A B.J. my embarrassment and another winning Canadian!

Well! I have to admit to feeling a bit embarrassed when I receive an email from a subscriber telling me how to use my figures to better effect than I am suggesting. Admitting I might be wrong is not a problem. When you are involved in a sport where you are likely to be wrong a majority of the time and (i hasten to add) you don’t have to be right as often as you think to make a profit! ‘wrong’ isn't a problem. What the email may of highlighted is my over cautious approach which I recognise as my ‘Achilles Heel’.

Before I share the contents of the email, I would like to say that I don’t whole heartedly endorse anything that I have not proven to show longevity. So my sharing is not an endorsement but something I will continue to monitor with interest as I am sure you all will!

Firstly, the email from ‘BJ’ (I know! let the tittering begin) started by assuming that the selections I had made in the first post ‘Could this be the ‘Holy Grail’ for Horse Racing?’ were arrived at by using this selection method, which is NOT the case, although it arrives at the same conclusions.

From the subscribers page he had ‘cut’n’pasted’ then sorted yesterday’s Wolverhampton card in a spreadsheet by the last column i.e. LTO finishing speed by highest to lowest arriving at the following after non-runners had been removed:

(editted down to show the top half)

‘BJ’ (OK its not funny any more) removed the entries that were below the top rated in each race to produce his top 5:

As Brian suggested, retrospectively, by applying the same process to Mondays Wolverhampton card he arrived at the same selections as I had made for my Canadian:

Resulting in:

I have left Colombia in making 6 so I can punish myself when I look at it ;(  

If there were a note of caution it would be Wednesday at Chelmsford City and Kempton Park would have returned:

That said, my small stakes‘Canadian’ has been placed! Well 3 in fact, just in case this is a Wolverhampton thing! :/