Betting systems discussion

[Barny]

I’ll start this thread with the intention of playing devils advocate regarding systems and hopefully offering to some the opportunity to explore a different mindset in the way you approach your punting. Most of my “ephinanies” will come from, but not restricted to information gained from this site, and others, my punting experience, analysis of years and years worth of Herald Sun form guides, The Sportsman, as a “penciller” for “cough, cough, some 30 odd years ago, a hanger on with the trainer of a champion greyhound, a stats guy, and an all round mug.
As punting is an evolutionary pursuit, there’s no point bringing up any of my past posts, in or out of context, as this may stifle any conversation. I’m more than happy to run this myself without any contributors.
Let me begin by bagging 99.9% of system posted on here because they contain too many rules, have been backfitted for a short period of time to show a profit, they follow current trends, they rely on flawed and unsubstantiated data ….. and if this doesn’t get me booted off, WITHOUT DOUBT there will be some here who will try to make a short term profit by “convincing the unwashed” there’s money to be made by following “this system”.

Best advice ever is ….. DYOR !!!!!

I’ll start slowly and add bits as I see fit …..

The more rules you put into a system, the likelihood (subconsciousor not) it’s more likely to be backfitted. The more rules the less likely it is to besuccessful. Ask yourself, if it’s toogood to be true the more it likely is. This is no different to “stock market tips”, “Nigerian **********” and other money fleecing agents ….. IF there was a “Holy Grail” then it would be found, punted, the odds slowly diminished to the point where the S/R continued but the POTturned to a <st1:pLOT</st1<img>, and very quickly.

The more precise and scientific you become in pursuit of the prefect system, the more imponderables crop up (Oz Sports Forum) ….. my examples include; (1) say one of your rules is a certain jockey ….. you had better take into account; Is the jockey fit?, has the jockey had an argument with his missus?, has he had a punch up / feud with a fellow jockey and is looking for revenge?, does he have depression (YES at least 10% would have), Will he get his mount hemmed in for financial gain? ….. you could probably add 10 more !!!, (2) Barriers, now that’s a neasy one isn’t it ????, Is it the first time the horse has drawn a decent barrier?, are the horses both outside and inside conducive to your selection being able to take advantage of it’s normal pattern of racing in the first 20 or so metres, is the barrier attendant competent ??????, Do the odds represent the advantage / disadvantage of the barrier ???? (that’s a biggie), Stood flatfooted and missed the start, the horse that was supposed to lead missed the jump and the barrier advantage was lost ….. How many rules MULTIPLIED by TEN (impodnerables)???? do you need ????? The opponents to this will say, these apply to all the horses in the race, that’s correct too, but all you’ve done is multiply the ORIGINAL RULES times the IMPONDERABLES times the NUMBER of HORSES in the race. How do you line up a 3rd in a Moe Maiden, first up by a gelding who has had blinkers on first time, is a gelding and has had 5 lifetime starts ….. with a 10th at Moonee Valley by a filly who has had 25 lifetime starts, fourth up, now back 200 mtrs in distance, but at a track where’she’s won before ….. with an import ….. not to mention previous campaigns, not to mention the other 13 horses ???? Gimme a break.

The more rules the less chance of repetition.

[domenic]

Low content one sentence post. Flaming other members is not permitted here. Thank you. Moderator 3.

[Barny]

domenic, you don't have to read it. Years ago there was really good discussion regarding all sorts of things, from left filed to blood counts and so on ..... Does this not suit you, or what you do?

[UselessBettor]

The more rules the less chance of repetition.
Makes sense.

So based on this the only systems to follow are either:
1) none
2) those that have 1 or 2 rules.

So what do you analyse instead as no matter what you do its a system. Even if its look at the the formguide and do your own handicapping. Your taking into account different things and your mind is using a system of sorts.

[Barny]

What you're doing UselessBettor suggests you really have got a handle on things are know exactly where you're going????

"I just had a look at my number of bets on betfair today and I have to say I was a little shocked. I am testing quite a few things with 10c bets. I have had this month already 2516 bets.

Luckily for me I am actually up a good amount $17.12 which is approx 171 units. Does anyone else do this amount of bets a month ? How do you handle it when you start to increase the bet size ?"

Unbelievable? LOL

[gunny72]

If one is honest one has to agree that barny has a fair point to make. I had a good system from 1992 to 2002. It was back the two longest priced horses from the top three ranked place percent horses in a race. That was my only rule except that I omitted 2yo and 3yo races for there were not enough results for place percent to be practical. After 2002 the strike rate was maintained but the value became eroded. I can only assume that many punters now consider place percent. before that I had used the DS approach but scrapped that when I found that my consistency factor based on place percent was better by itself.

gunny

[partypooper]

Mmmmm,............. A Parable, I had a neighbour in the UK many years ago who whilst being a decent bloke was sadly lacking in the grey matter dept. (no offence just the truth) now he goes and mortgages his house and buys a fencing business that was obviously going down hill fast, i.e. he was the mug that the vendors had been waiting for, he was so useless that he had to come to me and ask me to go along to more than the first few quotes that he had; to show him how to measure up etc. It was a disaster............doomed for failure....... then, out of the blue the Local Shire decides to block off several roads to form a one way system etc etc. and what d'yer know; direct ALL traffic right past "lucky Eddie's fencing business"

He went on in oblivion to make a fortune and eventually pass on the business to his Sons who STILL operate the business to this day.

What's this got to do with Horse Racings Systems ....you're screaming?

Well, sometimes that little ol' 4 letter word really does show it's head...... "LUCK"

Barny is CORRECT in many things, but by default! just like my mate Eddie


K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

[nosrad]

dont come any easier than this little gem
ill post just 1 race and lets see who can guess what the simple system is
ar 3 no.5

[peter m]

I'll take a stab at it.

In races with 8 runners favourite must be less than $2.40 or more than $3.30. Look at runners paying $10 or more, especially if last start winners. If more than one take the one with the highest Unitab rating. Back for a win..OR ..if prices permit back both to place so you make a profit if one or both run a place ?????

That's just after looking at the Unitab website without any other form considerations thrown in.

[Barny]

partypooper, you're one of those who's posts I've read and taken on board. What is it that you mean "by default", and a little proof too so that I can understand where you're coming from.

By default means to me, an opportunity that fell into my lap when I wasn't lookingh that way. If that's the essence of your post then you are 100% correct.

I guess the more work you do, and the more open minded to anything you are ..... the luckier you get. I'm not suggesting throwing a dart here, or using just one rule. I think fitness is paramount, understanding the uniqueness of each horse, of each race, and dismissing all those things that others take as gospel, 'coz they have to be overbet and under the odds. Some of the comments of the "experts" in the papers are so underwhelming on some runners throughout the day, uyou'd swear they were trying to put people off. eg; this horse has failed over this distance before ..... simple throw away line BUT.

1) fitness ..... add too many more rules to this and you'll end up with what everyone else ends up with.

[partypooper]

G'day Barny, First of all absolutely no offence meant, and without "beer eyes" now; maybe "by default" was the wrong expression.

What I was getting at; is sometimes you can stumble onto something , an idea or whatever just by pure luck, without having set out to achieve it particularly.

My mate Eddie that I mentioned like a lot of successful people went on to brag about how clever he'd been, when in fact the real reason for his success was completely out of his control.

Conversely as you say you have to be there for the "luck" to happen!

[darkydog2002]

In our mad rush to develop the "winning" system some of us fail to consider that AT BEST one will have on average 70 losers per 100 bets.(Av Fav Strike rate..)over the long term.
Ones price will need to be very good to overcome that disadvantage.

In the very short term some will make a quick profit then fail.Others no profit at all.

As a intellectual exercise its fun but far better to put your money in a bank or credit union.

Dont want to put a dampener on the fun side but thats the reality of the punting world.

Cheers
darky

[bernie]

Excellent post Darky. My sentiments exactly.

[Barny]

partypooper, by default is spot on actually. Nothing wrong with that at all. Some threads I reckon I've read up to 20 times, and some select posters I've read and re-read.

I think the reasons most systems fall over is lack of logic.
Far too many rules are another reason too, and the integrity of the data and the volume of the sample.

Chrome Prince has been banging on about getting the best possible price for long enough. That's logical ..... and fairly easy to do, but not everyone does it do they?

[bernie]

And if it was that easy Barny there wouldn't be any betting at all. Now that IS logic.

[Barny]

That's ONE element Bernie ..... which is easy to do.

It's not part of any system as such.

[nosrad]

also sr7 11
mr7 3
qr5 4
ar1 4
pr3 1
they either win or they dont ,no particular logic behind it but in keeping with
minimum rules its a start

[Barny]

Sort of gone off topic a little but we now have Darkydog & Bernie as unable to find any long term winning system. Darkydogs systems, of which there have been hundreds postd on here, are ALL form or ratings based. Darkydog has been following the races for a long time and has been a proponent of ratings, LSW etc, etc. Also one other poster from long, long ago called crash, who seemed to have an extensive knowledge of handicapping, admitted to losing.

Can't understand why you wouldn't change tack after a while. My base rule of no-form is looking good. Can't say more than that 'coz this is a general systems "discussion" and any claims of success will be howled down.

I would suggest, just for the purposes of discussion that your first rule for any system should be "non-form based". There's absolutely no point having your first rule as Must have been placed no worse than 4th in it's past four runs. Reason being is that 1) Your brain is continually being wired to stats in a world where the unknown frequently takes charge, and throwing a blanket of stats over individual animals suggests they're all the same, which they're not and 2) It closes your mind and limits the possibilities of exploring other areas and 3) You've just ruled out 95% of the horses running on the day and 4) You are really limited to what other systems you can attach to the statistically based first rule.

If you have to ask what a "non-form based" rule (other than the usual M, S B, A) I rest my case. For those who've been unsuccessful try changing your thinking. Why persist if it's not working? Don't want to sound smug, but why would you keep banging your head against a brick wall.

Nearly all systems on here start with the obligatory M, S, B, A BUT NOT country tracks ..... WHY? There's as big a difference between the quality of Metro summer racing and the Spring Carnival as there is between the quality of Metro summer racing and country tracks. How does winter racing stack up against the Spring Carnival? I don't think I've ever seen a discussion on here about breaking your systems up to suit the season, the better horses, the strugglers depending on what time of year it is. I don't believe you can run one system and ask it to be successful all year.

[bernie]

Barny again you are going around in circles. Spell out the way you win on the horses. Give the facts not theory. You always seem to evade the question for some reason. Post some selections to prove your point.



FYI I changed tack years ago. I have found that the most successful systems I create are those with few rules, but include horses with a barrier draw of 5 or higher which were unplaced last start.

[UselessBettor]

If you have to ask what a "non-form based" rule (other than the usual M, S B, A) I rest my case.
....

Nearly all systems on here start with the obligatory M, S, B, A BUT NOT country tracks ..... WHY? There's as big a difference between the quality of Metro summer racing and the Spring Carnival as there is between the quality of Metro summer racing and country tracks. Barny,

Thats a form rule. You are looking at better quality (thus form and class). Everything falls back to class and/or form.

I think what you are trying to compare is Horse specific data vs non-horse specific data ? Otherwise I have no idea what a non-form thing is.

Barrier = form,
Track = form
Trainers = form
jockeys = form
time of year = form
temperature = form
fitness = form
class= form

Everything comes back to how a horse will run in todays race which is its form.

Just asking as I would love to know at least one non-form factor. But if it contirbutes to how a horse might run today then it is a "form" factor.

[Chrome Prince]

I'll take a stab.

Look at what the trainer is doing with the horse.
Has it got gear on, gear off.
Has it been trialled.
Has he entered in duplicate races and scratched it for this.
Has he entered any other stable runners.
Is he repeating a successful lead up last season.
Is he putting on a jockey who won a few starts back.
Has he for some reason dramatically changed the horse's distance.
Is he gradually reducing or increasing distance.
Is he gradually increasing the grade, or is he massively jumping grade.

What's the market saying?

[Barny]

OK UselessBettor, then anything associated with the running of the horse is to you, "form" ..... then I am using "form" for the first rule. I'm NOT using the normal system rules that are in any other posted on here, not that I've seen anyway !

How for instance do you apply any distance rule to a horse, as Chrome Prince mentioned + / -, or "d" ?? That one I cannot get my head around at all ??

[darkydog2002]

Ah Barny.
I know what your doing in your subtle way.
Your telling us to stick with the World Famous "R" system.
Cheers
darky

[Barny]

The "R" system had NO LOGIC to it at all ..... however, do you recall the "jockey wearing pom poms" system ?? And the exotics when there were multiple pom poms in the same race ??

[darkydog2002]

Yet still wins handsomely each year.
It relies heavily on that most sacred of secret form factors PA.

[Chrome Prince]

Reminds me of a system I used and it worked in the 80's.
Back anything with Mighty in the name.
I think it was an owner who named all his horses Mighty something ( Mighty Avalanche springs to mind) and he did very well in Victoria.

[partypooper]

Chrome, I really respect your judgement and always take your point, but this time you have me beat!

I just can't see what difference it makes to the nag whether the trainer is "STREAKING" or not????

Does this come under the heading "Form"?

[Chrome Prince]

It didn't have to do with the trainer, it had to do with a wealthy owner who was buying quality horses.
A bit like following the Ingham brothers at their peak.

[darkydog2002]

Party I thought the whole point of the thread was winning without form.
Unless one comes up with "R" or "Mighty" theirs nothing to contribute because everything relies on form in one way or the other.

Cheers
darky

[partypooper]

Hahhahaahh! I can see you had a rough night again last night Chrome, I was referring to a couple of posts back, have a look and see if you can guess,


hahahahh! (Clue streaking as in "NUDE")

[Chrome Prince]

lol o.k. Party, yes I can see it now.
I must watch my posts, as they provide too much entertainment ;)

[Barny]

Chrome Prince - I'd like to answer these one by one ..... and no doubt not too many will be hanging on every word I post, but I don't mind at all. It's what I've learned and I think it's logical.

Look at what the trainer is doing with the horse. - ABSOLUTELY

Has it got gear on, gear off. - not looking there at this stage, although I'm going to look at the gelding of horses, how long they take to recover etc ..... might come to nothing. As I've posted in the past, Tongie Tie on is an interesting one.

Has it been trialled. - Never been there in any meaningful way

Has he entered in duplicate races and scratched it for this. - Ditto above

Has he entered any other stable runners. - Ditto above

Is he repeating a successful lead up last season. - Yes seen a lot of this and the prices certainly reflect the lead up form. Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Is he putting on a jockey who won a few starts back. - Nope

Has he for some reason dramatically changed the horse's distance. - Not lookign for a massive change in the horses distance, but if it happens it's as a result of a previous rule.

Is he gradually reducing or increasing distance. - Ditto above, but I'm not looking for the horses pet distance ..... everyone else looks for that don't they?

Is he gradually increasing the grade, or is he massively jumping grade. - Don't look for it, if it does massively increase in grade it would be as a result of one other rule. I would certainly back a horse from my system with a massive increase in grade. Usually most of them do go up in grade on my main system.

What's the market saying? - Like this one, but not for this particular method.

I come from a totally different direction now .... The horse I back may have recent poor form, or recent really good form. It's like looking at the trainers up coming program for the horse, and being prepared to back a horse that runs last beaten the length of the straight. It's worth trying to get off the traditional "form" (at least as I know it) study and come at things from a different direction. I try and pick a fit horse (that's basically it .... with two v. important filters .... one of 'em get's rid of a lot of losers), some methods couldn't give tuppence about the horse, they're only interested in the odds, others look at the field and assess the better chances, others have "stable" methods.

I doubt I'll change tack from here ..... I'll try and specialise in this are, but too much information and tinkering will ruin the basic system, I'm sure of that!

[UselessBettor]

I doubt I'll change tack from here ..... I'll try and specialise in this are, but too much information and tinkering will ruin the basic system, I'm sure of that!

Specialisation is what a lot of experts say is a very good thing to do. Learn one area (track, form factor) and know eveything about it. I think it has a lot of merit.

[partypooper]

Well, I guess if it's a gelding it doesn't make that much diff. it it's got it's "gear" on OR off, when it comes to push v shove ,..... so to speak!



Haahahahahha!........ sorry couldn't resist!!!!