Fav betting with a twist

[wesmip1]

All,

We all know the stats .. 30% of favs win. Well thats not a bad strike rate, too bad about the average dividends price.

I am going to trial a "system" which bets the fav just before jump at each meeting where the course has over the last 12 meetings (approx 100 Races) had a strike rate of 40% or greater. I will use a progression betting so that I always return a profit if the fav wins. The Bets will start at $10.

I will monitor 2 systems. One at 40% strike rate and one at 35% strike rate.

The only Course I am betting tommorrow which has a 40% strike rate is
- Ascot
Courses with 35% or higher include :
- Ascot
- Bathurst
- Kambla Grange
- Randwick
- Toowoomba
Wish me Luck....

[TWOBETS]

I'm a favorite only punter so I keep my head pretty low on this forum, but.........................................................................there are ways to make the favs pay. I hope this is another one. Bon chance.

[crash]

Perhaps I can't see the woods for the trees here[?], but those courses have correspondingly lower odds [terrible] due to on average fewer runners to counteract the higher fav. SR to make them no better a fav. bet than anywhere else.

[wesmip1]

Two Bets ( and others ),

Just ran this over the last 3 days (16 Meetings) and the stats are as follows :
Initial Bet is $10 with progression bet to always end in profit.

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 13
Profit : $112
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 5
Profit : $39
Highest Bet : $10

I was amazed to see those which had 40% strike rate all hit within the first or second race.

If we bet on the place instead of the win every meeting, it hit within the 2nd race everytime.

NOt many meetings yet though .. Oh and all prices are unitab prices.

Good Luck

[wesmip1]

Crash,

Using a progression system for betting so more interested in Strike Rate than average dividend.

Using a progression system usually works better with a higher strike rate then a higher dividend.

We will see how it goes....

Thanks for your observation though.

[lomaca]

Perhaps I can't see the woods for the trees here[?], but those courses have correspondingly lower odds [terrible] due to on average fewer runners to counteract the higher fav. SR to make them no better a fav. bet than anywhere else.
Never mind the woods Crash.
I can't see how a level betting loss on the favs, can produce a profit when betting progressively on the same!?
Someone "Please explain"
Good luck to all.

[xptdriver]

Never mind the woods Crash.
I can't see how a level betting loss on the favs, can produce a profit when betting progressively on the same!?
Someone "Please explain"
Good luck to all.

Gday Iomaca

that is one of the most argued topics around.. turning fs into profit by staking,, I think it is possible (but hard work) if you are close to break even at FS.. I ran a set of races about 2000 from memory where the fs return was about 98%, but staked turned into about 104 - 105 % from memory... ( i used the 924 staking plan, that is available on this site somewhere) that file is on my old computer, if I can ever get to it again..

I think if you are more than a couple of points from making a profit at FS then forget it (just my opinion) it is pretty damn hard...and the return isn't that great..

Now for betting favs .. well I am running something that is in it's infancy but is showing promise... 10 bets 8 winners and 10 places.. I will see how it goes in 12 months time before popping the corks...

[wesmip1]

Iomaca,

Progression betting works after you get to a certain percentage strike rate. There is nothing to say that this method will or will not return a profit. I am just playing around with numbers and selections.

To tell the truth I am not a progression betting fan either but I thought in this instance it might actually have a chance of working.

Good Luck.

[crash]

The maths have been here before [and everywhere else], even from a professor of maths proof here [mathematically], if you can't make a profit level stakes, no progression [regardless] will save you.

Still, punters will believe they can turn level stakes loss into progressive stakes profit with the 'right' progression in the 'right' circumstances, regardless of the maths or mathematical proof and that's a well known truism: We believe what we desperately want to believe regardless. Our minds come up with the 'logic' and 'evidence' required to custom fit our belief [but never ever mathamatical proof as 'evidence'].

Try it with real money for 6 months and see how far you get:-)

[wesmip1]

Geez,

Looks like this topic hit the nerve of some people .....

If you don't like betting on favs or progression betting then don't follow the topic.

Enough said.

[xptdriver]

The maths have been here before [and everywhere else], even from a professor of maths proof here [mathematically], if you can't make a profit level stakes, no progression [regardless] will save you.

Still, punters will believe they can turn level stakes loss into progressive stakes profit with the 'right' progression in the 'right' circumstances, regardless of the maths or mathematical proof and that's a well known truism: We believe what we desperately want to believe regardless. Our minds come up with the 'logic' and 'evidence' required to custom fit our belief [but never ever mathamatical proof as 'evidence'].

Try it with real money for 6 months and see how far you get:-)

Gday Crash..

dont wanna have a blue with you... but if what you say is true, why then can staking improve on fs when fs is in profit... but not if it sin the red? seems logical to me that if you can improve on 101%, with staking, otherwise why would you bother, why cant you improve on 99%? I need convincing that it cant be done when you are close to break even at fs.

[xptdriver]

Geez,

Looks like this topic hit the nerve of some people .....

If you don't like betting on favs or progression betting then don't follow the topic.

Enough said.

Gday wes

it's an old chestnut... there are clearly defined opinions on the matter and ya cant persuade pple to shift their opinion.. Maths are a strange thing.. you can get pretty well whatever you want from em.... ask an accountant.. :)

I dont mind betting favs, provided they are fair dinkum favs and what i consider a good risk... some favs as ya know shouldnt be, now if we can avaoid them we are halfway home

[lomaca]

Maths are a strange thing.. you can get pretty well whatever you want from em.... ask an accountant.. :)


Hi! xptdriver
"MATHS" I think you meant "statistics" one cannot manipulate mathematics.
2 + 2 = 4 no matter how much we would like to prove otherwise.

As to wesmips' comment, not to read posts we disagree with, Sorry, this forum supposed to put up ideas for discussion and evaluation, not religious doctrines, that one either belives in or not.
And why a losing system cannot be turned around by progression is simple, at least to me.
Progression accentuates the win part as well as the LOSS part, therefore if you are losing on level stakes you are back to square one, all you achieve is win bigger on a roll and lose even bigger when not.
But if you win on level stakes, it stands to reason that, your losses will always be less then your wins, ergo, you WIN.
If you are saying that, "BUT I will only select certain races or horses and I am betting more on the winners" then that's an other matter altogether, you may no longer be talking about a level stakes losing system.
That's my two cents worths anyway.
Good luck.

[crash]

I'm in your corner lomaca.

Like you, I was just expressed my opinion based on the maths evidence I have seen over the years and 2+2=4 will always be correct to me too. If someone wants to believe otherwise, that's fine by me as long as I have the right to disagree, especially when basic maths is being replaced by 'belief'.

The only progression that can work mathematically is when you are winning at level stakes. Then you are financing the progression from the bookies capital not your own. I'm not going to argue that a progression can turn a level stakes loss into profit though by re-inventing the wheel [there is still a Flat Earth Society with a very large membership].

[wesmip1]

Results for today :

35% Course Favs
Ascot - WIN $2.30 first race = $13 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Bathurst - LOST $180 ( No favs won all day Largest Bet $70 total $180)
Kembla Grange - WIN $3.30 fifth race = $9 ( Largest bet $30 total = $90)
Randwick - WIN $2.80 first race = $18 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Toowoomba - WIN $1.80 Second Race = $6 ( Largest bet $20 total = $30)

40%+ Course Favs
Ascot - WIN $2.30 first race = $13 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

Overall Results:

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 18
Loss : $22
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 6
Profit : $52
Highest Bet : $10

Good Luck.

[Bhagwan]

One might like to try the 50 point plan .
Its safer than most progressive staking plans & can handle a lot of outs in a row.

Set Target at $100 using a divisor of 50. Using a bank of $200
Keep divisor at 50 until a winner is struck.

After each win , deduct profit off target & then reduce the divisor by the price of the previous winner e.g. $3.00 deduct this off the divisor of 50 , new divisor is now 47 until another winner is struck..

Keep doing this until one gets to divisor of 3 , one should be in profit at this stage so rule off & start again.

[jfc]

The maths have been here before [and everywhere else], even from a professor of maths proof here [mathematically], if you can't make a profit level stakes, no progression [regardless] will save you.



The individual Crash was referring to was Edward o Thorp. This former hardly-well-off maths professor is now obscenely rich, not from his blackjack pioneering exploits but from the stockmarket. Others using his techniques have made individual fortunes > $100 million.

Life is just too short to again try and convince anyone that is is mathematically impossible for a staking plan to turn a negative expectation game profitable.

[wesmip1]

Courses to use today :

35% Course favs or Higher
- Canberra
- Cranbourne
- Devonport
- Port Lincoln
40% Course Favs or Higher
- Canberra
Good Luck

[crash]

The individual Crash was referring to was Edward o Thorp. This former hardly-well-off maths professor is now obscenely rich, not from his blackjack pioneering exploits but from the stockmarket. Others using his techniques have made individual fortunes > $100 million.

Life is just too short to again try and convince anyone that is is mathematically impossible for a staking plan to turn a negative expectation game profitable.

That's the guy JFC. 'Dr Maths' and many other web based maths sites do the maths. proof too for anyone who wants to look. No need to argue it here.

[wesmip1]

Results today :

35% Course favs or Higher

Canberra - WIN $1.40 first race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Cranbourne - WIN $2.90 first race = $19 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Devonport - WIN $1.70 first race = $7 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Port Lincoln - WIN $3.30 first race = $23 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

40% Course Favs or Higher

Canberra - WIN $1.40 first race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 22
Profit : $31
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 7
Profit : $56
Highest Bet : $10

[crash]

Well done wesmip1.

It looks like you are onto a profitable flat stakes system anyway [positive expectation] , so your progression overall is being paid for by the bookies. Good going so far anyway. Keep it up mate.

[wesmip1]

crash,

Its positive at the moment. Give it another 100 meetings though.

Courses to use Monday :

35% Course favs or Higher
- Narromine40% Course Favs or Higher
- None
Good Luck

[wesmip1]

35% Course favs or Higher
Narromine - WIN $3.40 third race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $30)

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 23
Profit : $35
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 7
Profit : $56
Highest Bet : $10

[wesmip1]

Courses to use Tuesday :

35% Course favs or Higher - Warrick Farm (39.1%)40% Course Favs or Higher - None
Good Luck.

[wesmip1]

Another winner today in the first race. So far there has only been 1 meeting which had no fav (in the 35% favs). This has easily been offset by the other 23 meetings which all produced a fav winner (most within the first two races).

Also I am doing this on Unitab prices ... Best Flucuation or Best Tote would be higher. Today unitab had the winner at 1.60 but it was available for 1.70 on other totes.

35% Course favs or Higher
Warrick Farm - WIN $1.60 first race = $6 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 24
Profit : $41
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 7
Profit : $56
Highest Bet : $10

Good Luck

[wesmip1]

Wednesdays courses to follow :

35% Course favs or Higher


Albany (36%)
Newcastle (39.39%)
Sandown (37%)
40% Course Favs or Higher



None
Finding courses with 40% winners is suprisingly difficult mid week.

[Stix]

I will use a progression betting so that I always return a profit if the fav wins. The Bets will start at $10. Wesmip1,

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed (Ok, ok.... enuff of the applause everyone...), so here is a dumb question (expected, I know :p).... are you betting to target a certain profit figure? i.e 15%, 25%return? or just a return greater than your outlay ?

[wesmip1]

Stix,

Just to return my outlay + $0.10.
Not much really. But just testing out a theory here.

Thanks

[wesmip1]

Todays Results :

35% Course favs or Higher
Albany - WIN $3.30 first race = $13 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Newcastle - WIN $3.60 fifth race = $28 ( Largest bet $30 total = $80)
Sandown - WIN $2.10 fourth race = $14 ( Largest bet $40 total = $70)

40% Course favs or Higher
No Races

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 27
Profitable Meetings : 26
Unprofitable Meetings: 1
Profit : $96
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 7
Profitable Meetings : 7
Profit : $56
Highest Bet : $10

Good Luck.

[wesmip1]

Thursdays courses to follow :

35% Course favs or Higher

Hawksberry (38%)
Ipswich (37%)
40% Course Favs or Higher


None
Good Luck.

[wesmip1]

35% Course favs or Higher
Hawksberry - WIN $1.60 first race = $6 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Ipswich - WIN $1.70 fourth Race = $2 ( Largest bet $60 total = $100)

40% Course favs or Higher
No Races

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 29
Profitable Meetings : 27
Unprofitable Meetings: 1
Profit : $104
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 7
Profitable Meetings : 7
Profit : $56
Highest Bet : $10

This keeps ticking along nicely....

Good Luck.

[wesmip1]

Fridays courses to follow :

35% Course favs or Higher

Rockhampton (36%)
Sale (36%)
40% Course Favs or Higher

None
Good Luck.

[brownie]

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at tracks that have a low strike rate.
They have a probability potential if you get what I mean.
We know that they will approach the statistical average of 30%
Just my 2 cents worth

[wesmip1]

Brownie,

I would have thought that too. But it doesn't work that way. For some reason some tracks have a higher winning percentage of favs always. And others perform badly. It mighjt be the types of races being run, or some sort of course bias.

I ran over those that were under 25% favs winning and there were at least 6 meetings in the last 2 weeks that failed to produce a fav winner on the first 4 races.

Good Luck.

[brownie]

Well if it is working, then good.
Maybe long term might tell a different story

[marcus25]

Hi wesmip!
How many years of back data did you use to arrive at the favs win percentage on the different tracks?
Thank's
Cheers

[wesmip1]

marcus,

Its based on the last 12 meetings. And changes as times progresses.
It is roughly the last 100 races.

Godd Luck.

[wesmip1]

Only the one Fav winner at Rockhampton. Wish it had come a bit earlier in the day. Still a winner keeps us in front.

35% Course favs or Higher
Rockhampton - WIN $1.90 sixth race = $1 ( Largest bet $90 total = $170)
Sale - WIN $1.40 first Race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

40% Course favs or Higher
No Races

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 31
Profitable Meetings : 30
Unprofitable Meetings: 1
Profit : $109
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 7
Profitable Meetings : 7
Profit : $56
Highest Bet : $10

[manygeese]

wesmip1, could I ask if you are winning at level stakes..

I presume it is losing. Very interesting anyway. Has got me thinking.

If you want my 2 cents as to why mathematics may not apply is the human element in what makes a favourite.

If you back black everytime at roulette you may encounter a run of outs that doubling up simply breaks your bank no matter what casino rules are. There is no law to say that red couldn't suck up a billion dollars.

With favourites though, its not chance deciding. It is human beings deciding what makes a good bet and the run of outs or ins for favourites comes down to intellect, not chance.

Dunno if that makes sense but I know what I mean.

[wesmip1]

Manygeese,

I would think on Level Stakes it is down if you class each bet as a bet.

But if you class each Meeting as a bet then it is doing well. I assume you need a bank of approx $500-$1000 to cover $10 bets for a meeting if the run of outs start to pile up.

I will see hoe it goes. Maybe it is worth stopping at the 4th Race thus the maximum bet won't be too high.

I am just trying it to see how it goes. I am aiming to make $1000 or a month of posting before retiring the system.

Good Luck.

[wesmip1]

Saturdays courses to follow :

35% Course favs or Higher

Ascot (42%)
Morphettville (39%)
Mooney Valley (40%)
Newcastle (39%)
Rosehill (40%)
Toowoomba (38%)
Werribee(35%)
40% Course Favs or Higher

Ascot (42%)
Mooney Valley (40%)
Rosehill (40%)
Good Luck.

[marcus25]

HI all!

Some time ago, I mentioned that my rating works on a large number of tracks almost embarrasingly well, yet it fails miserably on others.
I just learned to live with that, but now I have a question, why is it that the favs are winnig on one track in a disproportional manner, but fail on others.

Following on from Wesmip's idea I ran a programme to find what happens to the favs on different tracks under different track conditions.
(from 2000 to 2006)

Here are two glaring examples of what happens.

Gilgandra:

Track........Races ..Winners..StrikeR%.....Ret.........ROI.....Track_cond
Gilgandra.....8...........4.........50.00%.....$..8.60.....7.50%.......fast
Gilgandra....70.........35.........50.00%.....$93.20...33.14%......good
Gilgandra....32.........16.........50.00%.....$41.40...29.38%......dead
Gilgandra.....4...........1..........25.00%....$..2.40..-40.00%.....heavy
--------------------------------------------------------------
While a similar class of track, Kempsey, produced this

Track......Races.. Winners....StrikeR%.....Ret...........ROI......Track_cond
Kempsey....68.........17..........25.00%....$39.40.....-42.06%.....good
Kempsey....39..........8...........20.51%....$21.60.....-44.62%.....dead
Kempsey.....8...........1..........12.50%....$..2.20.....-72.50%....heavy

(there were no records under some track conditions)

There are quite a number of tracks, where under, fast or good conditions the loss is minimal or actually there is a slight win despite the TAB take.
All returns are Supertab VIC.
Since this covers more than 6 years and there is very little variation from year to year, it's a fairly reliable indicator of the track behavior, BUT WHY?, after all, a race is a race and the same horses are running around.
It would suggest that there is some hope, in following the favs, given some judicious thought as to where?.
Anyway, if anyone has an idea why this is so? you are most welcome, I'm sure.
Cheers

[manygeese]

The answer would have to be in what is under the horse's hoofs.

If you can, check out sand tracks on an international level. Bit hard to do but.

[crash]

Manygeese,
I would think on Level Stakes it is down if you class each bet as a bet.
But if you class each Meeting as a bet then it is doing well.
Good Luck.

Hmmm. The meetings as a bet? It's not the meetings that are getting progressive bets, but the bets within the meetings. For a 40% fav. SR meeting there is a possible run of outs of about 15 bets. [10 for 50%]. Easily a whole card anyway. In fact it means it's 'probable'.
Each meeting is separate so it's not beyond chance or probability for several meeting to be a wipe out on the same day. The more meetings covered in a negative expectation game the greater the potential of that happening.

"I would think on Level Stakes it is down"

If the system is sound [odds wise profitable for flat stakes at say 40% Fav. SR within all the meetings], flat stakes will make a profit without any progression.

If not as thought [above quote], long term loss will kick in eventually. Mathematically due to the laws of probability it must. 'Chance' can avoid it for a time but 'probability' says it must happen because the bets are continually against the odds at even 40% fav. SR. meetings. The 'house' has 60% against you if flat stakes can't make a profit long term for a meeting. Has any calculating been done to see if flat stakes have been profitable for the 40% meetings at least at the average odds for a fav.? Maybe they are.

If not, chance can go your way for some time at 40% SR but eventually the progression betting will turn into a nasty double-edged sword. It will start swiping at you with it's sharp side.

Hope that was all nice and clear to everyone :-) [?]

[brownie]

Mathematically due to the laws of probability it must. 'Chance' can avoid it for a time but 'probability' says it must happen because the bets are continually against the odds at even 40% fav.

This is true if you are playing every race at every track. The thing is we are not trying to beat statistics as a whole (well I'm not anyway) we only want to find a window somewhere where a profit can be dug out. Yes, if you are playing continuously then probability will win without a doubt. This even applies to a system that wins on flat stakes.

Cheers
Brownie

[crash]

Brownie, no offense meant, but what you have described is not what is happening with this system at all ['looking for a window' means exactly what in betting terms?].

This is progressive staking on every race until a winning fav. is struck. See back in this thread where a whole card was followed without a Fav. getting up.

The best idea would be to go back and see if the system is winning flat stakes. That can only be worked out if an average Fav. price is known for a meeting. Then the maths tell you if it's a long term winner or a loser. Simple. I do not have the data-bank to do that. I'm sure someone here has. If not we are p...... into the wind.

My guess is the higher the meeting Fav. SR, the lower the Fav. average price....... 'TILT', Back to square one long term. My guess might be wrong, but a few weeks results [until the author gets bored], tells us nothing about the system's real profit or loss potential long term. Like I said, at high Fav. strikes rates, chance can make things look better than they will eventually turn out to be for some time, but not long term.

Critically, what is not being included in the track Fav. SR % data is the average winning Fav. SP. That is the crux of the matter.

[wesmip1]

Everyone needs to stop arguing and start looking for different angles if they are going to make some profit from this field. There are heaps of different ways to look at data and it doesn't need to be based on level stakes. There are always ways around that, they aren't always safe such as progressive betting, but there are ways that work.

For instance ...

Taking this exact system and STOP after you are up 1 unit. If you did this you would be up 8.5 units in 8 days.

Another way would be to go from race to race between the meetings. Most days the winners have come within the first 2 races of the meeting. Stop at the first winner ( Aim to make a unit a day again ).

And I am not even going to give away the easiest way to make this work cause if you can't work it out then that leaves less competition dragging down the odds.

I used my own method today along these lines for the first time and made $600. Not bad for a day.

Anyway here are the results:



35% Course favs or Higher
Ascot - WIN $2.10 first race = $11 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Morphettville - LOST NO WINNERS = -$370 (Largest bet $110 total = $370)
Mooney Valley - WIN $1.90 fifth race = $13 ( Largest bet $70 total = $120)
Newcastle - WIN $1.50 second race = $10 ( Largest bet $20 total = $30)
Rosehill - WIN $2.40 second race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)
Toowoomba - WIN $2.60 second race = $6 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)
Werribee - WIN $2.90 second race = $9 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)

40% Course favs or Higher
Ascot - WIN $2.10 first race = $11 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Mooney Valley - WIN $1.90 fifth race = $13 ( Largest bet $70 total = $120)
Rosehill - WIN $2.40 second race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 38
Profitable Meetings : 36
Unprofitable Meetings: 2
LOSS : $145
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 10
Profitable Meetings : 10
Profit : $84
Highest Bet : $70
Good Luck.

[manygeese]

Ascot sat meeyings favourites this year

1.60 - - 2.60 - 3.10 - - - - 2.60 - - 2.80 - - 2.40 2.80 - - - 2.50 - 4.10 1.60 - 3.70 - 2.70 4.80 - 3.40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.40 2.30 - - 2.30 2.90 2.80 - 2.40 - 1.60 3.20 - 3.00 2.80 -- 2.40 2.00 - 2.00 1.80 1.80 2.40 - - - - 2.60 - 1.90 1.70 - - - - - 1.60 1.60 - 2.10 2.30 - - 2.60 - - -


97 dollars invested Return 95.2 38 winners. Strike rate of 39% ave dividend of $2.50

If you happened to do level stakes of $1 but double your bet to $2 after each win (then hold until the next loss if iy wins) you make a profit of 14.6 for the year so far.

The logic is the most common amount of outs after a win is zero. And the least likely amount of outs after after a win is infinity.

If you are close at level stakes, worth a thought. Could be 12 .3 profit actually.

[KennyVictor]

Not quite sure what your doing with the bets there manygeese. Perhaps you could show how much you would bet on the first 20 races starting at the start of your sequence of favorites there.
KV

[crash]

[QUOTE=wesmip1]Everyone needs to stop arguing and start looking for different angles

For instance ...
Taking this exact system and STOP after you are up 1 unit. If you did this you would be up 8.5 units in 8 days. End QUOTE]


We are not arguing here. We ARE looking at different angles. My Maths logic being only one of them. A valid angle I think when it comes to risking money [?].

Stopping after 1 unit ahead is a 'sounds good' angle. Problem is you can spend a hell of a lot of $ trying to get ahead 1 unit in 48 meetings over many weeks let alone 8.5 units ahead in 8 days! Maths reality says 61 units behind after all those meetings and a very large amount of turn -over [risk capital] to get there.

"[Morphettville - LOST NO WINNERS = -$370 (Largest bet $110 total = $370)" No 1 unit ahead anywhere here to stop at. Due to the progression factor, Morphetville at $10 a race became a $370 loss instead of an $80 flat stakes loss.

Overall due to progressions, you have turned over a large amount of money on 48 meetings and you are still not 1 unit ahead, but 61 units behind. Flat stakes you would still be losing too [less than 61 units because progressions magnify loses too, not just profit], but the amount of money involved and risked for turn-over would have been a hell of a lot less.

The only sensible progression I would ever recommend to anyone is after a win, not a loss. Then the progression is from profit [the Bookies money not your own]. If it wins progress bet again. If not, go back to the original flat stake.

Manygeese has yet another idea. doubling up after each bet until a winner is stuck[?] ....well I think is at this point I am going to bail out of this thread. As JFC has already said, 'life is too short' to try and replace belief systems of winning money with the basic maths that are actually involved instead. Bookies love belief systems and every punter is entitled too them.

Sincerely, good luck with it.

[leroy]

Hi Guys.
I've been doing place betting on favs myself for the last 3 weeks.
based on the pp fav only, with a few simple filters.
been backing them until 1 unit up or 2 down each day.
also been following all my selections too.
Stopping at 1 unit up =41/47(87.23%).Profit =+15.40 for 3 weeks(MON-FRI)
=32.77% ROI, AVE DIV $1.52
All selections=57/73(78.08%).Profit=+18 units, =24.66%ROI, AVE DIV $1.60.
Hopefully it will keep working.
Cheers
Leroy

[wesmip1]

Congrats leroy,

Thats a nice angle to focus on and hopefully it will continue.

Good Luck

[manygeese]

Not quite sure what your doing with the bets there manygeese. Perhaps you could show how much you would bet on the first 20 races starting at the start of your sequence of favorites there.
KV

I doubt if it works. If it did you would beat a casino. And I was liquored last night. But say a base bet of 10.00 and a bank of $200.00

1.60 - - 2.60 - 3.10 - - - - 2.60 - - 2.80 - - 2.40 2.80 - - - 2.50 - 4.10 1.60 - 3.70 - 2.70 4.80 - 3.40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.40 2.30 - - 2.30 2.90 2.80 - 2.40 - 1.60 3.20 - 3.00 2.80 -- 2.40 2.00 - 2.00 1.80 1.80 2.40 - - - - 2.60 - 1.90 1.70 - - - - - 1.60 1.60 - 2.10 2.30 - - 2.60 - - -


16.00 = + 6 = 206
- = -20 = 186
- = -10 = 176
2.60 = +16 = 192
- = -20 = 172
3.10 = +21 = 193
- = -20 = 173
-= -10 = 163
-= -10 = 153
- = -10 =143
2.60 = +16 = 159
- = -20 = 139
- = -10 =129
2.80 = + 18 = 147
- = -20 = 127
-= -10 =117
2.40 = + 14 = 131
2.80 = +36 = 167 (first two in a row strike)
- no bet = 167
- = -10 =157
- = -10 = 147
2.50 = +15 = 162
- = -20 = 142
4.10 = + 31 = 173
1.60 = +12 = 185 (second two strike in a row)
- no bet = 185
3.70 = + 27 = 212
- = -20 = 192
2.70 = + 17 = 209
4.80 = + = +285 (third two strike in a row)
- no bet = 285
3.40 = + 24 = 309
- = -20 =289
1 = -10 = 279
13 more losses = 149
2.40 = + 14 = 163
2.30 = + 26 = 189
- = no bet = 189
- = -10 = 179
2.30 = + 13 = 192
2.90 = + 38 = 230
2.80 = no bet = 230
- = -10 = 220


etc

Think it is just the same as if you only bet the favourite in a race after one where the favourite has just won. That shows a profit of 6.80 here where every race bet is 1.80 down.

Why I don't think it works is you would just back black after black at the casino and be able to win. Never toss that form guide away.

[manygeese]

[Manygeese has yet another idea. doubling up after each bet until a winner is stuck[?] .....

Wasn't the idea. Take full responsibility for your misunderstanding.

[crash]

Is that so? Your first post obviously was the one I was referring too and it was not clear to me nor Kenny, the poster after it. Clear as mud I'm afraid and very easy to misinterpret. I'm not taking responsibility for a poorly expressed idea.

[marcus25]

Here is a bit of trivia that mercifully will be forgotten as soon as it's read.
Stony Creek racetrack on race No 2 returns a profit on the fav. under any track condition. Bit distorted because more races on good than on wet tracks.

Races 45
Wins 20
Return $54.3
Good luck

[KennyVictor]

Wasn't the idea. Take full responsibility for your misunderstanding.It's never happened before... so if you can get him to do that I'd say forget the punt, you've got a career ahead of you in public relations. :)

[manygeese]

Is that so? Your first post obviously was the one I was referring too and it was not clear to me nor Kenny, the poster after it. Clear as mud I'm afraid and very easy to misinterpret. I'm not taking responsibility for a poorly expressed idea.


For the second time I take full responsibilty for your misunderstanding. You didn't understand what was put and it wasn't your fault. It was mine.

And then it happened again.

[manygeese]

It's never happened before... so if you can get him to do that I'd say forget the punt, you've got a career ahead of you in public relations. :)


It was my fault. Had been ummm, drinking.

[KennyVictor]

For the second time I take full responsibilty for your misunderstanding. You didn't understand what was put and it wasn't your fault. It was mine.

And then it happened again.You spineless, forlock tugging, knee bending, nose scraping, apologetic syophant!!! This forum hasn't got where it is today by people admitting they're wrong you know.
But then, I suppose a change is as good as a holiday so I take it all back.

[crash]

Kenny, now you leave manygeese alone.
He is obviously a decent bloke [sounds rural like me] and you are wrong to say I've never admitted I have been wrong. I got the comp. I started scores stuffed up the first week and admitted it, just before I handed over that job to Sportz. So there you go !

[manygeese]

You spineless, forlock tugging, knee bending, nose scraping, apologetic syophant!!! This forum hasn't got where it is today by people admitting they're wrong you know.
But then, I suppose a change is as good as a holiday so I take it all back.


I admit to being a syophant, the not all that distant relation of the elo.....

Ascot tosses up favourites has a had a run of fourteen outs for year and still pretty much in the game, no harm in looking at when to hold and when to play from that.

Favourite backing doesn't haturally appeal to me but the idea of backing the book or some such element of it and not the horse always has an appeal of sorts.

In the end systems are probably best for locating possibilties. The punters job is to decide if the possibilty is worthwhile after the rest of the field is sized up.

[salty]

Wesmip1

Just been looking at old threads and thought I might follow this one a bit further.
Would you be able to check the strike rates for favourites at different tracks for the last 12 weeks?
Much appreciated if you could.
I can see it helping with selecting lays at the tracks with a poor strike rate.

[wesmip1]

salty,

Use racingandsports. It has the fav win %'s that you seek for each track.

Good Luck.

[salty]

Thanks Wesmip1

I found it!