Simple place or win system

[crash]

I've moved this to it's own thread and waiting until it collapses I guess. Going strong at the moment.

1. Good or Dead tracks only
2. No maiden races
3. Look at horses with min. weight only
4. Must be 3rd or 4th up
5. Rule out any horse over 50/1 [$51 cut off not $50, so the $50.80 winner just scraped in]
6. Back alll selections up to 3. Ignore the race if more than 3.
7. Mon. to Fri. only.


Bunbry
7/13 x
8/10 x
CHELTENHAM PARK
5/4 [$1.80p]
6/9,10,11 [9 $15.20p]
7/8 x
8/10 x
IPSWICH
4/4 x
5/8 x
7/9,14 [14 $3.40p]
SANDOWN-HILLSIDE
6/15 $30.80w $7.50p
-----------------------
GOSFORD
1/5 x
5/8,9 x
6/9 x
7/14,15 [14w $14.50w $3p]
KALGOORLIE
3/8 x
5/8 x
6/9 [2.30p]
TOWNSVILLE
3/6 x
5/8 x
8/12 x
----------------------
CESSNOCK
7/11 [$11.60p]
GOULBURN
7/17e
ROCKHAMPTON
5/8
7/9 [$9.90p]
8/10
SEYMOUR
4/14,15
5/10,11
6/15,17
-------------------
Taree
2/5 x
5/9 $2.10p
6/12 x
7/14 $50.90 / $11.90p
-----------------------------
RANDWICK-KENSINGTON
4/6,7[$1.30p],10[$2.60p]
5/12 x
7/12 x
-----------------------------
BALAKLAVA
4/7 x
5/8 x
6/10 x
7/10 [$6.40p 12 x
8/12 x
BUNBURY
6/8 [$3.50]
8/6 [$2.90p]
IPSWICH
6/11,13 x
8/13 x
NEWCASTLE
6/14 [$2.50p]
7/12 x
8/14 x
------------------------
Thurs. 3.4.08
ASCOT
8/9 x
9/10 x
GRAFTON
7/10,13[$9.20w $2.60p],16
9/12,13[$4.80p]
MACKAY
5/10 x
6/11,12 [$12w $3.20p]
7/8 x
8/8 x
------------------------
Fri. 4.4.08
FANNIE BAY
2/7 x
GOLD COAST
4/10 x
6/12 x
8/15 x
MOONEE VALLEY
5/1 $12.50 [dead heat] $6.20p
MILDURA
2/7 x
MUSWELLBROOK
6/15 x
7/12 [$3.20p]
9/11 x
---------------------
KILMORE
6/10 [$2.10p]
PORT MACQUARIE
5/10 [$10.20p]
6/10 x
SAPPHIRE COAST
4/14 x
--------------------

[crash]

COFFS HARBOUR
4/7 [$2.70p]
5/11 [$2.50p]
6/15 x
7/12 [oh dear,$14p, but over the 50/1 rule]
PAKENHAM
7/8 x
---------------------
Going by the number of views since yesterday, I hope a few punters are on- board and putting a few bucks on [especially for the place it seems]. I have no problems with sharing anything that is winning and I want other punters to win too [no secret 'I make heaps' no proof methods here]. I bet for interest, not to try and make a living. Not great today, but the system is still winning for win and place. Lets hope it rolls on for a good while yet. Feel free to mess with the rules, as you might improve things. Let us all know if you do though:-)

[crash]

ASCOT
3/9,10 x
5/9 [$4.60p]
6/12 x
8/12 x
CANTERBURY
2/8 [$4.10w $2.60p]
CRANBOURNE
2/9 x
4/14 [$1.30p]
6/12 [$1.80p]
IPSWICH
3/8 [$5p]
6/13 [$3.10p]
7/9 [$3.60p],11,12
8/16 [$3.60p]
MURRAY BRIDGE
3/7,13 x
4/13 x
6/7 x
7/9 x
8/12,14 x
----------------------

[crash]

ALBURY
4/11 [$1.50p]
5/16 x
6/13 x
BENDIGO
7/12,15 x
9/14 x
BUNBURY
5/8 x
7/6 x
8/8[$2.80p],9
TOOWOOMBA
5/6,9 [$4.70p]
6/21 x
7/9 x
WYONG
8/11 [$3.60p]
----------------------

[crash]

ALBURY
3/8 [$1.80p]
4/10,12,13 x
6/11 [$4.60w $1.80p]
7/13 [$19.10w $4.70p]
8/16 x
GEELONG THOROUGH
6/10 x
ORANGE
8/6,13 x
ROCKHAMPTON
4/7 x
5/14 [$2.50p]
7/9 x
---------------------

win bet is still looking good.

[crash]

I would make a small tweak to the rules. If more than 2 bets [not 3], ignore the race.

[crash]

Reaper 1313,

2nd or 3rd up refers to the numbers in any form guide before the horse's name. S124 means a spell [S] and the the horse's placing for the next 3 starts. This run would be the 4th start [4th up]. 15 without and X in front of the 15 would mean the horse has only ever had 2 starts. So it would be 3rd. up this start. Get the drift?

Bet either win or place only. You will get returns more often for the place but you will get lousy odds compared to the runners win odds and you would have missed some great win bet odds.
I only ever [well mostly] bet for the win. I don't bother with this system on weekend as there are too many race meetings, which doesn't mean the system can't win on weekends. I would ignore the main city metro race meetings though.

[reaper1313]

Thanks HEAPS crash. yes makes perfect sense. put it on other thread cause thats where i saw it, didn't see it had it's own thread. New to punting, new to forums too. Found an old copy of a system called MAGICBET by a G. A. Sharp. Dunno what its like, but thinking of havin a crack at it as well. If you know anything about it, would be happy to know your insights. Thanks Mate

[crash]

Be VERY careful with systems. They have a habit of the wheels falling off. Meaning a sudden long 'run of outs' [run of loses]. Anything else you need to know let me know. As with everything in life, we all started at the beginning once. What I can't offer [and nor can anyone else here] is guaranteed road to riches on the punt. I have no problems of sharing anything that is going well though. I couldn't give a stuff about prize pools.

[crash]

My advice [take it or leave it] about bet amounts is have some fun before trying anything clever. If you can't win with $2 bets, you'll never win with bigger bets, just lose more. Better to slowly move up in bet amounts. Apart from my own serious bets, my wife and I have fun by picking a horse each in Melb. races for $2w bets. It allows one to take risks. Last week we picked 6 of the 8 winners between us and she picked 3 out of 4 quins. [1st and 2nd place getters] as well. I think she is a better punter than me actually:-)

[Bhagwan]

Hi Reaper
I tested out that plan many years ago .
It will have it's good days & not so good days .
When I tested it, it managed to break even using TAB prices which is OK.
This means if one used it with Betfair prices it should show a profit.

I beleive the plan is out of print now & if its the same one I am thinking of , it targets the first 3 or 4 ranked in the pre-post market & then one bets the ones that have shortened in their ranking at jump time.

Heres a SIMPLE 2 HORSE PLAN that can hit a lot of winners ,that you may like to try out...

.Target the top 2 market favs at 1 min till jump. These have a statistical strike rate of 50%.

.Bet 4 units on the Horse you think should win & place 1 unit on the other horse as a saver bet .
You will have a greater chance of surviving the run of outs doing it this way, plus it will add a lot more interest to your punting, it also frees up your thinking when it comes to the question of value because you know you have the other horse covered..

You will also be amazed how often the other horse gets up over your selection, out of the 2 horses targeted, no matter what one tries to do to separate them. That will be the frustrating bit.
If one can get it right, there's a profit to be had.


.This way, it will conserve your betting bank & at the same time one will enjoy a 40-50% SR using the Betfair market.

.Make sure you have a betting bank of 60:1 ratio or more when level stakes betting.

. One will find it very challenging trying to profit using TAB prices, so try & use say IAS or Spotingbet or Centrebet (Best of 3 totes) if one wishes to place all bets at once or use Betfair if one wishes to bet race to race in front of a screen for even better prices.

.Do be prepaired for 20 outs in a row followed hopefully by a series on wins if betting just one horse a race.

.Try & work out ones results using percentages rather than actaual money won or lost, the figures will make more sence if its done this way.

.Do open up a Betfair A/C for superiour prices.

.Do download a copy of Bet Trader Pro, Free. (Google) Racing Traders to find it. That way, one can use 1 cent bets if you want to , which is great for testing out new systems without risking large amounts of money.

Cheers.

[crash]

I had look at this system for Sund. [forget Sat. too many races] and as my idea is to keep the amount of bets down, I now ignore runners who did not start 21 days ago or less [need them fit]. It weeded out a few bets and they were either scr., over 50/1 or did no good anyway.

The results were nothing spectacular, but a small win for win bets anyway.

Sund.
GAWLER
4/4 [$3.10w 1.40p]
6/14 [$3.40w $1.90p]
GERALDTON
1/5 $4.50w $1.60p]
7/12 x
HAMILTON
8/14 x
9/10 x
HOBART
7/8 x
MUSWELLBROOK
7/10 x
SUNSHINE COAST
6/7,8 x
--------------------------------

[crash]

Totals so far:
Win out 137 Win in 168.20 Profit 31.20
Place out 137 Place in 163.10 Profit 26.10

[crash]

Monday 14/4
GRAFTON
4/13 [1.80p] 14
5/7 x
6/12 x
SALE
7/10 x
8/12 [7.70w 2.80p]
TAMWORTH
6/9 [6.30p]
8/15 x
-----------------------------
Win out 7 in 7.70 profit .70
place out 7 in 10.90 profit 3.90

[crash]

Tuesday, Apr 15
STAWELL
5/8 [3.50p],10
8/9,11 [3.70p]
TAREE
4/8 x
5/8 [8.50w 3.00p],9 [1.50p]
6/14,15 x
-------------------------------
win out 7 in 8.50 profit 1.50
place out 7 in 11.70 profit 4.70

[wesmip1]

Nice work crash ...

Is there any reason you restrict to Monday to Friday (as per rules) ?

Good Luck

[crash]

Not really. The main reason is that on Saturday their is a heck of a lot of races to go through and I'm getting a bit lazy nowadays. Also I like to concentrate on form study for the main meetings. I did do last Sunday for this system.

[jacfin]

Hi Crash
I did a thorough analysis of all your published selections and I have a question.
Can you clarify for me how you determine the minimum weight? Is it the listed minimum weight after scratchings or do you take note of allowances?
Thanks

[crash]

I take no notice of allowances and I do the list of possible selections before scratchings [the night before]. I just pick lowest weight runners at 2nd or 3rd. start. If the lowest weight selections are emergencies, I note the next lowest weight. If the selected emergency is scratched, I select the next lowest weight runner[s]. For everything else I just cross off scratchings, those selections that haven't run for more than 21 days and anything about to jump at 50/1 or more.

Rough and ready I guess, but I didn't mind as I wanted to keep it simple to do and the number of selections down. The system might be improved if the selections were done after scratchings. I was thinking of doing that, but it will increase the amount of selections, but maybe not winnings. Who knows?

Here is my initial list from last night:

DEVONPORT
6/7
DOOMBEN
5/7
6/13
7/12,13
KALGOORLIE
3/7,9
4/10
5/10
6/11 [if scr. pick 9,10]
7/12 [if 14e,15e,16e out]
RANDWICK-KENSING
4/13,14
6/10,11,16
7/ if 14e out select 12
SANDOWN-HILLSIDE
2/9 x
4/10
5/13
6/15,16
STRATHALBYN
7/6,7
8/8
9/7,8

[Mancunian]

Nice one Crash, going well for quite a while now - but can you clarify please - your last reply says "I just pick lowest weight runners at 2nd or 3rd start" but your original rules said "Must be 3rd or 4th up". Can we presume this was just a slip of the pen ..er ...finger as todays selections look like they are based on 3rd and 4th up
Keep it up.....Mancunian

[crash]

Nice one Crash, going well for quite a while now - but can you clarify please - your last reply says "I just pick lowest weight runners at 2nd or 3rd start" but your original rules said "Must be 3rd or 4th up". Can we presume this was just a slip of the pen ..er ...finger as todays selections look like they are based on 3rd and 4th up
Keep it up.....Mancunian

Just a typo, I meant 3rd or 4th start.

[jacfin]

Today on the slow tracks ( RK and DT ) there were 6 selns for a winner at 15.40 and three placegetters at 2.3, 4.1 and 8.3.

[crash]

The results all tracks where:

DEVONPORT [s]
6/7 [$8.30p]
DOOMBEN
5/7 x
6/13 x
7/12,13 x
KALGOORLIE
3/7,9 x
4/10 [$3.50w $1.50p]
5/10 x
7/12 x
RANDWICK-KENSING [s]
4/13,14 [4.50p]
6/10 [$15.40w $4.10p],11 x
7/12 x
SANDOWN-HILLSIDE
2/9 x
4/10 x
STRATHALBYN
7/6,7 x
8/8 x
9/7x


Taking out the slow tracks, a losing day. Maybe they should be left in [?]

[Mancunian]

Taking out the slow tracks, a losing day. Maybe they should be left in [?]
Lightweights can have an advantage on Slow/Heavy tracks so how about including them IF they have been placed on slow or heavy tracks previously.

cheers ...mancunian

[crash]

I'll just note S or H meeting and throw the results in as above. I won't worry about prev. wins in H or S yet. [too many filters too soon] If the horses are running in those conditions. The trainers might know something we don't!

[jacfin]

I can't think of a logical reason to discard these tracks.
As Mancunian said min weighted horses may even be advantaged slightly.

[jacfin]

I can count the number of double figure place bets that i have collected on in my life on two hands.
Today -- two in half an hour. Back Tracks is the longest price placegetter that I have ever backed.
Thanks Crash

[crash]

HAWKESBURY [s]
8/10 OUR CHINA PLATE [$12.70p]
ADELAIDE
R6 BACK TRACKS [$11.70p]

Both were over 50/1 however, so I'm not claiming them. If I'd have bet all horses over 50/1. I think the system would be in loss. However, for wet tracks I don't know.


I certainly think your on to something though re wet tracks and perhaps change the odds for the wet.

[jacfin]

It paid 16.80 where I backed it and a couple of dollars more in NSW.
Unitab punters got way under the odds. It was only $34 SP with the bookie. Our China Plate at $81 was a genuine outsider.
I had decided to ignore the 50/1 rule but, based on what you say, I'll think about it some more.

[crash]

Point is I think your grabbing exceptions outside the rules. If you had bet all those exceptions since I started the system, you wouldn't be looking so good.

The wet tracks though, might apply. keep it up!

[crash]

Without going outside the rules:

ASCOT [good track]
5/10,11 x
7/9 [27.20w 7.80p],10 [2.40p] Woo hoo!

[jacfin]

Crash
I realise that the longshots that I backed were outside the published rules but I am appreciative nonetheless. I also ignore the 21 day rule myself and have a minimum acceptable price as well.
I accept what you say about the over 50/1 selections and will quit while i'm ahead with those.
In future, I won't mention any horse in this topic which is not a selection under your rules.

[crash]

I really do think the 21 day rule is important [fit horses]. My bets are up to $5w now. Todays win went down really well.

[jacfin]

I wouldn't have been on IP5, 8 which paid $25 today if I had applied the 21 day rule so i'm not yet convinced.

[crash]

By the rules:

ASCOT
5/10,11 x
7/9 [27.20w 7.80p],10 [2.40p]
BALLARAT
5/11 x
7/14x

Any is free to make up their own I guess.

[jacfin]

By the rules:

ASCOT
5/10,11 x
7/9 [27.20w 7.80p],10 [2.40p]
BALLARAT
5/11 x
7/14x


Crash
Should IP6/14 be on the list?

[jacfin]

Crash
I think that's a pity but i think it's a good thing for this thread.
More money for you and me if the interest in it dies.
I expressed my appreciation of your efforts in more than one post and i didn't at any stage criticize your rules. I offered an alternative view on them which I thought was reasonable. I don't claim to be a guru but i do have lengthy experience in systems betting.
I certainly didn't intend to offend you.

[crash]

No problems mate. We'll just let the thread slip quietly off the page.

[michaelg]

Crash, we all make mistakes, I know I have sometimes in my postings here and feel terrible about it. And the problem is that how carefully we try not to make them we will all continue to do so because of the simple fact that we are human.

Maybe the only exception was a person who lived 2,000 years ago.

[Mancunian]

Crash, I wasn't intending to criticize either.
Thanks for lots of previous contributions and particularly this one that's in my suite of systems now as "Crash's System".
Regards.......Mancunian

[crash]

BENDIGO
6/13 x
DUBBO
3/5 [7.90w 4.00p]
7/8 [$1.70p]
MACKAY
5/8 [$4.60p]
8/12 x

Someone might want to check these results.

[Mancunian]

I broke even today - thank god, I could use the money !
an oldie, but a goodie.
Come on guys - aren't we all friends deep down with a common goal.

cheers Mancunian

[Bhagwan]

Hay, I'm partial to a little fancy fiddle playen.

I think our friend, now finally knows, what it feels like & why others have become cranky in the past, leave the site & never post a thing ever again.

That's how sites become very quiet.

There are some fools out there who say they do it just to get a gee-up out of people, as a form of weird joke, well no one ever laughs, except the sole, mouth breathing fool, just like a teenage bully does.

There are also some who see themselves as some sort of policeman & beleive its their right to attack wild ideas in the name of protecting the average punter from losing all their money , yet never make a positive posting on how to make or protect the punting money to replace the idea, that they are attacking, no matter how wild & woolly the idea may be.

My favourite, are the ones who go through all the postings & critisise others spelling & grammar- Weird! But never contibute anything positive about punting.

I would personally like to see those who have felt they have been bullied into silence by the bullies, making their, valuable contributions known once more, no matter how wild the ideas may be .
Dont let the bully boys get the upper hand , make it known to them that their nasty nonscence is offensive & you dont like . Maybe an official complaint to the moderator could be in order.
Maybe the fool bully boys can laugh that one off aswell.

Now, where's that fiddle of mine.

[stugots]

BENDIGO
6/13 x
DUBBO
3/5 [7.90w 4.00p]
7/8 [$1.70p]
MACKAY
5/8 [$4.60p]
8/12 x

Someone might want to check these results.

did you actually back em this time or do you need to "I only realized I hadn't won on the horse after checking my betting account after you pointed out the mistake." again?

this is hilarious

[jfc]

Yesterday elsewhere I experienced an incident which will occupy a prominent place in my burgeoning scrap book.

In response to an implication that I was incapable of comprehending flat staking, I calculated flat staking of a modest $1,000 over the disclosed 2,000 bets at 35% S/R and 35% POT. An eye-opening $700,000 profit.

But that objective information was deleted, and today a Kelly Staking calculation met the same fate.

This means that certain people there can claim any S/R or POT they choose and remain protected from my objective observations.

Kinda' like those who pumped Davnet up to $3 billion before reality pricked.

Now by contrast from what I can see here Crash published his picks beforehand, then claimed a winner that was not there.

How can that be anything but an innocent oversight?

If you want to malevolently claim fictitious winning figures, then you don't publish picks beforehand which everyone can verify.

Instead you might just claim extravagant S/R + POT with no corroborating evidence, or go p57's celebrated route of having very fluid rules which only get disclosed after any long-shot bolts in.

The massive outrage over what was clearly no more than a mistake again says far more about the accusers than the target.

[Chrome Prince]

Yep, it just won - Sebring.

See.... I told you ;)

[Chrome Prince]

Pointless being in a competition crash, as it doesn't reflect either the way I bet, nor the odds I take.

I'm not good at picking winners, I've always held that belief, my niche is punting to value, and laying poor value.

My competitions don't have a start and an end, they are forever ongoing.

Working out profit or loss using TAB dividends is like working out wages in India for me.

If I can't get over or under a certain price, I pass.
Sometimes I can't get the price, I'll trade on the race, knowing the ants will come out of the hill to feed and drive the market into a nice slice of profit.

Give me a competition that works this way, and you have a serious challenge on your hands ;)

So far this week, I've more than doubled my bank on UK racing using 2% flat stakes to liability :D

It's all about price I reckon.

[Chrome Prince]

O.K. if you have no Betfair account we can't play, it really would have been fun, regardless of us having a go at eachother here.
It would have been a pretty good battle I reckon - it's a shame.

The only rules were work out the profit per unit after a month and supply the Betfair account summary and csv file for verification.

That was it - no other rules.

[Bhagwan]

Chrome raises an interesting point for all punters.

That is... a punter has to ask himself the question, am I more intersted in hitting a winning profit or am I more interested in hitting a volumn of winners.

Cheers.

[crash]

I think it's an interesting point too. Perhaps he should create a thread on it?

[syllabus23]

Flaming ... contents deleted.

Very close to a suspension.

Moderator.

[jacfin]

Chrome raises an interesting point for all punters.

That is... a punter has to ask himself the question, am I more intersted in hitting a winning profit or am I more interested in hitting a volumn of winners.

Cheers.
A simple answer for me. I want a volume of winners and a profit. If I can't achieve that i'll settle for selectivity and a profit.

[crash]

Sunday
BALLARAT
5/16 x
DUBBO
3/10 [$2.30p]
8/13 [$7.10p]
EDENHOPE
4/11 [$5.40p]
5/9 x
8/14 x
HOBART
7/11 x
SUNSHINE COAST
5/3 [$3p]
8/13,14 [$5.30p]
WAGGA
5/13 x

[Moderator 3]

Please note:

There will be a zero tolerance policy.

This means if there are any more inflammatory posts and breaches of Forum Terms of Use suspensions will follow. People do not join this forum and post to be verbally attacked.

Also please note use of the "f" word and other profanities, directly or implied, is inappropriate on a public forum and will result in suspension.

Should you see a post in breach of Forum Terms of Use you can report it by clicking the bold red triangle.

Moderator.

[Privateer]

Re Chrome's volume of winners -v- making a profit.

The answer is a no brainer, it MUST be making a profit. The other basic thing that punters do not consider is that a horse does not necessarily have to be first past the post for the punter to make a profit on the bet. A lot of punters seem to focus on that "win only" often to their detriment.

[Stix]

Re Chrome's volume of winners -v- making a profit.

The answer is a no brainer, it MUST be making a profit. The other basic thing that punters do not consider is that a horse does not necessarily have to be first past the post for the punter to make a profit on the bet. A lot of punters seem to focus on that "win only" often to their detriment.Privateer,

From reading over your old posts you bet 1/3 ratio. What percentage would winners contribute to your POT vs the 3 units the place?

[crash]

'volume of winners -v- making a profit'

I think the terms need greater definition to be meaningful or at least an example should be given.

[crash]

Privateer,

From reading over your old posts you bet 1/3 ratio. What percentage would winners contribute to your POT vs the 3 units the place?

That's an interesting point about ratio's Stix. I read a long time betting guru's web in the US that said 'after much trial and error, the best win/place ratio was 1w x 6p'. The idea being I guess is it's a place system while skimming a bit of cream for the win, but little damage if a place getter.

[Privateer]

Read 'em again because I've answered that previously.

You didn't have to reply. In line with the zero tolerance policy in this thread, one day's suspension for this unpleasant reply.
Moderator

[crash]

Tuesday:
BENALLA
5/8 x
6/9 [$9.20w $2.50p]
7/11 x
TOWNSVILLE
4/8 [$6.60p]
5/6,7 x
7/10 x

[Stix]

Read 'em again because I've answered that previously.Didn't think it deserved it, but Gee thanks for your curt reply.

Thought it was a rather inert question....I shall not bother you again, you seem very defensive.

[Wunfluova]

Crash, if you are going to 'play' your system you must pay more attention to the selection process. :)

Benalla 8/11 Win $43-20

(This system is throwing up some nice priced winners but long term will prove a substantial loser)

[jacfin]

Crash, if you are going to 'play' your system you must pay more attention to the selection process. :)

Benalla 8/11 Win $43-20

(This system is throwing up some nice priced winners but long term will prove a substantial loser)
Wunfluova
Can you tell me why you are so sure that it will be a substantial loser long term plse?

[Wunfluova]

Jacfin, I tested it roughly over the period of the results posted in this thread and despite several good winners it produced a substantial loss.

I don't want to 'crash' Crash's thread but if he so wishes I can do an analysis over whatever period he might care to nominate and post the results. Could even post a list in Excel of the actual bets which would give a basis for further refinement if so required.

The main reason why I haven't already tested it over a longer period was simply because a shorter period made it easier to manually isolate the races with three or more selections that needed to be eliminated. (was a bit pressed for time)

If a longer test period is desired then I should be able to do this elimination programatically in Excel or if preferred just leave all the 'raw' selections in the list.

[syllabus23]

Post removed. Flaming moderators is not tolerated. 7 days' suspension.

[crash]

Crash, if you are going to 'play' your system you must pay more attention to the selection process. :)

Benalla 8/11 Win $43-20


Must have had a Seniors moment [part of life nowadays]. It's not that hard to miss a bet here and there, but typically I missed the most important one. I'm sure other's following the system didn't miss it as after all I'm only posting the system results on this thread, So for Tues. as far as the system goes:

Tuesday [Unitab]:
BENALLA
5/8 x
6/9 [$9.20w $2.50p]
7/11 x
8/11 Win [$34.10w $8.50p]
TOWNSVILLE
4/8 [$6.60p]
5/6,7 x
7/10 x

I hope most punters having a whack at this system, got them all.

[crash]

Crash,
(This system is throwing up some nice priced winners but long term will prove a substantial loser)

Your probably right, as I did say at the beginning of the the thread:
"I've moved this to it's own thread and waiting until it collapses I guess. Going strong at the moment".

It's never bothered me betting straight away on a system I've come up with, without confirmation that it will still be going strong in 1yrs. time. If it wins for the first week, I'll follow it for another etc. etc. No past stats. are going to show how this system will perform over the next 3 mths. or so. The main thing is it's winning at the moment.

Thanks for the research offer in your other post, but I probably really don't want to know the results :-)

[jacfin]

Must have had a Seniors moment [part of life nowadays]. It's not that hard to miss a bet here and there, but typically I missed the most important one. I'm sure other's following the system didn't miss it as after all I'm only posting the system results on this thread, So for Tues. as far as the system goes:

Tuesday [Unitab]:
BENALLA
5/8 x
6/9 [$9.20w $2.50p]
7/11 x
8/11 Win [$34.10w $8.50p]
TOWNSVILLE
4/8 [$6.60p]
5/6,7 x
7/10 x

I hope most punters having a whack at this system, got them all.

I backed them all, Crash. RL paid $46 and $9 on STab. Onya.
I also had TE Race 2/7 which seems to pass the rules. Can you tell me if I have missed something with that one?

[crash]

Jacfin, I tested it roughly over the period of the results posted in this thread and despite several good winners it produced a substantial loss.



That doesn't make sense mate [?]
If you tested the results over the same period as I have been posting the system results you would not end up concluding a substantial loss. In fact quite the opposite is true.
-------------------------------------
[post no.13] System totals then were:
Win out 137 Win in 168.20 Profit 31.20
Place out 137 Place in 163.10 Profit 26.10
-------------------------------------
[since post No.13] System totals to Tues.22nd:
win out 43 in 70.10 profit 27.10
place out 43 in 69.40 profit 26.40
-------------------------------------
Total win out 180 in 238.30 profit 58.30
Total place out 180 in 237.60 profit 57.60
Total E/W out 360 in 475.90 profit 115.90

Regardless how anyone bet the runners, win, place or e/w, a substantial system profit was made.

[crash]

I backed them all, Crash. RL paid $46 and $9 on STab. Onya.
I also had TE Race 2/7 which seems to pass the rules. Can you tell me if I have missed something with that one?

'Singrid'. I just checked and it does pass the rules. I didn't see it as I'd been out and missed the jump on that race, so I only checking for selections after r2.

Time to let this system drift off the page? :-)

[jacfin]

That doesn't make sense mate [?]
If you tested the results over the same period as I have been posting the system results you would not end up concluding a substantial loss. In fact quite the opposite is true.
-------------------------------------
[post no.13] System totals then were:
Win out 137 Win in 168.20 Profit 31.20
Place out 137 Place in 163.10 Profit 26.10
-------------------------------------
[since post No.13] System totals to Tues.22nd:
win out 43 in 70.10 profit 27.10
place out 43 in 69.40 profit 26.40
-------------------------------------
Total win out 180 in 238.30 profit 58.30
Total place out 180 in 237.60 profit 57.60
Total E/W out 360 in 475.90 profit 115.90

Regardless how anyone bet the runners, win, place or e/w, a substantial system profit was made.

I checked Crash's published selections from the start to last Wed and then worked them out for myself and bet on them after that. My figures are similar to his.

[jacfin]

'Singrid'. I just checked and it does pass the rules. I didn't see it as I'd been out and missed the jump on that race, so I only checking for selections after r2.

Time to let this system drift off the page? :-)

Could be a good idea. You are to be congratulated for this little gem.

[crash]

Thanks jacfin, hope you make plenty more on it and doesn't bomb out anytime soon. Good luck to anyone else following the system too.

CANTERBURY [heavy 9] ?
The selections there were [before price assessment]:
3/8 [9.90w 4.20p]
4/7,8,9
5/7
6/11

Sticking with your wet track theory. It improved the system.

[Moderator 1]

It's nice to now only see posts discussing the actual system and its results.

[jacfin]

Thanks jacfin, hope you make plenty more on it and doesn't bomb out anytime soon. Good luck to anyone else following the system too.

CANTERBURY [heavy 9] ?
The selections there were [before price assessment]:
3/8 [9.90w 4.20p]
4/7,8,9
5/7
6/11

Sticking with your wet track theory. It improved the system.

Yes, very pleasing , particularly as the two selns in CY4 ( No 7 was not on the minimum ) ran 1st and 3rd.
I'm also pleased to see the posts getting back on topic.

[crash]

Yes, very pleasing , particularly as the two selns in CY4 ( No 7 was not on the minimum ) ran 1st and 3rd.
I'm also pleased to see the posts getting back on topic.

I'm pleased to see it back on topic too. One accounting mistake and the thread became ablaze but not about the system. With almost 4,000 hits on the thread, I really didn't want to abandon it, as obviously a heck of a lot of punters were getting something out of it. Good for them. Ironicaly, I have seen more prices drift than firm.

A few winners today [Unitab]:
$9.90w
$7.30w
$4.50w
$4.00w
and 3 bets still to go at Ascot;
7/7
8/12,14

Cheers.

[Moderator 3]

We are keeping a close watch now. Also don't forget to press that red triangle should any post break the Forum Terms of Use.

[crash]

Thank you.

[Wunfluova]

I checked Crash's published selections from the start to last Wed and then worked them out for myself and bet on them after that. My figures are similar to his.

Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!! :) (in no way suggesting anything deliberate, just perhaps a shade of carelessness at the end of a working day)

Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following :

26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)

28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)

3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)

4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)

7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)

AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of :

26th March - Bunbury 5/5, Chelt 2/6, Sand 3/8, Sand 6/16

etc, etc...

Having said all that I do understand that some of the above only became non selections after Crash added to or amended several rules - so some of these were true selections at time of writing but need to be adjusted for if you want an accurate assessment of the final system. If you don't want to bother with these sort of details then go with what you have got.

Previously I posted that I expected this system to be a substantial loser long term. I have had another look at it and the figures are not nearly as bad as I first thought. Will probably show a loss but would benefit from further pruning.

Couple of comments :

- this would be a very low strike rate system and if followed to the letter will try the patience of all but the most dedicated (and well organised) of systemites.

- it's easy enough doing this analysis post race but in practice using something like an arbitrary $51 cut off is going to drive you crazy in the long run. e.g. you let one go because its $56 at the jump but it then comes out and wins the race after firming up to $48 after final pools are calculated.

Not meaning to have a go at Crash as he has obviously taken a lot of time in checking and posting the results in good faith but just trying to point out the need to check everything out for yourself before getting too carried away.

[crash]

Wunfluova said: "Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!!"

Creative accounting on my part [again] I suppose?

I'm NOT cooking the books. This system's results are easy to check [already checked and agreed with by another poster] from day one and I don't appreciate the innuendo [again] of misrepresenting the results of this system.

[Moderator 3]

[QUOTE=Wunfluova]Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!! :) (in no way suggesting anything deliberate, just perhaps a shade of carelessness at the end of a working day)

Nothing wrong with this. You were NOT accused of cooking the books.
Either a horse is a selection or it isn't based on the rules.
So please stick to the issue.
Is Wunfluova correct or not correct in pointing out whether or not some horses were or were not selections?

Moderator.

[crash]

ALL Selections are based on the rules.
Wunfluova claims the system has made a 'massive loss' [earlier post] over the time it has been running. My results and another poster who has checked them, agreed with my system results [approx 33% profit] and obviously based on selections that passed the rules.

I would tolerate that my figures might be slightly out depending on the TAB results used, but 'massive loss' implies total skull-duggery and basically lying and incredible 'creative accounting' for a system that my Grandmother could check the results on. She would also note any horses that didn't pass the rules.

Obviously, between my 33% profit and Wunfluova's 'massive loss' implies his rules for this system have nothing to do with my system's rules. 'Not accused of cooking the books' ? I'd call it innuendo saying exactly that as his observations and my results are a massive devide.

As far as I'm concerned this thread of mine is now closed, at least for me. Any more systems I come up with I'll keep to myself. Why bother?

[crash]

[post no.13] System totals then were:
Win out 137 Win in 168.20 Profit 31.20
Place out 137 Place in 163.10 Profit 26.10
-------------------------------------
[since post No.13] System totals to Tues.22nd:
win out 43 in 70.10 profit 27.10
place out 43 in 69.40 profit 26.40
-------------------------------------
Total win out 180 in 238.30 profit 58.30
Total place out 180 in 237.60 profit 57.60
Total E/W out 360 in 475.90 profit 115.90

Roughly 33% profit for any bet covering 180 bets.

I checked Crash's published selections from the start to last Wed and then worked them out for myself and bet on them after that. My figures are similar to his.

A massive divide with Wunfluova's 'massive loss' conclusion, that could not be based on the 'odd' horse passing or not passing the rules. so his innuendo is?

[Moderator 3]

It is your prerogative not to reply to the following, about whether these horses were or were not selections, which I have copied below, so I have now locked the thread.

As a moderator I am not prepared for a forum dispute to escalate over what is simply a matter of fact - either horses were or were not selections.

===================================

Wunfluova posted:

Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following :

26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)

28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)

3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)

4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)

7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)

AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of :

26th March - Bunbury 5/5, Chelt 2/6, Sand 3/8, Sand 6/16

[crash]

You asked me to address some claims, please allow me to address the claims:

You wrote: "Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following" :

"26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)". The 21 day rule didn't exist then [only a recent rule change]. However, it WAS over the price, but $39 3 min to jump and bet in advance of that. Mistake granted. [minuss $15-20p from my place results]

"28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)" False: 3 in a race was an original rule, 2 in a race was not a new rule at that time and only recent this month.The rule had been backfitted to where it did not apply.

"3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)" OK, .5kg over. Mistake granted [Minus $9.20w and $2.50p from my results]

"4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)". False: No.1 was on 64kg. All other horses where on 63kg. and it was not a dead heat [4,12,7].

"7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)" .False, I had included wet tracks by the 7/4.

"AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of" :

"26th March - Bunbury 5/5" [False:no winning claim ever made,the horse didn't place], "Chelt 2/6" [False: the horse was on min. and was 3rd up $4.50p], "Sand 3/8" [False: horse never placed and was on min], Sand 6/16 [False: Horse never placed and was on min.].

Anyone is capable of checking these results. Please do.

What the above shows is that everyone is capable of making mistakes,. In this instance, a heck of a lot more than me. I made 2 mistakes, The writer of the above made 7.

New [adjusted] totals after subtracting 2 mistakes;
Win profit $49
Place profit $39.90
E/W profit $88.90

Where is that 'massive' loss the writer claimed?

NOW the thread is closed as far as I'm concerned.