Berts stats

[supersoul]

Anybody did a check on Berts strike rate on his past spreadsheets? Not just the $4+ ones...

I know we are all side tracked by the results of the 10th where he only picked 6 winners from 40 races with 8 2nds and 2 3rds- 44 selections made for 16 hits- but take a look at other spreadsheets.

11th: 71 selections from 50 races for 17 winners ie 34% strike rate, ave price $3.78... and 15 places at 1.90 ave.

[becareful]

Supersoul,

If he had 71 selections then the strike rate is 17/71 which is roughly 24% strike rate. If average div is $3.78 then at level stakes you are losing about 10%.

[supersoul]

Rats! No wonder I don't make a profit- my maths suck!

No really, my mistake- 17 winners out of 71 selections. The rest are not really better either...

I only have a few minutes
All these stats about strike rates you lot are quoting is going away from the ultimate aim .
To MAKE A PROFIT>
Now I don't care how good your strike rate is , if your dividend is too small , you are not going to show a profit on level stakes.
And the only ones who actually keep pushing thsi level stakes and strike rates are you lot who I thought would be in the know that for the last two hundred odd years there has been plenty of so called experts to test this theory out and yet there are very few who have actually been succesful making a regular profit.
Now if you call making a profit for 9 Months straight a fluke and it shouldn't and couldn't happen this long and it will break down in the long run.
OK all you selfimposed experts , tell me how long do I have to keep winning before you approve or disapprove.
THE fact remains I am WINNING and no strike rates analysis will change that.
I know why this happening , but I am certainly not going to tell anyone here.
All you lot want to do is shoot it down , just becasue you don't understand it, I have stuck my neck out willing to answer any questions and all you lot come up with is ways why it shouldn't work.
WHO CARES, it works , that is what is important.

regards bert

[dinodog]

hi all

i really don't understand , or seem to be missing something. this thread has gone on for ages and yet there looks to me to be one hell of a hole in the system.

let me show you

i believe it costs $33.00/week, to bert, for the spreadsheet etc is that right? well if that is so, read on. if not forget i spoke.

why would anyone fork out $33.00 /week to win $5.00/day or in laymens terms $2.00 /week. that is $33 out and 7 by $5 in, total $35 minus $33 equals the princely sum of $2 profit

what have i missed?

regards

mal

[becareful]

Dinodog - You can include the cost of the system in your "expenses" on Berts system so you will actually get $5 a day profit after paying for the system (don't spend it all at once!). The real hole in the system is that the upside is $5 per day but the downside is $1000+

Bert - Maybe you can enlighten all us experts as to how you have bypassed the laws of chance and probability and guaranteed that you will never have a day when none of your selections win? As I said on another post I could play roulette with a $5 daily goal for 9 months and there is a 25% chance that I would win every day - that does not mean that the system is foolproof and will keep winning - it simply means I was lucky. If I keep playing for another 9 months there is a 75% chance that I will lose. Now without analysing all your data for strike rate, bets per day, etc I can't tell you what your expected win rate per day is but at a guess it is probably between 97 and 99% (obviously days with fewer bets will have a lower win chance) - so 97 to 99 days out of 100 you will win your $5 but 1, 2 or 3 days you will lose everything. Now with those odds it is conceivable you could go for 9 months with no losses but you are living on borrowed time - sooner or later (and probably sooner) the winning streak will end and you will lose money.

Now I wish you all the luck in the world but it concerns me that you do not warn your subscribers anywhere on the site what their potential daily losses are if your system fails to find a single daily winner.

[dinodog]

hi becareful

you can invest to return greater than $5 too, but the fact still remains, no matter how you look at it, according to the plan, as has been described, that you invest $33 each week for no return and then invest further to regain the $33 plus whatever investment just to make $2, FOR THE WEEK???

i don't know about you, but my time , even thou it costs me naught, is still slightly more valuable than $2/week or if you want to look at it your way, $35/week.

the other posters to this thread, with a negative critique such as mine, have all expressed similar concerns re the value of such a course of action as suggested by bert. given that any other number of ways to lose your hard earned, might not be quite as dangerous as this loss chasing action.

for what it's worth, i don't know how this topic has aired so long

regards

dinodog





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dinodog on 2002-07-13 12:24 ]</font>

Here's a challenge for Becareful or anyone who likes working with spreadsheets:

What are the odds of going bust based on the following assumptions?

1. $10 profit target, assuming every dividend is $5.

2. $20 profit target, assuming every dividend is $5

3. $50 profit target, assuming every dividend is $5.

I would think the chance of going bust if aiming for $20 or more would be quiet high. Even going for $10 (enough to cover Bert's charges) would be high enough.

Here are the answers:

I assumed that each horse had a 20% chance of winning, based on a dividend of $5. The spreadsheet didn't automatically round bets to whole numbers, but the figures below are fairly accurate.

$5 target = need a win within 23 bets. 0.6% chance of going bust or once every 169 days. So a bust is over due!

$10 target = need a win within 20 bets. 1.15% chance of going bust or once every 87 days.

$20 target = 18 bets. 1.8% chance of going bust or once every 55 days

$30 target = 16 bets. 2.8% chance of going bust or once every 36 days.

$50 target = 14 bets. 4.4% chance of going bust or once every 23 days.

[Equine Investor]

I think those figures may be a little low, as not all horses had a 20% chance of being winners. I.E. poor value / bad selections.

The fact remains, the system falls down at level stakes, in which case it must lose in the end, no matter if it's one day or one year; it's still the same result.

The probability of winning longterm is 0%.

If anyone is considering using Bert's system, I would suggest taking all profits out of the bank weekly, and so when you go bust, you may just be in front. MAYBE!

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-13 12:59, gravel wrote:
The spreadsheet didn't automatically round bets to whole numbers, but the figures below are fairly accurate.


If you are using excel, you need to use the ROUNDDOWN function. Learn about it in the help menu. I find it very helpful when calculating my next bet amount.

Placegetter

Thanks Placegetter.

I was only trying to illustrate the risk involved, didn't want to be precise.

But thanks anyway.

[becareful]

Hi gravel,

I think you are being a bit generous with your win percentage there but whichever way you look at it the system is overdue for a bust!

I just don't see the benefit in a system that needs a bank of $1000 to get started with $1 bets and where you have to work 7 days a week for a return of $35-$100! I don't know what other people do for a living but that is certainly not enough for me to retire on!! If you wanted a decent profit (say $1000/week) you would have to have a truly enormous bank (and not mind risking it all every single day) - either that or you would have to sell the system :smile:

why would anyone fork out $33.00 /week to win $5.00/day or in laymens terms
$2.00 /week. that is $33 out and 7 by $5 in, total $35 minus $33 equals the princely
sum of $2 profit
Hi dino
that calculation is right , but you believe too much and have indeed missed something.
You have no idea and just copy what some others are saying and believe it to be true
regards bert

Now without analysing all your data for strike rate,
======
You alll keep harping on the strike rate and level stakes, why???
it has nothing to with level stakes to start with, If there are 60 races for the day , I might tip 70 horses, but we stop at out first collect which usually happens in the first few races , so why would you want to include 6o or so extra bets at level stakes into the calculation just to show that it won't make a profit that way, we all know it won't and we are not betting level stakes, so who cares.
regards Bert

[becareful]

Bert,
The reason is very simple. If we know your strike rate of all selections then we can easily work out what the probability is of your system failing to pick a winner for the whole day (or within the number of bets which will lose you your whole bank). Once we find out what this probability is we can see how often that event is likely to happen.

Do you even acknowledge that it is possible for you to get no wins for a given day or is your horse selection so perfect that it is impossible for you to get no winners????

I seriously suggest you sit down one day and work out a few different scenarios based on the number of bets per day. eg. If you have 30 selections for the day what is the probability that you will get no winners over $4.00 and what will the average loss be if that occurs. Repeat that for 40 selections, 50 selections, etc. (The higher the number of selections the lower the chance of getting no winners but the higher the potential loss). Then work out what the chance that one of these events could have occurred in the last 9 months (I know it hasn't for you but what if it did) - what would your profit be if it had happened 1 or 2 or 3 times??

Of course if you truly believe you are invincible and cannot miss then good luck to you - just watch out for the bus coming down the road!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-07-14 10:29 ]</font>

Maybe you can enlighten all us experts as to how you have bypassed the
laws of chance and probability and guaranteed that you will never have a day when
none of your selections win?=======
Hi Be careful
The secret lies in picking the bigger priced winners and you couldn't possibly be expecting for me to tell you how.

And NO I am not Guaranteeing that , but you are all trying to make me say that so you can shoot it down.
All I am saying is that it has worked for 9 months in succession earning an avg of $500-$800 per Month for trying to win just $5 per day(are you taking notes DINO, this is the calculation).
And this is FACT and I have the stuff to back it up, which is more than some of you are coming up with, with quotes such as , "I believe " and "It can't work because someone else tried it once and lost everything"
Why would anyone with any sort of good experience in this field rely on hear say and expect something new to be the same as the previous one, just because one or two factors look the same.
There is No way that any of you can say for sure that this will break down, because you don't know the way I pick them to start with.
You only know the calculations part.
Sure in the past many people have tried to do this and failed and the reason was most times that the selection method only picked low priced winners, but if they had found some way of picking more winners with longer prices , then they might have succeeded.
The whole Tipping industry involves tipping short ones because they reckon they are the best horses, ok there are a few but the stats in the sportsman a while back showed that they lose more than they win, so what are the tipsters doing wrong then.??
If you know that , then you know how I do it now.

regards Bert

[becareful]

I know what most tipsters do wrong (and indeed most punters as well) - they look for the horse with the best chance to win but they don't give a damn about the odds. Eg. lets say we have 8 horses in race with the following chances of winning:

1=40%, 2=20%, 3&4=10%, 5&6&7&8=5%

Now most tipsters & punters will pick 1 as the winner with 2 as the danger and 40% of the time they will be correct (or 20% if they go for the danger horse) but what if the odds on that race are as follows:
1=$2, 2=$4, 3=$9, 4=$15, 5&6=$18, 7=$20, 8=$40
Now most punters who dont look at the odds will back horse 1 or maybe 2 but in the long run they will lose money because the odds are worse than the winning chances. The correct bets in this example would be horse 4 or horse 8 because the odds are better than they should be. This is how you get a profit at level stakes and a winning system - you need to find the horses where the odds are better than they should be.

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-14 10:02, bertsbest wrote:
Hi dino
that calculation is right , but you believe too much and have indeed missed something.
You have no idea and just copy what some others are saying and believe it to be true
regards bert


With salesmanship like that, I can't believe we all haven't been convinced so much sooner.

Quapi, please delete the threads as promised, he's had his go.

Placegetter

[Mark]

I received yesterdays free trial from Bert, just to have a look. Now I'm not stupid but I could not follow the spreadsheet etc of what to do. There were 87 selections for 12 winners (not the best) BUT I do know that he says to stop once you get a winner. He picked the winners of the 2nd & 3rd races, NZR4 & R5, that paid $4.70 & $7.10, so it was a winning day. It's not something I would use but it did win & who knows it may go on winning forever, because if you can't pick 1 winner at $4 or better out of 87 picks, you don't deserve to win. Good luck to him.

[Mark]

I received yesterdays free trial from Bert, just to have a look. Now I'm not stupid but I could not follow the spreadsheet etc of what to do. There were 87 selections for 12 winners (not the best) BUT I do know that he says to stop once you get a winner. He picked the winners of the 2nd & 3rd races, NZR4 & R5, that paid $4.70 & $7.10, so it was a winning day. It's not something I would use but it did win & who knows it may go on winning forever, because if you can't pick 1 winner at $4 or better out of 87 picks, you don't deserve to win. Good luck to him.

If your tips are so good why is it you only pick 12 winners out of 87?

$500 per month would be ok if you only had to invest 20 hrs per month to achieve it. Under your method a person has to spend about 100 hrs a month. So either they have to give up work, work part-time or work nights.

$100 per week doesn't make up for $500 per week lost by reducing one's work load from full-time to part-time.

Net result
$100/week profit minus
-$500/week lost by giving up full-time work
-$33/week cost

= -$433/week.

Add to that an expectation of 2 bust days per year and it's not looking good.