken'.

But Janice as a rule I make more money when all four get beaten.

Fours

DD - Can you please link to any of those threads you speak of - I would be interested in looking over your approach.

I avoid place betting as a rule, but occasionally I will plonk for one if the fixed odds are available, and the horse is a standout to place. I occasionally will take $2.40 upwards on a place wager, but only under the right conditions.

So far that has been a good approach.

I like to take only prices > $4W in my dutching escapades ... betting under $4 is reserved for punters!