is this the ultimate greyhound system???

[rooburger]

i was just flipping through some old ppm magazines from the 90,s and saw a feature article which went over 3 months about ex bookies who would use this system.
a dog meeting has 10 to 12 races. so that means a number has to be repeated. they would bet from race 2 the previous numbers until a win.
this was all done by percentages of outlay to a profit, a type of dutching i suppose.
just a quick look through current results and the average for a repeat was 3 to 4.
it looks feasable what do you guys think.
has anyone read or heard of this article?
just me thinking outside the square again.

[ubetido]

Hi

Have seen it go 6-7 races all different numbers. Now the 7th or 8th one would have to repeat wouldn't it.

What if you got odds on dogs in there etc

Crunch the numbers and whilst it appears good on the surface i reckon plenty of safety valves required.

Cheers
ubetido

[partypooper]

Rooburger, an interesting one this, there was a variation as well i.e. any dog/trap that wins twice usually wins a third time, (STRESS I HAVE NOT done the figures there as it was from the UK) but worth some investigation.

But getting back to your post, one thing I like about this is: it is a downright certainty that 1 trap has to repeat, followed by the fact as Ubetido pointed out that it could be 1-10.

But I still believe that if you're using a cover to win staking plan, it is possible to make a profit OVERALL, but there would still be losing days as it could not possibly always go your way (odds wise)

My idea here is to always bet to a minimum price of 2-1, i.e. if one of the "investments is below 2-1, back it as if it was 2-1, YES of course sometimes it WILL win and your return is less than your target, BUT on the flip side bet anything above 8-1 as if it was 8-1.

So when that longshot gets in at 25-1 you make the killing and hopefully offset the times when you bet the 4-6 winner with not enough invested.

Does that make sense? going for the average in other words.

An interesting variation, applying the idea to horses, is this, most winners come from TAB nos 1-6, so you only consider these runners - the top 6 TAB numbers (AFTER SCRATCHINGS)
so therfore with a usual of 8 races the fact is that one number will probably repeat.
Just did a quick check to see if it worked today, and it did EVERY meeting including Perth trots tonight

Make no mistake, it WILL happen that no numbers 1-6 will win in races 2-7, hardly ever BUT it will happen, so your staking has to take that substancial loss into consideration offset againts the times when you back a 50-1 winners as a 8-1 shot, I guess like all systems there is an element of luck, and an element of risk.

[Chrome Prince]

Yes I know of it, the odds kill you though.

In theory it works, but in practice....well, you know.

As suggested, all goes well until you're backing odds on dogs, two or three losers in a row and you're peddling home on a stolen tricycle!

Try this....

You need nads of steel and a big bank.

You need to be on track also.

Pick up any newspaper any day, any week, any year, and you'll be hard pressed to find a dog meeting anywhere, where a favourite never won.

Back the favourite as they are loading them into the boxes (before the green light comes on).

Keep doing this until a winner is struck, and go home.

I don't recommend it, but it works.

The reason I dropped it is that you could go 6 or 8 races and then the winner pays $1.50 or $1.10 or there's a bloomin' deadheat.

Very hard to do it, but it can be done if you put the big money on the line.

You need to bank your winnings away from the punting bank, and if you blow the punting bank ever, call it quits and walk away.

I did....and yes, I did :(

[partypooper]

Rooburger and Chrome, hope you don't mind me digressing slightly here, as Chromes post reminded me why I am still here looking for the holy grail, problem is as always that the killer run is just that a "KILLER" I tried cover to win (or Target betting here) for a long "successful" time in the UK, but alas as many b4 me, came a cropper, but I have to say mainly because of bad management , i.e. no safety brakes in place, and a personality that follows through , (thick and thin) these days I am much more conservative and I have to admit quietly successfull! to boot!

[Duritz]

I remember that article.

For one insane year of my life I subscribed to PPM magazine. It is an anaesthetic to thought. It is like racings Jerry Springer, without the t*ts.

PPM magazine appeals to people who can't see it for what it is - a load of crap. Uninformed, fudged, mathematically unsound lies.

Anyway, rather than just relying on rhetoric myself, I'll tell you why that system must lose long term:

Eventually, you're going to get to the situation where the 8th race is required to get the collect. IE, eventually you're going to have to back every dog in the field. So, the system by the oracles at PPM says, back every dog in the field for profit.

Genius! Why hadn't I thought of that! In fact, if it's that easy, why aren't we all backing every dog in the field for profit in every race!!!

Because there's a little thing called percentages, which ensures you can't. In short, eventually you're going to get to a situation where it is impossible to back every dog in the race for profit, which will of course mean that it is therefore impossible to recoup the losses from the previous seven races on the card. Then, what you are, is a little word that rhymes with "trucked". And you're right regally "trucked".

Say you're trying to win a measly $20 on the night. Say that's your goal. First race, you watch it go by, #1 dog wins. So, second race, you back #1 dog, price $3.50. To win your $20 you therefore have $8 on him.

He gets beat, a mere dogs ball by #2. So, next race, you back #1 and #2, to profit $20 PLUS the $8 you lost on the first. #1 is showing $2.50 and #2 is showing $6. Without going into the maths as to why, you have $26 on #1 and $11 on #2. Total outlay $37.

Dammit. They ran second and third, to #3. OK, so your now down $46. You need to collect that, plus win your $20, so your target on the next is now $66, and you're backing numbers 1,2 and 3.

OK, so, odds are (Oh yeah and this is dogs remember, you don't know what odds they'll be until after the race, often by many points but we'll forget that and assume you know their final price several minutes before the jump, just for the benefit of that wonderful piece of toilet paper known as PPM), so odds are #1 $4.00, #2 $12, #3 $8. Thank God some roughies, we could have been in trouble.

Anyway, with those odds you need to outlay $56 on the race - $30 on #1, $10 on #2 and $15 on #3. Whichever of those three dogs wins, you'll collect $122, for a profit of $66 on the race, minus the $46 you've lost in two races so far, for a profit of $20.

Unfortunately, #4 gets up (it was the fave, after all you were on outsiders mainly). So, next race you're chasing $102 of losses so far, and of course your $20 profit (don't forget that, it's the reason we're here at Dapto after all), making a total of $122 profit required, and you have to get that by backing dog numbers 1,2,3 and 4.

OK, so, after returning from our time machine with Marty McFly we're able to know the final prices in advance for the upcoming 5th race, and they are as follows:

#1 - $2.30
$2 - $6.00
#3 - $10.00
#4 - $5.00

Bit of percentage in those four. Numbers 5,6,7 are all outsiders, and #8 is in the market.

So, anyway, we crunch the numbers happily enough, because with those four dogs running for us, one of them will surely win and we'll walk away with $20 profit.

So, in order to get it, this is how much we must have on each:

#1 - $538
#2 - $206
#3 - $124
#4 - $248

for a total outlay of $1,116 on the race. Should any of those four dogs win, you'll collect a healthy $1238, for a profit on the race of $122, which will cover your $102 losses so far and your required $20 profit on the night. When one of them gets up, you can use $5 of the $20 to buy yourself a large shot of whiskey.

So, after #3 takes #2 out at the first bend, and #4 misses the kick, it's a race in two between #1 and #5... and unfortunately #5 wins by a short half can of Pal.

Hmmm. Bit of a loss there.

Never mind though, we've got the system behind us and the infallability of the brains at PPM backing us every step of the way. They've researched this method. It's sound. If it weren't, they wouldn't dare publish it in such a reputable magazine as PPM.

So, our confidence renewed and the DeLorian time machine on idle, we return with the final prices once more for the next race, the sixth. We sit down next to Ma and Pa Kettle in the grandstand, who tell us that they like the #6 dog, because it has "Bale" at the end of its name. We roll our eyes, how can they be so naive?

So, we now need to make $1238 on this upcoming race in order to make a profit of $20 on the night. With that, here are the prices:

#1 - $4.00
#2 - $9.00
#3 - $26.00
#4 - $6.00
#5 - $5.00

OK, so with those odds, here's what me must have on each dog in order to make our $1238 on the race, so we can walk away with $20 profit:

#1 - $1324
#2 - $588
#3 - $204
#4 - $883
#5 - $1059

for a total outlay of $4058. So, you borrow $4000 of Ma and Pa Kettle's retirement fund and punt up, knowing with surety that you're about to win your $20 for the night.

Unfortunately, Ma and Pa Kettle were right. #6 did win. Now, we have $5296 profit we need to make on the next race in order to get our $20. Our nerves are a bit frayed. We owe Ma and Pa Kettle $4000 and we don't know how we'll pay. $4000 is 200 winning nights at $20 each. That's more than half the year, every night, of winning nights, and we haven't even lasted the first yet.

Fortunately, the barman "shouts" us a large shot of whiskey. It was needed.

So, tentatively we step into/out of the DeLorian again with final tote prices for a race that hasn't yet run, the next, and calculate what we need to outlay, given that we're backing dogs 1-6.

Here's the totes in full:

1 - $4.5
2 - $8
3 - $11
4 - $27
5 - $19
6 - $10
7 - $20
8 - $2.0

OK, so, backing dogs 1-6, here's what we have on them:

1 - $3162
2 - $1779
3 - $1294
4 - $527
5 - $749
6 - $1423

for a total outlay on the race of $8,933. That's OK though, because as soon as one of the 6 out of 8 dogs that you've backed wins the race, you'll collect back $14,229, be able to repay Ma and Pa Kettle their $4,000, and you will walk out of here a cool $20 richer. Let the good times roll.

OK, so you mortgage your kneecaps and firstborn son to Louie the local Mafia rep to borrow $9,000 and you head to Mavis at the tote window (who by now is regarding you with pity), and you outlay nearly $9,000 on the 7th race at Dapto dogs, spread over 6 dogs.

You realise, as they load the dogs into the boxes and you take your seat in the stands, that one of them really needs to win. If it doesn't, not only are you down $14,209 on the evening, your kneecaps are in jeopardy, your firstborn is in danger and Ma and Pa Kettle are polishing up their best whoopin boots.

You console yourself, however, and fortify yourself, with the words you read on the pages of PPM, that wonderful magazine that would surely not advocate a dangerous system. That rock upon which all punters lean while formulating their "PPM Gold Bets" and "adding another method to their stable", that bible which, for some reason, you've never seen anyone of any note in the racing industry every holding. But that doesn't matter, because they assured you, in its glossy pages, that this method worked. They argued that a group of old ex-bookies use this system. (Did anyone ever ask why they were "ex" bookies, and not bookies? Wouldn't be a distinct lack of ability with figures, perchance?)

So, as the dogs jump, you're confident again. PPM has renewed your faith. You are certain that $20 is about to come your way. Rounding the first bend, as the favourite, #8, surges to the front, your smile falters only slightly. It WILL work, you tell yourself, because PPM told me so. Down the back, as the commentator alerts us to the fact that it's a new track record first split, you nervously glance over your shoulder at Louie the Mafia Rep, who is cracking his knuckles. Rounding the home bend, as #8 surges clear by 20 lengths, you vomit on Ma and Pa Kettle in front of you. Mentally, $100 jumps onto the bill for their dry cleaning.

When the next race rolls around, you don't bother starting up the DeLorian to get the totes. You know that you can't win. You have to back dog numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8. And, looking at the early totes, #7 is a 50/1 outsider. So, whilst you will certainly get the winner, it is mathematically impossible to back all those seven dogs and make a profit.

Forlornly, you try to sell the DeLorian, but no-one's buying. No-one wants a car that was driven by a loser.

As you walk out of the grandstand at the Dapto dogs, head hung low, Ma and Pa Kettle collect their 50c trifecta ticket, while Louie the Mafia Rep tails you towards the parking lot, a large baseball bat in his hands. Then, as the hits rain down on your head in the parking lot, and blood begins leaking from your ears and eyes, as consciousness fades, three letters run through your mind, over and over again: PPM, PPM, PPM......

[partypooper]

Duritz, thanks for that and so quickly as well! hee hee, every thing you say is true, but remember that 1 thing remains true also : that trap HAS to repeat, so YES it cannot be done in the way you described, cos we aint got that much ball! but there is some variations that could fit the bill of people so inclined.
Needless to say I gave this one up long ago, NOT because it couldn't work but just because my balls have defininitly shrunk after many such tries?? hee hee , appologies in advance to our sister investors here!! hahah! (squeaky hee hee)

PS .Thought I'd better get this one in quick b4 post your dissappears, trading on dangerous ground there, but one has to wonder why?????

[partypooper]

Duritz, I already knew you were a man of my own "humour" but after reading that again, I must say "WELL done" though I hope you know of my PPM sytsem?? (Partypoopers Plum Movers) which continually thrashes the **************s???? if not, e-mail me at lumbasakabayo@hotmail.com

[ubetido]

Great stuff Duritz its exactly what can and will happen. Of course try to get those bets on is next to ridiculous anyway but they failed to mention that in the drawn out week after week of snippets so one would buy the magazine.

Certainly not one for the very very nervous.

WHY WOULD A BOOKIE OR EX BOOKIE TELL A PUNTER HOW TO WIN? DERR


Cheers
ubetido

[Chrome Prince]

I should add that it wasn't the system that didn't work, it was the odds.

I had a long run of outs on the night followed by an odds on winner in a deadheat (half divvie), then amazingly it happened a week later. This did not happen for years prior though, that's why I said it works.

I packed it up at that stage, because the bookie laughed in my face as he was paying out considerably less than I put on, and I was at risk of doing something silly.

[ubetido]

Hi Chrome

Yep thats right the theory is correct but the odds kill it.

I recall a person betting the fav. in every race irrespective of price at Angle Park. This was a loss chase type of bet with a target in mind. This was a few years ago whe there were some bookies there and were not afraid to take the bets.

I Heard that normally he won and very confident. Always had wads of notes in his hands.

One night it all went so bad. Fav won the last at 1/2. You do the Math.

cheers
ubetido

[Skater]

Yep been there dont doesn't work. With this one you are relying on luck.
It does make sense that numbers should repeat and they do but it could be a long time before repeats occur and then at skinny odds.
This will brek your BANK..... my suggestion is to give it a go yourselfs and see how long you last?

Skater

[Bhagwan]

Just for the exercise ,
Target race nine only useing the previous winning numbers from races 1-8
See if a profit is possible .
I feel the odds will kill the punter.

Cheers.

[rooburger]

some great replies. this is why i still come back to this forum after all this time.
as i saw it the odds would make it hard to acheive a long term strike rate. may be a hit an run only.
i still have a laugh at the ppm "bible"
parlay on boys

[darkydog2002]

George "barker " Bellfield used to write quite a few articles on Greyhound betting in PPM some years back.
He had some great ideas .
Not sure if he writes for them now but Back copies of his articles would surely be available.
I would start at the old PPM ANNUALS as they had the BEST of the lot in them.

As an aside. Has anyone heard if the proffessional greyhound punter "Joe of Ararat"is still around.

Cheers.
darky.

[Duritz]

Joe of Ararat? You sure you don't mean Yudid Havafat? He was also known as Jheezi Needidat.

Actually, he had a friend, too, name of Mitur Binisdirty.

[kenchar]

Duritz,

Luv your sense of humour.

Actually I think all those gentlemen you quoted frequent the Granville tab.
I know of one there called Ivneva Crakafat which is awfully close in the surname to one of the ones you quoted, maybe they are related.

[jacfin]

Bin Larfen so hard
Mustafa Liq

[partypooper]

Dare I say, don't forget the constipated one , Mustafa Kakka

[Duritz]

Lol we may as well title all of these threads, "Waffle"!

Who would like to go to the funeral this afternoon of the last serious thing said on this site!

[Shaun]

Just to add to this topic because i am bored.....that was writen a long time ago about 10 years if i am correct and the bookies that were stated i think operated in the early 70s.
Things were a bit different back then they would get different prices from different bookies as to keep the percentages under 100% they also played on the fact that would get the winner earlier in the races when the percentages were in there favour rather than later we all know what would happen if you get to the last race with this idea.

[Duritz]

Donate this method DOES NOT WORK. I don't know how clearly it needs to be spelled out, read my post from earlier, this method is MATHEMATICALY CERTAIN to fail long term. You will LOSE on it long term. And you may kill yourself.

[Mad Gambler]

I'm curious. Can you please tell me how to work out the amount to bet on each dog. You have got me wondering. An example.

Mad Gambler

[Duritz]

OK mad gambler here's how you work that out. Say you've got to back three dogs, to profit $100, and they are showing the following odds

A - $3.50
B - $5.00
C - $10.00

Work out each of their percentages, which is done by dividing their price into 100, then turn it into a decimal. So, it is -

A - 100/3.5 = 28 (rounding these) = 0.28 as a decimal
b - 100/5 = 20 = 0.2 as a decimal
c - 100/10 = 0.1 as a decimal.

Total the decimals. In this case, it equals 0.28+0.2+0.1 = 0.58.

Turn that figure back into odds, to do this simply divide the decimal into 1. So, it's 1/0.58 = $1.72.

Therefore, the sum chance of all three of your runners combined is $1.72 that one of them will win.

So, you need to know how much you'd have on a $1.72 chance to win $100. To work that out, divide the price - 1 into 100. In this case: 100/(1.72-1) or 100/0.72, which equals $139. So, you've got to have $139 on to win $100. We can see this is right because if you had $139 on something at $1.72, your collect would be $239, for a profit of $100.

So, your outlay for the race will be $139 to profit $100. Last thing to work out is how much on each dog.

Given that the sum total of their decimal chances is 0.58, then you know that the $139 will be divided across that 0.58 chance. Simple way to work out how much on each, therefore, is divide each dogs decimal chance into the sum of all the decimal chances, and multiply this by the total outlay.

Simply put -

A - dec chance = 0.28, bet size = 0.28/0.58 * $139, or 0.48*$139, or $67.
B - dec chance = 0.2, bet size = 0.2/0.58 * $139, or 0.34*$139, or $48
C - dec chance = 0.1, bet size = 0.1/0.58 * $139, or 0.17*$139, or $24

So, A has a bet of $67, B has $48, C has $24, for a total of $139.

To check the maths, if any of them should win, you'd collect:

A: $67*3.5 = $235, minus the outlay = profit $96 (below $100 because I rounded the decimal at the start)
B: $48 at $5.00 = $240, for a profit of $101 (again, rounding of A to blame for the $1 discrepancy)
C: $24 at $10 = $240, for a profit of $101.

If you'd done the maths to proper decimals etc you'd end up with figures pretty much right on $100, but I couldn't be buggered typing those decimals.

So, that's how you do it.

Now - the reason this system WON'T WORK, is because sooner or later, the more dogs you have to back, eventually the sum total of your decimals will be greater than 1.0. When that is the case, it is IMPOSSIBLE to back all of them and win. That's just the simple true maths of percentages and odds.

If you don't believe me, go to a TAB website, choose a dog race. Work out how much you'd need to have on #1 to win $100. Then, work out how much on #1 and #2 combined, using the above method. Then, use #1,2,3 combined. Continue in this manner, and you'll see that when the percentages get above 100% (decimal above 1.0), you're SCREWED. LOST your BANK, and possibly your HOUSE.

This system is DANGEROUS, and should not be used, not in ANY form.

[KennyVictor]

Heh, heh, just read your post on page 1 Duritz, pure gold.
KV

[baco60]

Duritz,
You definitely are waffler of the year. Remind me of gr-----.

[Sportz]

OK mad gambler here's how you work that out. Say you've got to back three dogs, to profit $100, and they are showing the following odds

A - $3.50
B - $5.00
C - $10.00

Work out each of their percentages, which is done by dividing their price into 100, then turn it into a decimal. So, it is -

A - 100/3.5 = 28 (rounding these) = 0.28 as a decimal
b - 100/5 = 20 = 0.2 as a decimal
c - 100/10 = 0.1 as a decimal.

Total the decimals. In this case, it equals 0.28+0.2+0.1 = 0.58.

Turn that figure back into odds, to do this simply divide the decimal into 1. So, it's 1/0.58 = $1.72.

Therefore, the sum chance of all three of your runners combined is $1.72 that one of them will win.

So, you need to know how much you'd have on a $1.72 chance to win $100. To work that out, divide the price - 1 into 100. In this case: 100/(1.72-1) or 100/0.72, which equals $139. So, you've got to have $139 on to win $100. We can see this is right because if you had $139 on something at $1.72, your collect would be $239, for a profit of $100.

So, your outlay for the race will be $139 to profit $100. Last thing to work out is how much on each dog.

Given that the sum total of their decimal chances is 0.58, then you know that the $139 will be divided across that 0.58 chance. Simple way to work out how much on each, therefore, is divide each dogs decimal chance into the sum of all the decimal chances, and multiply this by the total outlay.

Simply put -

A - dec chance = 0.28, bet size = 0.28/0.58 * $139, or 0.48*$139, or $67.
B - dec chance = 0.2, bet size = 0.2/0.58 * $139, or 0.34*$139, or $48
C - dec chance = 0.1, bet size = 0.1/0.58 * $139, or 0.17*$139, or $24

So, A has a bet of $67, B has $48, C has $24, for a total of $139.

To check the maths, if any of them should win, you'd collect:

A: $67*3.5 = $235, minus the outlay = profit $96 (below $100 because I rounded the decimal at the start)
B: $48 at $5.00 = $240, for a profit of $101 (again, rounding of A to blame for the $1 discrepancy)
C: $24 at $10 = $240, for a profit of $101.

If you'd done the maths to proper decimals etc you'd end up with figures pretty much right on $100, but I couldn't be buggered typing those decimals.

So, that's how you do it.

This system is DANGEROUS, and should not be used, not in ANY form.

No worries, Duritz. By the time anybody goes through all of that, the race will be over anyway and they'll have saved their money!

[Duritz]

Yeah well that is the other aspect - without a computer it's impossibly time consuming, esp given that the odds change so quickly. And even then, you can't operate it successfully b/c the odds on dog racing change far too much in the last 30 seconds and after they jump.

KV - cheers!

[partypooper]

"THEY" tell me that although there is a difference in individual races regarding SP v Pre-Post odds, in actual fact there is very little difference "ON AVERAGE", so................ it follows that is Pre-post odds are taken it is possible to operate this thing. Sure sometimes the odds are wrong and you come unstuck but ON AVERAGE the odds are also over sometimes which evens things out????

[Duritz]

Even if that's true, PP, you'll still end up doing your bank when it takes too long to repeat. Guaranteed. There is NO escaping that, no matter what. Even if you happily win your $20 for 365 days straight, on the 366th you can quite easily give back your whole $7320 profit if you miss the winner.