trainers wit 2horses lesser fancied wins especially gav smit ,bass,even de kok ,irish maid , storm crossing,i include all coplings in jptj

Never forget that bookmakers' prices and betting markets in general are only an indicator (frequently a bad one) of what the outcome of a race is expected to be. As we all know, it's not easy. If you and I get it wrong frequently, why should everyone else be better at it? There are many instances where my own preference of a trainer's horses in a race (where he or she has more than one runner) is not the one which is priced up the shortest.

One recent example is from the Vaal two days ago, where I made the winner Gold Site the best of the three Paul Peter runners in his particular race (although I didn't make him my outright selection) but stablemate Winter's Song was priced up favourite. My reasoning was that a) Gold Site is a 1000m specialist and ran over 1160m the time before, and b) that Winter's Song is a sand horse. Whoever did the pricing up saw it differently - so what? It hardly proves that there was any conniving by the yard!

In any case, I'd be much more worried about the state of racing if the shortest priced horse from a stable with multple runners in a race always came out on top. That would be strong evidence of something being manipulated somewhere, because in an even reasonably honest contest it is impossible for that to happen naturally every time. Furthermore, there are two more things to bear in mind. Every horse in every race has somebody's money running on it, and every horse in every race is supposed to be trying. Now we all know that the latter is not always true, but the fact remains that I would much rather see the allegedly "wrong" one win from time to time. If a well backed horse won every race the sport would soon go belly up anyway, because difference of opinion about a horse's chances is exactly what drives betting markets and therefore drives racing as a whole. To make it too predictable would be to kill it stone dead.

we can all talk and discuss a lot. but statistics at least, tell us their own truth. i worked out for some wekeks now this : i gave from 1 point (f.e. "should have a good chance to place" = 3.place = 1 to 3 points, depending from the odds, because is it quite more difficult to say this about a horse which has shown nothing to date) to 10 points (will win = 1. place), and -1 (can place for a favorite, which is then 4. f.e.) unto -10 (will win= not in the first 4) and so on. i included also "signs" of the trainers (best horse of the day, first jockey on, and so on, but carefully). i still have to go on, as it is difficult tro get always informations. but yes, it is true, newturf is on the second place with average points of 3 (17 out of 7 prognoses, don't forget, they can get -10 for wrong prognoses), which is high above avergae, f.e. mike bass is at -0,6 so far. one trainer is the last (-2,2), but i keep my secrets close so far, everybody can it see himself if watching regulary races from SAF

Weeks? saldiani,you have to base stats on years imo..

maybe