Comments on the validity of these results?

[Duritz]

OK, so, my latest sys has the following:

Test period - 2 years
Total Bets - 5859 (about 55 per week)
Total Winners - 1504 (25.7%)
Total Outlay - $5859 ($1 on each theoretical)
Total Collect - $6276
Average dividend - $4.20
POT = +7.1%

This is purely using Super TAB odds, so potential for improvement there with the corporates etc.

Of those 1504 winners, 73 of them were $10 or longer (slightly less than 5% of them). The longest priced winner was a 100/1 pop, the second highest priced winner was $33. There were two $33 winners, one $25 winner, seven winners about $20 or so, the rest were less than $17.

So, if you take out the highest TEN dividends, it still shows a 2% profit on turnover, on Super TAB odds.

However, there were also 90 winners priced shorter than $2.0, to show the flip side of the coin.

So, good people, what do we think of the viability and standup-edness of these stats?

[partypooper]

Duritz, my opinion is, it looks good, though for calculations I would cross out the 2 highest priced winners and deduct 2 losers, then re work out your POT.

My experience has been that the figures are automatically improved using Maxi-divi (obviously) but I find that if the selection is quoted fav in the pre-post , betting at top fluc is better than maxi-divi.

Anyway good luck with it

[Duritz]

That's great, thanks PP.

- PP using that method, deducting two highest winners and eliminating two losers, POT is 4.9%, again that's on STAB.

[partypooper]

Duriz, one thing I forget to say is, many good judges consider that the acid test is to use 1 years past results (as most of us do) but then dry run with another 1 years ACTUAL results; b4 actually putting the money down. Personally I do suffer with impatience, and I contend that the future results now, will later be past, (famous words of somebody there hee hee)

Seriously though 5% POT (supertab) is ************ good , consider that it is generally considered that your returns will improve by at least 10% using maxi-divi and best fluc, so that would give you a return of around $6445 and a POT of 10% (based on your original figures)

[Chrome Prince]

If the results are GENUINE, then that is the best system ever seen by me in 25 years plus.

Based on the average win divvy, your profit comes from over 100 horses - SPECTACULAR.

The longshots have truly boosted the profit, but taking out five of them, you are still in profit.

2 years, 5,000 plus bets, TAB profits - I'm sceptical that this is not retrofitted. :(

Tell me it isn't, and tell me where I send my cheque :D

[Duritz]

Nah it ain't retrofitted Chrome - but I don't want your cheque!

The results, broken down by year, were -

2004 (calendar year)

bets - 2705
wins - 688 (s/r 25.4%)
out - 2705
coll - 2849
pot - +5.3%
ave div - $4.10

2005

bets - 3154
wins - 816 (s/r 25.9%)
out - 3154
coll - 3427
pot - +8.6%
ave div - $4.20

[Duritz]

It ain't retro fitted because it's not a system in the retro fitting kind of system way. It's not a system in the way that System Serge's Rules or whatever it is in another thread is a system, ie -

days since last start 5.1 - 55.72
barrier - 1-13
last start placing - 2-5
fur colour - mangy - dying

It's a handicapping plan, and the top selection is the bet, given that it qualifies a couple of "system" rules - that's where the sys comes in, b/c the horse must pass a couple of mechanical rules.

But, that's why there's heaps of bets - the handicapping program applies to all races, and it was already a sound handicapping program - I just added a filter or two, if you will, tested it, and ended up here.

[partypooper]

Chrome, but thanks heaps as that gives us an idea of as to the HUGE claims of some shall we say "commercial" ideas, that SEEM to promise much greater returns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[crash]

Any system usually has a price range. It's either favoring the shorties [$1.50 to $5 say] or if a longshot system the bigger divvies, What sort of system throws out selections that are odds-on and also selections that can be up to 100/1 and still be a winning system?

I'm intrigued !!

[Bhagwan]

The SR looks to be there.
Try reducing the number of bets by deleting any that are less than $3.20 pre-post market.
If one goes over the figures I think one will find that the horses listed at $3.10 pre-post & less would not have shown a profit , so may as well ditch them, this will of course lower ones SR but the POT will be greater.

Cheers.

[Duritz]

Yeah good ideas - when I get time next day or two I'll re-run with that stipulation, post the results here.

Crash - you'd like it because it uses ratings, ie it's an automated handicapping program, using the ratings, you then take the top pick and if it passes a couple of "filter" rules, it's a bet. That's why there's heaps of bets at varying odds, every race is a possible bet. (check that, every race without any first starters in it)

[Chrome Prince]

Chrome, but thanks heaps as that gives us an idea of as to the HUGE claims of some shall we say "commercial" ideas, that SEEM to promise much greater returns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi partypooper,

It's not the POT or the profit that is spectacular, you may have misunderstood me, it's the viability of the system continuing.

I've never seen profit made up from over 100 horses based on the average win dividend using TAB prices over 2 years.

That's not to say that other entities may not have higher POT or $$$ profit.

I personally would put serious money on these selections outlined in the thread.

[Chrome Prince]

Nah it ain't retrofitted Chrome - but I don't want your cheque!

The results, broken down by year, were -

2004 (calendar year)

bets - 2705
wins - 688 (s/r 25.4%)
out - 2705
coll - 2849
pot - +5.3%
ave div - $4.10

2005

bets - 3154
wins - 816 (s/r 25.9%)
out - 3154
coll - 3427
pot - +8.6%
ave div - $4.20

Hi Duritz,

I was not aware that it was your system, I thought it was something you came across in cyberspace or from a mag.

No offence intended, it did seem too good to be true, but if you are using it, then you don't need me looking over your shoulder ;)

Perhaps you remember when we were best mates and went to school together and I let you stay in my high rise apartment last week?

:D

Perhaps not :(

[Duritz]

I am going to start backing it, that'll be the acid test.

Strange thing is, I'm not even excited about it, I guess b/c I need to see it work when my money is on it for it to be real in my mind.

I'll keep you posted.

[KennyVictor]

Hi Duritz,

You say it's not backfitted but:
Was there a backfitting element involved when you developed the handicapping system? Like did you try 1 length = 0.5Kg, no that doesn't work how about 1 length = 0.4Kg, etc until it showed good results? Or have you proved the handicapping part works on fresh data not used for development?
Assuming your ratings are backfitting free did you take the ratings over the two year period and then try different filters over the top of them until you came up with a nice profitable outcome. This of course would be backfitting too.

I ask these questions not to try to shoot you down or anything of the sort and I hope your answers to both of them are in the negative. Just injecting an air of caution into the ebullient atmosphere your results have engendered lest you be carried away on the tide of expectation into perdition, depression and ultimate financial ruin.

Cheerfully yours,
KV

[Chrome Prince]

Kenny,

Dare not say it, but if Duritz can show a TAB profit on 5,500 selections in 2 years, and his profit is not even made up from 10 longshots, then his retrofitting or backfitting doesn't really matter.

When I mentioned backfitting, I thought the results were from some peddlar who may have "jimmied" the bets, not necessarily backfitted.

If Duritz has set rules and handicapping and has not left out any other horses, then he is on the ride of a lifetime.

[Duritz]

Hi KV - the handicapping program has been improved over the last year or so as I have developed it, until it is where it is now. I suppose in a sense the handicapping program itself is "retro fitted" given that I have tested, changed etc as I've gone along, however it's not fitted with silly rules like "barrier 6-11" or anything, it just uses their ratings, and predicts what they'll rate today, and minuses for weight, jockey, barrier. So then it has its selections, using the top pick if it passes one simple rule then it's a bet.

The power isn't in the one simple rule, the power is in the handicapping program. On it's own, you can level stake the top pick and lose 2%, the rule pushes it into the profit.

[crash]

Hi Duritz,

You say it's not backfitted but: [snip]
I ask these questions not to try to shoot you down or anything of the sort and I hope your answers to both of them are in the negative. Just injecting an air of caution into the ebullient atmosphere your results have engendered lest you be carried away on the tide of expectation into perdition, depression and ultimate financial ruin.

Cheerfully yours, KV

Kenny I just love the above. You should set up a punter's minder service. You'll save the poor buggers thousands !!! :-)

Cheers, Crash

[KennyVictor]

You should set up a punter's minder service. You'll save the poor buggers thousands !!! :-)
If it weren't for the perdition, depression and financial ruin I find myself in I'd do just that. :(