Advice required : Am I testing my system correctly?

[wesmip1]

Hi,

I am new to all of this and had a couple of questions which I hope you can answer.

1. When do you know the system is good enough to use ?
2. How many races are acceptable for testing before using a system ?

I am just asking as I have been testing a system I devised. It was based on analysis of races over a 1 month period ( back with 2003 data )

I then ran the system over various time frames in the future ( During 2004 and 2005) and it has performed well.

Is this how I should be testing systems ? (ie I have not back fitted to the best combination over the last few years).

Without giving away too much detail on the system, the figures it has produced are :

These figures are based on an even staking plan of 1% of bank per race.

Avg bets per week : 15
WIN strike rate : 43%
Avg WIN POT % : 21%
Place strike Rate : 82%
Avg place POT % : 39%

I have tested this manually on over 500 Bets at different time frames (different months, years )

Should I start to use the system live ? Or do I need more testing. My inital estimate for testing was 1000 bets but since I do this manually it can take forever to input all of the required data. Another 500 bets could take me 2-3 weeks input.

Also is there any other way I should be testing ? I thought taking the system over various timeframes would be the best way before running it live.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

[KennyVictor]

Looks to me like your basic approach is pretty sound, avoiding backfitting and testing over various timeframes. A ball park figure of 1000 bets is what I would use as a minimum testing area but there are guys here with more statistics knowledge than I who will advise you better with reference to your strike rate etc.
How are you testing? I read you are inputing the data so I assume you are testing on a computer in some way. If so there are CSV files (data separated with commas) of results on a few sites which you may be able to download and put into your system for testing.
Sounds like a good system so far, though how you derived it based on the results of 1 month's races I've no idea. Best of luck anyway.

KV

[beton]

If you are comfortable with your selection process then are you currently running the system on paper. are the results consistent? Then go with it with small bets building up in line with your winnings. If you are not running the system on paper then do so. If the results are not consistant then back to the drawing board, Best of luck Beton

[Guitar Jim]

Just going on your results data alone, I can see some serious problems with your system.

Firstly, a win strike rate of 43% never has, and never will, produce a *permanent* POT of 21%. You can get that type of POT over 100 or 500 or 1000 etc races BUT, and this is immensely important to understand, the figures MUST eventually even out...... during this evening out process which is inevitable, you must be in loss, not profit.
A 43% strike rate (which IS definitely permanently achieveable) will normally produce a marginal loss over the very long term, regardless of staking methods used. A very smart professional, who's on the ball and extremely diligent may, just may, scratch out a 1% or 2 % POT on a *permanent* basis from a strike rate of 43%.

There's another serious problem with your results..... it's the high place strike rate. A *genuine and permanent* 43% win strike rate should be accompanied by a lower place strike rate than your 82%. If it's not then it shows there is fault with the win selection method used. So, *Long term* that 43% win strike rate will most likely come down by several percent........ and that will guarantee a long term loss of several percent on turnover.

Wish I could bring better news..... but those are the facts.

[Shaun]

There is nothing like real time testing....i have nothing against testing on paper and i know those that will test 1000s of races trends change and so do betting habits....get a bank together something you are comfortable with loseing and go for it....start out small...like $100 bank betting 2% if you can make a profit and maintain it then increase the bank and increase the bets.....this is the only way to know....many systems work great on paper but in the betting ring the punter is the one to fall apart.

[wesmip1]

All,

Thanks for the input. I will run it over a lot more data before I go real time.
I will heed Guitar Jim's advice and see how it goes over a longer period of data. I might aim for 2000 or 3000 bets before taking the results seriously.

If I am happy at that stage I will take it live and see how it fairs.
Hopefully I will be confident enough in it at that stage to ride the ups and downs if and only if it is in profit.

If anyone has anymore advice please post it ... the more advice the better.

Thanks everyone.

[Mark]

I agree with Shaun, and for what it's worth, paper trading is a waste of time & effort. Nowhere in paper trading are the emotional ups & downs factored in. If you think your method has a chance of survival, put down the cold hard cash, and start this Saturday, don't delay.

[Guitar Jim]

Probably your best way to make a profit from this is to actually take a *gamble*.

A system with a nice, high strike rate of around 43% will go through periods where profit may be taken (depending on when one starts betting and when one finishes betting). It will also go through periods of loss. It's impossible to precisely predict where the profit surges happen and where the loss stages happen.

My advice is start betting small, it's not worth risking large money. Pick any date to start your actual, real world betting; then immediately pick a specific date to finish betting. If at the end of that finish date you are in front, even if it is just $1 in front, then stop using your system for good: *Never use it again*....... that is the only way to guarantee a profit. If at the end of the finish date you are in loss, then also stop using the system for good: Accept the loss and NEVER chase that loss.

That's the best chance you'll have of success. .

[KennyVictor]

I'm always a bit intimidated by people who talk with such authority, I guess I take people at face value to easily, but what you say here Guitar Jim appears to me to be a whole load of cobblers (and I mean that in the nicest possible way - I'm not looking to start a slanging match).
Now it's possible you're a mathematical genius or know of things I don't but on the surface I can see little logic in what you say.
Why can't a strike rate of 43%, or any other percent for that matter if the average divvy is right, produce a permanent POT of 21%. Without knowing more about how his system works I don't see any way you can make this statement.
Why should a 43% win strike rate be accompanied by a lower than 82% place strike rate. To me that seems very reasonable. If he picks the winner 43% of the time he has 57% of races left. If he gets the next best horse in 43% of them that means he is 1st or second in 43 + (0.43 x 57) = 67.5%. If he gets the next best horse in 43 % of the remaining 32.5% of races he has 1, 2 or 3 in 81.5% of races.
Finally you say use the system and if you are winning at the end of a set period stop using it. If he is only a dollar ahead maybe yes, improve it if he can, but if he is well ahead keep going. That's what the system is for.
What I do agree with is start betting small. I've tested systems with dollar bets. It makes it so much more real. There is no saying I would have done this or I wouldn't have done that if I was using real money - which you can say if you are playing on paper. If you make 20% using dollar bets there's no reason you can't make it using bigger bets (nerve and personality not withstanding).

Anyway, sorry to be so disagreeable Guitar Jim. I wait to be enlightened as to your thought processes. What sort of guitar do you play? I've got a Strat.

KV

[marcus25]

I'm always a bit intimidated by people who talk with such authority
KV
Agreed KV. Feel the same myself.
Why shoot someone's ideas down without knowing all the details?
As to making noise? I play the clarinet and the sax, looks like we have the making of a band here?

[Guitar Jim]

The basic maths involved in horse selection dictate that the higher the win % is , the lower the average dividend will be. This is totally unavoidable. It's impossible to overcome.... not one punter who has ever lived has found a way to achieve higher average dividends in conjunction with a higher win %. For example, and this is an extreme example just to make the point clearer, a permanent win strike rate of about 50% will NEVER deliver equal or higher average dividends, on a permanent basis, compared to the same punter utilising a method that delivers a permanent win strike rate of about 15%. It's mathematically impossible; the odds are so far against this happening on a permanent basis that it would make winning Lotto look easy.
****It's all about averages and the mathematics that apply to the subject.**** That's worth repeating a thousand times, every day of the week: the law of averages applies to all wins and all places and all dividends. When that's properly understood the punter then stops battering his head against a brick wall; he then realises his ONLY chance of a *permanent* profit is to work the percentages and aim for around that 1% or 2% POT based on thoroughly researched selections and betting techniques...... that's what a successful professional does and it gives one by FAR the best chance of all.
If one is a hobby punter, has his gambling well under control and bets very small and for entertainment, then all this doesn't really matter much to him. It's his hobby and he's entitled to do it any way he chooses, and I support that right.
The general rule of thumb is; the higher the win strike rate, the lower the average dividend (I'm talking long term here.... meaning year after year after year etc etc).
Also, keep in mind that there is no system that has not been invented. It's all been done before over the previous few hundred years; the data and methods are just re-arranged and re-arranged and re-arranged and re-arranged.... decade after decade after decade. Computer technology is totally incapable of picking more winners at better prices....... the ONLY use computers have is in the easy collection of data; computers make it soooooooo much easier it almost defies belief. BUT, computers won't turn you into a winner: They just make certain things easier.

I play a lap slide, hollowneck, Hawaiian acoustic guitar. Been playing nearly 40 years now.

I made the comments about the system printed because I know, from decades of experience, and thus just by looking at those results figures alone, that it will be guaranteed to produce a small percentage loss on turnover LONG TERM...... providing responsible betting techniques are used. If responsible, professional, betting techniques are not used then any method can, and usually will, end in disaster... long term.

[KennyVictor]

The basic maths involved in horse selection dictate that the higher the win % is , the lower the average dividend will be. This is totally unavoidable. It's impossible to overcome....

Now this is where I disagree with you. If you said the empirical evidence suggests.... yadee yadee yada.. I would agree with you, but, and I'm going to use an extreme case here also:
What if Nev the Nobbler's method of selection is to give one horse in a meeting something to make it go faster. Unconventional I admit, but judging by the number of short priced favorites who come last in the first race in WA I suggest it's possible, he would defy the usual returns on his bets.
I agree with your basic argument but I don't think you can say that maths decree it. Too many people on this forum are too definite about what others can and can't do with their selections. It is possible to come up with something new.

KV

[marcus25]

computers won't turn you into a winner: They just make certain things easier.
To be fair, I totally agree with you , on the above statement.
But I still reserve my judgement on the veracity of your argument re. dismissing other's ideas out of hand without knowing all the details on the grounds of statistics. How do you know that someone could not achieve the strikerate AND
POT he claimed? After all it would be just part of the overall statistic, an anomaly to be sure, but not necessarily impossible. What statisticians do, is to ignore the anomalies, because it is outside of the norm. Normaly it works OK but we are talking here about highly volatile "data" if you an call it that? It is no more or less an opinion in the final analisys.
Now, If you are talking about systems, concernig PP or starting prices, pools, etc that is a different matter alltogether .

[Guitar Jim]

Marcus, I'm not saying that he, or anyone else, has not or can't achieve the strike rate and POT mentioned (in the short term).

What I AM saying is that the combination of the said strike rate and POT is unsustainable in the *long term*.

For example, if a losing method is run for let's say 10 years, within that 10 year period there's bound to be periods (if these periods are considered separately, and not part of the whole 10 years) where a profit happens, where the strike rate will be sensational and be accompanied by unusually high dividends. If someone peruses one of those periods, in isolation to the full 10 year period, it can seem like a way has been found to beat the odds...... to get a great strike rate combined with big dividends. So....... the ONLY way, the only *accurate* way, to judge any method is to judge it's performance over incredibly lengthy periods and over many, many thousands of actual real world bets. When that is done, the overall law of averages then initially begins to assert it's dominance, and it's impossible to avoid this.
When the averages and percentages eventually show their hand in full , and a punter is STILL in front, then that punter is doing something right.

[marcus25]

Marcus, I'm not saying that he, or anyone else, has not or can't achieve the strike rate and POT mentioned (in the short term).

What I AM saying is that the combination of the said strike rate and POT is unsustainable in the *long term*.

For example, if a losing method is run for let's say 10 years, within that 10 year period there's bound to be periods (if these periods are considered separately, and not part of the whole 10 years) where a profit happens, where the strike rate will be sensational and be accompanied by unusually high dividends. If someone peruses one of those periods, in isolation to the full 10 year period, it can seem like a way has been found to beat the odds...... to get a great strike rate combined with big dividends. So....... the ONLY way, the only *accurate* way, to judge any method is to judge it's performance over incredibly lengthy periods and over many, many thousands of actual real world bets. When that is done, the overall law of averages then initially begins to assert it's dominance, and it's impossible to avoid this.
When the averages and percentages eventually show their hand in full , and a punter is STILL in front, then that punter is doing something right.

Statistically speaking, I have to agree with you, BUT there is always a BUT,
neither you or I know how many bets he, she is putting in, it maybe a small number with a high strikerate and return? I am not an argumentative man by nature so please do not construe this as a start of an argument, I am simply pointing out that in horseracing a lot of things can, and DO happen that fall outside of quantifyable parameters.
As I said, if we are talking about prices, pools, number of starters and the relationship of all of those, then we can put it into a statistical table and analyse the data.
I mentioned before in an other thread that I know someone who has no knowledge of computers, statistics etc. but he is WINNING, He has paid for his house, paid for his two daughter's university education out of punting. You can meet him at the Caulfield TAB every day, he is only doing it for fun now being over 70, sometimes he would not bet for days and suddenly $200 on the nose! He is still very cagey about how he does it, but he has (as far as I could gather) the same sort of approach as Punter57, that is, he is following trainers, and the placing of horses in the right races. And this is my point. How do you put all this info into statistical tables?
Cheers

[partypooper]

KV I've only got a few years results but the first race in WA is coming up with 29% winning favs, this would be about normal wouldn't it?

[Dale]

Wesmip1,

I'm a little concerned that you have only tested over different time frames,why havent you tested day after day week after week,if i was you i would pick a start date and test continualy from there on in,testing random months days weeks will prove absolutely nothing.

Guitar Jim,

Please explain what it is you are doing in the SYSTEM forum iof you do not believe in systems,if you think you are providing a service and saving all us miserable gamblers from damnation dont bother,i dont need or want saving and i am sure i'm not alone.

You have a very good understanding of maths but unless you understand the important requiremnts each individual system asks of its selections there is absolutely no way you can say things like

"Firstly, a win strike rate of 43% never has, and never will, produce a *permanent* POT of 21%"

or

"There's another serious problem with your results..... it's the high place strike rate. A *genuine and permanent* 43% win strike rate should be accompanied by a lower place strike rate than your 82%"

The place % statement just reeks of a mathematican with no understanding of horses and how individual system rules can impact on the type of animal you end up betting on.

I also have my doubts about these %'s standing up long term but their chance of doing so is totaly dependent on THE SYSTEM RULES and not maths.

I repeat Jim,why do you post in this part of the forum?

[Shaun]

Dale

Thats the best way to test a system unless you have an extensive data base that way you are not only testing the rules but you are also testing how it handles at different times of the year with different classes of horses and different weather patterns

I can't remember who first printed this so i can't provide credit.

System testing with no data base
1. First sample = 150 recent races (or bets) If this shows miserable results, forget it. If it gets near to break even or pays POT continue. This sample will include at least one period of three consequitive days.

2. Second sample = 100 races from the same season in previous years (not recent races) but with NO consequitive days. If its near to break even or in POT, continue.

3. Third sample = 100 random races from all seasons trying only one or two races per day from here and there. If its near to break even or in POT, continue. A system MUST pass this test. (If you only sample consequitive days you can hit distorting cycles and mini-cycles. You have to sample against this phenomenon.)

4. Fourth Sample = carefully tabulate results over the last week's races, going back over some days covered in sample 1 but writing it up on a spreadsheet to examine results more closely.

Divide the profit by the maximum win dividend and this will come up with a figure.

Divide this figure by the total number of winners and express as a percentage.

If the profit comes from less than 20% of the winners, then it probably is an anomaly

[dingoboy]

wesmp1.

Just what ive found,
I must have too much time but im always thinking of differant ideas to punt with,
An absolute classic.
I went through MONTHS of data on qtab(can i say that) and tested ON PAPER backing 1,2,3,4 same amount each way on dogs and trots.
It showed a healthy profit.
I deposited funds and gave it a go.
Results.
Time tested on paper, six months of qtab data.
Initial invest, 400 units,
Max bank reached, 3300 units, three weeks
Withdrew 2000 units,
Then !
I started again,....Results
Well, cause i was so good, i thought what the heck, lets tripple the initial bet and go from there,only a year of this and dingo will have six bikini clad blondes pouring my beer (the good stuff) whilst i lay back on my 100 meter cruiser in the Bahamas...yeh right,........lost it all.
What happened,..well,.....when i tested the system, it worked, i changed nothing in my selection process but i did up the bets, i kept really good records, every bet, average div, pot, units per bet out and per return, longest outs,.everything.
What i didnt learn until the boy went over it again was the pool size, because some bets were due to "safe" progression 500 units, i didnt realize that the pool BEFORE i put my funds in may have been 600, so when the selection that i ORIGINALLY had say 100 units on went into that pool it didnt effect the price that much, but with the big ones, i found that the returns instead of say 1.5 would be 1.04, which then called for even bigger bet next race, the bank went bye bye.
Dingo now spreads his outlay over more than one place !
What im saying is take note of every possible outcome that you can, my back testing DID NOT take in consideration this factor and look what happened.

Hope ive been some help.
Cheers
Dingoboy (still learning)

[KennyVictor]

KV I've only got a few years results but the first race in WA is coming up with 29% winning favs, this would be about normal wouldn't it?

You're probably right PP. I was just bitter after hearing it happen again yesterday (turns out in spite of words like "stone motherless" from the caller it actually finished nearer half way). A month or two ago two days in a row very short priced favorites finished last, the first had heart palpitations and arhythmia or something according to the stewards report. The second one only had a much increased heart rate. I cynically thought to myself "Ah good, they've got the dose right at last".
It was just a (probably) unjustified swipe based on no more than sh*t in the liver. :-)

KV

[Dale]

Dale

Thats the best way to test a system unless you have an extensive data base that way you are not only testing the rules but you are also testing how it handles at different times of the year with different classes of horses and different weather patterns

I can't remember who first printed this so i can't provide credit.

System testing with no data base
1. First sample = 150 recent races (or bets) If this shows miserable results, forget it. If it gets near to break even or pays POT continue. This sample will include at least one period of three consequitive days.

2. Second sample = 100 races from the same season in previous years (not recent races) but with NO consequitive days. If its near to break even or in POT, continue.

3. Third sample = 100 random races from all seasons trying only one or two races per day from here and there. If its near to break even or in POT, continue. A system MUST pass this test. (If you only sample consequitive days you can hit distorting cycles and mini-cycles. You have to sample against this phenomenon.)

etc etc


Shaun i totaly agree with these rules and have done much the same myself when starting off researching a new system but my point was that at some time or other one must test it day after day for a decent length of time to make sure that the results can stand up.

Wesmp1 why not as someone else suggested start with a small bank and add to your fun whilst you test this system on current races,you mightn win but the thrill of the chase would be worth $50 to $100 in my book.

[wesmip1]

All,

Thanks for all the advice. I have started a bank of 50 and will see how it goes. The bets will be 2% ( ie $1 until it hits $100 ).

I had 1 bet today and it paid $4.60/$1.60. So my bank has already increased slightly ( to $53.60).

I will continue testing it in the mean time on some more data, using months I haven't tested yet.

For those interested I have added another 150 or so bets from previous data and the figures are now :

Avg bets per week : 13
WIN strike rate : 41%
Avg WIN POT % : 28%
Place Strike Rate :77%
Avg Place POT % :19%

The places POT has dropped as has the WIN strike rate put the WIN POT has increased. Hopefully I will be able to make my test betting account ($50) work as good as this although I know it needs lots more testing.

Oh and just a note this isn't based on favs/or near favs but it does pick a lot of them thus the high percentage for the win strike rate. But I have had a win of $18.50 and $11.60 during testing as well as numerous wins between $7-$10 range. The highest win dividend bet on was $121.00 and it came 3rd.

Thanks again to everyone ... and if you have more advice let me know.
I am always willing and keen to learn something new.

Thanks

[Guitar Jim]

Dale wrote, "i dont need or want saving and i am sure i'm not alone."

That's exactly what all addicted , losing gamblers believe (not saying "you're" addicted or losing.....because I don't know you).


Dale wrote,
"You have a very good understanding of maths but unless you understand the important requiremnts each individual system asks of its selections there is absolutely no way you can say things like .......



with no understanding of horses and how individual system rules can impact on the type of animal you end up betting on."


Irrespective of any system selection rules whatsoever, the averages and percentages (regarding all aspects of the selection and betting processes) play their hand *ALWAYS*...... professional gamblers understand this thoroughly: People who make the type of statement you made in the above quote have tremendous difficulty with both understanding this and accepting this.

Dale wrote, "I also have my doubts about these %'s standing up long term but their chance of doing so is totaly dependent on THE SYSTEM RULES and not maths."


That statement is a total fallacy.......... it's something that probably 99% or more of hobby punters firmly believe and it's why they continually lose long term. It's why people swap systems, check systems, alter systems, make up systems and buy systems: They are continually looking to beat the odds...... rather than *understand* the odds. System rules just pick winners..... some pick 10% at high average dividends while others can pick 60% at low average dividends. These days making profit is not about picking winners...... doing that is not rocket science..... *ANY* efficient, professional and thoroughly researched selection method can do that: BUT, doing that WON"T deliver *PERMANENT PROFIT* if you don't understand the averages and percentages involved in the mechanics of gambling, in both the selection and betting processes.

"I repeat Jim,why do you post in this part of the forum?
[/QUOTE] "

So that one, even just one person here, will look at his gambling history and stop being a mug punter by trying to beat the odds and then proceed MAKE CHANGES. Then in a few years that person may, just may, be actually making a responsible living through punting instead of going to the grave a mug punter.

[KennyVictor]

These days making profit is not about picking winners...... doing that is not rocket science..... *ANY* efficient, professional and thoroughly researched selection method can do that: BUT, doing that WON"T deliver *PERMANENT PROFIT* if you don't understand the averages and percentages involved in the mechanics of gambling, in both the selection and betting processes.


Some of this and a lot of your mathmatical logic is, I'm sure, sound in the majority of cases involving rating horses to pick winners. I wonder though how you feel about the maths involved in a system like Punter57's where he is basically betting on his evaluation of a trainer's motives for running his horse. Although this method is not entirely original it probably doesn't fit the mathmatical models you are basing your arguments on. This is the sort of thing where I feel your INSISTENCE on certain strike rates always being accompanied by certain POTs can fall over.

KV

[wesmip1]

All,

Just an update and thank you to all who said I should start a bank for testing.

So far 2 bets for 2 winners.

The first paying $4.60 and the second paying $5.30.

I hope it continues to go this way...

Thanks again

[Dale]

Guitar Jim, Kenny Victor pretty much summed up my response,as he points out you dont give any credit for creative system design.

I'll take a stab in the dark here Jim,i bet you were a systems buff but lost big time and rather than blame the designer you turned your blame towards systems as a whole and latched on to this swiss cheese of an excuse called percentages.


Wesmip1 keep up the good work,i hope your system rules are creative and original enough for it to continue to win.

[Guitar Jim]

"Creative" in the instance you mention, refers to "evaluation of a trainer's motives for running a horse". C'mon Dale ol' boy; creative? That's barely worthy commenting about; that's one of the worst, most inefficient, oldest methods for selecting a horse but let me say at least this...... I have publications dating back to the late 1800s that advise this same method. NOTHING is new, it's ALL been done before Dale... again and again and again and again and again and again. People who don't understand this continually look for new variations of choosing a horse.

In the late 1800s professionals were making a living from betting on horses and in the year 2005 the same applies. What the professional punters were doing in 1890 is the same as what professional punters are doing now.......... they used a sound selection process (there's no secret with horse selection... there's many sound methods) combined with a sound betting process (there's no secret with how to bet.... there's many sound methods); *BUT* and I repeat *BUT* the professionals have a thorough understanding of the mathematical process involved and both select and bet accordingly and *THIS* is why they can reap several % POT on a permanent basis; in other words make a living. They DON'T make a living because they select winners, anyone who knows how can do that.... they win because they understand how the figures work and bet accordingly. They were doing that in 1890, and they're doing that now!
The truth of the matter, and all mug punters seem incapable of grasping this, is that picking winners is not the door to success. Knowing what your *long term* win rate and return rate will be, in advance, is *THE* key: And you can only know that if you *FULLY UNDERSTAND THE FIGURES INVOLVED IN THE REQUIRED PROCESSES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE SELECTION PROCESS AND BETTING PROCESS". This is not a secret, and it never has been, and it's available to everyone; but most people don't have the application, inclination nor the academic agility to master what's required.
So these people continue to look for the *magic* selection method, totally oblivious to the fact that it's all been discovered, tried, and discarded and then re-discovered, tried, and discarded......... again and again and again and again and again for well over 150 years.
Trying to win by beating the odds is like trying to argue that 1+1=3.
One can only win, on a permanent basis, by UNDERSTANDING the odds: Understanding them in both the selection and betting processes.

Wesmip, please heed my advice in a previous post and you will have the best chance of success. You've already started betting, so pick a time to STOP. That can be at any point of time in the future. If at that point you are in front, even if it's just $1, then stop operating your method *for life*. You would have made your profit from it. That's the best chance you'll ever have with it, believe me. If you are behind at the stop time, then accept that loss, and also stop operating your method *for life*. You'll be guaranteed to eventually lose if you chase your losses or try to improve on your winnings. The averages MUST play their hand eventually. Bet very, very small; don't expect to win; keep it as a hobby only..... that's sage advice to people operating these old, tried systems

[wesmip1]

The professionals have a thorough understanding of the mathematical process involved and both select and bet accordingly and *THIS* is why they can reap several % POT on a permanent basis; in other words make a living. They DON'T make a living because they select winners, anyone who knows how can do that.... they win because they understand how the figures work and bet accordingly. ........ Knowing what your *long term* win rate and return rate will be, in advance, is *THE* key: And you can only know that if you *FULLY UNDERSTAND THE FIGURES INVOLVED IN THE REQUIRED PROCESSES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE SELECTION PROCESS AND BETTING PROCESS". This is not a secret, and it never has been, and it's available to everyone; but most people don't have the application, inclination nor the academic agility to master what's required.
Guitar Jim, Always willing to listen to everyone and take stuff in. I haven't closed my thoughts to what you are saying.

The only problem for me is I need more information on what you are saying in the above quote. How do I ensure that I "fully understand the figures" ? and work out my long term win rate and return rate ? Is this just going through lots and lots of races and finally getting up to 2000 or 3000 races before I can be more sure of the results ? Or is there something else I need to do on top of this ?

This is the whole point why I raised the thread... What do I need to do to test my system ? How can I test my system to fit what you were saying above ? Forgive me as I am fairly new to all of this and any help anyone can provide is appreciated, but I need more detail in how to do it.

Also thanks to everyone who has replied so far, I have been testing more and more and started my live bank for a bit of a test. I have appreciated all the advice which has been given so far and will appreciate anymore advice people can continue to give me.

Thanks again.

[Bhagwan]

Hi Wesmip1
You note a 43% SR
The theoretical run of outs for this based on 10,000 bets is
40% SR -- 14 outs
45% SR----12 outs
So if one strikes say 13 outs in a row , stop betting until a winner gets up before recommencing again.
This will help save ones bank if an anomily should strike say 30 outs in a row.
Useing a bank ratio of 1:40 win only. level stakes betting

OR
Bet 1wX3plc
If your Place SR remains at 75%+

I dont feel one needs to have 1000 bets . 3 lots of 150 consecitive bets should give a pretty fair indication if it has legs or not.

I beleive half the secret to longterm success in punting in general, is selecting the right races to target.
If one bets every race in front of them one will fall victim to the overwhelming stats of racing.

Heres one for you Guitar Jim,
The stats show that Favs in Maiden from barrier No.1 or any other barrier win approx 30% of all races year in year out , then why is it in maiden races 1100-1110m where the Fav is starting from barrier No.1 that its SR is only 15% based on the last 5.5 years, betting 7 days a week. All tracks , all track conditions, day or night.

Cheers

[Dale]

Guitar Jim thanks for the history lesson,i'll bring you a nice juicy apple tommorow.........................


I take offence to your statement that all systems have been discovered, tried, and discarded and then re-discovered, tried, and discarded......... again and again and again and again and again for well over 150 years.

That is akin to saying all possible cures for cancer have been exhausted so we might aswell give up and makes the assumption that people like myself dont have a creative bone in our bodies.

I think your arguement is seriously flawed and like a born again christian you go overboard with your newfound beliefs,stop ramming it down our throats,stop telling punters like Wesmip to give up betting for life once he is in front(how arrogant),start giving us punters some credit here,we all know about percentages and possible future outcomes but unlike you who thinks all one needs is a half decent betting approach and a super human understading of percentages to turn a profit we dont want to settle for a half decent betting approach,we want a selection method that can actualy turn a long term profit.

Bhagwan,nice post,you point out one of the many flaws in his logic,i'd love to sit here all day and do the same but i got a feeling he wont listen,he's born again lol.

[KennyVictor]

So if one strikes say 13 outs in a row , stop betting until a winner gets up before recommencing again.
This will help save ones bank if an anomily should strike say 30 outs in a row.


This is an interesting comment. I'm interested to know if you would recommend the same thing to someone playing roulette or any other game of pure chance.
Of course (and I'm assuming your answer to the last question would be a no) in a game of pure chance the next bets chances are completely unaffected by what went before.
If then, we have a longer than expected run of outs, when we stop our betting and wait for the next winner we should probably be asking ourselves, why are we having this long run of outs. Has the weather changed? Is something else affecting the form or our assessment of it?
Tell me Bhagwan, why do YOU recommend this course of action and on what basis do you recommend restarting betting after a potential run of outs more than twice as large as expected (30 vs 13).

KV

[Guitar Jim]

Dale wrote:

"I take offence to your statement that all systems have been discovered, tried, and discarded and then re-discovered, tried, and discarded......... again and again and again and again and again for well over 150 years.

That is akin to saying all possible cures for cancer have been exhausted so we might aswell give up"


That's the problem with problem gamblers; they have an inability to accurately listen....in other words they don't hear what was actually said, they only hear what they want to hear. Dale, I'm saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you have said above. You obviously haven't bothered to correctly read anything that I have written. I have advised people to "MAKE CHANGES" to their gambling habits in order to produce the results that a professional routinely achieves. That's not giving up.... but I suspect you don't understand that, and that's sad; and for some people it's also tragic because they spend their entire lives trying to beat the odds.


Dale wrote:

"stop telling punters like Wesmip to give up betting for life once he is in front"


Again, we have here the inability to listen , or in Dale's case to read. Wesmip has never been advised by me to "give up betting for life once he is in front". The advice I offered was to try his system for a given time of his choice, then accept the profit or loss results for that system and stop using that system for life. If he gets lucky he'll be in front, and that's his only chance to both make a profit from the system and spend some time having fun with his system. If he continues with such a method he's guaranteed to produce a small loss on turnover (provided he places his bets responsibly according to a basic plan, and not haphazardly). So my advice to Wesmip was to eventually cease operating his plan...... it was not "to give up betting for life".


Dale wrote:
"Bhagwan,nice post,you point out one of the many flaws in his logic"


My reply is to Bhagwan .... the reason for this type of statistic is simply it's an anomaly. Any anomaly, and I've seen thousands of them, can present itself over any period, short or long. Any anomaly can last 1 day or 1 week, seemingly disappear for a year then re-appear for 6 months, disappear for another year, re-appear for 2 years or 10 years or 1 week........ etc etc etc. It's impossible to predict an anomaly and if one is to secure long term success this must be fully understood and taken into account regarding one's activities. Wesmip's current researched POT on his 43% strike rate is an example of an extremely common anomaly ( happens time and time again) that hits one square in the face if one understands racing.


To Wesmip....... I think you should just have fun with your betting, bet small and keep it under control. You seem to understand that basic concept. Turning a true profit takes time and experience, and to do it one needs immense committment. It's no different from any other professional occupation be it an architect, lawyer, accountant etc. A hobbyist, who believes he has found the way to the pot of gold (I'm not referring to you), will always struggle. Just have fun and do it for entertainment. I'm happy to contact you privately if you wish, but believe me there's no easy, quick answer. Anyone operating simple, little mechanical systems needs virtually total re-education (if they wish to turn a permanent profit), and that takes years. When a hobby punter understands that, then progress has been made.

[wesmip1]

Guitar Jim,

Since I can't see your profile can you please email me at aussiestable@yahoo.com.au

I still have some questions on what you mean so anymore information, ie direction to web sites or information would be appreciated.

Thanks

[beton]

Guitar Jim
you say there needs to be a re-education to learn how a professional punter matches the selection with the staking. You should explaining this point. At present you sound like my mother "why can't we do that?" "Because i said so" "why" "because". Stop preaching and start teaching. If you have a valid point spit it out.

[john spencer]

Wesmip1,Not sure if it is still avaioable but the NSW TAb used to sell a CD with past results and prices that may be interesting for runing through your program . all the same , sincerely best of luck and happy punting . good on ya .



John

[Bhagwan]

Hi KennyVictor,
The idea of stopping after say 13 outs with an expected run of outs of 12, was suggested if one felt there selection system had a strong chance of sustaining its current SR.

If for some crazy reason the wheels fall off the system , one may take some comfort that they had stopped at 13 outs saveing some of their punting bank instead of waiting untill all funds are totally exausted.

The down side is one could have 13 outs then one winner then another 13 outs ect. But so as long as the punter is made aware of the possabilities it allows him to create a "what if" plan ,if & when it occures.

It was just one idea , it might not appeal to all , I`m sure there are a million other ideas that may have more appeal.

Cheers.

[Dale]

Anyone operating simple, little mechanical systems needs virtually total re-education (if they wish to turn a permanent profit), and that takes years.

Hi Guitar Jim,

I think we have both beat our chests long and hard enough,i dont want to continue this behavior.

I agree that almost all simple little mechanical systems are doomed to failure but really it all comes down to the system rules themselves,i'm not going to reveal my angle but it is simplistic it is mechanical and therefore is classed as a system but it is worlds apart from what i bet you are calling a system,here in lies our problem,you are painting all "systems" with the same brush,i prefer to look at them individualy and judge them on the logic and edge over the competition they have.

If a system is based on very sound principles,principles that arent some statistic anomaly that will change with time,i see no reason why it cant turn a profit in the future as long as ones staking approach is sound.

[davez]

Originally Posted by Guitar Jim

"It's all about averages and the mathematics that apply to the subject."


hmm, if this isnt the greatest line of drivel ive ever read in this place then, well, i duno, im speachless, for f*** sake, with such a great handle jim, how could you possibly be so stupid?

knew a bureau of stats cock a while back with the same attitude, last i heard he was still on wages, enough said?

[partypooper]

Dale and all, just my 2cents worth, we all know there is some truth in what Giutar says as we have all had the system that works only to fall in a hole.

Conversly I feel that some so called system rules are PROVEN commonsense and NOT anomalies such as 30% of favs win (stats going back to the 1800's) of course that means that 70% don't. But also 70-80% of all handicaps are won by one of the top six. Horses racing within 21 days have a much better strike rate (straight out fitness, not an anomaly) Horses that have a win in the last four starts have a definite statistical S/R, horses with a place S/R of 50% or more seem to keep on doing it.

I won't go on but, etc etc, what I'm getting at is that you can narrow down the likely result by "form" and commonsense filters to gain an advantage. Technically it would be a system, but all the parameters based on commonsense, not anomalies.

In fact you could argue that the Handicapper himself is using a system to arrive at the final field in weight order.

[odericko]

heres another 1 cents worth,ive only been mug punting for ten yrs and since i stumbled across this marvelous forum i have seen many good systems i think,i use alot of them but my trouble is i start betting them 1st without waiting 2 see if its going 2 work,what i mean by that is systems dont work every time every day perhaps waiting for your system choice to win at least once to show that it will work that day then have a lash, hope that made sense.

[jfc]

I agree with many of the responses, but here are some new (along with repeated) thoughts:

A single-source POT of 21% for such a high strike rate is impossible long term. The practical holy grail is 10%.

Use the number of winners rather than number of runs to guide your confidence in the results.

An average system with a 10% strike rate and 2,000 runs would yield 200 wins.

Your sample has 213 wins and therefore is probably just as accurate as that 2,000 run test.

So take it out for a run now. The sooner you get real life lessons, the better.

There is only one optimum money management formula, the Kelly Criterion. Unfortunately it's abstract.

So you have to estimate the parameters of Edge/Odds.

Your (fractional) odds are ~6/4.

And your expected Edge should be no more than 10%.

Therefore bet no more than a diabolical 6.66% (=10/(6/4)) of your Bank.

That's a general rule of thumb, and some may find that high % contentious.

[Dale]

Use the number of winners rather than number of runs to guide your confidence in the results.

An average system with a 10% strike rate and 2,000 runs would yield 200 wins.

Your sample has 213 wins and therefore is probably just as accurate as that 2,000 run test.



I agree,

Someone suggested a test of 3 times 150 consecutive races,that is all well and good for a system that has a high strike rate but it is unreliable if the system only provided 15 winners or so in a 150 race stretch.

A better idea would be 3 consecutive tests of 35 to 40 winners.

Wesmip has enough data to start having a crack,aslong as he hasnt unwittingly backfitted the results all should well.

[Dale]

Dale and all, just my 2cents worth, we all know there is some truth in what Giutar says as we have all had the system that works only to fall in a hole.

Conversly I feel that some so called system rules are PROVEN commonsense and NOT anomalies such as 30% of favs win (stats going back to the 1800's) of course that means that 70% don't. But also 70-80% of all handicaps are won by one of the top six. Horses racing within 21 days have a much better strike rate (straight out fitness, not an anomaly) Horses that have a win in the last four starts have a definite statistical S/R, horses with a place S/R of 50% or more seem to keep on doing it.

I won't go on but, etc etc, what I'm getting at is that you can narrow down the likely result by "form" and commonsense filters to gain an advantage. Technically it would be a system, but all the parameters based on commonsense, not anomalies.
.

Partypooper thats exactly what i was talking about.

I dont agree or rate all the ideas you listed above ie 21 days,but it looks like we go about things much the same way,who cares if it is systematical or not.

Funny how Guitar Jim was asked to put up or shut up and has gone missing lol.