Dreamweavers 20/1+++ system

[Dr Pangloss]

Rules are:

Adel Bris Syd Melb metro only Sat and Mon
4, 5 and 6yo only
Field size 10-24
Eliminate last start winners
Eliminate runners with WIN% less than 10%
Career starts 10-40
Eliminate runners not weighted to carry at least 2.0 kg less from last start set weight
NSW TAB $21.0 or more (of course)

Results from July 2001 through end October 2005 are:

Races 1,650
bets 2,560
won 83
SR% 3.2%
P/L 694 units (per $1 unit bet)
PoT 27.1%
ave div $39.25

LLS of 161 - imagine that. Made a profit in every year (ave 600 bets).

The rules are few and simple and can be accessed via the torn out section of every newspaper in the country.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Dale]

It's been my expierence that many many horses at double figure odds,even $20 plus if you like have a far greater chance than their odds suggest.

Why cant people get that?

Why relentlesly critisise other forum members who looks to specialise in finding these discrepencies?

The potential for your selction to drift alarmingly and put itself into the absolutely massive overs catagory is great and every racing expert i have come across states that getting overs is the name of the game.

Some people cant see the forset for their favorite trees!

[KennyVictor]

This system is only for those who persist with this vain obsession of searching for silly long-priced commodities in order to supplement under nourished punting egos. This system is for the DREAMWEAVERS who proliferate these Forums with unsubstantiated backfitted hocus-pocus jibberish erroneously called "horse/race/trainer/jockey judgment" rather than blatant hindsight.

Why not tell us what you really think?

These rules seem quite logical and sensible. They choose horses that have been around long enough to have established form. They show that the horse is capable of winning although its price indicates it has the patchy form most punters shy away from. I didn't understand the weight thing but looks like it might mean the horse is coming down in class. Good work Dr P. I'm a little worried by your Sat and Mon rule, it looks like you could be retrofitting (God that's a dirty word).

KV

[lomaca]

Why not tell us what you really think?

These rules seem quite logical and sensible. They choose horses that have been around long enough to have established form. They show that the horse is capable of winning although its price indicates it has the patchy form most punters shy away from. I didn't understand the weight thing but looks like it might mean the horse is coming down in class. Good work Dr P. I'm a little worried by your Sat and Mon rule, it looks like you could be retrofitting (God that's a dirty word).

KV
KV!
If I apply my ratings to the horses selected by the simplified P57 method,
instead of betting blindly on all of them (just bet on the first selection after the rating) there were no loosing days. I assume you have a rating method yourself?, why not try it? Even under the strict rules, where there is more than one selection?
Also I read your post where you were wondering as to what to do with horses just under twenty? Well I regard any over 18 as a qualifier!
True if you have a rule you must stick to it, but then, did you run a check on different price ranges? I did.....
Hint re. rating of these long shots, ("Time" seems to be best)
Good luck.

[slowman]

kv ,i think the monday will pick up the public holidays.........


dale,i think you'll find that the ones who cant see the forrest are to busy puting methane in the chinsaws..........
...............cheers......................slowman.....................

[Dr Pangloss]

Why not tell us what you really think?

These rules seem quite logical and sensible. They choose horses that have been around long enough to have established form. They show that the horse is capable of winning although its price indicates it has the patchy form most punters shy away from. I didn't understand the weight thing but looks like it might mean the horse is coming down in class. Good work Dr P. I'm a little worried by your Sat and Mon rule, it looks like you could be retrofitting (God that's a dirty word).

KV

I was having a joke Kenny but the joke (the important part) got edited from my original post and all that got left was the system. Strange world.

The system may have some legs but I won't be betting it. I thought the Sat and Mon only criteria was indeed valid being the main dates for the best class races. Leaving out Mondays (public Holidays) would be cherry picking.

The 4,5,and 6yo animals with WIN% >10% concentrates selections on horses which have some proven past ability and are not too old to take advantage of it. The career starts restriction 10-40 reinforces this criteria.

Going down in weight suggests to me a class rise or at least a handicapping anonamly. Either way the I think we can assume the Trainer is not completely oblivious to the situation. My theory is along the lines that the last run was the "dean'un" aimed at setting up the "kill". (Oh dear God I'm starting to sound like p57 - please forgive me) Hence the rule no last start winners.

At the end of the day most of the rules were backfitted to suit. 2, 3 and 7yo+ all lost money. Field size under 10 starters lost money. Career starts under 10 and over 40 lost money. WIN% under 10 lost money. And to crown it all horses under $21.0 lost money!!!

SYDNEY lost money. Perth got murdered. Without SYD the numbers look like:

races 1,379
bets 2,200
profit 812
PoT 36.9%

Go to it Dreamweavers.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[punter57]

I don't know if you are/have ever won consistently on the punt Dr P, but so long as you regard studying past results (at the races, in business, in life?) as "backfitting" and therefore "bad", you are going to have problems maintaining an edge. In every thing we do, we take note of past successes and failures and try to repeat the successes; we look at what went right and what went wrong. Especially we look for the tell-tale signs (nice nautical term) which were NOT SPOKEN and NOT OBVIOUS at the time. This is the dreaded "backfitting". Most importantly; there should be no jumping to conclusions without UNDERSTANDING. To do this properly, because history doesn't repeat itself EXACTLY, you need broad paramaters AND to apply your conclusions with "discretion". Next time is not the SAME as last time ,but often enough (or sometimes more rarely) it's CLOSE.
I suspect that you are confounding BASELESS backfitting with reasoned backfitting, when you "bag" it. ie the last three Melbourne Cups were won by a jockey in red blue and white, so look for that again (only $500 for this system!!!), vs the past 50 Cups have been won by horses at 56.5Kg or less, who have won G1 or G2 events at their last start etc etc (For example). hmmm. You may STILL have plenty to choose from, but you are getting there ( now for a PRICE FILTER!!)
It can be frustrating to see longshots winning every day, not being on them and not able to explain them, either. That's normal. How come my home-garage business never took off and BILL GATES' did?? How come my little supermarket is only turning over $250,000 pa while GJ Coles (remember HE started in Sheffield, Tasmania with a little shop) is the biggest retail conglomerate in Australia? There are times Dr P when it seems that the odds are STACKED AGAINST US. Don't give up. All of us, Doctors or not, can still be winners!!! Cheers. Go the "backfitters"!!!!
PS I don't know if you're starting to sound like ME, but maybe you are more '"aware" than previously, of certain things (I do NOT say it's because of anything you've read in THIS FORUM).

[Dr Pangloss]

This is the dreaded "backfitting". Most importantly; there should be no jumping to conclusions without UNDERSTANDING. To do this properly, because history doesn't repeat itself EXACTLY, you need broad paramaters AND to apply your conclusions with "discretion". Next time is not the SAME as last time ,but often enough (or sometimes more rarely) it's CLOSE.
I suspect that you are confounding BASELESS backfitting with reasoned backfitting,

Gee...thanks for the advice p76. And just to show you that I'm really listening we're going make some much needed alterations to the Dreamweavers.

First of all in the results quoted above there were no less than three 100/1 +++ pops winning accounting for a bloated 180 units of net profit. To back a 100/1+++ winner you need a miracle - I don't believe in miracles (especially at the races) so all contenders showing more than NSW Tab SP > $100.0 are eliminated.

Since we are getting rid of the extremes then let's not ask our Dreamweavers to cover more/less than 400 metres from last start distance. Anything but Saturday metro races are out and so are those starters attempting to back up with anything less than a seven day break.

Dreamweaver rules:

Adel Bris Melb Saturday metro only (no Sydney)
4, 5 and 6yo only
Field size 10-24
Eliminate last start winners
Eliminate runners without at least a seven day break
Eliminate runners with WIN% less than 10%
Career starts 10-40
Eliminate runners not weighted to carry at least 2.0 kg less from last start set weight
max distance rise/drop 400 metres from last start
NSW TAB >$21.0 but less than $100.0

Results from July 2001 through end October 2005 are:

races 1004
bets 1433
wins 57
SR% 4%
P/L 712 units
PoT 49.7%
ave div. $37.65

Sydney yields -56 units LoT 12%

Removing the price filter from Dreamweavers results:

races 2045
bets 4406
wins 316
SR% 7.2%
P/L +643 units
PoT 14.6%

The price band $11.0 - $20.9 yields LoT 5.9%
The price band $0 - $10.0 yields LoT 21.7%

Fill your boots Dreamweavers.

PSS Don't let all these facts and figures put you off your game p57. The're only put up to verify claims of punting profits, and besides, anyone with with the most basic of databases could either confirm as fact or expose as folly all or some of the above. You wouldn't want mess with all that peer review song and dance stuff.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Dale]

Who cares about the song and dance,does anyone have an opinion as to why Sydney is in the red?

I have some theories relating to field size but maybe i'm wrong.

[Chrome Prince]

Because it's backfitted and does not pass the basic rules for a successful system longterm.

A system that has stringent yet illogical rules and fails in one State but rockets in another based on longshot results is not a viable system.

This is merely a statistical anomoly of extreme results.

There is no reason why 9 career starts or 41 career starts should influence the results or be left out. There is no logic.

[Chrome Prince]

ALL STATES -0.49% LOT
MELBOURNE -13.22% LOT
SYDNEY +1.22% POT
ADELAIDE +71.39% POT
(Quite a few first up bolters within the results)
BRISBANE +1.04% POT
PERTH -37.71% LOT

Adelaide's longest priced winners:

$82.60
$64.40
$69.80
$89.50

Take out those winners and you have 16 units profit for Adelaide and a massive loss in general.

I certainly wouldn't pin my hopes on another 4 bolters in the future.

[Dr Pangloss]

ALL STATES -0.49% LOT
MELBOURNE -13.22% LOT
SYDNEY +1.22% POT
ADELAIDE +71.39% POT
(Quite a few first up bolters within the results)
BRISBANE +1.04% POT
PERTH -37.71% LOT

Chrome is having problems with his database once again. Would someone with Bet Selector please verify my published results with the settings below for July 01 through Oct 05.

Race Field Size: 10 - 24
Day of Week: 7
Venue: ABM
Age of Horse: 4 - 6
Horse Win %: 10 - 100
Career Starts: 10 - 40
Days to Last Start: 7 - 999
Last Start Finish Posn: 2 - 24
Max Distance Rise-Drop: 400 - 400
Weight Change Min-Max: -20.0 - -2.0
SP Price: 21.0 - 99.9

Thanks.

PS You see p57 this peer review stuff really works well and noone gets upset by outlandish unprovable claims that take up 20 odd forum pages of wasted space.



$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Chrome Prince]

Unfortunately as you have limited files, your results did not show enough of the picture.

These are the results from 1/1/2000 to current.

There's a year and a half of extra data and I use best tote not NSWTAB.

[punter57]

This looks like another one of these threads which is going to end in confusion, mainly because of the "unreliability" of data bases etc etc. Which, of course is why some of us (a few) are not overwhelmed by statistical "proofs". That aside, the ongoing and perhaps permanently ingrained prejudices against longshots has shown up again in several POSTS. ie the longshots have "distorted" the results or will be "discarded" etc or "without these longies, such and such a method, shows a loss" etc etc.
In La Mer's thread about the "rationality" of bookies markets , he pointed out the Betfair data showing that the exchange punters/layers had it EXACTLY right at ALL price levels. The 2-1 shots won 33% of the time (not 40%, not 25%) and all the way up (the100-1 shots won 1%). This means that ALL were correct, none of them were "unexpected" long-term: that to make money on the shorties (say 2-1) you couldn't bet them ALL as you would only get your money back (minus commission) and likewise the 100-1 shots. You had to be selective, leaving some AT ALL PRICE LEVELS aside and bet the rest. The key here is that the trick is to BE ON the longshot when it appears, not to say "IT WON"T HAPPEN"
The longer-priced horses are NOT flukes just as the favourites that win are not flukes (ie if you told a non-racing person that ALL THE DATA in the world could only get it right 30% of the time, THEY might consider these paltry results, 30%, as "flukes" too!!!!!). So far no-one has bothered explaining how a horse like Pimpala Prince can win 11 races in it's life BUT 4 of these at $30+ (too flukey by half??) OR why some trainers show a rather impressive return at long odds (let's investigate Ms D Poidevin-Lane) when they put TWO horses in the same race.. These are NOT flukes.
C. Prince: Very good comment that it is ILLOGICALITY which brings rules and systems undone. Never met a "logica'l computer or horse yet but plenty of VERY logical trainers!!! Cheers.

[Chrome Prince]

This looks like another one of these threads which is going to end in confusion, mainly because of the "unreliability" of data bases etc etc. Which, of course is why some of us (a few) are not overwhelmed by statistical "proofs". That aside, the ongoing and perhaps permanently ingrained prejudices against longshots has shown up again in several POSTS. ie the longshots have "distorted" the results or will be "discarded" etc or "without these longies, such and such a method, shows a loss" etc etc.
In La Mer's thread about the "rationality" of bookies markets , he pointed out the Betfair data showing that the exchange punters/layers had it EXACTLY right at ALL price levels. The 2-1 shots won 33% of the time (not 40%, not 25%) and all the way up (the100-1 shots won 1%). This means that ALL were correct, none of them were "unexpected" long-term: that to make money on the shorties (say 2-1) you couldn't bet them ALL as you would only get your money back (minus commission) and likewise the 100-1 shots. You had to be selective, leaving some AT ALL PRICE LEVELS aside and bet the rest. The key here is that the trick is to BE ON the longshot when it appears, not to say "IT WON"T HAPPEN"
The longer-priced horses are NOT flukes just as the favourites that win are not flukes (ie if you told a non-racing person that ALL THE DATA in the world could only get it right 30% of the time, THEY might consider these paltry results, 30%, as "flukes" too!!!!!). So far no-one has bothered explaining how a horse like Pimpala Prince can win 11 races in it's life BUT 4 of these at $30+ (too flukey by half??) OR why some trainers show a rather impressive return at long odds (let's investigate Ms D Poidevin-Lane) when they put TWO horses in the same race.. These are NOT flukes.
C. Prince: Very good comment that it is ILLOGICALITY which brings rules and systems undone. Never met a "logica'l computer or horse yet but plenty of VERY logical trainers!!! Cheers.

The only unreliable factor here is that the poster lacked enough data, therefore his results did not tell the whole story.

Betfair is a completely different kettle of fish to bookmakers or tote, try getting set properly on 100/1 shot and see how much liquidity is there.

I'm not saying that the big odds winners are flukes at all, I'm saying that basing a system on 4 horses at big odds is ludicrous.
The likelihood of four horses with the same credentials winning in the future at the same odds is about 1000/1.

Logical rules is a whole different argument.

Why are 40 career starts good but 41 not?
Why is the distance variation +/- 400m and not 200m or 450m?

Some of these rules are predesigned to snare the past longshot winners.

This is exactly what these peddlers do and look what happens to their systems.

To have a rule there MUST be a rational and logical reason for doing so, each rule must have a consistent range of decreasing or increasing results to reinforce the logic.

When logic fails, so does the system.

Do you ever hear a trainer say, "well I entered him in a 1400m race, but he won't get 1450m - you have to put the cut off somewhere."

The biggest clue to viable longshot systems is that in 80% of cases there are logical reasons why they won, and only 20% are complete anomolies. When you find the reasons and not the rules, you're on your way.

[Dale]

Chrome,

Career starts are a key part of my main angle,i have spent years researching the matter,they may be just a number to some people but to me they speak volumes.

It is tricky to know just where to place your cut off point but the fact is it has to be placed somewhere,you do a little research and note when performance starts to drop and impliment the cut off point at this point.

It is true that a horse with 40 starts should be no better off than a horse with 41 but the rule isnt designed with individual horses in mind,you put it in place hoping that over a lenghty period of time those with more than 40 starts perform worse than those with 40.

My persoanl cut off point many would consider very harsh its way lower than 40,i have posted it on the forum many times,i think most think i'm crazy and find it illogical but having done my homwork and knowing what i know i would never change it or disregard it,also i dont have a bottom limit,(i use must have at least 1 win to take care of the younger ones).

P.S. whats the point of this thread anyhow?

[Chrome Prince]

Dale,

I agree that one has to have a cut-off point obviously, but when that cut-off point is designed to eek out a profit by twisting and contorting results so that they grab less than a handful of bolters, something is wrong.

When your rules are logical and you have seen a trend completely seperate to the system you are using, then yes, you are right, you could then apply it as a filter. What I'm getting at is that most of this is backfitted and tailor made to throw up longshots, nothing wrong really, except that the rules applied to short priced horses do not increase the strike rate.

In other words it is chasing prices, not horses.

The fact that all the profit is made up from four horses should ring alarm bells in anyone's language.

Your method is different, you are using a cutoff because of research not because it throws up a 50/1 winner every 5% of bets.

A rule I live and die by:

Divide the profit by the maximum dividend, if the number is less than 20, throw it away!

I've used this rule for over 5 years and every one of my mechanical systems has never failed in real time.

You'll see hundreds of systems fail the test of time which score less than 10.

Some are sold which score less than 5.

The more rules you have, the greater the chance of failure.

[Dr Pangloss]

Critical review of Dreamweavers is more than welcome. Before addressing some of the more specific objections allow me to point out the following.

For the 52 months under review Dreamweavers recorded a loss (over 5 units) in 18 months only, Adel lost -15 units in 2004, Bris lost -6 units in 2003, Melb lost -21 units in 2001 and -3 units in 2002. The majority of venues (including Sydney) in the majority of years recorded profit. Every year since 2001 ended in profit the worst being 2004 of +63 units PoT 18%.

Sydney lost but it was at least honourable at LoT 12% on selections >20/1 ( a subset that normally record a LoT between 25-30%).

My results go back to July 01 - thats over 4 years ago. If I accessed data from 10 years ago criticism might be rightfully made that the data was 'no longer relevant'. For the time being I'll continue to work with what I have got happy in the knowledge that the integrity of my DB is widely accepted and used everyday by many many active punters.

The 400 metre +/- objection surprises me the most. If the rule was reversed so that only select those starting beyond the 400 metre+/- threshold then I think we could seriously entertain the criticism that the rule was 'illogical'. On the contrary, it is surley extreme for a horse to race beyond 400 metres +/- (first uppers excepted) and makes perfect logical sense to eliminate such extremes from further consideration.

I plucked the min career starts at 10 so that it would corelate with the min WIN% 10%. There were three winners in the 10-15 career starts band for a loss of -138 units. I should have chosen minimum 16 starts!!

There were no wins for 40 career starts recording a loss of -27 units. I should have made it a maximum of 39 starts!! Experience tells you horses have an expired by date and the line needs to be drawn where??? Where they stop winning - so 40, 39 or whereever you think but go out and draw the line. (If I said max career starts of 39 there would have been a riot)

In answer to the longer priced winners criticism I shake my head in dismay. This is deliberately a long priced winning system where all rules, all results, and all warts are revealed for all to see. If we didn't have a few bolters in the mix we wouldn't have a system to start with. We got rid of three 100/1 pops (180 units of profit down the drain) by the < 100/1 rule. Besides, using the price filter >20/1 and < 40/1 results in:

races 674
bets 810
win 37
P/L 206 units
PoT 25.5%

I agree it would be preferable to have more than 57 winners - I read somewhere once that 100 was needed. The LLS is 96 - a long psychological stretch even for p57 to bear.

But what about minimum - 2.0 kg rule?? Surely that's where the mystery or lack of logic applies but it has failed to get a mention.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Chrome Prince]

It's not the years in the database, it's the number of winners used for this system.

A case in point is the huge difference in Sydney results, and where would one be after jumping on Melbourne???

It seems that some people are happy to accept things without question or proof, just because other people do.

I have previously pointed out problems with the files you use, but unfortunately it has not been taken in the spirit in which this advice was offered, instead aspersions have been made as to the accuracy of my data.

I know my data is accurate, because I do a lot more than hit the "import" button and blindly take it for granted. My data goes through mechanical and manual interrogation on a regular basis to identify things such as:

- Sunline is listed as having no career prizemoney at one of her starts after winning numerous G1's.
- TAB numbers are incorrect in more races than I care to mention here.
- Races are missing or chopped off.
- Horses are listed as running in the wrong races etc etc etc.

Therefore anyone analysing data is going to get vastly different results to what is reality.

All this has been addressed in my database, so let's not delve into comparing who has the best without running the same analyses that go into making up an accurate database.



In answer to the longer priced winners criticism I shake my head in dismay. This is deliberately a long priced winning system where all rules, all results, and all warts are revealed for all to see. If we didn't have a few bolters in the mix we wouldn't have a system to start with.



The point is not that you have bolters in there, the problem is that only 4 of them make up the profit!

In essence, look at it this way - you are pinning your hopes on one horse per year to provide all the profit for that year - and a bolter at that.

[lomaca]

I know my data is accurate, because I do a lot more than hit the "import" button and blindly take it for granted. My data goes through mechanical and manual interrogation on a regular basis.



Chrome!
Could not agree more.
There is nothing worse than using inaccurate info, be it from newspapers or databases.
With crook data, not even the perfect method can work.

I use the same data source myself as that programme, but as you say, sometimes it needs a great deal of error corection. Being uncorrected raw data it is cheaper, but care must be taken to ascertain veracity, a bit hard if one is just the end user.
Good luck

[KennyVictor]

But what about minimum - 2.0 kg rule?? Surely that's where the mystery or lack of logic applies but it has failed to get a mention.
I mentioned I didn't realy understand it. Would you like to give an example or a fuller explanation of this rule (and write slowly I'm a bit hard of hearing).

KV

[darkydog2002]

That anyone has wasted time in even replying to such a crap system .

Cheers.
darky

[slowman]

you must of read it,and posted on it.........
...................cheers......slowman..................

[darkydog2002]

Come to think of it ,I did ,Didn,t I .?
Cheers.
Darky.