Targeting 3rd fav

[Bhagwan]

Here's a simple plan that's showing strong POT

RULES
Target races with 6 runners exactly.

Must be live market 3rd fav.

Bet 1/75th of bank.
Level stakes.

RESULT
19%SR
23% POT

There were 442 selections for the System
There were 430 races for the System
There were 86 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 19.46%
There were $543.81 returned for WIN (after 5% commission) which means a Profit or loss of $101.81 or a percentage profit/loss of 23.03%

The Rules used were : priceRank < 90 and priceRank = 3 and runners = 6

[Dale]

I see no reason to restrict selctions to races with exactly 6 starters, the reasoning can only be because backfitting through UB's site proved this most profitable.

Id have a hard time having faith in this system.

[moeee]

I see no reason to restrict selctions to races with exactly 6 starters.
Id have a hard time having faith in this system.

I know what you mean.
You would think 7 would work , as would 5.

But best if you don't agree with a members posts you just let it be.
I have been banned on many occasions trying to point out similar.
What happens is the member gets offended or gets his/her feelings hurt and dobs you in for being nasty.

And I enjoy reading your Posts Dale and would like you to stay.
Not many posts from you , but less is more where quality is concerned.

[bernie]

I agree Dale. A classic case of backfitting which has as much logic as picking a horse with the letter R in its name. Very confusing for any newbie that is looking for advise. I'm amazed that ideas or 'systems' like that get printed.

[TheSchmile]

Or......

Perhaps the first two fav's in small fields are overbet? :D

The Schmile

[Bhagwan]

Like any ideas put forward , that one disagrees with the findings , then put forward your own findings that you find more agreeable.

There are only 2 rules ,so the chances of repeating itself would be very high.

3rd Favs stat is 15% across all field sizes.
So 19% would not be unreasonable with just 6 runners.
What's illogical about that?

How many times has one seen the rank outsider get up in 5 horse races?
Does one wish to argue that that is not logical because they should fall over at the same rate as a 15 horse field?


Past results were used because future results are impossible.
If we presented an idea that has shown to fail in the past data , then why on earth would any one be even half interested , every one uses back data to check ideas , even the current form student looks at the past for what it can possible do in the future.

"Very confusing for any newbie that is looking for advise. I'm amazed that ideas or 'systems' like that get printed."

Please say your joking.

I am amazed anyone would say that on a Punting Forum where findings are to be encouraged , otherwise you wont have a Forum, not stifled by comments like that
As if you are paying money or something.
Here is a system presented, FREE, based on past data
Give us a system that works then, that has proven to fail on past data.

Can I ask why some are so concerned about adult Newbies of voting age & their punting antics..

May as well have a go at all the free tipsters out there, that select heaps of losers with a track record of a level stakes loss, year after year.
At the same time, go around to all the TABs & rip down the tipping sheets.
Grab guys by their arm as they are going into the TAB so as to protect them from the dangers of taking poor value .
Make sure you duck in the process.



Sorry...But only a fool would start betting serious money on anything, without doing their own due diligence checks first, based on back data , then giving it a dry run after that.


Please!
We have shared a finding for others to follow up on, because it is a Punting Forum , that's what Forums do
Stats courtesy of the brilliant System Checker of UB , which is, by the way, also free.

Its up to the individual to see if its their speed or not.
Some of the prices of these 3rd favs are incredible
e.g. $10.00+
Because the 2 Favs are often over bet & if they both fall over , which frequently do , then that leaves the 3rd fav a chance at good odds to do something , which they have shown to do, 19% of the time, at juicy prices.

[moeee]

You are avoiding the issue that the good Member Dale has raised.
Why 6 runners?
Why not 7 runners as well?
And 5 Runners?
Both 5 and 7 are small Fields , maybe not so much 7.
But why not 5?

In your long reply you argue that "How many times has one seen the rank outsider get up in 5 horse races?"
Perhaps this might be worth testing in UB's System Builder.

2 Rules
Rankest animal
5 horse Field

[TheSchmile]

Hi Moeee,

I checked UB's tester with the 3rd fav in 5 horse fields and that also made a profit. In 7 horse fields there was a slight loss.

The Schmile

[Dale]

You are avoiding the issue that the good Member Dale has raised.
Why 6 runners?
Why not 7 runners as well?
And 5 Runners?
Both 5 and 7 are small Fields , maybe not so much 7.
But why not 5?



Exactly!

Its back fitting, even if its only you and I that see it Moeee.

[domenic]

3rd Fav, NSW TAB, January 2011 - April 2012.

Bets: 19807
Wins: 2674
S/R: 13.50%
Return: $16356.60
Ave Win Div: $6.12
Loss: $3450.40 (17.40%)

Field Size:
3. +$1.90 +19%
4. -$17.80 -17%
5. -$64.00 -20%
6. -$94.20 -11%
7. -$355.10 -25%
8. -$393.00 -20%
9. -$405.60 -17%
10. -$435.10 -15%
11. -$518.20 -20%
12. -$607.20 -21%
13. -$218.80 -13%
14. -$285.50 -16%
15. +$21.60 +16%
16. -$75.80 -18%
17. +$4.30 +23%
18. -$5.90 -31%

The 3rd Fav will vary between different betting agencies. Individuals can draw their own conclusions.

[moeee]

Well done to The Schmile and particularly Domenic.

Often , "helpful" posts remind me of the spin put out by politicians to bull******** the people that there is something good about poor policies.

Its not until the public actually examine the data do they realize the gloss and shine is only on the outside.

[bernie]

Thank you Domenic. I rest my case.

Bhagwan, I looked way back at posts starting in 1970. Someone then remarked that you seemed to be putting out something like a system a week. Things haven't changed much. Can I make a suggestion, when you post an idea you think will work follow up with daily results much like michaelg does.

To me the fact that the system has only 2 rules doesn't give it any more credibility than 1 rule or 4.

Yes, we need to share our findings but to print ideas that are illogical is just a waste of space. I can find many such systems on UB's system tester but after studying methods and systems most of my life I think I'm educated enough to know that they wouldn't be worth a grain of salt. I also know that one big dividend can distort most system results.

[Dale]

Can I make a suggestion, when you post an idea you think will work follow up with daily results



Excellent suggestion!

Concentrate on one thing and develope it into something, a scattergun approach to systems doesnt get us anywhere.

[TheSchmile]

3rd Fav, NSW TAB, January 2011 - April 2012.

Bets: 19807
Wins: 2674
S/R: 13.50%
Return: $16356.60
Ave Win Div: $6.12
Loss: $3450.40 (17.40%)

Field Size:
3. +$1.90 +19%
4. -$17.80 -17%
5. -$64.00 -20%
6. -$94.20 -11%
7. -$355.10 -25%
8. -$393.00 -20%
9. -$405.60 -17%
10. -$435.10 -15%
11. -$518.20 -20%
12. -$607.20 -21%
13. -$218.80 -13%
14. -$285.50 -16%
15. +$21.60 +16%
16. -$75.80 -18%
17. +$4.30 +23%
18. -$5.90 -31%U

The 3rd Fav will vary between different betting agencies. Individuals can draw their own conclusions.

Hi Domenic,

I'm curious to know, was the win % of around 19 the same with your stats in 5 & 6 horse fields?

The Schmile

[domenic]

Strike rates added.

3rd Fav, NSW TAB, January 2011 - April 2012.


Bets: 19807
Wins: 2674
S/R: 13.50%
Return: $16356.60
Ave Win Div: $6.12
Loss: $3450.40 (17.40%)

Field Size:
3. +$1.90 +19%.....S/R...30
4. -$17.80 -17%............18
5. -$64.00 -20%............16
6. -$94.20 -11%............17
7. -$355.10 -25%..........14
8. -$393.00 -20%..........14
9. -$405.60 -17%..........14
10. -$435.10 -15%........14
11. -$518.20 -20%........13
12. -$607.20 -21%........12
13. -$218.80 -13%........13
14. -$285.50 -16%........13
15. +$21.60 +16%.........14
16. -$75.80 -18%..........12
17. +$4.30 +23%..........16
18. -$5.90 -31%...........11

The 3rd Fav will vary between different betting agencies. Individuals can draw their own conclusions.

[moeee]

There is absolutley no Link between what I wish and what actually happens.

But I wish you every success in your endeavours.
I figure you deserve it.

[TheSchmile]

Cheers Domenic.

The Schmile

[rails run]

Bhags, I hope you keep throwing your ideas out there on this forum. I like the thought stimulation they (and other members) give me (right or wrong) and I am capable of making up my own mind whether I see enough merit in it to test them further. No buckets of cold water from me.

To the others out there who make a positive contribution here... thanks!
To the rest... it's getting tiresome sorting through the ego's for something of interest.

[Merriguy]

Well said, Rails.

[moeee]

I just realized something extremely important.

Those Members that simply don't get it , make the Betting Pools significantly beneficial for the Members that do.

No more guiding lost souls input from me any more.

[TheSchmile]

You are avoiding the issue that the good Member Dale has raised.
Why 6 runners?
Why not 7 runners as well?
And 5 Runners?
Both 5 and 7 are small Fields , maybe not so much 7.
But why not 5?

In your long reply you argue that "How many times has one seen the rank outsider get up in 5 horse races?"
Perhaps this might be worth testing in UB's System Builder.

2 Rules
Rankest animal
5 horse Field

Hi Moeee,

No need to get discouraged, I thought your post above was excellent, constructive criticism plus an idea that may/may not work for other forumites to test.

This is what the forum is about on my view, throwing an idea into the atmosphere and generating debate/ideas.

The Schmile

[The Ocho]

IMHO I think 99.9% of Bhagwans "systems" are great for those of us looking for something that "might" work but we haven't thought about.

I don't think at any stage that Bhagwan says this system or that system WILL make you plenty of money. Most of the time they don't tend to work out but that is something that you have to give a dry run or possibly back check yourself (do your own research). They all can't work otherwise we would ALL be rich. :)

It is not like some posters here who give out a system, tell us that a $60 horse has won but then doesn't tell us how many losing bets they had (or would of had) along the way. Those are the type of threads where the gullible might get sucked in to. Bhagwan is NOT in that category.

Please keep up the good work Bhagwan. I know plenty here appreciate your words of wisdom and possibly successful systems and staking plans. I know I do.

[bernie]

I don't think at any stage that Bhagwan says this system or that system WILL make you plenty of money.
Agreed The Ocho, but Bhagwan commonly says "this shows promise or this looks promising or this seems to work or this is showing strong POT". My point is, unless there are results apart from UB's system tester to substantiate the comment, then best left unsaid. To say that the third favourite in a field of 6 is showing strong POT is misleading. It's backfitting at its worst.

Let's have constructive debate for sure. I'm all for that.

[beton]

Regardless of whether the result is backfitted or not, or whether the system has merit or not the comments have started healthy debate and some interesting data has been presented. Everybody gains and they gain because it was said and not as suggested be left unsaid.
If everybody listened to mama and thought twice about posting before posting, the world would still be in the middle ages. Putting it out there makes us grow.
Thanks to ALL POSTERS.

[Bhagwan]

Thanks to all those with the positive feed back.
This is all about sharing certain findings for FREE
Where further research may be needed before real money is used.



"when you post an idea you think will work follow up with daily results."

That's a positive idea Bernie.
This can now be your new unpaid job from now on.
That way we wont be accused of not being impartial.
And you wont be accused of being too lazy to do your own research.

I hope no one is expecting to be spoon fed here.


Thanks for the stats Dominic.
It shows that the 6 horse fields had the strongest 3rd Fav SR out of all the field sizes.

This is the secondary FREE source, other than UB's FREE data, that some were complaining about.
This too was back researched - For FREE by Domininc .

Now this raises the question of which set of figures do you wish to work with, seeing that the Betfair figures were considered questionable by some others, why would the TAB figures also not also be questionable.

Unless of course, one is deliberately fishing for a negative, then in that case just take the figures you like , just like Politicians do.
Then say, there , I told you so.

The minus profit balance was to be expected using TAB prices, because its average price will always be less than Betfair.

I wish to encourage others out there to put forward their findings , no matter how wild they may be.

Wild ideas are usually the more interesting to read.

If we relied on the na sayers all the time, nothing would be put forward for further research and there would not be a Forum of sharing.

Have a look at the Forums overseas, its full of folk putting others down to such a degree that no sharing , of any findings, is done.

There is heaps of boring stuff, like how brilliant was that win of that $1.05 Fav in that race--So what! it was expected to win, at that price.

No matter what ideas anyone puts forward .
Do your own, follow up research.
You may be able to improve on it & make it your own.

[garyf]

Rather have SOMETHING THAN NOTHING.

Look how quiet it's been here since Barny AND D/Dog,
Have gone on holidays whether you agree or not.

Isn't that why we joined here in the first place.

RE-read my first 5 words.

Cheers.
Garyf.

[TheSchmile]

Completely agree with your comments Garyf.

Hopefully Barny and D-dog can smoke a peace pipe on their return.

Bhagwan, I fully appreciate your input as you have a completely different approach to this game which always makes me think. There's no way I'd start betting your systems without a decent trial period first. Keep up the good work!!

The Schmile

[Bhagwan]

Thanks for the positive replies guys.

[moeee]

Rather have SOMETHING THAN NOTHING.

RE-read my first 5 words.

Cheers.
Garyf.

I suggest you go reread the SOMETHING that led to their banning.
You may have a different opinion if those Profanities were directed at you instead of me.

The idea of banning for a period is to get contributing members to be nice.
Hopefully when the boys get back they will.
I'm sure DoggyBoy will.
Barny? - Not so much.

[garyf]

Yeah read it.

Didn't see the abusive one that was hurled at you though?.
Must have been deleted before i got to it.

Only read the ones where the commentary between those two,
was deemed unsatisfactory by the moderators.

[garyf]

Rephrase for MO.


Rather have something "nice" than nothing.
Let's get the "exact" meaning of the,
Post rather than the generalisation.

Cheers.

[Bhagwan]

Yes Garyf,
You missed one mighty meltdown with profanities abundant with a number of disingenuous comments.

It was free speech in full flight.


It turned my hair Blue it did.

That was a strong example of why forums in general need to be moderated

[Dale]

The idea of banning for a period is to get contributing members to be nice.
Hopefully when the boys get back they will.
I'm sure DoggyBoy will.
Barny? - Not so much.

Good judge, I predict the same.