Would it be a fair assumption......

[Stix]

..... to say tht if a system was posted that claimed good results over a prolonged period (say >15% pot over 5+ years) that if posted and suffered the posting curse, that after 4-6 weeks of negative results - most (if not all) followers would file it in the round file (bin)?

My assumption is yes..........

Which to me would demonstrate, most punters are far too short sighted and undisciplined to stick with a "particular" approach (system, handicap or other approcah) for long enough to see results and that most punters are betting and gambling outside of their means/comfort level.... quick bucks sort with no appreciation of what a POT of 2-10% (let alone greater) can mean over 6+ months.

IMHO

[Chrome Prince]

Stix,
Your assumption is spot on I think.
Just look at the threads with some really good stuff that get abandoned after two losing weeks.
Some systems in the archives are still kicking butt, just like Partypoopers Plum Movers and others.
The nature of the beast is that many are seeking the holy grail, the one that doubles the bank every week or even makes a profit every week.
In reality, I don't think that sort of return exists.

However, the nature of prices on Betfair for the PPM horses, means a profit can be made, if you ask for the right prices - just not every week.

[crash]

I'd agree with Chrome on this one. There is no such thing as a good system that won't strike runs of outs. Yet that's what a lot of punters are looking for.
Another problem for system players is sticking to a system without a lot of action and often the best systems haven't much action. It might only dish out a few selections a week, be making a profit, but is being overwhelmed by the punter losing money elsewhere!

As Chome mentioned getting good prices seem to be the difference between system profit and loss.

I often wonder why many punters here get a bit precious about their system rules. No system is going to be over-run with other punter's betting money. First run of outs and they bail out. It's been said before, you can write a genuine long term winning system on the footpath outside Ranwick and it won't make a scrap of difference to prices.

[michaelg]

I don't know if I can agree because often you don't know whether it is a good or bad system. After a downturn you could easily be chasing "bad money" and dig yourself deeper into a hole.

I knew someone who for one year (may even have been two) had a trifecta system which won him very good money, but the next year he just about lost it all.

You could have a "good" system but it still loses. The TAB deducts on average 16 cents in the dollar, which effectively means that to show the minimum profit your $0.84 must return $1.01.

As Chrome and Crash says, we must get good prices which is near impossible with the TAB.

There is an agency (can't mention it here) that gives the best Win Divvy of the three TABs for all meetings which is brilliant for Win punters.

[crash]

There are a stack of outlets offering generally better than TAB prices. I got 20/1 on horse that paid 12/1 and 10/1 [Stab and Unitab] on a Sydney winner.

[the sundance kid]

I am always interested in discussing systems/plans - whatever we call them - I posted introductory details of a system I use on another thread but no-one even bothered to respond. The plan I follow has had good success over fifteen months and the longest run of outs was eight and seven last year.
Unfortunately there isnt enough bets and that was why I posted - in an
attempt to improve the system by discussing it with others. 80% POT over
twelve months is pretty good - if you bet say 3% of your bank the profit
would be higher. I suppose no-one is interested in a system unless it wins
bucketloads of cash on a regular basis. That type of system doesnt eexist.

I guess I will just plod alone with my plan and take my lkimited number of bets
and add other bets on a daily basis to increase the action.
Cafe Bar to-day and Tribal Warrior yesterday makes it a profitable weekend.

Cheers:cool:

[crash]

Sorry mate, but I don't believe there is ANY system that produces 80% POT long term [over 12mths]. Care to print the rules to prove me wrong? No I don't think so, for whatever reason you come up with.

[the sundance kid]

Mate I dont mind giving the rules, but are you able to assist in making this a better system????

Operates on QLD VIC and SA non metrop. meetings sunday to friday

1000m to 1200m only
L/s winner and won 2 out of three starts this preparation
Tier 1 filter 2/1 to 10/1 only
Max weight after allowances 58K
Field size 14 max
Winning s/r 1 in 6 or better
Delete if won three straight including spells
Must have 5 race starts

If more than one qualifier in race back high TAB number - if deleted under Tier 1 filter then go to next qualifier down.

Tier 2 filter
Bet as late as possible to avoid late market alterations.

Now its your turn mate.....can you or anyone else improve on it

adios amigos:cool:

[crash]

There is definitely those here with the data base that will look into the reality of this system, but don't worry, if it is a success system it will have it's runs of outs and it won't be followed for long. 80% POT? I very much doubt it. Though I will be pleased to be proved wrong. There is no personal debase meant in any of my comments.

[the sundance kid]

Thanks for responding Crash - the POT of 80% is genuine for 2007.
I will bet my left **************** on that. As for other years - who knows -
I havnt got the database to confirm or otherwise for other years.
The whole purpose of this post was to improve the "theory"
Lets hope we can do it.

Cheers:cool:

[wesmip1]

If you want to know if a system has a long term genuine chance of winning then you need to calculate the archie (chi-square) score.

I have systems which have had 700 bets and are up by 20% but the archie score was very low meaning that luck had a lot to do with the results. And sure enough the next 700 bets showed a huge loss.

If you are going to be serious about betting a system then do the calcs and see what you come up with. If the archie score is anywhere under 5 then you need more results to work out whether the system is worth following OR the system is showing a result which is based on luck.

My current cutoff points for any systems I use is an archie score of at least 5 and at least 200 bets in the live test period (not back fitted data).

Just thought I would mention that the archie score shows whether the results were due to luck. If you have an archie score higher then 5 and the system is showing a loss then its confirming that the system will never make a profit.

Good Luck

[the sundance kid]

Well I guess I just have to bet for another 120 bets or so and get back to you.

Which is what I guessed would happen (i.e. no positive input from anyone to improve the theory) By the way how do you calculate the archie score?

See you in 18 months !!

[Crackone]

Thanks for responding Crash - the POT of 80% is genuine for 2007.
I will bet my left **************** on that. As for other years - who knows -
I havnt got the database to confirm or otherwise for other years.
The whole purpose of this post was to improve the "theory"
Lets hope we can do it.

Cheers:cool:Hi Sundance Kid if anyone can improve your system then you are going to have less bets!!

[the sundance kid]

Hi Sundance Kid if anyone can improve your system then you are going to have less bets!!

Sorry - I meant expand -

[Mr Quaddie]

how to tell how many races the horse has had this prep?

strike rate of 17% or better?

[the sundance kid]

how to tell how many races the horse has had this prep?

strike rate of 17% or better?
Hi Mr Quaddie -

I take the x in the form line as a spell and any run after that
is "this preparation"

Strike rate percentage is low as some horses hit form and win
a few even though their strike rate has been ordinary up to then.
I think the late Don Scott mentioned in his book "Winning More"
that the average horse wins one in seven - I though 1 in six
would do me as a cut off point.
Feel feel to post again tonite - Ill be up for a while watching
Everton win

Cheers:cool:

[Silver_and_sand]

G'day Sundance,

Congrats on your success thus far. An 80% pot is an excellent result. Just out of curiosity, can you share how many selections your system has had since you started tracking it? Also, what is your win strike rate and average price per winner? And what were the prices of your 3 highest priced winners?

I noticed that you don't include NSW in your list of states to consider. Do you have any ideas why your system doesn't work there? The only reason I ask is, if you can understand why, then maybe you will learn something that might help you with any future systems.

Do you know if track conditions have any influence on your selections? I'd suggest that wetter tracks tend to generate more inconsistent results than drier ones, and that restricting your selections to Good and Dead tracks only might increase your strike rate.

If you want to widen your selection method up a little, maybe you could get rid of the "last start winner" rule, and just stick with your "won 2 of the last 3 races this prep" rule. Doing this would help generate more selections for you.

Also, are you sure the distance rule is relevant? It just seems a little strange to me that your system would be successful within the 1,000 - 1,200m parameters and not so at 1,300m. Maybe you could get rid of this rule and end up with many more selections? Even if those qualifiers in races greater than 1,200m only returned 25% pot instead of 80%, the extra selections would help to further build your bank. Maybe you could just bet a little less on them than your original selections.

Oh and how sure are you about the "must have had 5 race starts" rule? Just an idea, but maybe you could just say "no 2yo races."

Anyway, that's all for now. Good luck with your system mate.

[the sundance kid]

G'day Sundance,

Congrats on your success thus far. An 80% pot is an excellent result. Just out of curiosity, can you share how many selections your system has had since you started tracking it? Also, what is your win strike rate and average price per winner? And what were the prices of your 3 highest priced winners?

I noticed that you don't include NSW in your list of states to consider. Do you have any ideas why your system doesn't work there? The only reason I ask is, if you can understand why, then maybe you will learn something that might help you with any future systems.

Do you know if track conditions have any influence on your selections? I'd suggest that wetter tracks tend to generate more inconsistent results than drier ones, and that restricting your selections to Good and Dead tracks only might increase your strike rate.

If you want to widen your selection method up a little, maybe you could get rid of the "last start winner" rule, and just stick with your "won 2 of the last 3 races this prep" rule. Doing this would help generate more selections for you.

Also, are you sure the distance rule is relevant? It just seems a little strange to me that your system would be successful within the 1,000 - 1,200m parameters and not so at 1,300m. Maybe you could get rid of this rule and end up with many more selections? Even if those qualifiers in races greater than 1,200m only returned 25% pot instead of 80%, the extra selections would help to further build your bank. Maybe you could just bet a little less on them than your original selections.

Oh and how sure are you about the "must have had 5 race starts" rule? Just an idea, but maybe you could just say "no 2yo races."

Anyway, that's all for now. Good luck with your system mate.
Gday Silver and Sand -

Youve raised a lot of points and Im appreciative of your help/support.
I will endeavour to answer in detail some time Monday afternoon

Adios:cool:

[crash]

Silver_and_sand,

1000m to 1200m races are more truly run than higher distances, so results are based more consistently on past form, rather than suitable race pace being encountered for a runner in longer races.

[crash]

Mate I dont mind giving the rules, but are you able to assist in making this a better system????

Operates on QLD VIC and SA non metrop. meetings sunday to friday

1000m to 1200m only
L/s winner and won 2 out of three starts this preparation
Tier 1 filter 2/1 to 10/1 only
Max weight after allowances 58K
Field size 14 max
Winning s/r 1 in 6 or better
Delete if won three straight including spells
Must have 5 race starts

If more than one qualifier in race back high TAB number - if deleted under Tier 1 filter then go to next qualifier down.

Tier 2 filter
Bet as late as possible to avoid late market alterations.

Now its your turn mate.....can you or anyone else improve on it

adios amigos:cool:

Well I won't bail out and not make an effort to help, but like it has already been said here, improvements often mean less bets. If more rules [filters] are put in to improve SR, that's what will happen.
The only way to improve the system is to experiment with changes to rules. One change at a time to see the effect.

So as I understand it, the system requires a horse that has had 5 starts [6th up], won it's last start and won another. That's 2 wins well into a horse's current prep. of say 8 races. Most trainers would be very happy with that and unless the horse is something special, to expect 3 wins from an 8 start prep. is a bit over-optimistic but that is what your system is looking for, another win?
The system rules in this area don't seem to make a lot of sense to me anyway. For starters, a last start win is going to guarantee a low starting price and more weight, unless the horse is stepping up in grade a fair bit.

Most trainers set a horse [depending on age usually] to win 3rd, 4th,or 5th up because that is where peak fitness will be, especially in sprint races. From then on the horse's fitness is mostly downhill. Not always but mostly. Your selections kick in at the 6th race [?]. This is an area I think the system could be improved. Perhaps targeting 4th. or 5th. up rather than 6th. up.

[the sundance kid]

Crash - my rule referring to "5 race starts" simply means the horse must
have had five races - not five races THIS PREP...
Its form line could be x161 or 411 or whatever...it may have had
20 or 30 races in its lifetime...so long as it has had at least five.

[the sundance kid]

Gday Silver and Sand

Will attempt to answer some of those points you raised....

31 winners from 85 selections
Average price per winner (return divided by 31) is 4/1
Highest priced winners 11.30 - 9.80 - 9.30
NSW just doesnt stack up - dont know why
Wetter tracks dont seem to affect the stats - some runners
win - some dont
Deleting l/s winner rule is a thought - although - I have always
preferred l/s winners to backing something with a form
line of 110 - but there could be a cut off line say l/s beaten no
more than 4 lengths or something like that - Ill check that out
Distance rule - horse more consistent over shorter course -
Tried it up to 1400m results dropped off
No 2yo races - thats an idea - Ill check that out

Just to confirm we are on the same page these are the selections for March
2008
2/3 Sshine Coast R6 Crystal Sentinel u/p
4/3 Port Lincoln R5 Cumquat 2nd
4/3 Port Lincoln R3 Peruvian 1st 9.80
6/3 Port Lincoln R5 Export Power1st 3.80
9/3 Stoney Creek R9 King Hoaks 1st 4.30
23/3 Sshine Coast R8 Slick Trick u/p

Cheers and good luck to all

s k :cool:

[crash]

Fair enough, but you still have the problem of low price and more weight and expectations of a 3rd. win during a current prep. How these penalties leads to returns of an 80% POT seems a mystery to me.

[Bhagwan]

Hi Sundance
Thanks for sharing your findings.

One my care to check this idea out, it can work well on its day.

RULES
1000-1200m
Winner Last start or Second last start.

5+career runs
16%+ WinSR
Field size 14 & less.
2/1-10/1 at 1 min till jump.

Must have placed twice in last 3 runs (but not have placed 3 times in a row including spells).
Must not have won twice in a row in its most recent 2 starts.

No resumers.

Cheers.

[the sundance kid]

Hi Bhagwan -

Good to hear from you - I appreciate your input and will follow up
on your suggestions - I think when punters get their heads together
it can only be beneficial to all -

Cheers mate

s k :cool:

[AngryPixie]

Sundance

Are your results from actual bets or back data? If they're from actual bets why would you change anything? :confused:

[ubetido]

Hi all

Could someone explain what this ARCHIE calc is and how do you apply it?

Cheers
Ubetido

[place2win]

Mate I dont mind giving the rules, but are you able to assist in making this a better system????

Operates on QLD VIC and SA non metrop. meetings sunday to friday

1000m to 1200m only
L/s winner and won 2 out of three starts this preparation
Tier 1 filter 2/1 to 10/1 only
Max weight after allowances 58K
Field size 14 max
Winning s/r 1 in 6 or better
Delete if won three straight including spells
Must have 5 race starts

If more than one qualifier in race back high TAB number - if deleted under Tier 1 filter then go to next qualifier down.

Tier 2 filter
Bet as late as possible to avoid late market alterations.

Now its your turn mate.....can you or anyone else improve on it

adios amigos:cool:Hi Sundance,
http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/images/icons/icon11.gifa little confused, your post (6) claimed Tribal Warrior and Cafe Bar as a profitable weekend (prior to your listing rules at post 8).
WA tracks were not included (is this an oversight)
Tribal Warrior ran at Ascot (WA) Not LSW,(122), Distance ran was 1400?
Cafe Bar Not LSW, (133), Not won 2 this preparation?
I tend to agree with crash and others, there is little scope to expand when
expecting a THIRD WIN in current preparation. Silver&Sands idea of expanding to other distances (maybe 1300-1400) would give you a wider scope (maybe a reduction in POT%) and a greater selection process. Which in the long term may increase return.
Good luckhttp://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ubetido]

Hi Sundance

Forumites will mostly knock anything that touts high win returns. This maybe from there own experience and have a conservative and cautious outllook. Nothing wrong with that mind you as things can go belly up just when you thought you had found that delicate balance of filters to give you good returns.

I would just follow what you are doing and if it is 80% keep going and keep profiting while you can and keep looking for a second income stream from perhaps a different set of rules which also produces success.

For example you currently operate on 1000m-1200m races

Well how do the 1400m-1600m races look perhaps different or similar filters may produce good results.

Cheers
Ubetido

[AngryPixie]

Could someone explain what this ARCHIE calc is and how do you apply it?
From a posting of mine on another forum.

===

The Punters Chi-Square Test.


<HR style="COLOR: #c1c2d2" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Whisperin http://www.madpunter.com.au/forum/webchat/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.madpunter.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=6129#post6129)

What is a Chi Test? I've seen this expression before but do not know what it measures

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In simple terms it's a test used by statisticians to determine the probability that a set of observed results were obtained by chance. I'm not a statistician, and simple is always good for me http://www.madpunter.com.au/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif

For punting it can be used like this. I'll use Peanuts numbers for the example.

1) Determine the OBSERVED number of winners and losers. In this example Peanuts tells us there has been 9 winners from 49 selections, therefore 9 winners and 40 losers.

2) Determine the EXPECTED number of winners and losers. This is a bit more complicated, and I'm assuming that the SP is an accurate indication of the selections chance. Peanuts tells us that the average divi is $2.99. I'm assuming this is for all selections, not just the winners. We need to convert this to a percentage.

1/2.99 = 0.3344

Next we need to "normalise" that percentage to a 100% market. I'm guessing that the original market was around 115%.

0.3344/1.15 = 0.2907

There where 49 selections so we multiply 49 by 0.2907 to give us the EXPECTED number of WINNERS

49*0.2907 = 14.24 winners

From there we simply subtract 14.24 from 49 to give us the EXPECTED LOSERS.

49-14.24 = 34.76 losers

Ok. So now we have the following

OBSERVED WINNERS = 9
OBSERVED LOSERS = 40
EXPECTED WINNERS = 14.24
EXPECTED LOSERS = 34.76

3) Let's put these figures into Excel and use the built in CHITEST function to work out whether the tipster is any good. Enter the following into the listed cells without the quotes.

Cell A1: "9"
Cell B1: "40"
Cell A2: "14.24"
Cell B2: "34.76"

4) In a blank cell enter the following.

=CHITEST(A1:B1,A2:B2)

You should get 0.099215 returned. This is the likelihood expressed as a percentage (9.92%) of the observed results being due to luck. From this we can determine that if the selections are losing, and there is a greater than 90% chance of this being due to something else besides luck, then it's probably time to get a new tipster.

This is the quick and dirty method, but is good enough for punting purposes. The result will jump around alot until you get a fair few observed results in there.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[ubetido]

Great thanks Pixie much appreciate your thorough explanation thankyou.

Cheers
Ubetido

[crash]

Just on another point. If the system is making 80% POT, what help does the system actually need? Jezz, if I had a system with an 80% POT. I certainly wouldn't need any 'help'.

There does seem to be a bit of a problem though as already pointed out, some of the claimed winners don't fit the rules. No offense meant but is this thread attention seeking or about a system with a genuine 80% pot? Hmmm.

It takes a lot to get past the laugh test here in this forum because it's full of sharp cookies. As the rules go, I just can't see it. That's only my humble opinion of course from many years [almost 40yrs] of being a street wise punter, not a gulible one.

[crash]

Average price per winner (return divided by 31) is 4/1
Highest priced winners 11.30 - 9.80 - 9.30

For last start winners the system is getting an 'average' of $5 SP and up to $11.30?

Edited. Flaming.

[the sundance kid]

Average price per winner (return divided by 31) is 4/1
Highest priced winners 11.30 - 9.80 - 9.30

For last start winners the system is getting an 'average' of $5 SP and up to $11.30? Where from, some bookie in La La land? The runner would have to be well up in weight or class to get those sort of odds rewards. Ho, ho, ho.

Those prices you quoted mate are actual Unitab dividends for the winners
Ive already listed. Look at the races (if you know how to) and you will see
that they fit into the rules I outlined.

[the sundance kid]

Just on another point. If the system is making 80% POT, what help does the system actually need? Jezz, if I had a system with an 80% POT. I certainly wouldn't need any 'help'.

There does seem to be a bit of a problem though as already pointed out, some of the claimed winners don't fit the rules. No offense meant but is this thread attention seeking or about a system with a genuine 80% pot? Hmmm.

It takes a lot to get past the laugh test here in this forum because it's full of sharp cookies. As the rules go, I just can't see it. That's only my humble opinion of course from many years [almost 40yrs] of being a street wise punter, not a gulible one.

My only request of the forum was "how do I get more bets" - thats all.
The winners DO fit the rules. Tribal Warrior and Cafe Bar were personal choice
selections. If you read that part of my post again I referred to adding
others. But you have already shown you dont know much about reading?
40 years of being a street wise punter. Hmmm. Youre nearly as old as me,
sonny jim???

[the sundance kid]

Hi Sundance

Forumites will mostly knock anything that touts high win returns. This maybe from there own experience and have a conservative and cautious outllook. Nothing wrong with that mind you as things can go belly up just when you thought you had found that delicate balance of filters to give you good returns.

I would just follow what you are doing and if it is 80% keep going and keep profiting while you can and keep looking for a second income stream from perhaps a different set of rules which also produces success.

For example you currently operate on 1000m-1200m races

Well how do the 1400m-1600m races look perhaps different or similar filters may produce good results.

Cheers
Ubetido
Thanks

[the sundance kid]

Hi Sundance,
http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/images/icons/icon11.gifa little confused, your post (6) claimed Tribal Warrior and Cafe Bar as a profitable weekend (prior to your listing rules at post 8).
WA tracks were not included (is this an oversight)
Tribal Warrior ran at Ascot (WA) Not LSW,(122), Distance ran was 1400?
Cafe Bar Not LSW, (133), Not won 2 this preparation?
I tend to agree with crash and others, there is little scope to expand when
expecting a THIRD WIN in current preparation. Silver&Sands idea of expanding to other distances (maybe 1300-1400) would give you a wider scope (maybe a reduction in POT%) and a greater selection process. Which in the long term may increase return.
Good luckhttp://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Thanks for responding mate - Those two winners were not part of my system.
If you follow the thread, you will see where Ive actually detailed the
selections for this month so far. I did not include those two winners did I.
Reason - not in the system. The original post referring to those two winners
(Tribal Warrior and Cafe Bar) suggested that they were additions.
Overall, the selections for 2007 provide good returns simply because people like Crash overlook horses that have won two out of their last three -
they think oh well it cant win again and look elsewhere - hence the good
returns and good dividends.
As someone once said to be a successful punter, you have to do something
different and not follow the crowd.

Anyway Ill keep backing them - I bet some of you will too. But I doubt
if Ill hear about it.

Cheers mate - thanks again for responding -:cool: s k

[crash]

Flaming. Have three days holiday.

[crash]

Flaming.

[crash]

Flaming.

[the sundance kid]

Here we go. What comp. [?], Get a grip. I'll give you even term [against me] from Sat. on because I run the comp.!
Count me in sonny.......

[crash]

This the comp. 'Autumn Comp.'
----------------------------------
This week 29.3.08
Sportz $745
Rabbitz $580
Gold Coaster $520
Mr Quaddie $480
YoungBuck $450
Makybe Diva $390
Maverick $380
Crash $180
Spartacus $170
Horse Whisperer $165
Sirpent $105
----------------------------------
Leader Board:
YoungBuck $3640
Rabbitz $3315
Crash $2725
Mackybe Deva $2205
Raw Instint $2040
Sportz $2005
Goldcoaster $1800
Horse Whisperer $1565
Sirpent $1360
Mr Quaddi $1145
Maverick $1100
Panther $830
Spartacus $675
Nutter1 $160

Welcome aboard. I'm impressed that you will at least have a go new boy. That's a lot more than many opinionated punters here will do. Good on you mate I'm liking you already.

[the sundance kid]

This the comp. 'Autumn Comp.'
----------------------------------
This week 29.3.08
Sportz $745
Rabbitz $580
Gold Coaster $520
Mr Quaddie $480
YoungBuck $450
Makybe Diva $390
Maverick $380
Crash $180
Spartacus $170
Horse Whisperer $165
Sirpent $105
----------------------------------
Leader Board:
YoungBuck $3640
Rabbitz $3315
Crash $2725
Mackybe Deva $2205
Raw Instint $2040
Sportz $2005
Goldcoaster $1800
Horse Whisperer $1565
Sirpent $1360
Mr Quaddi $1145
Maverick $1100
Panther $830
Spartacus $675
Nutter1 $160

Welcome aboard. I'm impressed that you will at least have a go new boy. That's a lot more than many opinionated punters here will do. Good on you mate!
OK Ive checked the Comp Rules out on another thread - only one question -
What is the deadline for bets to be posted?

Thanks mate............

[crash]

Oh I'm a bit easy there. 1/2 hour before they jump for any selection. If any of your selections is a late scratching, you get the SP fav. unless you nominate a sub.
Anyhow, welcome aboard with heartfelt approval. Not many of high opinion here every get on board. Some of those I highly respect because of the way they bet: Chrome, Bagman, Party and quite few others on this forum page just don't suit a betting comp. because they bet lay, or odds just before they jump.

[the sundance kid]

OK Thanks for that...look forward to saturday.....

cheers:cool:

[Chrome Prince]

There's an easier way, a quick and dirty way to test systems that is very accurate.

1. Take the maximum win dividend
2. Divide the profit by the maximum win dividend
3. The resulting number is the number of winners you're staking all hope and your bank on.

Example:

One of my systems
1187 selections
368 winners
31% S/R
<font color=green><b>Profit $130.80</b></font>
POT 11.02%
Average Divvy $3.58
Maximum Divvy $28.80

$130.80 / $28.80 = 4.54

In this case, I'm clinging onto 4.50 winners to make money in the future.

So what does this mean?

With your systems, use it as a bank percentage tool, in this case I'm betting 1.23% of my bank on the selections. (4.50 winners divided by 368 total winners).

The higher this number (confidence) the more of your bank you're betting, the lower the number the lower the bets.

Your confident systems will make more money and if your others turn ugly, it will make up for it.

As average systems flourish, you're betting more and making more.

Back to my coding....

* Very few marketed systems actually show a positive result when more than two of the maximum dividends are taken out.

[crash]

OK Thanks for that...look forward to saturday.....

cheers:cool:

Well I'm glad we ended up on friendly terms there! Just remember with many of my posts, my tongue is stuck firmly in my cheek. Playing Devil's advocate gives the place a bit of interesting reading.

Being a new member has no bearing on your punting ability, but we can have a bit of fun until the comp. finishes. Good luck!

[Stix]

Well I'm glad we ended up on friendly terms there! Just remember with many of my posts, my tongue is stuck firmly in my cheek. Playing Devil's advocate gives the place a bit of interesting reading.

Being a new member has no bearing on your punting ability, but we can have a bit of fun until the comp. finishes. Good luck!In your opinion.......

[YoungBuck]

Pixie or anyone else.

I have a system which has ran for about eight months and the last month was disasterous, losing 24% of the total bank. But that was the first losing month, and the overall figures remain:

126 bets, 50 winners, Ave SP $3.94, SR 39.68%, POT 17.71%.

I just tried the Chi test and got: 1.84812E. Now i know i did it right because i got Pixie's correct score from his example.

It is obiously a damn good system so far, but can anyone shed light on the CHi score i got?

[Truckie]

Posts 1 and 2 of this thread began with the assumption that most punters drop out after a few weeks. Over 40 years ago, I joined a syndicate where the professional writer undertook to bet if sufficient followers gave him the betting bank, and he took a small percentage for himself. (These days few would entertain the idea, but nevertheless I was among those who did.)

His methods were most educational. If each syndicate contributed 100 pounds, he began by having a betting bank of 50 pounds, with the remainder kept in reserve. Usually he bet on one horse, with a saver on a second to cover the original stake. If the bet won, he added half the winnings to the reserve, and put a third of the winnings on the next three bets. I think his unit was 10% of the bank.

He had a terrible trot to begin with, so when the betting bank was low, he took not the remainder, but only half of it, that is 25 pounds.

He then took a spell because of bad health, started again and with just three consecutive wins ( which meant increasinglh higher bets), he made every syndicate in profit, and retired because of ill health. He was a real gentleman.

It does point out that perseverance can pay off, and shows that doubling up to "get out of trouble" is a risky business.

[Truckie]

Should have said, half the winnings went to the betting bank, and other half to the next three races.

[crash]

Sounds like a sharp punter. Free betting money for himself !

[Silver_and_sand]

G'day Young Buck,

Your Chi test result should have read 1.84812E-06. The E-06 means you need to slide the full stop to the left 6 times, so it should really end up reading 0.00000184812, which according to AngryPixie's interpretation means that there's only about 1/5,000th of 1% chance that your results were thanks to luck, and therefor you should feel confident in your system future success.

Personally, I find this Punters Chi-square test fascinating stuff...I have absolutely no idea it it's predictions will ultimately reign true or not...but it's fascinating nonetheless... http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[YoungBuck]

Thanks for that S&S!

I'd heard of the Chi test but put it in the 'too hard' basket. It's encouraging to hear those figures in your favour...

[AngryPixie]

You do need quite a few samples as the score will bounce around a bit till you do.

Here's something else I've posted recently. Bit more complicated but a worthwhile exercise all the same.

When is enough, enough??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How long should you test that fantastic new selection method?
How many results should a commercial tipster provide before you consider parting with your hard earned cash?

With some easily obtainable data, and a bit of simple maths, it’s not that hard to find out. All you need to get started is the average SP of all selections, and the percentage of winners. Easy stuff.

Suppose a tipster has provided the following data about his service:

Total Bets: 300
Winners: 60
Average decimal SP all selections: $5.50

We can easily work out the percentage of winners (W%) by dividing winners by total bets:

60/300 = 0.20 (20% winners)

From here it’s simple to work out the percentage of losers (L%) by subtracting W% from 100% like this:

1.00 – 0.20 = 0.80 (80% losers)

Using the W% and L% figures we can work out whether the selections provide us with a positive expectation. That’s the profit we can expect to make for each $1.00 bet. Here’s the equation:

Exp = ((DECSP - 1) * W%) - L%

Let’s put our figures in:

Exp = ((5.5 – 1) * 0.20) – 0.80
Exp = (4.5 * 0.20) – 0.80
Exp = 0.90 – 0.80
Exp = 0.10 (10% profit for each dollar bet)

Now we know our expectation but the bad news is that for mathamatical reasons we can't use that figure in our calculations. We calculated it because we need to choose a figure between that and 0% (breakeven) to use as a minimum acceptable profit MINAP. For this example I'll be happy with a profit of 0.05 (5%). We're going to use MINAP in our next calculation. A word of caution here though. The closer the minimum is to the maximum, the more test bets you'll need!!

Simple so far right. The next bit is a little harder.

As part of our final calculation we need to work out one last figure we'll call ERR. This is the figure that represents the difference between the W% and the win percentage that gives a 5% profit. Here's the equation:

ERR = W% - ((1 + MINAP) / DECSP)

With our numbers it looks like this:

ERR = 0.20 - ((1 + 0.05) / 5.5)
ERR = 0.20 - (1.05 / 5.5)
ERR = 0.20 - 0.1909
ERR = 0.0091

Almost there but one more thing. The final calculation allows us to assign a confidence level (Z) to the final result. You don't need to work this out. For this example I'll use a 90% confidence level. Using the list I've provide below we see that this confidence level is assigned the number 1.65.

Here we go with the final calculation. To work out the minimum number of test that should be conducted we use the following equation:

TESTS = W% * L% * (Z / ERR) * (Z / ERR)

Now with our numbers:

TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * (1.65 / 0.0091) * (1.65 / 0.0091)
TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * 181.3186 * 181.3186
TESTS = 5260.22

There you have it. The minimum number of tests we should conduct to have 90% confidence of a 5% profit is 5261!! Sobering isn't it

APPENDIX
===
1) Other confidence levels (Z):

60% = 0.84
70% = 1.04
80% = 1.28
90% = 1.65
95% = 1.96
98% = 2.33
99% = 2.58
99.9% = 3.29

2) These calculations assume that the average SP is an accurate representation of a selections chance of winning.
3) I was originally introduced to this technique by American writer/punter Dick Mitchell in one of his books. I've localised the calculations for you.

What if we just want to breakeven?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the same basic figures above, how many tests if we just want to breakeven? You'd still need 1316 tests to have 90% confidence of not losing any money.

ERR = 0.20 - ((1 + 0) / 5.5)
ERR = 0.20 - (1 / 5.5)
ERR = 0.20 - 0.1818
ERR = 0.0182

TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * (1.65 / 0.0182) * (1.65 / 0.0182)
TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * 90.6593 * 90.6593
TESTS = 1315.05

If you only wanted to be 60% confident of not losing any money you've almost done enough tests.

TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * (0.84 / 0.0182) * (0.84 / 0.0182)
TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * 46.1538 * 46.1538
TESTS = 318.67

For 99.9% confidence of breaking even, a minimum of 5229 tests should be conducted.

TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * (3.29 / 0.0182) * (3.29 / 0.0182)
TESTS = 0.20 * 0.80 * 180.7692 * 180.7692
TESTS = 5228.4

[Vortech]

A blast from the past!

does anyone else use the Archie Score method?

I using test it on profitable systems but the other day come across a system that had 7000 bets and a loss of $600.

When I tested the Archie Score it was 56.278

What does this mean for a unprofitable system?

[Vortech]

I guess I'm flying solo here.

Is woof43 still around?