PDF Changes…

For the first time in many months I've just printed off the Focus Ratings.

Normally I just review them on screen.

I now realise that I am wasting some space with the downloadable PDF files.

And, thus, I am costing you money (in printing costs.)

In order to to fit more information on the page I am proposing the following...

1). To make the left margin smaller. This will allow me to add additional information to the PDF. Now, I know that some for you are worried about too much clutter but there are metrics that I ought to be sharing with you; things like a horse's performance for a specific going over a certain distance (in my humble opinion, and backed by my statistics, the single most important measure of a horse's ability.)

2). To make the type size slightly smaller; once again, this will allow me to add more information in order to help you "Beat the Bookies."

3). Remove the "Footer" from each page (and move the page number to the top of each page.) This will allow me to fit 5 races to each page - thus, reducing the number of pages that you have to print.

So, what I'm asking you is this....

Does anyone have any objections to my doing the above?

You'll have less pages to print out (which will cost you less money?)

And I'll be able to share more information with you.

If there are any reasons why I shouldn't do this, please let me know.

By the way, I won't be introducing any changes to the CSV files (I know that some of you guys have automatic lookup tables that rely on the current format) - unless I've given you all plenty of warning (and sample examples) in advance.

R5 - The Future...

On a final note; I started implementing R5 (the new ratings) today.

I was very worried about this as I thought that I might, accidentally, break the whole system. Strangely enough, that didn't happen?

Although there is a vast amount of work (and testing) still to undergo, I am happy to say that R5 picked up a 13/2 winner in the 2:20 at Ffos Las that R4 didn't include.

And, in the 2:30 at York, R5 dropped 2 horses that R4 chose (and which didn't come in the top 4) and replaced them with 2 horses that came 2nd and 4th.

I've got a nice happy warm feeling that we're onto a winner with R5 - I'll keep you all updated (for you system punters, R4 will still be available even once we've moved to R5 as out standard ratings.)

It's been a very hard 3 months for me, doing the analysis in order to prepare for the migration to R5 (and the accompanying increase in ratings accuracy) and I'm sorry if I've not answered all of you emails as fast as I should have done.

I'll probably never commit to doing anything like this again (I really am getting too old for all this. This morning I started work at 3am (your time) and I'm still at it 15 hours later) but, knowing me, there'll almost certainly be an R6 tweak in about 6 to 9 months time?

However, I'm on the final stretch now and am looking forward to giving you all some really good news, very soon (maybe in about a month's time) about the improvements to the accuracy to the ratings,

Once again, I apologise to anyone whose emails I haven't answered; I really have been in Spreadsheet Hell!

If your email was important to you, please resend it and I'll make a point of answering it straight away.

My kindest regards