A successful system underway

[Barny]

Righto, given all the data and information on here, I’ve no doubt I’ll develop a successful system. I’m in the process of going through all the posts and have a couple of general comments to make.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

My list of 100 excuses given by a trainer, jockey and scribes as to why a certain horse didn’t salute puts paid to the best of systems having a SR of better than an arbitrary 40% ….. It also demonstrates clearly to me that the best prospect on the day will not always win. In any race, there may be half a dozen horses with legitimate “excuses” for not winning, which were actually in place BEFORE the race even started. For example; didn’t acclimatise to surroundings, jockey fued spilled on to the track, bad blood count. Now, the average punter wont be aware of any of these “excuses” so he was on a loser before the race had begun. Add these to the list of excuses to be found DURING the run, or the analysis AFTER the run, and it’s a miracle any horse actually wins. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

1) We don’t need to pick the best prospect on the day.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

I believe the average person is conditioned to believe if there was a winning system then everyone would be doing it. I’m of the opinion that there would be literally hundreds of systems that would show a profit in any particular year ….. all you have to do is back fit them from the form, and I’m not just talking one or two bets per year here, I’m talking a couple of hundred ! So if you can backfit and get a decent system, then all one has to do is to forecast and get a decent system ….. Bingo ! “The more things change, the more they stay the same !” Nothing’s new ! 30% on Favs all over the world, 45% top two tipsters from the year dot, and horses still surprise trainers and connections. I have one particular filter (14 days), when applied to my “consistent horse” plan improves the outcome massively. This has worked way back to 2004 when I started collecting and keeping form guides. You need the right combination for the circumstances at hand. I have a pal in QLD who has been punting systems all his life. I have not interrogated him as it’s his day job. He’s not a big punter but wins a few G’s each week and has been doing so for 30 years. He has many different systems which he massages, watches the SR and plays the odds.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

2) No one size fits all ….. localize your system.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

I will continue to post my thoughts as I continue with my evaluation of this site. I’ve picked up a couple of beaut ideas for eliminating an “in the market runner” on a regular basis. One only needs an edge !<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>




<o:p></o:p>

[Barny]

Gee ...... that post is surely turning convention on it's head Barny. Obviously you've scared off the unwashed from "basking in the sunshine of your intellectual brilliance", but for mine, I'm breathless in anticipation waiting for your next instalment of your insights into the world of the punt !!?!

Thanks for that Barny ..... my next instalment may be a week away as I still have a fair way to go in my analysis of all this information on this site.

Luv ya Barny ......

Yeah, luv ya too Barny ..........

[Try Try Again]

Hi Barny,

Just checked in today and am waiting for the next installment!

We are lucky that we have some very interesting contributors on this site who now and then expel some true words of wisdom. One such tidbit of information has made me reassess one of the systems that I run. Although it is still very early days it has turned it from an "also ran" to one showing extreme promise.

Obviously, not all filters work for all systems or plans otherwise we would all end up with the same selection and on the path to punting oblivion - there goes any value! Your statement "localise your system" is very profound as what works for me in Melbourne may not work in Sydney, Brisbane or elsewhere. In fact, what may work at Caulfield may not necessarily work at Moonee Valley or Flemington due to any number of variables.

As I said I'm looking forward to your next installment! Thanks for your offerings.

[Bhagwan]

I also believe there are many systems that show yearly profits.

One could put the lot up here, but very few would ever follow them.

The first thing most punters would do, is change the rules, then say, that system of yours does not work.

I believe most punters can make 1.5% a day if they had the discipline to stop ,but very few can stop , that's why they will continue to lose.

Here's a Lay system that shows a profit every day.
RULES
Target TAB No.2 for every race.

Horse's Trainer must have a 7% or less win strike rate.

Bet .5% of bank flat stakes no recovery.

8+ runners.

Price 4.00-99.00

Stop for the day once 1.5% profit is made.

[Barny]

In my first post I definitely meant BACKTEST !!!!!, not backfitting.

Backfitting is what those scoundrels do to get "successful" systems then flog it to you for $500 !

Sorry !

[lomaca]

In my first post I definitely meant BACKTEST !!!!!, not backfitting.

Backfitting is what those scoundrels do to get "successful" systems then flog it to you for $500 !

Sorry !Well said Barney!
How else would you know if your system works if you do not
"BACKTEST !!!!!"?

Huge difference!

Also, Lately I see some posters here saying that is OK for a system to lose for some time, and it's the "long run" (nobody dares to specify how long is too long but) that matters.

Utter ****, Yes you can have a losing day or two, three even, but any more than that and I would question what's happening?

The only answer can be that you are betting on races-horses
outside the system's researched and proven parameters or those parameters are loosely defined and accept races and horses it wasn't supposed to.

Remember when children spill a bag of candy in the dust?
First they pick up the cleanest, etc... in the end most of the candy gets eaten, same as most of the horses will be bet by most punters system or not!

Or just lack of discipline,

Good luck

**** ?????

[darkydog2002]

The trouble with back fitting /back testing is your looking for a pattern for the winners.
However the pattern may never reproduce.

Far better to develop a system around logical rules common to all the best handicapping methods.

Cheers
darky

[lomaca]

The trouble with back fitting /back testing is your looking for a pattern for the winners.
However the pattern may never reproduce.

Far better to develop a system around logical rules common to all the best handicapping methods.

Cheers
darkyback fitting = looking for a pattern for the winners.

back testing = develop a system around logical rules common to all the best handicapping methods. and test it!

As I said HUGE difference!

Good luck

[darkydog2002]

Ah.Thats what you meant.
Cheers
darky

[Barny]

Well, I’m getting there. A lot of info on this site and one thing that has been mentioned that I actually needed some help on, was to get away from the purely mechanical system. We’ve all got good systems that have just failed or for some reason, ‘a cosmic hand working against us”, that when we put our hard earned on the systems bombs …… or maybe it wasn’t so good to start with eh ?!?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

One thing that’s been niggling away at me for yonks is that we “have to find the class horse” in the race then assess its fitness and another ten things ….. its then regarded as a system or it's an intelligent person evaluating the form. Either way, most punters will be on it, the bookies will take their percentage, the TAB will take its percentage …… SO WHY BOTHER !???

<o:p></o:p>

We know that a very small percentage of punters win (2% ?), so why would we hang on to the coat tails of the majority ? Eh, eh, eh, eh ????

<o:p></o:p>

It’s been staring me in the face for years ….. My premise is that there are too many variables in this caper, not the least of which includes bad luck, which makes it difficult to get into the right headspace to develop a system with a touch of logic thrown in (that makes you stand away from the other 98% a little). Adding extra filters, which I have done gets you closer and closer to BACKFITTING ….. the more you respond to the past, the closer you get to backfitting. Let’s look at last start winner within 7 days for example. Heck I don’t even know if it still wins, but it will win over certain periods, that’s for sure ! You can add a couple of logical filters to it and over the next 6 months you find it might break even. You then add another filter to take out a couple of the losers ….. you’re now backfitting ! ya cant win !!! You give it away …… Someone wins with this system don’t they ? ….. The ones who do are those that apply a little logic to decide whether to bet or not, anything other than a mechanical approach. Anything that cannot be measured will do. Like what ? Maybe you keep a look out for those horses in your system who have peaked, or who have come from a seemingly hopeless position on the turn (very often not repeated !)

<o:p></o:p>

You need one element in your system that uses your judgement only. eg: One of your filters may be that a horse had to run placed in its last three runs. What if it was palced in two of its runs, and the other run it was hit by a seagull, lost 5 lengths, and ran 6<SUP>th</SUP>. It might be something simple like this that can turn a “nearly system” into a winning system.

<o:p></o:p>

It’s right up my alley with my 100 reasons for losing psyche …………

<o:p></o:p>

[garyf]

Your almost their barny the same problem i had years ago your having now.
Trying to get a set of mechanical rules to make your selections is almost impossible based on the ever changing things that happen in racing.
I collected 10-15 years of sportmans truth formguides herald sun liftouts etc.
Then attempted to induce a selection criteria based on any number of variables days form patterns barriers p/money p/post order etc etc.
These would work for a while then eventually lose so i would go back in time apply new filters to weed out the losers thus creating a new system.
Would then start again with obviously a new system same result lose again
After several years i gave up and joined several rating services while i won for a while eventually the one's i were in lost so back to keeping the day job.
i then joined punters choice who analysed most rating and mechanical data
i joined the most profitable ones unfortunately most only bet saturday's also purchased every profitable mechanical system.
These would grind out a few % profit then eventually die off years later.
Attending the races here in melbourne religously every saturday for years i met a couple of professional punters one particular saturday i summoned up the courage to ask how they made a living out of the punt.
Both said they purchase the ratings from successability or superform eagleform think they published a guide back then called the wizard
then made there own adjustments wait for it based on mechanical rules.
The trick then is to get a set of ratings (1st) zipform r+s( don scott) or the (neurals )these will way up each horses chances against each other using whatever criteria they use you can then apply the statistical side of it to improve the s/rate.
AT least this way you will have the selection criteria being assessed exactly the same way for each race.
Failing that the only other way is to purchase a data base for several $1.000 dollars and go back in time using ratings and mechanical rules.
Unfortunately this is impossible using r+s as their system only keeps the data for a couple of days and is then deleted due to the vast amount of information that is presented on the site.
cheers
garyf.

[garyf]

A qoute from the late don scott.
Show me the person who can find the class horse in the race.
That person will win as much money from racing as they want.
garyf

[garyf]

hi barny
Once you have your set of rules in place you will then have to sit tight, recording all the bets using the exact same rules.
After a several hundred or 1.000 bets if possible you can then go back in time to make the necessary improvements.
Any alterations will then become a new system thus the testing and recording starts all over again.
The things we punters do to find the elusive pot of gold so to speak.
cheers
garyf

[Dale]

Interesting comments guys.

I also believe the key to succes is to find a set of ratings and apply mechanical filters or rules based on a studied knowledge of the ratings and where their edge is.

Get to know your ratings,thats your best investment.

[Barny]

Dont ratings lead to the top four ? ..... then your doing what everyone else is doing. And everyone else (98%) lose ?

What's a poor old bloke missing here please ?

[darkydog2002]

Not always Barny but the correct way of using ratings is the asessed prices and only betting those that are better than the asessed price BUT putting the money on at the asessed price.
i.e asessed $4 (3/1) price available $6 (5/1).
In this scenario you would bet $33 (the asessed price)
Many proffessionals will only bet if they can get double the asessed price.

Cheers
darky

[garyf]

hi barny.
far from it all ratings no matter where they are derived from regularly deliver prices all across the board i actually use the gtx ratings from t.r.b.
This is a pay for based neurals rating for a free version go to r+s website.
the only set of ratings i use on the free version is this.
(CP=5)(CF=5)(T/A=5)
I use this set on sydney country races plus canberra(ACT)
I use the top=3 only.
I bet on non-age related races eg no mares f+m 2yo 3yo cge races etc.
Of those races left i eliminate races where all horses haven't had 2 starts>
So today at p/macquarie the bettable races were races(1-4-5-6-8)
Race 1=1-7-4.
Race 4=6-5-2
Race 5=9-5-3
Race 6=14-6-1.
Race 8=8-5-1
If you check the prices of those selections you will see some short some are long etc obviously the larger bets go on the t.r.b ratings but i still invest on the free neurals as the selections there are profitable and different.
I usually don't post my selection criteria on the post's occasionally i will mainly i like posting filters to improve them more my go.
this is just an example of the broad range of prices for this set.
Tomorrow will post a filter i haven't seen yet posted here but have only been aboard a short while that will seem ridiculous in fact i bet a mate of mine $100.00 it wouldn't improve my best ratings system and lost badly.
cheers
garyf.

[wesmip1]

Your almost their barny the same problem i had years ago your having now.
Trying to get a set of mechanical rules to make your selections is almost impossible based on the ever changing things that happen in racing.
I collected 10-15 years of sportmans truth formguides herald sun liftouts etc.
Then attempted to induce a selection criteria based on any number of variables days form patterns barriers p/money p/post order etc etc.
These would work for a while then eventually lose so i would go back in time apply new filters to weed out the losers thus creating a new system.
Would then start again with obviously a new system same result lose again
After several years i gave up and joined several rating services while i won for a while eventually the one's i were in lost so back to keeping the day job.
i then joined punters choice who analysed most rating and mechanical data
i joined the most profitable ones unfortunately most only bet saturday's also purchased every profitable mechanical system.
These would grind out a few % profit then eventually die off years later.
Attending the races here in melbourne religously every saturday for years i met a couple of professional punters one particular saturday i summoned up the courage to ask how they made a living out of the punt.
Both said they purchase the ratings from successability or superform eagleform think they published a guide back then called the wizard
then made there own adjustments wait for it based on mechanical rules.
The trick then is to get a set of ratings (1st) zipform r+s( don scott) or the (neurals )these will way up each horses chances against each other using whatever criteria they use you can then apply the statistical side of it to improve the s/rate.
AT least this way you will have the selection criteria being assessed exactly the same way for each race.
Failing that the only other way is to purchase a data base for several $1.000 dollars and go back in time using ratings and mechanical rules.
Unfortunately this is impossible using r+s as their system only keeps the data for a couple of days and is then deleted due to the vast amount of information that is presented on the site.
cheers
garyf.

gary,

I think many professional punters go through the process you did but they became professional punters because of the journey. In the years it took you to move from mechanical patterns, to ratings, to your final selection method you would also have increased your skills in knowing what to look at and what is rubbish.

Experience is the key and dedication.

[garyf]

Correct on everything wes including losing years in that learning process. Which was the most horrible experience i ever encountered including then going back to work again to build up a bank after a losing year on the punt
and rebuilding a selection process i thought previously was a winning one.
That's why i can relate to barny in his attempts and frustrations as with many others to build a successful set of selections.
Always remember money lost nothings lost.
Confidence lost everythings lost.
cheers
garyf.

[foxwood]

Can I just add my two bob's worth to the backfitting debate?
I came up with a longshot system that actually works (so far anyway) and is in profit to the tune of $199.1 for the calendar year after 1135 x $1 bets. i.e. POT approx 17.5%. I do have further data going back a few weeks of last year; not to hand but very similar S/R & POT.
On examination of my records today I noticed that 89 bets on system selections having their first start where they were the only first starter in the race produced a return of $120, whereas 207 bets on horses having their first start where there were more that one such horse in a race produced just a single win ($27.7).
I will not be betting betting these horses in future. Will that be backfitting or is it just sensible tweaking in the light of empirical evidence?
Regards
Ron

[Barny]

Yup, I’m sloooowly getting my head around the value of ratings thanks to some well informed information from some experienced people. There’s a lot logic in what you say, and a lot to be gleaned from the odd subtle reference to the vagaries of the punt. there's a lot of knowledge to be gained which is not evident when chasing a system.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

I just thought (that's moving towards past tense ?!) that if a lot of people are using ratings then it couldn't possibly be successful, but I'm now looking at ratings as possibly another tool to use. I'll continue to go through all the posts on here (should be compulsory), and post my findings ..... they may be of use to someone !

Thanks !

[garyf]

Hi foxwood.
As nobody's replied i will give it a go.
To me backfitting a system is changing its original rules to include winners that weren't originally their and eliminating losers that were during a survey.
Back tweaking as you call it is retaining the original rules of a system but adding a filter within that survey period to improve ones profitability.
Be careful now as with your new rule it's now a new system.
You now need to do a forward survey say starting from when the original rule was introduced to see if the improved s/rate + profit levels stay the same.
If they do allow for minor variances either way, then you have the nucleas of a good system.
All that's required now is what you would consider to be a reasonable amount of bets for it to sustain long term profits.
cheers
garyf.

[wesmip1]

foxwood,

I can't give you a good answer based on what you supplied. Can you give me the following with and without the new filter.

1. Actual Winners
2. Expected winners (1/odds)
3. Total Selections.


From that I can tell you what I think.

[foxwood]

garyf,
Thanks for your reply and the thoughts included in it.
My own take on this particular situation is that "backfitting" would be a method of improving the history of the system maybe in order to impress somebody else. My records are for my benefit so there would be no point in trying to fool myself. I do, as a matter of course, keep details of all my selections and will continue to do so with the new improved (tweaked) version. Thanks once again.

Wesmip1,
There are 30 winners if you include multiple first starters in the one race and 29 if not. There were 1135 bets with them, 928 if you exclude them.
Expected winners is problematical because the prices range from $24.00 to $95.00. I don't keep records of whether the bets are STab or Sportingbet.
Cheers
Ron

[wesmip1]

foxwood,

to work out expected winners you need to do 1/odds for all your selections. The total is what I need. I assume you have recorded the odds for all your selections.

so for example 1/24 + 1/95 +1/50 = 0.72 (and provide the final answer).

[foxwood]

Hi wespip1,
I've just spent half an hour doing the calculations for expected winners and then double checking but only on my actual winners. The process is so prone to error that I had to check the result twice. It was only then that I realised you wanted calculations doing for all 1135 selections. At this rate, factoring in a little natural improvement and eventual boredom with the whole procedure it will take me about12 hours.
I should perhaps point out that my original post was only by way of a rhetorical question. Whatever happens I shall persevere with my system until either it falls over or it proves itself.
Thanks for your interest.
Cheers
Ron

[foxwood]

Hi wesmip1,
I just tried to edit my last post but must have taken 5 minutes and 1 second. I wanted to insert the following paragraph or something like it:

"If they're of any use the results for winners only are:
Before change 31 winners - total 0.852
After change 30 winners - total 0.815.
At least the exercise increased my total of winners by one but the nett return stands."

Cheers
Ron

[Barny]

A Cut & Paste obviously ..... but pertinent to punting

The 12 Major and 16 Minor Axioms

The book Zurich Axioms contains a set of principles providing a practical philosophy and trading psychology for the realistic management of risk. These common sense principles is available everyone and can be practised anyone - the man in the street and not just the ************.

Although many of the axioms go against the conventional belief and traditional wisdom of the investment advice business, those who master the meanings and implemented the concepts will be successful - just like the enterprising Swiss speculators who devised them became rich, while many investors who follow the conventional path do not.

Major Axiom 1: On Risk

Worry is not a sickness but a sign of health. If you are not worried, you are not risking enough.

Put your money at risk. Don't be afraid to get hurt a little. The degree of risk you will usually be dealing with is not hair-raisingly high. By being willing to face it, you give yourself the only realistic chance you have of rising above the great un-rich. Worry is the hot and tart sauce of life. Once you get used to it, you enjoy it.

Minor Axiom I
Always play for meaningful stakes.

Minor Axiom II
Resist the allure of diversification.
(Because it forces you to violate precept minor axiom 1.)
(Because it creates situation where gains and losses cancel each other out.)
(Because you end up with too many balls in the air.)

Major Axiom 2: On Greed

Always take your profit too soon.

Sell too soon. Don't hope for winning streaks to go on and on. Don't stretch your luck. Expect winning streaks to be short. When you reach a previously decided-upon ending position, cash out and walk away. Do this even when everything looks rosy, when everyone else is saying the boom will keep roaring along.

The ONLY reason for not doing it would be that some new situation has arisen, and this situation makes you all but certain that you can go on winning for a while.

Except in such usual circumstances, get in the habit of selling too soon. And when you've sold, don't torment yourself if the winning continues without you.

Minor Axiom III
Decide in advance what gain you want from a venture, and when you get it, get out.

Major Axiom 3: On Hope

When the ship starts to sink, don't pray. Jump.

Learning to take losses is an essential speculative technique. MOST never learn it. Take losses at once and move on. Take small losses to protect yourself from the big ones.

Beware the 3 obstacles to jumping ship:

Fear of regret (that the loser will turn out to be a winner when you've bailed-out)

Unwillingness to abandon part of an investment (become willing to abandon)

Difficulty of admitting you made a mistake.

Minor Axiom IV
Accept small losses cheerfully as a fact of life. Expect to experience several while awaiting a large gain.

Major Axiom 4: On Forecasts

Human behaviour cannot be predicted. Distrust anyone who claims to know the future, however dimly.

Nobody has the foggiest notion of what will happen in the future. Nobody. Never lose sight of the possibility you have made a bad bet.

Major Axiom 5: On Patterns
The Emperor Axiom

Chaos is not dangerous until it begins to look orderly.

Do not look for order where order does not exist. Do not overlook the large role chance takes in any speculation. Study information in whatever speculative medium to improve chances and take your best shot. Stay light on your feet ready to jump this way or that. You are dealing with chaos, as long as you are alert to that fact you can keep yourself from getting hurt.
Internal Monolog goes:
"OK. I've done my homework as well as I know how. I think this bet can pay off for me. But since I cannot see or control all the random events that will affect what happens to my money. I know the chance of me being wrong is large. Therefore I will stay light on my feet, ready to jump this way or that when whatever is going to happen happens."

Minor Axiom V
Beware the historians trap.
The Historian's trap is a particular kind of orderly illusion. It is based on the age-old but entirely unwarranted belief that history repeats itself. People who hold this belief - which is to say perhaps ninety-nine out of every hundred people on earth - believe as a corollary proposition that the orderly repetition of history allows for accurate forecasting in certain situations.... Don't fall into this trap. It is true that history repeats itself sometimes, but most often it doesn't, and in any case it never does so in a reliable enough way that you can prudently bet money on it.

Minor Axiom VI
Beware the Chartist's illusion.

Minor Axiom VII
Beware the correlation and causality delusions.

Minor Axiom VIII
Beware the Gambler's Fallacy. (This is my lucky day.)

Major Axiom 6: On Mobility

Avoid putting down roots. They impede motion.

Be ready to jump away from trouble or seize opportunity. You do not have to bounce from one speculation to another like a ping-pong ball. All your moves should be made only after a careful assessment of the odds for and against, and no move should be made for trivial reasons. But when a venture is clearly souring, or when something clearly more promising comes into view, then you must sever those roots and go. Don't let the roots get too thick to cut.

Minor Axiom IX
Do not become trapped in a souring venture because of sentiments like loyalty and nostalgia.

Minor Axiom X
Never hesitate to abandon a venture of something more attractive comes into view.

Major Axiom 7: On Intuition

A hunch can be trusted if it can be explained.

Though intuition is not infallible, it can be a useful speculative tool, if handled with care and skepticism.

If you are hit by strong hunch - put it to the test. Trust it only if you can explained it. That is only if you can identify within your mind a stored body of information out of which that hunch must reasonably be supposed to have arisen.

Be wary of any intuition that seems to promise some outcome you want badly.

Minor Axiom XI
Never confuse a hunch with a hope.

Major Axiom 8: On Religion and the Occult

It is unlikely that god's plan for the universe includes making you rich.

Assume you are on your own. Rely on nothing but your own wits.

Minor Axiom XII
If astrology worked, all astrologers would be rich.

Minor Axiom XIII
A superstition need not be exorcised. It can be enjoyed, provided it is kept in its place.

Major Axiom 9: On Optimism & Pessimism

Optimism means expecting the best, but confidence means knowing how you will handle the worst. Never make a move if you are merely optimistic.

Optimism can be a speculator's enemy. It feels good and is dangerous for that reason. It produces a clouding of judgment. It can lead you into a venture with no exits. Even when there is an exit, optimism can persuade you not to use it.
You should never make a move if you are merely optimistic. Before committing your money to a venture, ask how you will save yourself if things go wrong. Once you have that worked out, you've got something better than optimism. You've got confidence.

Major Axiom 10: On Consensus

Disregard the majority opinion. It is probably wrong.

Probably wrong. Figure everything out for yourself.

Minor Axiom XIV
Never follow speculative fads. Often, the best time to buy something is when no-one else wants it.

Major Axiom 11: On Stubbornness

If it doesn't pay off the first time forget it.

Perseverance is a good idea for spiders and kings, but not always for speculators. Don't fall into the trap of trying to squeeze a gain out of any single speculative entity.

Don't chase any investment in a spirit of stubbornness. Reject any thought that an investment "owes you" something. And don't buy the alluring, but fallacious idea that you can improve a bad situation by averaging down.

Minor Axiom XV
Never try to save a bad investment by averaging down.

Major Axiom 12: On Planning

Long-range plans engender the dangerous belief that the future is under control. It is important never to take your own long-range plans, or other people's, too seriously.

React to events as they occur in the present. Put your money into ventures as they present themselves and withdraw it from hazards as they loom up. Value the freedom that will allow you to do this. Don't ever sign that freedom away.
There is only one long-range financial plan you need: the intention to grow rich. The how is not knowable or plan-able. All you need to know is that you will do it somehow.

Minor Axiom XVI
Shun long-term investments.

[wesmip1]

Nah need it for every single selection in order to make sure we analyse it right.

Here is something general though.

If your average odds is 30 your expected winners were 37.
If your average odds is 40 your expected winners were 28.
If your average odds is 50 your expected winners were 23.


Based on what I have seen you need average odds of around $75 before this would be a system I would look and even then I would be very skeptical.

[The Ocho]

Thanks for that Barny. Very enlightening!

[garyf]

Hi Barny.
Major axiom =11 on stubborness.
The first 10 words paragragh=1.
Do you agree with those words?.
Bit harsh.

[Moderator 3]

Barny, thanks for posting.

We can only publish non subscriber information.

If what you posted is public information then post a link please to where the information is made available to the public free of charge.

[Barny]

http://www.sharelynx.com/papers/TheZurichAxioms.php

[darkydog2002]

Hey Barny,
I reckon I,ve lived my whole life on those axioms and didn,t even know it.
A great set of commonsense principles.
Thank you.
Cheers
darky

[foxwood]

Nah need it for every single selection in order to make sure we analyse it right.

Here is something general though.

If your average odds is 30 your expected winners were 37.
If your average odds is 40 your expected winners were 28.
If your average odds is 50 your expected winners were 23.


Based on what I have seen you need average odds of around $75 before this would be a system I would look and even then I would be very skeptical.wesmip1,
Could you just clarify for me what the expected winners number represents? For instance, if the average odds is 30 would I expect 37 winners from 1135 bets as per the original system or from the tweaked version? Or from some other number of bets?
Thanks
Ron

[wesmip1]

If your average ods were 30 then we would expet 1/30*1135 as expected winners = 37.83

So based on your 1135 bets chance alone (ie I pick a random selections at $30) would have hit approx 37 winners. As this is an imprecise science there is some leeway on the actual number of winners that chance could have hit (maybe 30 or maybe 50) but as more selections come in the closer to the mean would occur (which is 3.3% strike rate). In order to decide whether a system is better then chance (and thus will get a profit) you need a much higher strike rate then chance allows (based on the odds).

You can do a chi-squared test to work out the impact chance had on the results but without the real odds for each selections its not really worth going down to that level.

Hope that explains it.

[foxwood]

Yes it does, thank you. I shall now take the time to analyse my bets more carefully to see if I can spot why I'm making a profit.
Ron

[Barny]

I’ve read 70 pages and made notes, and I’ve got to say there are some absolute gems hidden in amongst the hundreds of thousands of words.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

So far, all bar a couple of the systems posted have been proven to have a <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">LOT</st1:place>.

<o:p> </o:p>

Some of the “undisputed givens in racing” such as weight and bad barriers might be insignificant in your assessment of a horse’s chances, and conversely, might actually add value.

<o:p> </o:p>

Most of the ratings lead to the top few in the betting, and the value / advantage to be gained that may have once been there, is no longer there.

<o:p> </o:p>

There appears to be only a few decent filters that may improve the SR without decreasing the POT.

<o:p> </o:p>

Are the stats you’re looking at relevant ? Stats can be made to show exactly what you want to see and need to be treated with caution.

<o:p> </o:p>

A selection method is probably better that a mechanical system.

[Barny]

I need a break. It's doing my head in reading most of these posts .....

Going to punt my %'s method, not mnay posts on this type of method is there ?

[Barny]

I'm well over half way though the posts and a couple of things stand out.

Weight seems to be over-rated, but can still be used as a guide to a horses class.

If your horse has drawn a bad barrier you'll be compensated by a better price. Some suggest that the price may be adjusted by far more than is deserved because of the perception of bad / wide barriers.

The number of days between runs seems inconsequential.

A horses odds seems to be a very, very good filter, and one that I had previously given scant regard to.

Be prepared for a massive run of outs.

Develop a system of "logical" rules then test. Don't backfit to find a successful system.

[lomaca]

Develop a system of "logical" rules then test. Don't backfit to find a successful system.I have to preface, that I do rating, not systems, but what you say is only partially true.

If you mean that for instance, you are looking at all the horses that won last start and then take it as gospel that they will win again, yes it's back-fitting.

On the other hand if you are looking for horses that won their last start in similar class, same distance and preferably under the same track conditions, then you are doing genuine research.

[Barny]

What I'm trying to express is;

For example - Backfitting may have produced a profit over the past year by backing horses at Sydney Metro tracks that have form X62 ..... now whilst there may be some logic that it's 3rd up and improving, ..... will it continue ! All you've done is discover a pattern which may not repeat for another 100 years ?!

It's a fine line lomaca, and I'm not even sure how to properly explain myself.

[lomaca]

What I'm trying to express is;

For example - Backfitting may have produced a profit over the past year by backing horses at Sydney Metro tracks that have form X62 ..... now whilst there may be some logic that it's 3rd up and improving, ..... will it continue ! All you've done is discover a pattern which may not repeat for another 100 years ?!
No Barney, there is no logic in that, not without knowing the rest of the details of the race, the history of the other runners etc. etc..


It's a fine line lomaca, and I'm not even sure how to properly explain myself.No there is NO fine line between the two Barney

I think it's me Barney, looks like every time I utter an opinion here lately, it's being misinterpreted misunderstood or I'm just a poor communicator.

Time to give posting a bit of a rest I think!

Cheers

[TWOBETS]

"It's a fine line lomaca, and I'm not even sure how to properly explain myself".

Maybe Barny the difference is simply being able to justify to yourself why a certain perameter produces a certain result.

If you've got a good idea what might be causing the result, then I can't see what the problem would be to backfit that scenario. Just saying horses with R in their names win more often so I'll rule out all horses without an R or some such twaddle.... now that's backfitting.

This should not be perceived as an attack on the world famous, ever successfull "R System" however.

[Barny]

This explains it, this is what I'm getting at ..... Found this over the past few weeks of looking at all the posts.

** The problem that I have found with all systems over many years is that when you spot a profitable anomaly, as you have, the dreaded "regression to the mean" usually kicks in and brings it back to normal. **

lomaca, as they say, "It's not you, it's me!"

==========

Thanks for posting. Edited as 6 lines of large bold type = shouting.

[Barny]

Well I'm getting nearer, only 60 pages to go, then I'm going though all the notes I've made. What stands out are the number of probable successful systems given to us by the hobby punter who enjoy what they do. I'm more certain then ever that some of the systems listed would be worth following.

For the life of me I do not understand why a system that works and has been tested over a reasonable period all of a sudden falls over ?!

Reading all the posts you get an idea who the posters are and what they have to contribute. Some don't post much but their words are worth bottling. Some post a lot for a bit of fun, yet they are knowledgeable, and they too need to be taken seriously. You just need to sort out what's useful information for you. I'm sure there are some who've given away their "secrets" from time to time, but the antannea needs to be alert to pick this up.

Most of the systems are similar of nature. Some no doubt are winners, some need an element added to them that a mechanical approach could not pick up.

At this point in time, it appears that it might be easier to use the information gleaned to pick a stable of a few horses and follow them for a few starts.

There are a couple of themes that I've been interested in that haven't yet surfaced in my study of these posts. I look forward to the last 60 pages!