From time to time, we are pressed for opinions from members as to what best use can be made of our ratings and contender rankings. These requests range from general inquiries to questions as to which of our Selectors are the best to follow, or even questions regarding specific races. As we have indicated elsewhere, we do not wish to give specific wagering advice and recommend that you make use of the ratings and selections of the previous racing day to analyze the results and determine how well our rankings might fit your specific wagering style at your favorite track. For your entertainment, we may soon present guest selectors as example punters trying to choose specific simulcast cards and "EXOTIC" choices.
A number of members have asked about the RTG. They are intended to provide a quick summary of a horse's abilities compared to the rest of the field in respect to specific ratings that we have found to be reliable. In calculating these ratings we look primarily at plus factors, but also some negative indicators that would make a contender's likelihood of achieving a top result in the current race doubtful. Primarily these negative indicators relate to fitness and whether the running style seems to fit the race. The positive indicators are weighted consideration of the FTS, LR, EP, B2, LP, and AER rankings.
A member recently pointed out that he had been following the results of those horses that were rated with three pluses (+++) provided it was the only such horse in the race, with good results. He found it saved a lot of time handicapping, pointing to horses that should be favorites, but with a few coming in at good odds.
We decided to check it out, and so we have run a preliminary test from the beginning of February on the tracks that we are covering. This is still a relatively small sample, but you may wish to take a look for yourself, and try looking for other factors to improve the results. As a condition we insisted on Morning Line odds of 2 to 1 or higher. This is the best we can do since we are not at the track to see the odds when our ratings are presented
| TRACK | Number of races | Number of wins | Win% | Ave. Mutual | Return per $2 Win Bet |
| Aqueduct | 44 | 17 | 38.6% | $ 7.01 | $2.71 |
| Golden Gate | 56 | 19 | 33.9% | $10.58 | $3.59 |
| Gulfstream | 49 | 16 | 32.7% | $ 9.38 | $3.06 |
| Santa Anita | 59 | 10 | 16.9% | $ 7.46 | $1.26 |
| ALL TRACKS | 208 | 62 | 29.8% | $ 8.79 | $2.48 |
| Excluded where ML less than 2/1 |
39 | 17 | 43.6% | $ 3.95 | $1.72 |
This approach seems to do well at 3 of the 4 tracks and well over all, but it has not proven consistent at Santa Anita. (We are studying this).
Conservatively calculating the track take at 17% an expected ROI per $2.00 wager would be $1.66. These results, although based on a small sample, are easily beating the track take. Of course the test to win is to beat the $2.00 level. On average it is $2.48 with only one track running at a loss.
The win percentage for favorites is traditionally expected to be close to one third or 33.3%. Only one of the four tracks fell significantly below that standard.
There seem to be an average of 2 or 3 races per day per track where the RTG of +++ comes into play in non-maiden races. Again, most experts would agree that you should only find 2 or 3 races to play on a typical racecard.
Although we have found the returns too low on horses with Morning Line odds of less than 2 to 1, each such contender should be individually considered not only as a potential winner but as part of exotics. The winning percentage of this group is relatively higher though the average mutual, as expected, is lower.