Money Talks!

[Chrome Prince]

We all know that these software programs follow the money on the tote (fluctuations).

They are looking in the wrong area!

Save yourself thousands and follow the money on the horse not the race.

RULES

1. Take the last five SP's of a horse and divide it by 5 to get an average SP

2. If the horse starts longer than average - don't bet.

2a. If horse has less than five starts - don't bet.

3. If the horse starts shorter than average - bet.

4. Obtain the best odds on the horse you can.

There will be more than one selection per race, so take the horse which has the greatest percentage under the average price.

No, you won't always be on the favourite - believe me ;)

Money Talks!

Disclaimer - you must use your own judgement with this, there will be massive fluctuations in field size and class, so one must make adjustments. and that is the key to it being profitable.

[partypooper]

It always amazes me Chrome how after years of systems there is always ANOTHER angle to explore!

[Chrome Prince]

The key Partypooper, is being able to adjust for number of runners, class and fitness.

Once this formula is right, you would get 75 to 80% of the winners.

Looking back through past results just last weekend, you'd get about 30 of the 40 or so winners in one shot!

The argument I usually get is that you are attracting favourites and poor value, that is why obtaining the best price is crucial to profit, as it is whenever you bet anyway.

Forget form, the price is the best guide to finding winners ;)

[Crackone]

3. If the horse starts shorter than average - bet.

4. Obtain the best odds on the horse you can.

The only problem I can see Chrome Prince is the wild fluctuations with the TABS after jump. ( Best odds is easy B/F. 20 to 50% better odds less commission)

Been looking at backing Fav of late Tabs jump from one to another after the race has closed, all that study research down the drain. IAS is the most reliable source for prices.

[Chrome Prince]

Best price is crucial - do not bet on the TAB.

Get prices from IAS openers.

[Mancunian]

Best price is crucial - do not bet on the TAB.

Get prices from IAS openers.G'day Chrome Prince, I was checking these ideas out on todays races, just trying out on paper to get the feel of it - and I was trying it using Vic TAB prices about 15 minutes before the start of each race. Just to confirm what you are saying here is - I can get good results by using IAS openers. This makes it a lot easier as we can make the selections in the morning of the races and then enjoy watching the winners come in a relaxed fashion instead of slaving over a hot keyboard all afternoon.
Incidentally, I was reasonably impressed with what I was seeing so far anyway - top selection won the first race I looked at paying $6.40, then 3rd selection won then 2nd selection and 2nd selection again in the races so far. those last 3 all paid $3 odd for the win on Vic tote.
Will look at some more of todays now using IAS openers.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and ideas

Cheers

[crash]

'do not bet on the TAB'

After reading in PP that the online NT bookies will sack all winning punters and so will all other account bookies [even a $11 bet was knocked back from a winning punter], do we have to consider ourselves losing punters and if not, where else but the TAB's do we bet besides betfair?

[Mancunian]

I'm quite excited about this one I'll post results of todays races (only done on paper mind) as soon as I get a few minutes.

[Shaun]

I am making an excel sheet to do most of the work for me.

[Chrome Prince]

Last 5 starts are available from various sources online.

TAB prices fluctuate dramatically in the last 15 mins, would suggest using openers on IAS.

Do not forget you MUST make price adjustments for field size,fitness and class.

Apart from that it works.

Wonder what the "vulchers" will name this one when they sell it?

:(

[KennyVictor]

Have you run this through a database at all Chrome? Field size should be easy to adjust for but fitness and class - that smacks of handicapping to me. Any hints in that direction?

KV

[KennyVictor]

I believe that site you recommended on another thread just now has SPs.

KV

[Mancunian]

For the record, brief summary of my test on 10 races at Sandown and Rosehill today :

Top selection won 2 - out $10 return $7.30

2nd (2@nd) selection won 5 - out $20 return $28.20 (backing top 2)

3rd selectio won 1 - out $30 return $30.60 (backing top 3)

outside top 3 selections 2 out of 10 races.

gudonya CP
cheers

[Moderator 3]

Please note:

If the forum software prevents normal posting reference to a competitor internet site then other methods of referring to that site are NOT PERMITTED on our forum and are a breach of Forum Terms of Use.

OZmium has allowed competitor websites to be mentioned briefly in passing, within reason.

However when any poster or group of posters continually plug a competitor internet site, as has been done with the site in question, then THAT is DEFINITELY NOT ON.

Numerous posts have been removed or edited as a result of the determination of a certain poster to promote for free a particular website on this Forum.

OZmium has not spent large sums of money on IT Support, search engine optimisation etc. in order for the OZmium Forum to be used as a free promotional medium for a particular internet site so readers of this forum will be directed to that site and sign up as a member of that site in order to access that site’s information.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Moderator.

[duckymay]

Oh Mr. Moderator, you're a blue meanie.

PS - that certain "poster" you mention, co-incides with the mysterious disappearance of the "poster" Duritz... what have you done Deep Throat?! I'll expose the truth Scully!:)

[Chrome Prince]

Have you run this through a database at all Chrome? Field size should be easy to adjust for but fitness and class - that smacks of handicapping to me. Any hints in that direction?

KV

Hi Kenny,

No, no database for this one, well not directly anyway.

What I am doing is computer modelling via the database the impact values of field size, class and fitness.

But the defining value is the SP of the horse, both in career mode and "live".

The price factor makes up at least 70% of the criteria.

So my results might be vastly different to someone else's, especially when they use price alone.

[Chinbok]

This might be a simple question but how do you adjust for field size?

Do you divide the SP by Field Size??

[Chrome Prince]

This might be a simple question but how do you adjust for field size?

Do you divide the SP by Field Size??

By getting averages for field size versus SP.

I use favourite prices over field size averages, but you also have to include fitness and class.

What I do is not perfect yet, but it's damn close to the mark.

As Mancunian demonstrated, one can use this in several ways.

I stick to the top selection, but you can find winners as second or third selection.

The beauty is when you find something at 6/1 or 8/1 on top and it wins - great feeling.

This is both ratings and system, "a ratings system"

The reason it's not really ratings is that the odds you end up with for the field will be nowhere near accurate, but it will point you in the right direction.

[KennyVictor]

Oh Mr. Moderator, you're a blue meanie.

PS - that certain "poster" you mention, co-incides with the mysterious disappearance of the "poster" Duritz... what have you done Deep Throat?! I'll expose the truth Scully!:)When I read the moderators comments I thought it was you that was in trouble. I mean your post was immediately before mine which referred to you recommending a site on another thread (My post now sits there like a poor orphan - even more meaningless than most of the drivel we write).
But now you hint that Duritz has dissappeared !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Has he really gone or is this just one of his frequent absences between posting frenzies????
If he's gone I'm going to be well peeved, after Punter57 who was also "dissappeared" he would be my favorite poster.
Oh Lordy Lordy why must you always take the good ones, take me, take Mad Gambler, take anyone else but for heaven's sake leave the quality guys alone that we mere mortals may learn.

Warmest regards,
Crash
(No I lied, it's KV).

[crash]

You'll keep Kenny boy.

[duckymay]

Poor old Duritz. Or is that young Duritz. Who knows.... All I know is that he disappeared just before I joined, in what can only described as a very big co-incidence.

And yes, he will be sorely missed. What genius, what bold, ribald genius, to come up with such slashing, piercing insights that led to such landmark discoveries as The Beer System, and The Beer System 2.

The world will not be the same without him.

[DR RON]

HI Chrome, by fitness, would you mean averaging out the days between each start and comparing to the current race?
perhaps if you have time, you could give the workings on a sample race, although I would understand why you might not want to :-) just in case it got into the wrong hands!!!

[KennyVictor]

So Duckymay, if you appeared just after Duritz dissappeared in a flash of spectoral (or spectral) brilliance and legubrious luminescence does that mean.... can it possibly mean.... dare we hope that......
.....Punter57 is back with us again.

[duckymay]

Ah Punter57, I have seen him not!

Of Duritz, though, I can say this... his ethereal form, like the thinnest wisp of smoke, has been rumoured to have floated, tortured, on the wastelands of website banishment, these words ringing in his ears -

"when any poster or group of posters continually plug a competitor internet site, as has been done with the site in question, then THAT is DEFINITELY NOT ON.

Numerous posts have been removed or edited as a result of the determination of a certain poster to promote for free a particular website on this Forum."

And his spirit floated, tortured, upon those wastelands, but now, like Voldemort in the Harry Potter novels, has taken on new form!!!

[Chrome Prince]

HI Chrome, by fitness, would you mean averaging out the days between each start and comparing to the current race?
perhaps if you have time, you could give the workings on a sample race, although I would understand why you might not want to :-) just in case it got into the wrong hands!!!

Hi Dr,

yes, in this instance fitness = days between starts.

sorry, no examples just yet - the vulchers are circling ;)

I've pretty much revealed the entire process here, without revealing my impact values and ratios, that way no one can sell it, but they get pretty much the gist to be able to work it out close enough for selections with experimentation.

Run it on paper and fine tune it, it does work pretty well if you put in the time.

[jfc]

I was amazed to once read an Alan Aitken article where he had the gall to average dividends. That is plain wrong and dangerous.

The correct operation is just as easy (on a spreadsheat). Being one of the 3 Pythagorean means it appears to have been around for while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_mean

Consider SPs:

100
5
5
5
5


6.2 = Harmonic Mean
24.0 = Average = Very, very Wrong

[KennyVictor]

or consider SPs:

5
100
100
100
100

20.8 = Harmonic mean
81 = Average.

Which do you prefer there?
Looks like no system is perfect.

KV

[KennyVictor]

And his spirit floated, tortured, upon those wastelands, but now, like Voldemort in the Harry Potter novels, has taken on new form!!!Let us speak no more of this banished brigand, our lips must remain sealed lest others find out his true identity for like the second coming of Punter57 it will be cut off in its prime. No sooner had the Roach crawled into our forum than it was crushed under the jackboot heel of the less than benevolant dictator we have all grown to fear.

[Chrome Prince]

I was amazed to once read an Alan Aitken article where he had the gall to average dividends. That is plain wrong and dangerous.


No method is perfect jfc, as KV pointed out, it's pretty much the best you can do.

In this instance weighted averages come into play, as the last start SP has the most impact.

I did say that impact values and ratios play a very important role here.

10/1 in a field of 21 in a group1 at flemington is a lot different to evens in a kilmore open.

I am not just getting averages over all five starts, but the last start might have a 70% weighting and the fifth last start might have a 5% weighting.

[jfc]

or consider SPs:

5
100
100
100
100

20.8 = Harmonic mean
81 = Average.

Which do you prefer there?
Looks like no system is perfect.

KV

Assume 5 Totes with equal pool sizes showing a selection's dividends as:

5
100
100
100
100

The combined pool would calculate a dividend of the Harmonic Mean = ~20.833333333 before rounding manipulations.

That is the one and only correct calculation for the given parameters.

If (as in real life) the pool sizes were different then the appropriate weighting measures come into play.

KV,

if after realising that your spreadsheet has a Harmonic Mean function you'd taken the trouble to learn a bit about it, you would not have wasted my time with your post. Just as you did after flunking Woof's Conditional Probability test.

These 2 important concepts have been around for ~2,600 and ~400 years respectively. If you want to challenge them submit your findings to Bond University instead.

[Shaun]

I was always told when doing everages it was best to take away the highest and the lowest and average everything in between

[DR RON]

Thanks for the reply Chrome, your method reminded me of one that I was tinkering with at one stage using averages of lengths beaten and s.p . Basically I was trying to work out the most consistent horses in a race by seeing how often they performed according to their price. Tried to weed out the nags that seemed to get beaten when short in the market.

[KennyVictor]

Assume 5 Totes with equal pool sizes showing a selection's dividends as:

5
100
100
100
100

The combined pool would calculate a dividend of the Harmonic Mean = ~20.833333333 before rounding manipulations.

That is the one and only correct calculation for the given parameters.

If (as in real life) the pool sizes were different then the appropriate weighting measures come into play.

KV,

if after realising that your spreadsheet has a Harmonic Mean function you'd taken the trouble to learn a bit about it, you would not have wasted my time with your post. Just as you did after flunking Woof's Conditional Probability test.
Not sure if your blather about the 5 totes is anything to do with your answer to me or not - seems a bit off track. If so you might glance at the first post and see that the whole discussion started with SP averages and nothing to do with Tab pools and their (unlikely) combination.
As for the churlish reference to my use of a spreadsheet - no I didn't do a childish sprint to a spreadsheet to try and prove you wrong - I looked at the reference you gave where I read:

Since the harmonic mean of a list of numbers tends strongly toward the least elements of the list, it tends (compared to the arithmetic mean) to mitigate the impact of large outliers and aggravate the impact of small ones.

From that I used a similar set of figures to your own and (a calculator) to demonstrate to you that the harmonic mean is not the be all and end all in this case. Your example was weighted heavily in favour of the advantages of the harmonic mean, mine is the opposite. Perhaps if you could admit to yourself that not everything you say is perfect and that anyone who disagrees with you needs putting down you might have learned something. Somehow I doubt you will though.

KV

[crash]

Thanks for the reply Chrome, your method reminded me of one that I was tinkering with at one stage using averages of lengths beaten and s.p . Basically I was trying to work out the most consistent horses in a race by seeing how often they performed according to their price. Tried to weed out the nags that seemed to get beaten when short in the market.

Couldn't that be done simply with some reference point involving win % ?

If the average horse has say 30% of it's starts under $5, a horses with a 25% win SR on average, wins far more evenly [consistency] than horses with a 10% win SR starting under $5. They both have 30% of their starts under $5 SP. but the win results within their individual win% is usually more erratically achieved the lower down the win % scale you go.

When handicapping, I'm very wary of low win % horses. They usually disappoint in ideal race circumstances and starting outright favorite and they are not always running in low class races either. They are in all classes right up to G1.

Just a thought.

[jfc]

Not sure if your blather about the 5 totes is anything to do with your answer to me or not - seems a bit off track. If so you might glance at the first post and see that the whole discussion started with SP averages and nothing to do with Tab pools and their (unlikely) combination.

...

KV

Your response indicates you have failed to grasp the key point of Harmonic Means.

I will try to illustrate it with an exaggerated version of an example in that link.

If you travel one half the distance of a journey at 99 kph and the other at 1 kph then your average speed is not:

50 kph = Arithmetic Mean

It is actually 1.98 kph = Harmonic Mean

The Harmonic Mean is the only correct answer for this. The Arithmetic Means and Geometric Means are nonsense - even though they may sometimes give similar results.

The essence of the calculation involves adding times - which is a correct operation.

But adding reciprocals of times is nonsense. As is taking the nth root of the product of n times.

Now Dividends and SPs happen to be approximate indicators of the same thing = Money Staked. Except the formulae use the reciprocal of money.

It is correct to add money.

It is nonsense to add the reciprocal of money.

[KennyVictor]

Your response indicates you have failed to grasp the key point of Harmonic Means.
Au contraire my good man. I grasp the whole harmonic mean thing utterly. I understood the example in the afore mentioned link – harmonic mean of the speed - adding the times – I’m all over it. Your parallel with Dividends and SPs is fine – in fact with the exception of the quote I’ve highlighted here your post is faultless. You see, although a lot of what I write in here is for cheap laughs, like you, I also have a brain the size of a planet. In fact we shouldn’t really be here, we should be nutting out what REALLY happens on the event horizons of black holes (as if everyone doesn’t know already) on some other suitable forum.
BUT.. what us poor tortured geniuses must try to do when we tread the turf of the common man is tell them things they understand, give them tools they can use. Look at what you’ve written - “As is taking the nth root of the product of n times” – We know what you’re on about but I can see eyes rolling back in heads and mousewheels being thumbed down the page as they wonder what the braniac is on about this time.
Your harmonic mean suggestion which started all this off had some merit. I just tried to point out to the chaps that love the reciprocal as much as we do that it wasn’t perfect in every case.
Now we don’t want to spoil a promising thread with all this mathematical banter so tell you what. I’m a philosophical guy, I’ll let you have the last word and win the argument and I’ll content myself with just being right. That way we both get what’s most important to us – nobody loses. Give me your best shot and I’ll just smile and say “Good old jfc, he had the last word again.”:)

KV

Disclaimer: Any condescension shown to anyone other than jfc in this post (or disclaimer) is a side effect of something you shouldn’t worry yourself about.

[Chrome Prince]

Harmonic mean, black holes and who is right and who is wrong has nothing to do with what I posted.

The downfall of the punter is making a simple thing complicated, all in a quest to defy the odds.

It's not that hard, the harder you make it, the worse it gets.

RULE 1: Obtain the very best odds you can.

If you ignore this rule, no amount of education will save you!

Us mortals are merely a cluster surrounding a black hole, but there are many billions of clusters.

But is the black hole an infinite abyss, or is it a w o r m hole, a pathway to another dimension - a profit???

After all, there is a race called "The Galaxy", coincidence or a clue, you decide ;)

Then of course there was "Unworldy", "Infinite Grace", "Infinite Spirit", "Universal Prince" et al.

Seem too complicated?

Why not keep it simple and follow the rules - it works.

[lomaca]

The downfall of the punter is making a simple thing complicated.

You are right CP.
Reading some of the posts, I sometimes have the feeling that the poster is more interested in displaying his prowess in confusing the issues, and or, prove his (in his mind only) superior book knowledge, then in genuine discussion about punting.
KV I don't mean YOU!
KISS!
Cheers

[crash]

Huh? 'Black hole' ? Isn't that's the name of the thing in our wallets after a bad day on the punt? As for harmonic mean, yep I play one of those, blues tunes mostly. I can do a pretty mean imitation of a train winding up to a full head of steam.

[darkydog2002]

"keep it simple"

Truer words were never spoken.

Cheers.
darky.

[Chrome Prince]

Did anyone have a go at it today?

Any success?

I had mixed results, some good, some not so good, but managed to snag a couple of good odds winners, although they weren't top rated.

[partypooper]

Groan, yesterday was NEARLY a hospital case through "Road Rage" 2 heros from low life picking on a sole 55 YO riddled with Arthtritis etc, then I put my bets on last night and was supposed to back Classic Chevron (Top Rated P Harvey etc) Couldn't understand why my account was not well in the black today, checked and I'd put my money on CHANGING LANES by mistake, can't understand how I did it!! But I'm blaming the (deleted) ????!

Sorry all that was supposed to be a new thread!!????

PPS THe freudian slip (spelling) was that the road rage arose because of ..... YUP you guessed it "CHANGING LANES" I kid you NOT!

PPPS, Sad, isn't it, age, ... in my youth I'd have dragged those two out and beat em to a pulp, (I was boxing for 7 years) , now I can't even make a fist!

[crash]

Don't give up Party. I'm only a little older than you and I'm riddled with ....well I'm just riddled, but I can still make a fist and try and pop the brake now and then. Pity, she moves a lot faster than I swing, but I still have a go!! :-)

[jfc]

You are right CP.
Reading some of the posts, I sometimes have the feeling that the poster is more interested in displaying his prowess in confusing the issues, and or, prove his (in his mind only) superior book knowledge, then in genuine discussion about punting.
KV I don't mean YOU!
KISS!
Cheers

Interesting that Iomaca, along with CP and KV all featured in Woof's Conditional Probability exercise.

They couldn't solve the puzzle but rather than resolve to correct their learning deficiency they sabotaged the thread so that no one could get any benefit from it.

Just like now.

Despite trying to bluff their way through they clearly cannot get their head around the concept of a Harmonic Mean.

It is absurd to challenge it as being too complicated - it is just as easy to use it instead of the Arithmetic Mean in a spreadsheet.

If CP's system actually works then simply replacing the Average by the Harmonic Mean will not alter the appearance of the process, but will provide far more credible results. By eliminating many nonsensical averages.

I already illustrated why KV's notion of choosing between the 2 means depending on the figures was absurd.

But here is another example.

The Harmonic Mean can be used in a single cell formula to calculate the Market % from a column of SPs or Dividends. If you grapple with that exercise something might finally dawn on you.

But I defy anyone to produce a similar result with a formula depending the Arithmetic Mean.

So as to the squeals that Harmonic Means are in the realms of astrophysics, how is it that part of the Arithmetic Mean calculation is used for Market % - the essential indicator for gambling. And this was widely used before calculators were invented. By otherwise barely-numerate folk.

Some might remember Mark and his risk-free system, where he'd do those calculations mentally day in day out on E/W markets.

[crash]

I didn't understand JFC posts [either], but I'll stand up for his right to express his opinion here even if some don't like his view or the way he expresses it [that's just the way the guy is]. 'Ganging up' [schoolyard bullying], with little more than thinly veiled personal insults is the road people take for a race to the bottom of lowest common denominator forum mentality [only allowed]. That's forum fascism and there is plenty of those forums around already on the internet, which are about as interesting as an empty food cupboard.

There is and old saying: " If what you say doesn't rub somebody up the wrong way, you haven't said anything". Long live free speech.

My 2 bob's worth anyway.

[Chrome Prince]

Interesting that Iomaca, along with CP and KV all featured in Woof's Conditional Probability exercise.

They couldn't solve the puzzle but rather than resolve to correct their learning deficiency they sabotaged the thread so that no one could get any benefit from it.

Just like now.

Despite trying to bluff their way through they clearly cannot get their head around the concept of a Harmonic Mean.

It is absurd to challenge it as being too complicated - it is just as easy to use it instead of the Arithmetic Mean in a spreadsheet.

If CP's system actually works then simply replacing the Average by the Harmonic Mean will not alter the appearance of the process, but will provide far more credible results. By eliminating many nonsensical averages.

I already illustrated why KV's notion of choosing between the 2 means depending on the figures was absurd.

But here is another example.

The Harmonic Mean can be used in a single cell formula to calculate the Market % from a column of SPs or Dividends. If you grapple with that exercise something might finally dawn on you.

But I defy anyone to produce a similar result with a formula depending the Arithmetic Mean.

So as to the squeals that Harmonic Means are in the realms of astrophysics, how is it that part of the Arithmetic Mean calculation is used for Market % - the essential indicator for gambling. And this was widely used before calculators were invented. By otherwise barely-numerate folk.

Some might remember Mark and his risk-free system, where he'd do those calculations mentally day in day out on E/W markets.

1. I had no interest in trying to solve a puzzle, quite simply racing is not that complicated, the average dividend multiplied by the strike rate must be greater than 100. You don't need to be Stephen Hawking to master that.

2. I was not trying to challenge the concept as being too complicated, I stated that you are trying to complicate something that does not need it.
A bit like an English Literature student complicating the "Jack and Jill" nursery rhyme and seeing meanings that were never intended, so missing the actual point!

3. The system actually does work, whether it's credible or not is of no consequence. You obviously chose to ignore the impact value and ratio statements I made which totally rule out Harmonic Mean altogether - you missed the point.

4. Quite simply, Harmonic Mean is irrelevant in this situation, so I don't know why you continue to argue it.

5. Please provide evidence of where I "sabotaged" any thread on this forum.

[lomaca]

Despite trying to bluff their way through they clearly cannot get their head around the concept of a Harmonic Mean.

It is absurd to challenge it as being too complicated - it is just as easy to use it instead of the Arithmetic Mean in a spreadsheet.


I am sorry JFC, but I was calculating harmonic mean and the rest of them long before there were computers around, we did not even have electronic calculators, and still managed.
It is not that I have anything against complex statistical concepts per se, it is just that most of them do not really have any relevance to what we are trying to do here.
With CP's idea the simple arithmetic mean is quite adequate.
But my comment still stands, presenting complex solutions to problems that do not need it, is silly to say the least.
Cheers

[Chrome Prince]

Consider this with NO filters...

14.36% of horses which won their last start win again, next start.

11.47% of horses which won their 4th last start win four starts later.

19.52% of horse which started at less than EVEN money last start go on to win, next start.

14.82% of horses which started at less than EVEN money at 4th last start win four starts later.

These statistics alone tell you the power of the method.

The influence of market price over form (no matter how the horse performed) is powerful stuff, and the basis of this method.

No need for hyperactive equations here.

And this is the very raw starting point, no filters of fitness or class or anything.

Averages don't come into play, just impact values and ratios.

I accept that I may have misled some with my averaging rule, but I wasn't about to give away everything, and still won't, but I've pointed people in the exact right direction without publishing the exact criteria.

The averaging rule will still work, providing the weight of importance is shifted the further you go back.

For those giving it a shot, concentrate on the last start first and run the numbers after filters and work your way back, each time checking the resulting improvement or decline, you'll see what I mean and see the power of market price.

The problem is that both averaging and harmonic mean, both do not take into account impact vales and class and fitness.

Along with obtaining best price (cannot be stressed enough when working this end of the market), the above factors combine to make a very effective system.

[lomaca]

I am sorry JFC, but I was calculating harmonic mean and the rest of them long before there were computers around, we did not even have electronic calculators, and still managed.
It is not that I have anything against complex statistical concepts per se, it is just that most of them do not really have any relevance to what we are trying to do here.
With CP's idea the simple arithmetic mean is quite adequate.
But my comment still stands, presenting complex solutions to problems that do not need it, is silly to say the least.
Cheers
Just a quote to add,
"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked."
John Gall, Systemantics
Good luck

[jfc]

Consider this with NO filters...

14.36% of horses which won their last start win again, next start.

11.47% of horses which won their 4th last start win four starts later.

19.52% of horse which started at less than EVEN money last start go on to win, next start.

14.82% of horses which started at less than EVEN money at 4th last start win four starts later.

These statistics alone tell you the power of the method.

The influence of market price over form (no matter how the horse performed) is powerful stuff, and the basis of this method.

No need for hyperactive equations here.

And this is the very raw starting point, no filters of fitness or class or anything.

Averages don't come into play, just impact values and ratios.

I accept that I may have misled some with my averaging rule, but I wasn't about to give away everything, and still won't, but I've pointed people in the exact right direction without publishing the exact criteria.

The averaging rule will still work, providing the weight of importance is shifted the further you go back.

For those giving it a shot, concentrate on the last start first and run the numbers after filters and work your way back, each time checking the resulting improvement or decline, you'll see what I mean and see the power of market price.

The problem is that both averaging and harmonic mean, both do not take into account impact vales and class and fitness.

Along with obtaining best price (cannot be stressed enough when working this end of the market), the above factors combine to make a very effective system.


I did actually read through the full thread before posting earlier.

You commenced with a money talks strategy:


Forget form, the price is the best guide to finding winners


But you've now ended up promoting your research where (price) "Averages don't come into play".

Not only do you have undisclosed formulae for field size, class and fitness, now you've introduced finishing positions.

Combined, that's near enough to form in my book.

Your system can only be used by those with databases and programming capabilities. Not that many.

But then these select few have to independently derive your secret coefficients. Certainly leaves me out, as I have different analytical approaches.

Last start winners may have win strike rate of 14.36%. And that may be better than (say) last start 3rds.

But I mainly care which category gives me the better return.

[Chrome Prince]

But you've now ended up promoting your research where (price) "Averages don't come into play".

Not only do you have undisclosed formulae for field size, class and fitness, now you've introduced finishing positions.

Combined, that's near enough to form in my book.

Your system can only be used by those with databases and programming capabilities. Not that many.

But then these select few have to independently derive your secret coefficients. Certainly leaves me out, as I have different analytical approaches.

Last start winners may have win strike rate of 14.36%. And that may be better than (say) last start 3rds.

But I mainly care which category gives me the better return.

jfc,

Averages do come into play, but not in the traditional statistical sense, you have seen the word "average" and applied the scientific definition, then thought "I can do better" with harmonic mean.

I introduced finishing positions to demonstrate the power of price OVER form.
It was an example, not an introduced rule.

What nonsense that only people with databases or programming skills can work my system.

Mancunian did it the other day.

If you have Excel, it doesn't require much to input the data and make adjustments.

If you truly read the entire thread and still introduced harmonic mean, then you have not grasped the system at all.

I do not publish the entire findings, as it is well known that the hijacking vulchers will sell it, like they've done to me countless times.

I've given everyone the complete pathway to using it, I just won't climb the mountain for them.

If you're not prepared to do research in this game, even if you don't have a database, you really are missing out.

[jfc]

What nonsense that only people with databases or programming skills can work my system.

Mancunian did it the other day.

If you have Excel, it doesn't require much to input the data and make adjustments.



Just used my Hutchison 3 phone to stopwatch keying in the required SPs for a 14 runner race.

A few ticks under 5 minutes.

So when you add IAS openers that's probably well over 1/2 an hour per meeting.

I suspect that 2-3 hours per day for preliminary data entry would not appeal to most.

But perhaps anyone who's tried doing it manually might care to testify.

[Chrome Prince]

I never said you had to do it jfc.

I posted something that might benefit others looking for another angle.

2 to 3 hours to key in data? Never heard of copy and paste or importing data or web queries etc?

How long would you spend handicapping a meeting?

I reckon the average handicapper would spend at least 3 hours handicapping for a Saturday.

I do a whole Saturday's races initial preparation (5 meetings) in around an hour, then in the morning update the prices and get the bets in around 30 mins.

Small price to pay for a decent method I think.

And all this without ever touching the database!

If a punter doesn't have the necessary tools to do it, then why not pick out 3 or 4 races and do it manually, still a small price to pay.

Either way, you get out what you put in.

[crash]

Chrome,

Without taking anything away from whatever you have come up with, if excel is involved, don't you think your being a bit precious about your rules and the system sellers 'circling'? Apart from that, no handicapper worth his salt handicaps a whole meeting [2 or 3 races at most] and with a good on-line form that takes about 30min max, which includes looking up gear changes, jockey and trainer form at the track etc. etc. Today I settled on Geelong [last 4 races]. 30 min max [2 winners from 4].

I really don't think you have to worry too much about anyone pinching your ideas. Systems with potential ae a dime a dozen and any 'decent handicapper' could come up with 1/2 a doz. of them in less time than handicapping a whole meeting. Why? because that all systems are, decent handicapping in rule form and that's all they will ever be.

[Chrome Prince]

Crash,

Excel is involved, but it's not hard.

I've given all the rules out, just not the ratios or weighting of importance I give to each criteria.

I can absolutely, positively, unequivocally, guarantee that this will be sold for profit by some sharks if I reveal all!!!

No, I'm not egotistical, and it's not the best thing to ever hit gambling, but it's all about others making a buck and being real lazy.

I've had at least 5 systems directly ripped from these forums and published in glossy magazines, sold for profit on other websites and even had the gall to post word for word statements in print.

I won't let these ****** do it ever again.

I post these things for free to help fellow punters, not to have someone profit from all my work in an unethical and plagaristic manner.

systems with potential are a dime a dozen, but systems that work over a long period of time with short maximum dividends are precious.

;)

Having said all that, I welcome any forum member to use it and modifiy it to suit their own needs, and make money from it, just not those greedy vulchers.... we all know who they are.

[KennyVictor]

Quite right not to give it all away. If I had a watertight winning plan I'm first to admit I wouldn't put all the rules in a place where they could be stolen. A few hints or ideas is what I look for here and whether I can make this work or whether I can't it's a slightly different starting point to work from.
And for that I say thanks.

KV

[Shaun]

Chrome


You posted somthing that is interesting and people can build from, the fact you have some people on here that want to rip it apart with out any real testing of there own goes to show you how narrow minded they can be.

The only way we are going to succeed in this game is to adapt and try new ideas, you just have to see how things have changed look at the amount of bookies there are today the big boys are now offering thier services online and if they don't then they don't exist.

I have a few plans for your ideas and they don't revolve around win betting so lets see how they go.

[crash]

Chrome,

Most punters don't have XL. A. It costs money [many punters are too tight to buy a decent firewall or Virus guard let alone purchase XL] B. It takes time to learn to use and unless you are into working with or storing raw data, it has limited use and that means most punters. I don't have XL [or need it for the basic records and stats. I keep] and I would never buy it either and nor would most punters [95% at good guess]. Even though you might see it's value, don't expect others too. The same applies to the merits of Opera music [or pot], for it's fans it's fantastic stuff that could bring peace and harmony to the world, but not as far as 95% of music lovers are concerned.

Having said that, I do appreciate what your trying to do, but if there is enough system info. here for members to benefit from it by working out and filling in a few blanks, it can also be stolen [and the blanks filled in] by anyone wanting to do so, although personally I see a very, very small market [XL users]. No one would bother. Any idiot could be making 6% flat stakes profit betting Ascot favorites [36% SR for the last 2 yrs.] and that dosn't require XL, any calculation time, or any system cost to do.

I'm sure a straw poll of people trying to market genuinely good products to punters [the site owners here for instance], will quickly make you realize that the only people -apart from Gold Coast con men and their market is seldom genuine punters - who are making serious money from punters are the bookies, not sellers of profitable systems or other genuinely helpful punting products at a fair price.

[lomaca]

Most punters don't have XL. A. It costs money
HI Crash!
You can have the equivalent software, free. It is the open-source version of Sun's Star Office, called Open Office. Has Word processor, database, spreadsheet etc.
Does everything MS Office does, you can open Excel files and also save your files in excel format or any Windows(TM) format.
Download it here:
http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.2/index.html

If you are on dial up it may be a bit two big (about 90MB) but you can buy it on CD for less then $10.00 here:
http://www.freewebs.com/ashbyelectronics/opensourcesoftware.htm
you only pay for the time and CD, or conversely, one of your mates can download it for you and burn it onto CD


B. It takes time to learn to use
True, but no pain, no gain. Still, if you have no use for it ignore this post.
Cheers

[bluetown]

I've had at least 5 systems directly ripped from these forums and published in glossy magazines, sold for profit on other websites and even had the gall to post word for word statements in print.

I won't let these ****** do it ever again .


Same here, from this forum.
I replied honestly to a thread and we talked business off line, proclaiming he was a "programmer". (Nothing but a self taught grown up script kiddie I later found out).
Anyways, I showed a few systems and a few home made jobs using excel.
My main system, uses a series of points, and he wanted the point values rather than be walked thru the process of developing a program to do what he required, with my punting knowledge.
I will NEVER ever trust another proclaiming to be a "programmer" and interested in developing a race program unless I see qualification papers first.
It gets better with ownership issues of who would own the program, but I won't go into that. Too stupid to mention.
The "program" would have also had something or rather so it would send these point values to his computer, incase I change the point values !
Now what does that mean ? It means the ?????? thing would have ended up being a Trojan or worse !
Sorry to hi-jack this thread like that, but the above quote go my attention and it is understandable why many are guarded about their systems.

[Chrome Prince]

Crash,

I'm sorry, I don't agree about most punters not having Excel.

The majority of punters who can afford computers and to maintain an internet account could surely afford MS OFFICE.

As Iomaca suggested, there are alternatives, and very cheaply available copies of earlier editions of Excel.

Anyone with a computer would surely want a basic spreadsheet and Word program.

Anyway, it's not my place to determine what tools a punter has, just to offer suggestions as to what works and what doesn't, it's up to the punter whether it's promising or they need additional tools.

Favourites at Ascot win 32.51% of races giving a 10.13% loss on turnover.

[Chrome Prince]

Yes, Bluetown it does happen, and when it happens to you 5 times in 12 months - you begin to learn that helping others can sometimes come back to bite you.

These "companies" are well known in the punting circles and still reduce themselves to gutter tactics.

Looking at the positive side, I would never, ever buy any product from them, because it's obvious that business ethic is sadly lacking and they obviously have nothing successful to sell, so pinch everyone else's ideas.

[Chrome Prince]

Aaah, just when you think you're being too paranoid and should have some faith, up pops a post on another web forum - a clone of my idea, including references to harmonic mean and average prices.

The post was started by a system seller.

I give up!

[lomaca]

Favourites at Ascot win 32.51% of races giving a 10.13% loss on turnover.
HI CP!
Glad you took the trouble and done the research.
I wasn't going to comment on this Ascot business, because I only have the results sent to me, by the self exiled marcus25, and his results confirm your findings.
There are some minor tracks that actually show definite profits, but Ascot does not.
Given time I was going to run this myself, but now that you confirmed his findings I won't bother.
Good luck

[La Mer]

HI CP!
Glad you took the trouble and done the research. I wasn't going to comment on this Ascot business, because I only have the results sent to me, by the self exiled marcus25, and his results confirm your findings. There are some minor tracks that actually show definite profits, but Ascot does not. Given time I was going to run this myself, but now that you confirmed his findings I won't bother. Good luck

Clearly there is some confusion with the results coming from Perth. Since the beginning of this racing season back in August last year the favourites have a strike-rate of 39% in Perth (both Belmont & Ascot) for all meetings, inlcuding the mid-weeks. These favourites have returned a very small profit at level stakes.

In the last few months @ Ascot up to the switch to Belmont two weeks ago, the favourite strike-rate was well over 40%.

The recent strike-rate for the favourites are:

1 April to 13th May: 38 of 89 races (42.6%)
Belmont (Last two weeks) : 11 of 24 races (45.8%).

[bluetown]

CP and others on Excel,
I tried using Open Office, it was ok at first, then they graduated too fast for me to keep up and convert over so I lost the plot.
I was missing too many races trying to so Excel it is for now.
One can find Excel 2000 Office Pro at most places still in a package 2nd hand with genuine OEM I think.
Or, one can "pass it on" like I have had. Need another cos I lost it, the CD that is it was fired on.

So what do we do now that we have to watch our backs with these sharks and our systems ?
I have lot's of Excel questions to get things sorted still. Who can assist when it comes to racing with our systems and correct formula/functions ?

[Shaun]

Chrome can you give a clue to that other forum would love to read it and add some

[Chrome Prince]

La Mer,

One can find a few months or a year or two at almost any track where favourites can show a profit. This is just the normal ebb and flow of results and why a lot of punters get excited over a small trend.

My results came from 6 years of data.

Sure track improvements, rail positions and various other factors can change results, but I'll guarantee that the bookies will have caught on long before the punter, so the strike rate goes up, but the average price goes down.


Bluetown,

I don't have a lot of free time at the moment, but if you want to post a thread on formulae help, I'm sure either myself or other forum members will be able to help you out.

MSOffice 97 is available on Ebay very cheaply.

For less than $80 you can get a real 2003 excel word package as well complete with registration code.

[lomaca]

Clearly there is some confusion with the results coming from Perth. Since the beginning of this racing season back in August last year the favourites have a strike-rate of 39% in Perth (both Belmont & Ascot) for all meetings, inlcuding the mid-weeks. These favourites have returned a very small profit at level stakes.

In the last few months @ Ascot up to the switch to Belmont two weeks ago, the favourite strike-rate was well over 40%.

The recent strike-rate for the favourites are:

1 April to 13th May: 38 of 89 races (42.6%)
Belmont (Last two weeks) : 11 of 24 races (45.8%).
La Mer!
That may well be.
The files I was sent, cover 4 or more years, and are separated by track condition, some track condition like dead or slow at Ascot do produce a profit even over that time but only a small sample available, so maybe not representative.
From month to month you will get different results.
Anyways you have made me interested, and will do my own research on a monthly basis to see what happens. All I can say is, that there are some smart cookies out there and even without computers, if this were kosher, they would have cottoned onto it long ago.
My first instinct tells me, that this is just a flash in the pan, but we will see.
Cheers

[bluetown]

CP
It's one of these ??????s,

=IF(ISNUMBER(MATCH(B19,IF(MOD.........., etc etc.

It ain't the whole lot, it works on one sheet, gets messed up when I want to use it on a another sheet with a few more bits and pieces to MATCH.

It might be easier to set it all up on a example workbook exactly how I require it and email you the example workbook and if you can correct it, much appreciated.

[crash]

Crash,

I'm sorry, I don't agree about most punters not having Excel.

The majority of punters who can afford computers and to maintain an internet account could surely afford MS OFFICE.

As Iomaca suggested, there are alternatives, and very cheaply available copies of earlier editions of Excel.

Anyone with a computer would surely want a basic spreadsheet and Word program.

Anyway, it's not my place to determine what tools a punter has, just to offer suggestions as to what works and what doesn't, it's up to the punter whether it's promising or they need additional tools.

Favorites at Ascot win 32.51% of races giving a 10.13% loss on turnover.

I agree Chrome, most people who can afford a computer can afford ms office, they can also probably afford a small runabout to go fishing with too. I have the later..... hasn't everyone?

I bought ms office with my first computer and included it with it when I sold it. I didn't even rip it. Most people never use more than 5% of the features available in 'word' [or will ever know how] because most computer owners
never do more than basic word processing [ditto re. ms money].

I use a free utility called "Jarte" for word processing which is much more user friendly than ms word and has enough features to keep an office secretary happy. We also have no use for 'money' as we are running a small home, not a business and simple spreadsheet programs are available free for basic record keeping etc. Like it says on the the box: MS "OFFICE" [not ms 'home'].

Data tragics use XL, as hardly anyone else would have a need for it. Any info. I need [including any data I use] I have instant access to from various websites as do all punters. As this section of the forum is devoted to 'systems', I'm sure a large percentage of the regular visitors and posters here have XL as this is the natural place for data tragics to gather and I don't mean that in any demeaning way whatsoever.

Everyone seems to have different figures for Ascot and I didn't say the figures I quoted regarding Ascot SR were mine [I'm not into data collection obviously]. The figures were gleaned from the latest issue of PP in an article for stats. keeping fans regarding jockey stats at different tracks [instantly available at www.racenet ], trainers and track percentages ect. etc. by Mark Merrick a guest writer.

Re. Ascot [2yrs]: Quote: "........it stands currently [I am writing this towards the end of March] at just over 35.5% with a level stakes profit of close to 8%" [End Quote]. He then goes on to mention Rosehill [close to 34% LS loss of around 4.7%], Moonee
Valley:"hovers around 28% with an accompanying 10% loss on level stakes" etc. etc. ...... Page 19 at any newsagent. If the guy is dead wrong, there would be hundreds of letters to let him know. So I assumed he was correct.

[Chrome Prince]

If you can afford a small runabout to go fishing, you can afford an engine to run it?

;)

That was a joke.

Anyway, I see your point, I just don't think that most punters don't have Excel or know simple formula to get the system to work. Of course some won't, but that doesn't make it not viable. Neither does the time to do it.

Re Ascot...I figured the stats came from there.

Again, how many punters would read that and start backing favourites at Ascot. I'll bet that by December it's at a loss like the true data suggests.

[crash]

[QUOTE=Chrome Prince]If you can afford a small runabout to go fishing, you can afford an engine to run it?

;)

That was a joke.
QUOTE]

It's the 4x4 that bothers me, not the outboard. Won't be long before the old crude hits $100 a barrel.

[KennyVictor]

In the last few months @ Ascot up to the switch to Belmont two weeks ago, the favourite strike-rate was well over 40%.

The recent strike-rate for the favourites are:

1 April to 13th May: 38 of 89 races (42.6%)
Belmont (Last two weeks) : 11 of 24 races (45.8%).Hey, here's a thought out of left field. Maybe WA racing has found some way to run a totaly clean system. No pulled horses, no big drinks before races, etc., etc., and these are the TRUE winning percentages favorites should return.
Hey, maybe the sky will be green tomorrow.

KV

[La Mer]

Re Ascot...I figured the stats came from there.

Again, how many punters would read that and start backing favourites at Ascot. I'll bet that by December it's at a loss like the true data suggests.
The following are the stats for favourites for all races @ Ascot since the track was re-opened on 29 October 2005 until the close of the season there on 29 April 2006.

As this track was completely ripped-up & relaid, I guess they are the only stats that really matter as any stats for what occurred previously are somewhat meaningless as it was a different track.

Races: 345
Wins: 126
Strike-rate: 36.5%
Return: $328.30
Loss: - 16.70
LOT: -4.8%

Since 1 Jan 2006, the stats have been:
Races: 195
Wins: 79
Strike-rate: 40.5%
Return: $197.70
Profit: 2.70
POT: +1.4%

[bluetown]

CP
Found it at last.
I was quoted $150.00 by a programmer to have a function sorted in a spreadsheet.
I finaly asked around and got it for free

=IF(ISNUMBER(MATCH(L5,IF(MOD(COLUMN($D$1:$K$1)-COLUMN($D$1)+0,2)=0,$D$1:$K$1),0)),INDEX($D$1:$K$1,MATCH(L5,IF(MOD(COLUMN($D$1:$K$1)-COLUMN($D$1)+0,2)=0,$D$1:$K$1),0)+1),0)

The problem was, as soon as I mentioned it was for my racing spreadsheet,up got the prices all of a sudden.
I then said (at another forum) it was for my nephew's school project but has dislexia,hearing loss and speech impairment.
I then got the answer I needed.

Thank you

[Chrome Prince]

Let me post something that is more in line with the idea, that everyone can use as a tool:

One of the ways that I can achieve an adjustment for comparing prices between runs and field size, is to look at how favourite prices fare over various field sizes.

By doing this, and looking at the average win price, we can convert this to a percentage and thereby get a ratio.

So a 4-1 shot in a 20 horse field can be compared to a 6-4 shot in an 8 horse field by adjusting the percentage ratios accordingly.

This is purely a field size adjustment and has nothing to to with class, fitness, distance, going etc.

I use the favourites as they have the highest strike rate.

Here is attached a simulation of prices on field size alone.

You must have a version of Excel to run it.

The spreadsheet will remain locked - please do not ask me to unlock it.

You can use it and change field sizes and prices, just not formulae or ratios.

It's not a finished project, so is likely to be inaccurate when going over 10/1 odds

[Chrome Prince]

CP
Found it at last.
I was quoted $150.00 by a programmer to have a function sorted in a spreadsheet.
I finaly asked around and got it for free

=IF(ISNUMBER(MATCH(L5,IF(MOD(COLUMN($D$1:$K$1)-COLUMN($D$1)+0,2)=0,$D$1:$K$1),0)),INDEX($D$1:$K$1,MATCH(L5,IF(MOD(COLUMN($D$1:$K$1)-COLUMN($D$1)+0,2)=0,$D$1:$K$1),0)+1),0)

The problem was, as soon as I mentioned it was for my racing spreadsheet,up got the prices all of a sudden.
I then said (at another forum) it was for my nephew's school project but has dislexia,hearing loss and speech impairment.
I then got the answer I needed.

Thank you

Yes, I have found a certain lack of response on excel forums when talking racing, therefore I always change it to athletes or teams when asking questions.

Perception is as much a negative as a positive at times.

[Chrome Prince]

Seems I left out a whole chunk of columns on that spreadsheet.

It's all good for favourites but no good for other odds.

Oh well, I don't have time to do it all again :(

[wesmip1]

Chrome,

Can you send me an email at aussiegreyhound@yahoo.com.au
Its in relation to your excel sheet.

Thanks.

[Shaun]

If you need an answer to a problem in excel this is the only place to go http://www.mrexcel.com/board2/ i just explain what i want to do and give an example and within 24 hours you get the answer, some times with in minutes

[bluetown]

[chukle]

This is awkward, fear of asking the questions, incase it gives the answer to the same question everyone would want to know pertaining new race ideas and strategies !

[anchor]

KV, that was a dumb statement.
La Mer, dead right about the stats. Surprised to see at the Ascot opening things like Win % barriers, Par Times etc etc. where the only similarity to the previous track was its name. If some stats are similar now they're totally coincidental.
Apologies for getting off track of this thread, keep up the good posts CP, they're appreciated.

[KennyVictor]

KV, that was a dumb statement.
Sorry Anchor, I'll try not to let it happen again.

[lomaca]

1 April to 13th May: 38 of 89 races (42.6%)
Belmont (Last two weeks) : 11 of 24 races (45.8%).
La Mer!
When was the first race on the new Ascot track?

Thank you.

[La Mer]

La Mer! When was the first race on the new Ascot track?
Thank you.

29 October 2005.

[lomaca]

29 October 2005.
Many thanks.
Cheers

[Mancunian]

Gents - for your info - wasn't able to have look at this on Saturday, but had a bit of a go on Tuesday and Wednesday. Absolutely no finessing or rationalising at all just using the original basic rules as laid down by CP.
Summary of performance
Tuesday 16 May
Racing at Stawell (DEAD track) and Ballina (HEAVY track) not what you would normally recommending to have a punt on. Results were :
Worked on a total of 9 races
Top selection won 3 outlay $9 return $11.60
2nd selection won 3 outlay $9 return $8.40
Therefore total top 2 sels won 6 races outlay $18 return $20.
Not amazing but not bad considering the meetings.
Wed 17 May - worked on Randwick, Werribee, E.Farm and Balaklava, the last few races at each coming to a total of 20 races (don't think I'll try that many again - got RSI of my 2 typing fingers)
Results were :
Top selection won 1 (only) outlay $20 return $12.30
2nd selection won 2 outlay $20 return $14.10
total out $40 return $26.40.
Not too good, but it may have been one of those days as the top selection was placed in 12 of the races, consisting of 9 seconds and 2 thirds in addition to the 1 win - so place return would have been $24.40 for an outlay of $20.
Also some good runs from longshots gave it some spice even tho it doesn't buy you any beers.
Anyway time permitting, I'm keen enough to have another look on Sat.
Might be time to do less races and allow more time for analysis,
Cheers

[crash]

'Basic' Hadicapping for the same period.

Stawell tues..[dead]

r6/4 Investments [$5.70w $2p]
r7/13 Vanity Quay [$3.82p]
=============================
Werribee Thurs. 18th.[slow]

r3/4 Aria Diva [$1.92p]
r5/1 Celtic Bloom [$3.70 w $1.92p]
r6/2 Gallantree [$3.92w $1.72p]

Eagle Farm [good]

r6/2 United [unp]
r7/10 Partridge[$4.12p]

All at bet 1x6 ew .......... and no 'typing finger RSI' :-)

[Chrome Prince]

Gents - for your info - wasn't able to have look at this on Saturday, but had a bit of a go on Tuesday and Wednesday. Absolutely no finessing or rationalising at all just using the original basic rules as laid down by CP.
Summary of performance
Tuesday 16 May
Racing at Stawell (DEAD track) and Ballina (HEAVY track) not what you would normally recommending to have a punt on. Results were :
Worked on a total of 9 races
Top selection won 3 outlay $9 return $11.60
2nd selection won 3 outlay $9 return $8.40
Therefore total top 2 sels won 6 races outlay $18 return $20.
Not amazing but not bad considering the meetings.
Wed 17 May - worked on Randwick, Werribee, E.Farm and Balaklava, the last few races at each coming to a total of 20 races (don't think I'll try that many again - got RSI of my 2 typing fingers)
Results were :
Top selection won 1 (only) outlay $20 return $12.30
2nd selection won 2 outlay $20 return $14.10
total out $40 return $26.40.
Not too good, but it may have been one of those days as the top selection was placed in 12 of the races, consisting of 9 seconds and 2 thirds in addition to the 1 win - so place return would have been $24.40 for an outlay of $20.
Also some good runs from longshots gave it some spice even tho it doesn't buy you any beers.
Anyway time permitting, I'm keen enough to have another look on Sat.
Might be time to do less races and allow more time for analysis,
Cheers

Mancunian,

Great to see you having a go and posting your results.

The raw rules are very raw, which is why you are getting mixed results.

Firstly, you must not use the TAB, you need to obtain best price from a bookie or agency.

You must make adjustments for field size, this is crucial as the odds for a 14 runner race are much different to a 7 runner race.

Fitness and class should always be allowed for by some odds ratio allowance.

Get these things right and you'll improve results out of sight.

There is no need for RSI, I hope you're not doing all this manually.
You can automate most of it quite easily.

There are free formguide available which can be imported into excel with very little manipulation, odds can be copy and pasted, there are excel forums around where you can ask questions and be given step by step instructions, try recording a macro and look at the code, often a simple macro can easily be modified to give you the desired result.

The five major meetings on a Saturday should take no more than a few hours of work in total.

Two meetings during the week should take no more than an hour's work.

Keep punching ;)

The imbalance between win and place results should demonstrate that the method is very powerful, you just need to hone it correctly, as on occassion, you are just missing out, my opinion is that you are leaving out the adjustments.

Not every day is a winning one, and to be honest, I only bet on metro racing, but overall it's really kicking butt!

[Mancunian]

G'day Crash,
I've tried basic handicapping for years, I don't lose much but unfortunately I don't win much either. For example my last recorded set of results are :
for 126 bets win return $144, ave price of winners $2.60 - place return $130 ave price $1.40. Ive tried various staking plans e.g. Retirement Plan, Power of 10, Bhagwan's Crusher etc. I even tried 1 x 4, which all improved the returns a bit. Now that you mention 1 x 6 I'll see if that's a bit better. I am working on improving my return at the expense of the strike rate as well, but after years of frustration, something in CPs approach appeals to me in that it is going to highlight some nags at better prices than my methodical way of handicapping would've eliminated.
Anyway I can only improve my limited knowledge base by trying.
PS. I was exaggerating about RSI, and I actually can use up to 4 fingers typing, but not all at once.
Cheers

[Mancunian]

G'day Chrome Prince,
Thanks for the time in giving me more advice on this subject, but I'm afraid it's opened up a few questions, as I'm not quite sure how to go about some of the things you mentioned. If you can enlighten me a bit further, and can spare the time and effort it would be appreciated.
1. I realise I can get better prices but I'm only small-time (at this stage!) with limited funds, so as other discussions with Crash and Co have concluded it's not vital to seek best prices at this point until I have a reasonable working bank.
I take heed of your advice and will no doubt follow up later.
2. Making adjustments for field size - do you mean while gathering the SPs from last 5 starts ? Not sure what criteria to apply.
3. Fitness and Class - presume you mean after settling the qualifiers for the upcoming race, instead of just saying the one with the highest percentage is the top selection and the one with the next highest percentage is the second selection etc. you weight the percentages by applying some rules based on say (a) number of days since last run and (b) up or down in class from last start etc. Not sure what sort of rules to apply or how to convert into odds adjustments.
Would I be right in saying if TAB #1 has 80 percent and the next highest has say 44 percent, this would be beyon any difference your adjustments may make and would be a special bet ?
4. ref workloas - all I do manually is add the 5 SPs together and enter and then enter the IAS opener prices and get the spreadsheet to make the calculations. I've got MS Works (HOME Edition) and the spreadsheet is only a lookalike XL, and uses XLR files - and seemingly can't read XLS files (so I can't access the download file you mentioned t'other day, but I can get similar from Winner-in-six)
If this is too overwhelming, I quite understand, and thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Cheers manc

[crash]

G'day Crash,
I've tried basic handicapping for years, I don't lose much but unfortunately I don't win much either. For example my last recorded set of results are :
for 126 bets win return $144, ave price of winners $2.60 - place return $130 ave price $1.40. Ive tried various staking plans e.g. Retirement Plan, Power of 10, Bhagwan's Crusher etc. I even tried 1 x 4, which all improved the returns a bit. Now that you mention 1 x 6 I'll see if that's a bit better. I am working on improving my return at the expense of the strike rate as well, but after years of frustration, something in CPs approach appeals to me in that it is going to highlight some nags at better prices than my methodical way of handicapping would've eliminated.
Anyway I can only improve my limited knowledge base by trying.
PS. I was exaggerating about RSI, and I actually can use up to 4 fingers typing, but not all at once.
Cheers

Well I did put a bit of spin into the words 'basic handicapping' in my cheeky post [wasn't a put down of systems]. There is a lot of experience in my 'basic'. The game is about pace and potential race position and barriers become very important as does Jock experience and track layout. None of this inputs well into 'systems' [leaders,backmarkers,mid-pacers, on-pacers and barriers and jocks. 3 or 4kg apprentices for 'on-pacers' only as it's easy for them to judge pace by what's around them. Backmarkers and mid=pacers for the experienced gap-slippers and pace ?????? good senior jocks]. Then comes time etc.

Nothing wrong with any system that gives edge as I use them myself as an extended interest. Trying to practice a bit of both is a good move. The handicapping experience gets better, but can still be stuffed up by things that as with systems, can't be taken into account. There are less of them though.

[Mancunian]

Well I did put a bit of spin into the words 'basic handicapping' in my cheeky post [wasn't a put down of systems]. There is a lot of experience in my 'basic'. The game is about pace and potential race position and barriers become very important as does Jock experience and track layout. None of this inputs well into 'systems' [leaders,backmarkers,mid-pacers, on-pacers and barriers and jocks. 3 or 4kg apprentices for 'on-pacers' only as it's easy for them to judge pace by what's around them. Backmarkers and mid=pacers for the experienced gap-slippers and pace ?????? good senior jocks]. Then comes time etc.

Nothing wrong with any system that gives edge as I use them myself as an extended interest. Trying to practice a bit of both is a good move. The handicapping experience gets better, but can still be stuffed up by things that as with systems, can't be taken into account. There are less of them though.
I found that with doing my own ratings, the more items I considered the more likely I ended up with the market or newspaper favourites, and accordingly at fairly short odds. Admittedly I have never come to grips with pace, position in running or sectional times, let alone your recent info on gear changes - at my speed the races would be over before I finished the form study. Consequently I'm not enjoying the challenge of intensive form study as much as I used to.

[Chrome Prince]

.
1. I realise I can get better prices but I'm only small-time (at this stage!) with limited funds, so as other discussions with Crash and Co have concluded it's not vital to seek best prices at this point until I have a reasonable working bank.
I take heed of your advice and will no doubt follow up later.
2. Making adjustments for field size - do you mean while gathering the SPs from last 5 starts ? Not sure what criteria to apply.
3. Fitness and Class - presume you mean after settling the qualifiers for the upcoming race, instead of just saying the one with the highest percentage is the top selection and the one with the next highest percentage is the second selection etc. you weight the percentages by applying some rules based on say (a) number of days since last run and (b) up or down in class from last start etc. Not sure what sort of rules to apply or how to convert into odds adjustments.
Would I be right in saying if TAB #1 has 80 percent and the next highest has say 44 percent, this would be beyon any difference your adjustments may make and would be a special bet ?
4. ref workloas - all I do manually is add the 5 SPs together and enter and then enter the IAS opener prices and get the spreadsheet to make the calculations. I've got MS Works (HOME Edition) and the spreadsheet is only a lookalike XL, and uses XLR files - and seemingly can't read XLS files (so I can't access the download file you mentioned t'other day, but I can get similar from Winner-in-six)
Cheers manc

Hi Mancunian,

I can be more specific, I just can't give away the actual formulae I use and the ratios.

1. I understand your position regarding prices fully, but when recording "how it would have gone" make sure you use those prices, so you get a true indication, TAB prices just don't give enough return. A couple of times you were just losing on the day, using best price, you would have been just winning....a big difference.

2. For simplicity, use the last start first.
Let's say the horse was $3.29 in a field of of 20 last start.
This run it is starting at $1.87 in a field of 7.

Ordinarily you'd look at this and say it was a firmer - it is not.

It is going around at exactly the same price!

Using my formula adjustment ratios for field size versus price, you find that $3.29 equates to $1.87 in a field of 7.

The same follows in reverse size fields, you would think the horse is starting way over it's previous odds, when in fact, it's shorter in price.

You need to have some scale of ratios for field size versus price.

3. You are right the raw field size versus price ratios are simply the very first step. You can't just use them, you need to take it a couple of steps further and also have ratios for days break and class differences.

If a horse has a year off, and went around at $11.87 last start in a field of 7 and now goes around at $5.88 this is a whole different ballgame.

Similarly an Open class to a Group class, you must be able to adjust to get the real picture.

It's no Holy Grail or secret, you just need to research to see the impact of these factors on price.

Remember price is the most accurate judge of a horse's performance overall, but you cannot use raw price alone, this is why the majority of price systems fail. They make no adjustment or follow tote money fluctuations.

If after adjustment you come up with an 80% and 40% scenario, then it's a SPECIAL!!!!

You can download an Excel viewer for free from the Microsoft website.

Hope this has been a little clearer, best of luck.

[Mancunian]

Hi CP
Thanks heaps. I'm very grateful for the time and effort you have put in to help.
Thanks again
Cheers manc

[Chrome Prince]

System says: Rosehill R1 Danleigh

[Chrome Prince]

System says: Doo R1 5 Banabolda

[Chrome Prince]

System says: Fle R1 9 Sweet Shani

Tally 2 bets - Two seconds.

[Chrome Prince]

Chelt R1 3 Al Anood

Tally 3 bets 3 2nds.

[Chrome Prince]

That'll do for a demonstration.

4 bets
1 winners
3 placings

Place Outlay 4 units
Place Returns $1.32, $4.29, $1.85, $1.75
Total Place Return $9.21
Place Profit $5.21
Place POT 130.25%

Win Outlay 4 units
Win Returns $4.21
Win Profit $0.21
Win PoT 5.25%

And this, without a decent winner ;)

Who needs to watch tote fluctuations?

[Chrome Prince]

I know it was a very small demonstration of the system yesterday, but it did show how accurate it can be.

For those that thought it was too complicated it, I've now simplified the rules, but of course the results won't be quite so good - but still pretty damn acceptable ;)

Bet Eachway

Take the top 4 horses by shortest opening bookie price

Consider only horses racing without a break of over 45 days.

The horse with the biggest fluctuation % between the SP of it's last run and today's opening odds is the selection.

Minimum fluctuation % of 25%.

Easy to select, cuts down the time required, and work required, with very good results.

TAB openers or dividends will NOT work.