The Paretto Principle

[Star]

I mentioned in a new thread I started about compiling a ratings system about the Paretto Principal.

Now, I wont bore you because I am sure that everybody knows about it. But briefly this Mr Paretto an Italian mathamatician came up with the theory that 20% of what we do accounts for 80% of our outcomes. Convewrsley it applies also. 80% of what we do only produces 20% of our otcomes or results.

Now, here is my thought. Because so many on here are trying to add one more filter to a system for the Holy Grail what if we did the opposite?

Let's get back to the basics and not overcomplicate things.

If Mr paretto was a race horse punter I wonder what he would consider important in his 20% and what he would put in his 80%.

I could go on but will see if anybody else wants to follow along and add to this little idea. As always these things are not to be taken to seriously but often when discussing things like this little gems or ideas might show up.

Star

[Barny]

There was a brilliant thread on here just soncentrating on the Pareto Principle. I suggest you go and search it andread it. 40 to 50 pages I seem to recollect.

[Star]

There was a brilliant thread on here just concentrating on the Pareto Principle. I suggest you go and search it andread it. 40 to 50 pages I seem to recollect.Ah thanks Barny.

40 to 50 pages, looks like my thoughts are not so scrambled. Be interesting to see what genius started that thread and to check who replied. May have underestimated a few on here and some personal apoligies may be in order. lol

Star

[Barny]

There's a lot of information, and a lot of posters contributed. I think the poster was Privateer. He had 7 rules in the 20% category from memory and his No. 1 was Fitness. HJis other 20% rules included Pre-post Price, Ave Prizemoney ..... He researched over a couple of years using hard copies of form guides, and trial information (not sure where he got this from).

It was interesting to see what he included in the 80% ..... some very well known filters.

If you do find the thread it'll keep you busy and out of trouble for a while.

It's a good read .....

[Barny]

Actually, now I think about this, and my recent experiences with my database, the more it makes sense. I've no doubt, as I've said before, there's a fine line, but there's certainly situations that pop up regularly time after time.

Until I got my database I was wary of class related filters, but I'm a convert now, as they do group horses that have a good Win S/R, probably the best filters I've got are class related filters. The "Pareto" thread is very strong on a class filter. I summarised the "Pareto" thread into a system, I might have to revisit it.

I recall his POT was around 25%, so nothing outrageous, and plenty of back up logic to support his findings.

[Barny]

Here's my take on the thread and my assumptions of the 20%

Pre-Post - Fitness - Ave Prizemoney - LS finish - Top 7 Saddlecloth - Place S/R > 60% - Horses backing up within 7 days

He said he had 9 criteria .....

Privateer back 'em 1 Win 3 Place and NEVER bets on a wet track.

Go crazy dudes !!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[darkydog2002]

The most obvious one is horse must be a on pace runner in the majority of its races (1st - 6th on the home turn )

[Barny]

The most obvious one is horse must be a on pace runner in the majority of its races (1st - 6th on the home turn )
Sorry darkydog2002, but a direct quote from Privateers thread

"FWIW, I do not factor the pace of a race into any method that I apply to punting"

[darkydog2002]

Sorry but I thought you wanted what was vital.
Or just what Privateer thought was important.
Cheers

[Barny]

Sorry but I thought you wanted what was vital.
Or just what Privateer thought was important.
Cheers
Yeah, you're dead right. I was quoting as if this was Privateers thread.

[mattio]

Barny, why top 7 saddlecloth? Why not top 6 or top 8? Personally I would never use a filter like this in a system, especially not one of the top 20% of filters.

[darkydog2002]

Here,s another 55- 58 Kg comprise 36.5 % of Races but win 50.6 %.
A huge advantage.

[Try Try Again]

Hi Darkydog2002,

Is this only for handicap races?

In many Set Weight Races and WFA races nearly all starters would have these weights. If these races were eliminated the advantage would probably be greater.

[darkydog2002]

Open Hcps and restricted races.
Cheers

[Barny]

Barny, why top 7 saddlecloth? Why not top 6 or top 8? Personally I would never use a filter like this in a system, especially not one of the top 20% of filters.
mattio, it wasn't my thread nor my ideas. I'm just relaying the info.

[mattio]

Fair enough mate.

[Star]

There was a brilliant thread on here just soncentrating on the Pareto Principle. I suggest you go and search it andread it. 40 to 50 pages I seem to recollect.
Barny, I have not found it yet but similar posts in the Archives. A made a jest that when told that it had been done before I asked who the genius was in fun.

Having a quick look at some of his threads and replies makes me think what I said in jest has to be taken back because I think Privateer is a serious contributor and his knowledge and thinking have me thinking that here is somebody to follow and study.

Looking back at the old posts I notice that many of the questions I have asked on here have been discussed previously and some in great depth. Also some of the terms I have used have not come from stories here but just things that have popped into my head before hitting the keyboard.

Eg A term I have used often is " SHIFTING SANDS " yet STIX mentions it in a 2007 post saying that he was pleased to see the term because it was very popular prior to this but seemed to have been retired.

So maybe, some of my innane threads are not so, but merely rehashed from the past although unknowingly on my part.

It has been mentioned to me to go back and read all the forum posts from the beginning. Might take me a year, but if some of the gems I have found in some old threads are repeated it will be time well spent.

Unfortunately some people who were contributing to a lot of knowledge were getting abusive E Mails from fellow members hence they no longer post here. In the few posts I have read I cannot fathom why. Maybe the abusers were lobbyist for the Bookies Guild and did not want the Grail to be spread to far. lol

So, if I am a bit quite on here in the future, I wont have absconded just gone mining.

Star

[Lord Greystoke]

Star,

Having read many of your posts
Have found quite a few somewhat intruiging.

I would be interested to know,
What exactly is it that you are looking for in here,
In a nutshell?

LG

[Star]

Star,

Having read many of your posts
Have found quite a few somewhat intruiging.

I would be interested to know,
What exactly is it that you are looking for in here,
In a nutshell?

LG
Interesting post LG.

In a nutshell? Now. I know you didnt mean it to be read this way and I understand why you ask. Maybe the nut in the nut shell is me!.

But really, most of what I have written is just my attempt at humour with enough seriousness thrown in to give the opinion I may know something. I am not a person who thinks in black or white. I can see shades of grey in most things and people.

But that does not mean I am wishy washy and have two bob each way on every subject. A lot of the things being discussed here lately are well outside my scope of reference, so if I ask a question or give a reply it is based on my experience over many years.

I have been around this industry for a long time, won a lot in bursts and had it bled from me over a longer period. Our life circumstances change and so does our personality and betting philosphy.

I think , like most people I do not like to get taken to far out of my comfort zone and put blind faith in too many people outside my mentors. I have read a lot and try to incorporate and adapt some things that certain books and authors try to portray.

While when I was reading them Punting was not even in the back of my mind, but it seems a shame that using some principles in life and business should only be restricted there. For example here are a few books in my reference library that may have to be reread just to refocus the mind.

1. Think and Grow Rich

2. The Richest Man in Babylon

3.The Paretto principle.

Now, their are many more but most can trace back their origins to these. Infact one of my favourites was a guy called Doug Edwards. I could really relate to him.

Strangely, I was telling one of my friends about Doug and he said that Doug actually was the mentor of Anthony Robbins in Anthony's early days.

Maybe I digress a bit but sometimes I find Napoleon Hill's advice is pretty sound and his thoughts on ' The Power of the Master Mind" really refer to what this and other non betting forums are about.

Unfortunately, on a betting forum, most contributors are not as sharing like all the other ones I am on.

In one forum I have made some really good friends and a lot of us meet up about three or so times a year. So, you can see I have varied interests.

So, getting back to the point, What am I looking for? I am sure it is not some complicated computer software driven program. Maybe it has taken all these posts of mine to come to the conclussion that what I am looking for is a simplified idea or ideas to mix in with my own so I can dabble and not invest a lot of time and money in a game that has destroyed many.

Napoleon Hill has also said. " What the Mind can Conceive and believe the mind can Achieve " By osmosis, the clarity of thought will come and a plan will be laid out for you providing you follow the priciples and really want and believe that what you fully believe should be yours will be achieved.

He also states " that their has to be a definite purpose " By that he states that if you want and need a certain amount of money you have to define and write down exactly how much and what you are goijng to do in return to receive that sum.

If you truly believe then, by osmosis the means and information will slowly appear which will allow you to achieve your goals. But, whether that works on gambling. I am not sure. Because in life you get nothing for nothing.

So, I guess the Paretto Principle fits in with my philosopy and what else I am looking for is to not go to far outside my present range of experience but to redefine and rejig what I know. " Stick to my knitting " I suppose is another term that fits in well here.

Because I do not want to go to far out of my comfort and reference zone I was really impressed with the thoughts of an earlier forum member PRIVATEER.

It was he who mentioned the Paretto principle I am told. I have not found his thread yet but others have alluded to it. I have seen some of Privateers posts and I feel that he was not to far away from my philosphy. However, time marches on, so what happens in the past may not necessarily apply to the future.

However, here is the rub. In my opinion the formulation of Systems, Ratings and neurals are based on information found in past results, so, like it or not. the question is:

' CAN THE PAST PREDICT THE FUTURE. '

[Lord Greystoke]

Great post Star.

Very Interesting.

LG

[Star]

Great post Star.

Very Interesting.

LG

Thanks LG

[garyf]

He also states " that their has to be a definite purpose " By that he states that if you want and need a certain amount of money you have to define and write down exactly how much and what you are going to do in return to receive that sum.

However, here is the rub. In my opinion the formulation of Systems, Ratings and neurals are based on information found in past results, so, like it or not. the question is:

' CAN THE PAST PREDICT THE FUTURE. 'I really identify with these qoutes.

Cheers.

[Lord Greystoke]

Morning garyf,

When you say you relate,
In terms of life or the punt?

Cheers LG

[moeee]

' CAN THE PAST PREDICT THE FUTURE. '
Well I'll take 10's on that the SUN will not only rise tomorrow , but will rise within a minute of the same time it rose today.

[garyf]

Morning garyf,

When you say you relate,
In terms of life or the punt?

Cheers LG
The Punt.

Cheers.

[Vortech]

garyf, do you think profit is still achievable if you weren't able to watch the market before a race?

[jose]

' CAN THE PAST PREDICT THE FUTURE. '


As far as horses go, what else is there to go on?
Mind reading perhaps?
When punting there is no other way, you must take into account the past, be it performance or non performance.

[Lord Greystoke]

' CAN THE PAST PREDICT THE FUTURE. '


As far as horses go, what else is there to go on?
Mind reading perhaps?
.
The NOW can also predict the future,
As in price moves at open and/or just before close?

LG

[garyf]

garyf, do you think profit is still achievable if you weren't able to watch the market before a race?Putting a bet on without not knowing my return v/s risk,
Is not my way of doing things.


Betting market.
Stock market.
Share market.

If you don't look at the market, any market, how can,
You know if a profit can be achieved before you invest?.

What's your thoughts?.

Cheers.

[Barny]

The 12 Major and 16 Minor Axiomsffice



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



Although many of the axioms go against the conventionalbelief and traditional wisdom of the investment advice business, those whomaster the meanings and implemented the concepts will be successful - just likethe enterprising Swiss speculators who devised them became rich, while manyinvestors 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 notworried, you are not risking enough



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



MinorAxiom I
Always play for meaningful stakes






MinorAxiom 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 andon. Don't stretch your luck. Expect winning streaks to be short. When you reacha previously decided-upon ending position, cash out and walk away. Do this evenwhen everything looks rosy, when everyone else is saying the boom will keeproaring along.



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



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



MinorAxiom III
Decide in advance what gain you want from a venture, and when you get it, getout.






Major Axiom 3: On Hope



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



Learning to take losses is an essential speculativetechnique. MOST never learn it. Take losses at once and move on. Take smalllosses 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 winnerwhen you've bailed-out)



Unwillingness to abandon part of an investment (becomewilling to abandon)



Difficulty of admitting you made a mistake.



MinorAxiom IV
Accept small losses cheerfully as a fact of life. Expect to experience severalwhile awaiting a large gain.






Major Axiom 4: On Forecasts



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



Nobody has the foggiest notion of what will happen in thefuture. 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 notoverlook the large role chance takes in any speculation. Study information inwhatever speculative medium to improve chances and take your best shot. Staylight 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 payoff for me. But since I cannot see or control all the random events that willaffect 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 whenwhatever is going to happen happens."






MinorAxiom V
Beware the historians trap.
The Historian's trap is a particular kind of orderly illusion. It is based onthe age-old but entirely unwarranted belief that history repeats itself. Peoplewho hold this belief - which is to say perhaps ninety-nine out of every hundredpeople on earth - believe as a corollary proposition that the orderlyrepetition 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 reliableenough way that you can prudently bet money on it.






MinorAxiom VI
Beware the Chartist's illusion.






MinorAxiom VII
Beware the correlation and causality delusions. <o:p></o<img>





MinorAxiom 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. Youdo 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 forand against, and no move should be made for trivial reasons. But when a ventureis 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 tocut.



MinorAxiom IX
Do not become trapped in a souring venture because of sentiments like loyaltyand nostalgia.






MinorAxiom X
Never hesitate to abandon a venture of something more attractive comes intoview.






Major Axiom 7: On Intuition



A hunch can be trusted if it can be explained.



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



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



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



MinorAxiom 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 includesmaking you rich.



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



MinorAxiom XII
If astrology worked, all astrologers would be rich.






MinorAxiom XIII
A superstition need not be exorcised. It can be enjoyed, provided it is kept inits place.






Major Axiom 9: On Optimism & Pessimism



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



Optimism can be a speculator's enemy. It feels good and isdangerous for that reason. It produces a clouding of judgment. It can lead youinto a venture with no exits. Even when there is an exit, optimism can persuadeyou not to use it.
You should never make a move if you are merely optimistic. Before committingyour 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.



MinorAxiom XIV
Never follow speculative fads. Often, the best time to buy something is whenno-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 notalways for speculators. Don't fall into the trap of trying to squeeze a gainout 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'tbuy the alluring, but fallacious idea that you can improve a bad situation byaveraging down.



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






Major Axiom 12: On Planning



Long-range plans engender the dangerous belief that thefuture is under control. It is important never to take your own long-rangeplans, or other people's, too seriously. <o:p></o<img>>



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






MinorAxiom XVI
Shun long-term investments.

[garyf]

Putting a bet on without not knowing my return v/s risk,
Is not my way of doing things.


Betting market.
Stock market.
Share market.

If you don't look at the market, any market, how can,
You know if a profit can be achieved before you invest?.

What's your thoughts?.

Cheers.I guess technically you can.
Lets say i put 3 bets on the night before,
And i look at the results 24 hours later.
Technically you have won without looking at the market.

But that's not me.

Cheers.

[garyf]

RE POST=31.

iF THEY WIN AT A DIVIDEND GREATER THAN YOU OUTLAY.

Cheers.

[garyf]

Or you can set up a bot and just crunch nos,
By backing and laying is another way i guess.

Cheers.

[jose]

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


The older I get the more I see this is true.

[jose]

Yes LG, but the strength or lack of it, of money for a horse is determined by how it has been performing, be it recent or otherwise, therefore PAST is king.

[Lord Greystoke]

Yes LG, but the strength or lack of it, of money for a horse is determined by how it has been performing, be it recent or otherwise, therefore PAST is king.What about factors since the last run / rating,
Which remain unknown to us but not to those,
Who place $$$(or dont) on the nose before it jumps?

Eg condition on day of race

This is not about the past - all about the present,
And we can only get a hint of this via the price ie NOW,
Unless we are on track with clear-clever eyes?

LG

[Barny]

Yes LG, but the strength or lack of it, of money for a horse is determined by how it has been performing, be it recent or otherwise, therefore PAST is king.
Not only that particular horse, but all the others over the years with similar form in a similar events too. HISTORY is the only guide we have.

[jose]

Spot on B.

[Vortech]

I also find it funny today when the boss commented to me about the Carlton v Collingwood match. He ask who I was backing.

I said Collingwood by the form.

He replied but your not going to look at how many times Carlton have won at that ground, the margin last start, the ground condition they played last time, the weight of Chris Judd and Swann. The coach of the sides. You do all this for horse racing.

Are these factors like Win % and Place % that we use iirelevant in more cases than none.

[Lord Greystoke]

If HISTORY is the only guide we use,
Then we will forever be on the loosing side I feel.

You can forget all about Pareto!

More like 99/1 rule being,
99% of us loose in the long run because the clever 1% leverage off
a. readily available historical information better
b. additional info(=edge) unavailable to the 99%

The only path I see for us to move from 99 - 1% is in the MARKET = price movements which reflect what we know about past events, and what we don't.

Surely it is the BEST guide we have?

LG

[Barny]

there's only one "o" in LOSE ..... Gawd, I hate that !!!!

[Barny]

The only path I see for us to move from 99 - 1% is in the MARKET = price movements which reflect what we know about past events, and what we don't.

Surely it is the BEST guide we have?

LG
"price movements which reflect what we know about past events," ~ Which Way tho ??

[Try Try Again]

I agree totally with you Barny!

It annoys me as well. I wonder if a wheel or tooth was loose how would it be spelt?

[Barny]

I agree totally with you Barny!

It annoys me as well. I wonder if a wheel or tooth was loose how would it be spelt?
They would be woobbly !!

[beton]

If HISTORY is the only guide we use,
Then we will forever be on the loosing side I feel.

You can forget all about Pareto!

More like 99/1 rule being,
99% of us loose in the long run because the clever 1% leverage off
a. readily available historical information better
b. additional info(=edge) unavailable to the 99%

The only path I see for us to move from 99 - 1% is in the MARKET = price movements which reflect what we know about past events, and what we don't.

Surely it is the BEST guide we have?

LG

The market can only confirm our intepretation of it in hindsight. You still have to select the horse based on history. The starting price for all favs are statistically correct. The shorter the odds the higher the strike rate. You go out and back every fav then you have a quick trip to the poorhouse. Without the facts I would still state that the majority of these starting favs shortened. Hence the market is bringing some points not in history to the table. At odds on the fav is close to 50% strike rate, so the market helps but it is still 50% wrong. How much of the market is based on NOW? how much is hype? How much is based on the past and how much is based on hysteria?

Each race is a separate event, even a rematch a week later would be a totally different event. The past would show what occured. The market would have to reflect everything else that occured up till now. If that reflection it too heavily based on the past results and not on what has happened since then it is of no additional value.

If horses A,B,C,D,E.F.G and H raced each other and horse A won. If they were meeting today for a rematch, then I would like to see the market reflect that Horse A pulled up sore, and horse E was checked as a result of a stupid jockey decission and that it was fitter and ready to go this week. Does this show in the market maybe but not clearly and not all the time.

The future must be the past transitioning though the present and the more present in the equation the closer the result. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

The future must be the past transitioning though the present and the more present in the equation the closer the result. Beton

Interesting post Beton.
Can you enlarge on the above?

Cheers LG

[jose]

What LG said.

[Star]

ye gads!

I might have to start a new thread on poor Mr Paretto being left out in the cold. lol

This thread has morphed into something quite special which is the beauty of forums and a collection of minds contributing to a common cause. Mr Hill was right " The Power of the Master Mind. "

Some brilliant and thought provoking info in here and thanks to the contributors.

Star

[beton]

LG
The future must be the past transitioning though the present and the more present in the equation the closer the result.
Lets keep it to horses.
The past data will show if a horse has the ability to win against the other horses in the field. This data could a week old, 2 weeks old or in the case of resumers up to 6 months old.
For this data to be relative it must also include all the events up till now. Now nominally being the last chance to bet. The present being the time from last recorded data until now. This additional data has to reflect all the events for all the horses in the field. Most of this data is not accessable to the average punter. This additional data has more bearing on the result than the historical data. Hence we must find the horse most likely to win from the historical data. We must then add the present data. The more present data we have added , the truer the result.

In most cases we do not have any present data so the basis of our selection is solely historical data. The only present data that we can tap into is the market. But what info is in the market? Is it real? Is it additional? Or was it just Joe Bloggs dropping his 10 large on the fav, purely because it was the fav, 2 minutes before the jump?

The bottom line is that the more real present time data that we can add to our historical selection the closer we will be in choosing the winner. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

Thanks for the clarity, Beton.
Mostly agree with you - especially your final point.

Further points to consider might be...

1. Are we all looking at the same historical data - readily available or otherwise?

2. There will be many different interpretations/applications of that data

3. Even with similar interpretation, most will not apply selection logic based on historical data in the same way or consistently over a period of time

4. There are also different markets(not just the one for 'mug money'), intepretations of market movements and diff time-snapshots to consider


Cheers LG

[Barny]

"price movements which reflect what we know about past events," ~ Which Way tho ??
LG, care to comment, you didn't answer my question.

[beton]

Lets look at an everyday example. Fred left school and he left with an academic record showing that he past his HSC. He went on to become an apprentice and the a qualified carpenter. Work dries up in the firm he has worked for since starting as an apprentice. So armed with his historical data HSC, Trade Certificate and reference) he shooffs off to a job interview. Against ten other applicants with exactly the same historical data. Who wins the job? Who is the most eager? who is the most desperate? Or who has more present data. Fred has for the last 5 years been studying for his Builder' Registration which sits next week, he is also a computor nerd and capable in excel and autocad and many estimating packages. His past historical data got him the inerview but his unherald present data got him the future job.

The future must be the past transitioning though the present and the more present in the equation the closer the result. Beton

[jose]

You are obviously a tradey Beton.

[Barny]

I guess the most current pieces of info are held by the vet and the stable ..... blood counts and the wellness of the horse on the day. Not particularly relevant to anyone else really.

[jose]

Exactly Barny.
They are probably the most important pieces of the puzzle too.

[beton]

Thanks for the clarity, Beton.
Mostly agree with you - especially your final point.

Further points to consider might be...

1. Are we all looking at the same historical data - readily available or otherwise?

2. There will be many different interpretations/applications of that data

3. Even with similar interpretation, most will not apply selection logic based on historical data in the same way or consistently over a period of time

4. There are also different markets(not just the one for 'mug money'), intepretations of market movements and diff time-snapshots to consider


Cheers LG

LG
With computors we are all looking at the same data.
Everybody has a different view of the data. But most learnt at school 1+1=2, so the result of the data is consistent. People read the same favorite as a result. To get 1+1=3 you have to stark raving stupid or very astute. And if you are very astute, you don't want to tell anyone out of fear of being recognized as the former.
Everybody is looking for a different result but 1+1 will always =2 (and money out the pocket) and to get 2+ you need more than the original data.
As for the markets and market movements, Unless you know the origin of the money - whether it is smart money or mug money or bookies hedging their book, it is hard to be of value other than more shorteners win than drifters. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

LG, care to comment, you didn't answer my question.
Would be all price movements Barny.
But especially those at open and just before jump.

LG

[beton]

You are obviously a tradey Beton.
Down and dirty everyday. Nobody said that you would end up with a body to prove it.

[garyf]

Have been waiting for someone to mention this,
But haven't heard it on any "RECENT POSTS"

The most important person who will tell you how the,
Horse is doing on a daily basis is "the trackwork rider"

Having owned a horse myself with three other mates,
And was successfull in town Flemington-Valley our,
Trainer Robbie Laing a top bloke and trainer would,
In those days ride the horse himself or get his trackwork,
Riders to help out.

It was their judgement we listened to as to how the horse was going.
Obviously as did the trainer.

Who rides Black Cav in trackwork keeps her up to the mark,
Tells Moody how she feels etc gives her enough work so,
As not to go over the top and peak on the day.

How often do you here a trainer say i might have been a,
Bit light on her this week or another comment i will put,
A bit more work into her this week.

That's why trackmen at each metro track get out there,
At 5.00 am in the morning to watch and clock how horses work.

This is where it all starts just watch some of the sky channels,
Who interview the trainers straight after trackwork the 1st,
Thing you see is either them or their foreman in earnest discussion,
With the jockey.

We were often told by Robbie she pulled up a bit light or a bit (Shinny)
After working, or she will need another run as we have set her for,
Race x in 2 weeks so we want her to peak then.

This is not me thinking about this it's what i have experienced 1st hand.

I am just surprised nobody has mentioned in detail.

Cheers.

[jose]

Same here Beton. Cheers.

[Lord Greystoke]

Fascinating stuff garyf.

Can you imagine my next question?!

LG

[Vortech]

Even cases like Moody in Stradbroke with Mid-Summer Music that even get surprised.

Then you have BC in UK which was supposed to be the fittest of career and raced lame from an injury.

[garyf]

Fascinating stuff garyf.

Can you imagine my next question?!

LGPlease No.

Cheers.

[Lord Greystoke]

LMFAO !

No it is,
No red pill today on this one then.

LG

[garyf]

Even cases like Moody in Stradbroke with Mid-Summer Music that even get surprised.

Then you have BC in UK which was supposed to be the fittest of career and raced lame from an injury.Some trackriders are complete duds.
The better ones have like a clock in their head,
That can tell exactly what work to put,
Into a horse for Saturday.

As i live opposite Flemington i used to get up and go for a run each,
Morning (Not Now To Old)i would often hang around to try and hear,
What was being said you can't do it nowadays.

Along the way i became friends with a particular person who,
Had several horses with a trainer whose surname was the same as the last person hanged in Victoria he is in Qld now, one time as we were walking out to the car park he had recieved,
A glowing report for one of his horses from the trackwork rider.

I had heard what he had said so asked him i guess you,
Will be backing your horse in the Gibson Carmichael on Saturday.

NAA no hope was the reply trackrider mr.x just talks the horses,
Chances up in case it wins so he gets a sling.

The stablemate worked by trackwork rider mr y yesterday,
Was a winning gallop, he is the one we listen to, be on it.

Needless to say he was right i can't remember the odds but,
I had a big collect his horse ran 4th after having every chance.

As soon as i saw him the following week 30% of what i won went,
To him if you don't do that the next time you won't get,
Told or will get told wrong that's how it works.

Cheers.

[Lord Greystoke]

You don't get around on a bike these days do you??

LG

[garyf]

I mentioned in a new thread I started about compiling a ratings system about the Paretto Principal.

Now, I wont bore you because I am sure that everybody knows about it. But briefly this Mr Paretto an Italian mathamatician came up with the theory that 20% of what we do accounts for 80% of our outcomes. Convewrsley it applies also. 80% of what we do only produces 20% of our otcomes or results.

Now, here is my thought. Because so many on here are trying to add one more filter to a system for the Holy Grail what if we did the opposite?

Let's get back to the basics and not overcomplicate things.

If Mr paretto was a race horse punter I wonder what he would consider important in his 20% and what he would put in his 80%.

I could go on but will see if anybody else wants to follow along and add to this little idea. As always these things are not to be taken to seriously but often when discussing things like this little gems or ideas might show up.

StarI seemed to have strayed from the original post.

Either contribute to the original post "GAZZA" or zip the lip.

The latter methinks.

Cheers.

[garyf]

You don't get around on a bike these days do you??

LGSCOOTER EASIER TO DISMOUNT (L.O.L)
Last post from me unless relevant.

Cheers.

[beton]

GaryF
exactly.
This is the info that not many can access. Its why some syndicates have their track spies out and about bright and early. It is also what separates the smart money from the mug money. Those that are in the know and those who think they are on a winner. Form is numbers, getting this present data is about the animal. Racing is animal, betting is numbers, winning at punting is about (1) getting the numbers right and if you want to win more (2) getting both the numbers and the animal right. Beton

[Star]

I seemed to have strayed from the original post.

Either contribute to the original post "GAZZA" or zip the lip.

The latter methinks.

Cheers.Gary,

I think everything what you and others have said are all part of the 100%. Unless we know all or most of the key ingredients in my opinion it is impossible to break it all down to 20/80.

Thanks and keep on " unzipping the lip " this thread is really enjoyable and I for one am getting a lot out of it.

Star

[beton]

Gary,

I think everything what you and others have said are all part of the 100%. Unless we know all or most of the key ingredients in my opinion it is impossible to break it all down to 20/80.

Thanks and keep on " unzipping the lip " this thread is really enjoyable and I for one am getting a lot out of it.

Star
Star. What you have missed is that the Privateer's method of selection, his Pareto Rules, were stat based. Pure numbers based on past performance. He worked out where 80% of the income came from the 20% of data. The adding of recent knowledge, or the present, is a totally different equation. If you are going to apply the Pareto principle to the total sum OLD + NEW then you have to apply it to each then add them together. Beton

[Star]

Star. What you have missed is that the Privateer's method of selection, his Pareto Rules, were stat based. Pure numbers based on past performance. He worked out where 80% of the income came from the 20% of data. The adding of recent knowledge, or the present, is a totally different equation. If you are going to apply the Pareto principle to the total sum OLD + NEW then you have to apply it to each then add them together. BetonThanks Beton.

What I have missed is Privateers Paretto thread. Counting backwards I am now down to page 199 and have only seen references to it. But all going into memory bank.

But I have found some great reading on the way through, thanks for the heads up. It is appreciated.

Possibly Privateers 20% will not fit in with my plays because of personal preferences and personalities, Bank, time and perceived and actual outcomes.

Were all different, which makes forums like this great because they help to widen ones outlook .

Star

[wise one]

Hi Star
One of Privateer's rules is never ever bet on a rain affected track. Also he only ever bet Saturday Metro races.

I think people should go back and read his posts as there is a lot of very helpful information in them. From the stats he worked out a very good selection method that picked winners so long as you considered to win money from the race you didn't have to be first past the post.

I know this because back in 2008 he sent me his selections each Saturday morning for about 10 weeks and never had a losing day. You have to stick to the betting rules (never on rain effected tracks, never bet on the favourite and bet a 1 to 3 win place ratio)

And if you are still out there Privateer I hope you are still sticking it to them

[beton]

O Wise One. Thanks I missed that one. "Never bet on the favorite" although at >$4 it would be hard to do.

Star. When you research do the following. Copy and paste to another page and paste into order i.e. put all the references to weight together and all references to price together etc. The original post has been deleted hence the rules are alluded to. They are all there but some posts are a little sneaky because of the response he got and the realization that he had given too much away. Beton

[Barny]

I've put Privateers info (got heaps of it) into my database and have come out with a loss !! However, one of his 20% was to keep an eye on trackwork, and he said some of his better winners were first up, so there's got to be some"judgement" in there somewhere. Surely trackwork cannot be stat based ??

[Barny]

Quote Privateer "But should mention that my extensive trackworkand trial logs wouldn't fall under the heading of "basichandicapping" and they are the key to this little method."

[Barny]

Quote Privateer "FWIW, I do not factor the pace of a race into any methodthat I apply to punting. I find that it is too unpredictable and steers themind away from the issues that ARE predictable and recurring."

[Barny]

Quote Privateer "Lastly, I do not consider all races at all metrovenues. I rarely bet in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Adelaide</st1:place></st1:city>for example. I find better quality fields produce the best result for me. Thereare certain races that I never consider and certain track conditions that Iavoid at all costs. Hope this helps."

[Star]

Thanks for the little pieces of information.

Basically all I was looking for when I started this thread was to simplify the imputs to the most critical and not add heaps of stuff that interferes with other qualifiers and you finish up " with a dogs breakfast " so to speak.

When Privateer's Paretto thread was mentioned it real opened up here for some lively imput.



Star

ps

I have been playing around with some info from Privateer and others who replied to his thread.

However, he says no wet tracks, I have taken that as heavy, so a lot of soft tracks tomorrow.

I have five paper selections for Saturday. No Adelaide or Perth. I think the second quickest way to kill a system is to place the selections on here in advance.

Then if that doesnt work put your money on and show the selections again. If a system can overcome those qualifiers you might be onto something.

Flemington R2 No 5

Eagle Farm R2 No 11

Eagle Farm R6 No 9

Rosehill R4 No 2

Rosehill R5 No 9

All $1 win --- $3 Place

Lettheforumcursebegin

[Barny]

Lettheforumcursebegin
..... and it will ..... lol

[beton]

To my intepretation of Privateer's rules.
Mel R2 #6
Mel R3 #4
Mel R6 #6
Mel R7 #2
Mel R8 #3
All Mel races no bet Slow track
SR7 #6 heavy no bet
BR5 #3 Dead track OK.

One bet for the day.

[Star]

Thanks for the little pieces of information.

Basically all I was looking for when I started this thread was to simplify the imputs to the most critical and not add heaps of stuff that interferes with other qualifiers and you finish up " with a dogs breakfast " so to speak.

When Privateer's Paretto thread was mentioned it real opened up here for some lively imput.



Star

ps

I have been playing around with some info from Privateer and others who replied to his thread.

However, he says no wet tracks, I have taken that as heavy, so a lot of soft tracks tomorrow.

I have five paper selections for Saturday. No Adelaide or Perth. I think the second quickest way to kill a system is to place the selections on here in advance.

Then if that doesnt work put your money on and show the selections again. If a system can overcome those qualifiers you might be onto something.

Flemington R2 No 5

Eagle Farm R2 No 11

Eagle Farm R6 No 9

Rosehill R4 No 2

Rosehill R5 No 9

All $1 win --- $3 Place

Lettheforumcursebegin
---------------

Because of heavy Track in Sydney no bets there. So only 3 for today.

Melb & Bris.

Melb problamatical on his rules also because of Slow 7.

So realistically only

BRISBANE : RACE 6 HORSE 9 HANDSOME DANE

But it is a dead track in brisbane but I will go with it because I am not sure what the intention was with no wet tracks.

I suspect even Privateer could not select that. But only 208 pages of forum to go to get the rest of the info. that remains from that original post.

[beton]

What about Saddle cloth only #1 to 7? Only slow and heavy tracks out (wet)

[Star]

What about Saddle cloth only #1 to 7? Only slow and heavy tracks out (wet)
Beton.

I can only go on from the end to page 209. You old timing fellows ( from a Cheech and Chong movie ) know more about the original thread.

Mine is mor like the old Army saying before modern communications. Quote. " Send up reinforcements where going to advance " Pass it on down the line.

By the time it went down the line to Co headquarters the message received was " Send up three and fourpence where going to a dance. "

But, as ass has it, forgetting about 1 to 7 and wet tracks. So far so good. Summary to follow after the races.

Remember this is all in fun, no sheep station here. You guys know more then me.

[beton]

NO and yes, yes, yes BR5#3 for a place 1 from 1.

[darkydog2002]

I,m not pulling anyones leg here and frankly I,ve never heard of this but it was given to me by a Farrier so I,ll let loose and cop the ridicule if any.
He was talking about mud runners.
He always bets a mud runner with large hoofs..
Now I,ve heard of thinking outside the square a number of times.
The problem with us poor sods is that we,re not Farriers.

[beton]

To my intepretation of Privateer's rules.
Mel R2 #6 1st
Mel R3 #4 4th
Mel R6 #6 3rd
Mel R7 #2 Unpl
Mel R8 #3 2nd
All Mel races no bet Slow track
SR7 #6 heavy no bet Unpl
BR5 #3 Dead track OK. 3rd

One bet for the day. $3.30 for the place
I like. Should be a steady winner. It is definately a place picking system. The hardest thing would be following the rules. Cannery Row was borderline and got in because I was looking for bets rather than what the rules are about- eliminate the situations that do not produce the bulk of the returns.

[Barny]

I,m not pulling anyones leg here and frankly I,ve never heard of this but it was given to me by a Farrier so I,ll let loose and cop the ridicule if any.
He was talking about mud runners.
He always bets a mud runner with large hoofs..
Now I,ve heard of thinking outside the square a number of times.
The problem with us poor sods is that we,re not Farriers.PARDON THE PUN ..... Funniest accidental thing I've seen for ages !!!!!!!!!

[beton]

DD One of golf buddies owned a runner years back. They used to train it walking up hills and racing down. Everybody said the trainer was mad. But it lengthened the stride and made it a winner. Bombora backed up again today. Straight from the trainer. Beton

[darkydog2002]

Hi Beton.
I also knew a trainer that did that too.Increased the stamina and fitness to a peak.The horse always gave a good show in any race it was entered in..

Cheers.

[Researcher]

Beton and Star
Good results for both of you. I don't know what rules you used. I have been searching for Privateer's Pareto Principle but can't find it. I did come across a post where I said that I had been following his information and had been making a profit. I don't know why I stopped. Here is some of his information that he shared based upon his stats analysis. ( I found this on a piece of paper that I have kept for at least 10 years)
1. 88% of winners have a place SR of > or = 40%.
2. 69% have a place SR of > or= 50%.
3. 72% are at 10/1 or less.
4. 72% are in the top 5 average prize money.
5. 58% 1 or 2 last start.
6. 83% 1-5 last start.
7. 75% not more than 2kg rise from last start.
8. TAB nos 1 - 6.
9. Winners in the top 5 Prepost
10. 92% of winners ????? He would not devulge this. ( It could have been LS within 21 days. Someone else might know?)
At around the same time as this info was given out Topper, Mr Magic, and Gunner were doing something very similar.

[beton]

Researcher.
You have the missing link. The post the Privateer posted and then edited when the naysayers gave their 0.00001% worth of nothing. He has spelt out all the rules but they are in about 50 different posts. Beton

[beton]

Quote "10. 92% of winners ????? He would not devulge this. ( It could have been LS within 21 days. Someone else might know?)" Unquote
This could well be true, however he is contradictory in that if the LS was in the top 2 he would still back it this time even if it was first up from a spell. It seems the only logical stat. It is also one stat that is not spelt out and he does not bag. I would say his terminology would be recently raced (2.5 weeks) Maybe someone can have a quick check on winners in <21 days. Beton

[UselessBettor]

Quickly from testyoursystem.000space.com

With no rules:
There were 10400 races for the System
There were 10418 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 10.4%

With 1 to 21 days

There were 10274 races for the System
There were 6892 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 10.78%

So its probably not that stat as it only makes it 66%.

[UselessBettor]

92% ... Could be anything. It could be a prepost rank, ratings rank, etc.

Top 10 TAB number (ie saddle cloth 1 to 10) wins 93% of the time. Mind you it probably makes up 93% of all runners.

[Researcher]

I did have Poll? also written against the 92%. This was probably my own guess as he did only bet on Saturdays.

[beton]

Quote "Top 10 TAB number (ie saddle cloth 1 to 10) wins 93% of the time. Mind you it probably makes up 93% of all runners." Unquote
Not this one. He had TAB #s 1-6 and later increased to #s1-7. Poll? Got me there.

[garyf]

Quote "Top 10 TAB number (ie saddle cloth 1 to 10) wins 93% of the time. Mind you it probably makes up 93% of all runners." Unquote
Not this one. He had TAB #s 1-6 and later increased to #s1-7. Poll? Got me there.Maybe a tipsters poll from a paper,
If only betting on a Saturday that,
Would be freely available on that day.

Also it's not mentioned in post=91,
Of Researchers listed stats.

The problem here
is how far do you go,
Down the list to acquire 93%

Top 6-7 etc.

Cheers.

[beton]

One post mentions running this distance before, another mentions having carried this weight before. Both do not logically say 92%. He makes no mention of gender anywhere that I have seen. Entered in the race, started and ridden by a jockey are all 100%. There I have bared my intellect.

[Lord Greystoke]

Hows about...

10. 92% of winners open shorter than their pre-post quote?

LG

[beton]

LG
Could well be. But he bets 1 x 3 EW =>$4. Which could be a clue. He did not back favs as no value under $4. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

Evening Beton,

I made the suggestion because someone here recently said he remembered a poster had done some research a while back which indicated that at least 85% of winners had opened shorter than pre-post.

But he couldn't remember who.

As a consequence of garyf's pre-post thread, I have been following opening prices in selected races for all runners(not just top A.A.P.), and have noted that there are often many runners which open shorter than pre-post i.e. not just the Fav, 2nd Fav, 3rd etc.

This might also help to explain why such a high multiple of all winners open shorter, just as with Top 6-8-10 Tab No.'s etc?


LG

[wise one]

I found this from privateer in response to Gary f comments

Maybe a tipsters poll from a paper,
If only betting on a Saturday that,
Would be freely available on that day

This was privateers response to that same question

Briefly...my advice is to totally forget racing "tipsters". Generally speaking, they all tip favourites and are in competition amongst themselves. Take Bart Sinclair in Brisbane. His 3 "best bets" are mostly the 3 shortest priced faves on the program! How hard is that?

Try this, use any paper and follow the tipsters for 1 month. At the same time YOU select your tips as well. Total them up at the end of the month and I'll bet you are not last! They do not have any more of an idea than the average punter, if they did, they wouldn't be giving away their tips free in a newspaper!

[Star]

This Paretto thread is getting interesting. Looks like our Mr Privateer spoke in riddles.

I have no more clues, so will take a back seat. I guess it is now up to you old timers now. Thanks Researcher for adding to the thread, maybe others can think of other things as well.

Star.

[garyf]

I found this from privateer in response to Gary f comments

Maybe a tipsters poll from a paper,
If only betting on a Saturday that,
Would be freely available on that day

This was privateers response to that same question

Briefly...my advice is to totally forget racing "tipsters". Generally speaking, they all tip favourites and are in competition amongst themselves. Take Bart Sinclair in Brisbane. His 3 "best bets" are mostly the 3 shortest priced faves on the program! How hard is that?

Try this, use any paper and follow the tipsters for 1 month. At the same time YOU select your tips as well. Total them up at the end of the month and I'll bet you are not last! They do not have any more of an idea than the average punter, if they did, they wouldn't be giving away their tips free in a newspaper!That gets rid of that one then, i thought when Researcher said poll,
Maybe that was it, that's one we can get rid of,
Although i must admit i haven't read any of his threads as yet.

Was just a guess, good luck to those trying to find what it was.

Cheers.

[Barny]

Hows about...

10. 92% of winners open shorter than their pre-post quote?

LGThat's what I'd go for. I've got plenty of info on Privateers thread but haven't seen the 92% mentioned. He said he did all his research with paper and pen in a library, and opening shorter than pre-post, given pre-post was his NUMBER 1, would be logical.

Mind you, if you run it throguh a database it comes up as a loss, but it's pretty hard to do as I believe he was very selective in what races he bet on.

He also used trackwork extensively !?

[Barny]

Quote Privateer "If deadly serious and you consider fitness to bea prime factor you then need to track a horse from the beginning of a campaignvia trackwork and barrier trials. Of course you are limited somewhat by theamount of information available but there is still plenty to occupy yourselfwith.

There are a few little clues (which I do not intend to share) that can bepicked up by analysing trackwork times and barrier trial results."

[Barny]

Maybe the 92% doesn't relate to opening shorter than pre-post.

Quote Privateer "The prices are PRE POST Friday newspaper prices- come raceday after blowing out, I've had plenty of $20, $30 and the oddlonger winner plus placegetters paying $5, $6 $7+..."

Quote Privateer "I'll also say now that I don't worry about dayssince last run. Some of my better priced divvies have been from 1st uppers."

[beton]

For mine 92% of winners are shorter than thier pre-post price. This is a place picking system, any winners are bonuses. He is not backing favorites at >$4 nor is he looking at the second fav in a two horse race. He is backing proven place getters that are proven fit, at better odds.

[Researcher]

So, trackwork seems to be the key?

[Vortech]

Isn't a majority of the starting horses shorter than pre-market price due to the market percentage being less at jump?

[Star]

Isn't a majority of the starting horses shorter than pre-market price due to the market percentage being less at jump?
I do not know the statistics but my first thoughts and from what I see is that most horses are shorter then Fridays paoer prices.

So I do not think that is the missing liunk.

[beton]

From what I can see, the privateer did not post a set of rules. He posted a set of stats that formed the basis of his system. The theory behind his system was to get rid of the 80% of the rules that only gave 20% of the return and keep the 20% from where 80% of the money came from. He saw no value in the fav. One of his sayings was that the horse did not have to come first to win. Hence he found more value in place betting and he stressed many times 1 x 3 EW betting. The only two points that I can think of are 92% of winners come from shortening horses, or 92% of winners are under their true odds. The latter saying that if you backed any of the winners long term you would end up in the poorhouse. Hence the point of the stat was to say look for value other than the winner. And everybody looks at the winner even for a place. He is looking for a placegetter that could also win. He saw value in a proven placegetter with proven peak fitness in quality races with quality fields. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

From what I can see, the privateer did not post a set of rules. He posted a set of stats that formed the basis of his system. The theory behind his system was to get rid of the 80% of the rules that only gave 20% of the return and keep the 20% from where 80% of the money came from.

... He is looking for a placegetter that could also win. He saw value in a proven placegetter with proven peak fitness in quality races with quality fields. Beton

Looks like a very succinct summary of privateer's principles.

Thanks Beton.

Cheers LG

[Star]

From what I can see, the privateer did not post a set of rules. He posted a set of stats that formed the basis of his system. The theory behind his system was to get rid of the 80% of the rules that only gave 20% of the return and keep the 20% from where 80% of the money came from. He saw no value in the fav. One of his sayings was that the horse did not have to come first to win. Hence he found more value in place betting and he stressed many times 1 x 3 EW betting. The only two points that I can think of are 92% of winners come from shortening horses, or 92% of winners are under their true odds. The latter saying that if you backed any of the winners long term you would end up in the poorhouse. Hence the point of the stat was to say look for value other than the winner. And everybody looks at the winner even for a place. He is looking for a placegetter that could also win. He saw value in a proven placegetter with proven peak fitness in quality races with quality fields. Beton\

I think Beton has used the Paretto Principal well in his summing up of our research. He has cut back to the chase and summed up our research so far.

Anything else we can add will be a bonus.

The key might be in Beton's last sentence.

Star

[Barny]

I think most of his posts on Pareto Principle are gone from the forum, too old I guess.

He had 9 criteria, and yes he was right into place betting. He said he punted $600 x $1800 and had a 24% POT over time.

[Star]

I think most of his posts on Pareto Principle are gone from the forum, too old I guess.

He had 9 criteria, and yes he was right into place betting. He said he punted $600 x $1800 and had a 24% POT over time.
I edited my previous post just as you posted this. If I had seen this before I did my post I still would have hit the send button.

Unless someone comes up with another hypothesis it looks like Privateer was a place better looking for an edge rather then a win better looking for a saver.

Interesting different approach.

[moeee]

I do not know the statistics but my first thoughts and from what I see is that most horses are shorter then Fridays paper prices.

So I do not think that is the missing link.
That argument plainly doesn't make sense at all.
I'm with Vortech.

[moeee]

I think most of his posts on Pareto Principle are gone from the forum
He said he punted $600 x $1800 and had a 24% POT over time.
Probably bought himself an island paradise and is there now drinking coconut shell martinis being entertained by grass skirt clad hula girls.

[Star]

That argument plainly doesn't make sense at all.
I'm with Vortech.
Moeee

I thought I was agreeing with Vortech too ?

[moeee]

Moeee

I thought I was agreeing with Vortech too ?
I see
Well thats all good then
I guess this thread is getting too long and tiring for me and I missed the link.
Cheers.

[Star]

I see
Well thats all good then
I guess this thread is getting too long and tiring for me and I missed the link.
Cheers.
No probs.

Star

[wise one]

I tried emailing Privateer, as this thread he would have throughly enjoyed ( people looking at and using the stats )but it got bounced back.

The post of his I liked the best is “ you asked me about multi type bets, one I omitted to mention that I occasionally have a lash at is an all up for a place. I upset a Sydney bookie at Xmas by taking $31 k from him with a relatively small outlay. Not a happy man at all. I suppose I shouldn't have said "thanks Santa" when I collected.”

So Privateer my old friend, I hope you are still sticking to the bookies

[Star]

I still think this Paretto has got legs. Now, its evolved a bit from my first post after mr Privateer's old threads became the focus.

I have noted all the inputs from forum members trying to remember his old threads and have come to this opinion at this time.

Correct me if I am wrong but for future research I am going to make a few assumption and trat each as a starting point. For now, I would like to base his plan around what I suppose I can call assumption no1. This may give us a starting point and allow a more methodical approach instead of being all over the place.

Others on here may have a different idea of where to start, feel free to change or alter but bear in mind that I guess their are a few assumptions to go after No 1 and they mcould be followed up to.

Now these assumptions are not in any order, and maybe one is no more important then the other but we have to start somewhere so the beginning is a very good place to start.

ASSUMPTION NO 1

I summed up Privateer's thread based on the information supplied by those who were around at that time. If I have not understood it correctly pleas chime in.

Others had said that Privateer was heavy into place betting and it may be possible his staking of 1 win x 3 place was because his Paretto plan was based on Place betting with an edge ( the $1 ) win part rather then a win system with a ( $3 ) place saver.

This is my Assumption No 1. It is said that he had a bet of $600 win $1800 place on at least one bet. Also it is stated that he had a P.O.T of 25%

I think the above paragraph might have a key part to play in our research plus their is that little thing about what the missing mystery 92% factor was all about. Our Privateer did talk in riddles. For our little exercise we may have to assume a few things as truth ? That the P.O.T. was actually 25% then we can querry it to see if their is any justification and if Mr Privateer actually threw in a few red herrings just to complicate the natter.

I have difficulty with a 25% P.O.T on a 1 x3 staking especially on the price of horse being aimed at. The killer for me is the win bet side, enough non winners and you are going to struggle plus a few runs of out on the place side leaves a big hole.

To consistently have a 25% P.O.T taking into account these losses is mighty effort that I struggle with.
The figures men on here are much better than me but on a 1x3 to break even on a placgetter but non winner you need a dividend of at least $1.33.

A few unplaced runs and it is going uphill to recover. I was thinking that it might be worth investigating a different staking approach that is in line with what Privateers theory is but mor in line with what mr Paretto migh investigate.

If we are still assuming that this is a Place System with a slight win edge maybe using the Paretto principal might be looked at. So, instead of 1 x 3 let's do what paretto might consider. Privateer staked a total of $4 if we used 20% for the win and 80% for the place then the bet would be $1 win $4 place.

This 1 x4 still gives us a win edge built in but the emhasis changes a bit to favor the place. It appears to me that if we are going to use the Paretto Principal it should be considered acrooss the board rather the selective cherry picks, at least for a Paretto thread, otherwise it becomes a Privateer thread which is great.

Maybe we have come to the fork in the road.

Star

[Star]

I tried emailing Privateer, as this thread he would have throughly enjoyed ( people looking at and using the stats )but it got bounced back.

The post of his I liked the best is “ you asked me about multi type bets, one I omitted to mention that I occasionally have a lash at is an all up for a place. I upset a Sydney bookie at Xmas by taking $31 k from him with a relatively small outlay. Not a happy man at all. I suppose I shouldn't have said "thanks Santa" when I collected.”

So Privateer my old friend, I hope you are still sticking to the bookies
Thanks for that.

The ancedotal evidence here implies that Mr Privateer was a serious player and as such should not be dismissed lightly. Now, using Mr Paretto again, perhaps only 20 % of what we have researced here is actually relevant the other 80% put in to confuse and confound.

Star

[beton]

Thanks for that.

The ancedotal evidence here implies that Mr Privateer was a serious player and as such should not be dismissed lightly. Now, using Mr Paretto again, perhaps only 20 % of what we have researced here is actually relevant the other 80% put in to confuse and confound.

Star
I disagree here. I feel that he has given all his selection criteria in his posts. These are the 20% that matter. He had 9 points to consider and then added class. I have garnered 13 however one may be a slight variation to a previous point and the two are from him agreeing that another poster was on the money with his rules. I don't think that he was confusing. I think that he wanted to share BUT HE WAS NOT JUST GOING TO POST HIS RULES IN ONE POST ON THIS FORUM. The rules are there and are at least 95% correct and and confirmed. They may be 100% correct. Go back through his posts and make a list 1-10 confirmed and a maybe list. Add each point to the maybe list and move it to the confirmed list once you can confirm it. This should remove any confusion. Beton

[Try Try Again]

I was trawling back through previous postings and I found this back in 2002

96% of winners >$4.00 by pre-race dividends. Does this mean Newspaper pre-post markets?

Is the missing link?

[Star]

I disagree here. I feel that he has given all his selection criteria in his posts. These are the 20% that matter. He had 9 points to consider and then added class. I have garnered 13 however one may be a slight variation to a previous point and the two are from him agreeing that another poster was on the money with his rules. I don't think that he was confusing. I think that he wanted to share BUT HE WAS NOT JUST GOING TO POST HIS RULES IN ONE POST ON THIS FORUM. The rules are there and are at least 95% correct and and confirmed. They may be 100% correct. Go back through his posts and make a list 1-10 confirmed and a maybe list. Add each point to the maybe list and move it to the confirmed list once you can confirm it. This should remove any confusion. Beton
Thanks Beton.

Maybe I should explain. I see you joined here in 1970. Is that correct ? If so, the fact that you still have a clear idea of what Privateer was on about implies that he was somebody to listen too. I have only picked up snippets of info from forum posts and from what I can see the old posts only go back to 2002.

Maybe I was confused because your quote above does clarify a lot and I thank you for keeping me on the path. Obviously he was very good at what he does and was a serious player.

Thanks.

Star

ps

I will do what you say.

[beton]

I was trawling back through previous postings and I found this back in 2002

96% of winners >$4.00 by pre-race dividends. Does this mean Newspaper pre-post markets?

Is the missing link?
TTA Good work.
Could very well be on both accounts. This is in line with what has been stated before. The link has to be with prices. Beton

[beton]

TTA Good work.
Could very well be on both accounts. This is in line with what has been stated before. The link has to be with prices. Beton
Just had a quick look 87% of winners were =<$4 on tote. That is a lot of shortening.

[The Ocho]

[/b]
Thanks Beton.

Maybe I should explain. I see you joined here in 1970. Is that correct ?

Thanks.

Star


I don't think the internet was invented back then. :D

Maybe just a glitch in the way long term members have been recorded.

[garyf]

Thank god for clearing that up T.O.
If that joining date was correct that,
MEANS HE HAS BEEN POSTING FOR 42 YEARS.

So if he joined at 18 when legally you can bet, he would now be 60,
Leave me out of that.

Cheers.

[beton]

I see you joined here in 1970. Is that correct ? NO 2004
Maybe just a glitch in the way long term members have been recorded. CORRECT.
Star
There are people that you notice, There are people which you take with a dose of salt picking out the occasional gems, and there are people who have nothing to offer but offer it anyway. Who you listen too and what you collect is in accordance to your frame of mind at time.

I will be honest. Where the privateer was and I was in 2004 were two worlds apart and what he offered was of no interest to me then. However he was a person that you noticed. Now that he has been brought to our attention again, what he offered does suit me today. The forum has been benefical and even if you are matured you can still grow up. Hence I went back through his posts and did exactly what I advised you to do. And I have started to implement the rules.

This is all I can do. I will not post the rules because the privateer requested several times not to list them. Out of respect for the information given in faith I will not post them. BUT THEY ARE ALL THERE. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

TTA Good work.
Could very well be on both accounts. This is in line with what has been stated before. The link has to be with prices. Beton

Would also make sense for Privateer to consider price as one of the latter factors, if not last?

LG

[beton]

Thank god for clearing that up T.O.
If that joining date was correct that,
MEANS HE HAS BEEN POSTING FOR 42 YEARS.

So if he joined at 18 when legally you can bet, he would now be 60,
Leave me out of that.

Cheers.
GaryF
there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being past 60. I beleive that middle age is the best time of your life and middle age starts at 50. I hope that you pass 60 and leisurely go past 100. I only hope that you don't go roaring past 60 and come to an abrupt halt. Beton

[garyf]

GaryF
there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being past 60. I beleive that middle age is the best time of your life and middle age starts at 50. I hope that you pass 60 and leisurely go past 100. I only hope that you don't go roaring past 60 and come to an abrupt halt. BetonAlmost there Beton only 4 years to go
Hope it doesn't stop at 60 as well.
Especially the winning part.

Cheers.

[beton]

Would also make sense for Privateer to consider price as one of the latter factors, if not last?

LG
Get the race (class, # runners, venue, distance) , get the horse that meets the selection criteria (LS,2LS, Place%, average winnings, Wt, TAB#)then make sure that it meets the minimum and maximum Pre-post prices in Friday paper. Not the fav and >$4 SP & 1x3 EW. It has to be the last factor.

[Lord Greystoke]

Only 60-4 = ..
Oh really?

Consider the scooter order cancelled then mate.

Pennance for claiming being elderly too early is,
A couple of circuits of the straight 6 across road then,
Hit the turf an give me 20 !

LG

PS Failing that, a few quiet uns in the Quiet M ?

[Barny]

Regarding prices - He used Friday Pre-Post as either his No. 1 rule or No. 2 rule (the other rule vying for top spot was fitness).

He took no notice of SP.

[beton]

Regarding prices - He used Friday Pre-Post as either his No. 1 rule or No. 2 rule (the other rule vying for top spot was fitness).

He took no notice of SP.
Barny
He did not bet <$4 which is the SP. This is not a selection criteria, it just means that if the price was less than $4 then no bet. You have to have the race first and the horse second before you can check the price. Beton

[Barny]

When I said "he took no notice of SP" I meant to say that he punted double figure odds horses.

[garyf]

Only 60-4 = ..
Oh really?

Consider the scooter order cancelled then mate.

Pennance for claiming being elderly too early is,
A couple of circuits of the straight 6 across road then,
Hit the turf an give me 20 !

LG

PS Failing that, a few quiet uns in the Quiet M ?Thanks for that L.G.
Will take the latter if that's ok(a few quietes)

The former is a distant memory unfortunately (L.O.L..)
Scooter is good though.

Cheers.

[Star]

I see you joined here in 1970. Is that correct ? NO 2004
Maybe just a glitch in the way long term members have been recorded. CORRECT.
Star
There are people that you notice, There are people which you take with a dose of salt picking out the occasional gems, and there are people who have nothing to offer but offer it anyway. Who you listen too and what you collect is in accordance to your frame of mind at time.

I will be honest. Where the privateer was and I was in 2004 were two worlds apart and what he offered was of no interest to me then. However he was a person that you noticed. Now that he has been brought to our attention again, what he offered does suit me today. The forum has been benefical and even if you are matured you can still grow up. Hence I went back through his posts and did exactly what I advised you to do. And I have started to implement the rules.

This is all I can do. I will not post the rules because the privateer requested several times not to list them. Out of respect for the information given in faith I will not post them. BUT THEY ARE ALL THERE. Beton

Thank you and I understand . I have got my two columns drawn up

Star

[Barny]

I'm certain I've got all the rules too, but I cannot make it work to a profit.

[beton]

I'm certain I've got all the rules too, but I cannot make it work to a profit.
I am prepared to put my money on it. 1 from 1 on Sat. The 6 selections that were no bet because of the wet had 1 win and 2 places for a good return.

[moeee]

I'm certain I've got all the rules too, but I cannot make it work to a profit.
What a Surprise!!!!

[darkydog2002]

You will only be too pleased to discover the 90/10 plan i,ve written on my System thread with full results over thousands of races.

Will this be known as the Super Improved Pareto Plan ?

Cheers and enjoy.
darky

[beton]

You will only be too pleased to discover the 90/10 plan i,ve written on my System thread with full results over thousands of races.

Will this be known as the Super Improved Pareto Plan ?

Cheers and enjoy.
darky
It obviously lost in your systems thread so you'll have to refresh with the thousands of results. Beton

[darkydog2002]

Last post.
Ocho was kind enough to post them.
Cheers.

ps .Having its usual massive days of profit today.

[Barny]

What a Surprise!!!!
Boo

[Barny]

Did you know Privateer ran a "stable" of 30 horses.

[beton]

Did you know Privateer ran a "stable" of 30 horses.
Can you please elaborate?

[Barny]

Yes, At one point in his punting life he had a "stable" of 30 horses that he regularly backed. I guess with his Pareto Stuff he gave thataway.

BUT, worthy of mentioning is that he sometimes ventured away from Pareto method.

All was not hard and fast with Privateer, his methods evolved over time, which is what any decent punter should do.

[Barny]

Quote Privateer "Obviously some firmers are as a result ofprofessionally based moves but I think that the majority are as a result of mugpunters associating any betting fluctuation with a horses ability to performwell in a race."

[Barny]

Yes, At one point in his punting life he had a "stable" of 30 horses that he regularly backed. I guess with his Pareto Stuff he gave thataway.


I haven't as yet found proof that he had a stable, but I know he did. Once I've found the post, I'll post it on here. I don't want to be misleading to anyone.

[Barny]

I found it in my notes on Privateer's Pareto ..... NOT a copy of one of Privateers posts so it cannot be confirmed.

[Barny]

I've read and re-read my notes on Privateer's Pareto, and I know think I've misled myself (and as a consequence you lot coz' I've got a lot of his posts). The mention about "But should mention that myextensive trackwork and trial logs wouldn't fall under the heading of"basic handicapping" and they arethe key to this little method.",

I'm pretty sure it refers to selections he makes outside Pareto.

[beton]

Barny
You have obviously copied most of his posts. Whereas I only copied what was relevant either for or against. I am certain what you have said in your last post was pertaining to something else another system.

[Barny]

Barny
You have obviously copied most of his posts. Whereas I only copied what was relevant either for or against. I am certain what you have said in your last post was pertaining to something else another system.here's the full post ..... "

Now, before anybody jumps down my throat and asks me to provide detailed explanation as to how I arrived at these selections (particularly those Brisbane in I'll tell you.

These selections (with the exception of BR 4 - 18 which was an actual tip I received last night) are based upon a method of assessing track work, barrier trials, form history patterns, class and to a lesser extent weights, in order to determine (a) the fitness of a runner and (b) the class of a runner. Those listed above were the standouts from that analysis. It is not a proven method and not one that I'd seriously consider on a day to day basis at this time. It does tend to throw up good payers though (last week It found Song of Hope at 33/1) although I haven't really looked at it outside of <st1:place </st1<img>(until now).

As with anything else I post, a 1 x 3 ratio bet is always recommended.



No need to explain to YOU maybe.








But should mention that myextensive trackwork and trial logs wouldn't fall under the heading of"basic


handicapping" and they arethe key to this little method.

[Barny]

Privateer's top 2 were Fitness and Pre-post, so even if you did a two filter selection 1) Must have had more than 3 runs this time in (Fitness) and 2 )must be between 4.00 and 11.00 pre-post ..... there's a decent start !!!

Send cash only ..... no cheques !!!!!!!!!

[Vortech]

You would classify a fit horse under its days last start.
Generally horses that have had there last start less than 28 days win around 76% of the races.

A couple of our trainers have said horses lose there fitness after 18 to 22 days of intense training.

Whereas horses generally after 3 runs only win 51% of races.

The difference lies with the distance. Stayers require the 3-4 runs in a prep where sprinters can go fresh or 2nd up.

Other factors include the coat, sweating at barriers or in the yard or even the head position when walking around before the jump.

[Barny]

Other factors include the coat, sweating at barriers or in the yard or even the head position when walking around before the jump.
If the sweat is clear it doesn't matter apparently ..... not actually being a horse I cannot categorically confirm this, but I have it from a high authority, approx 16 hands ..... lol

[Vortech]

Some of those colts sweat up over a young filly!
But the first indicators are the best statistically.

[Barny]

As it's really Privateer's thread ..... Quote Privateer "

When you see a horse sweating, don't worry if the sweat isclear.

And, no, I won't be providing night classes in equine anatomy."

[Barny]

Allow me a moment to have a little bit of a gloat. It comes from researching almost every post on here, a lot of which have been archived into history. It also comes from a recent purchase of a database, of which I've been able to put to use to reinforce a couple of my systems as profitable, but moreso to bust quite a few myths of racing. I've ended up with a list of 6, different to Privateers Pareto list, wherby mine, actioned individually on any system I've trialled, has improved the POT. I'll say that again ..... I have a list of 6 filters, each of which applied individually will improve the POT of any system, sometimes dramatically (eg; from a lowly 6% to 91.25% ..... I think I've posted this fact before).

Now the rub is this ..... each of these 6 filters applied together in their entirety show a POT of 21.3% which is ABSOLUTELY REMARKABLE when you think about the fact that these filters aren't really in Sync with each other. Another myth exploded, and actually one of mine.

Forever, I thought a decent system had to have a sound base and then filters that complemented each other filter, in sync, and in sync with the base. Apparenty not.

The Pareto thread shows that decent filters do not have to correlate or be in sync with each other.

I'd like to thank the originator of this thread ..... My 6 filters are oh so different to Privateers and in keeping with my theme, are outside the square, but the proof of the pudding has been the extensive testing, and realisation that there are single filters which will improve any system.

[Vortech]

Can you name two of the six filters.

[moeee]

Can you name two of the six filters.
I'ld like to see him tip a single winner.

[Barny]

Can you name two of the six filters.Of course I can, but I'll do better than that and tell you how I came across them. In the longshot system jacfin, for the first time I'd seen on this forum, exploded one of the biggest racing myths. I didn't take much notice of it at the time but it stuck in my head. It's now the BEST filter I have, the BEST.

Partypooper, in a couple of his systems came up with one of the very best filters, but they went along largely un-noticed - Why - Because it's safer to stick with the crowd, even tho'rowd in this case leads you to a loss of 15% at best. remember 95%+ of punters lose, and some don't just lose the obligatory 15%, they do the lot.

Then there was sarge1.

And there is a SP filter which runs along the lines of Privateers filter.

And another one from Partypooper.

And lastly from the poster who posted, who's name escapes me, who posted the longshot system.

Why the Pareto thread has been so appealing is simply the fact that it reinforces everything punters want to know. The tried and True SAFE method ..... but does it work ? I'll guarantee that Privateer had a few other things up his sleeve.

I've no doubt the way the pre-post is constructed that you could do something creative with that, and that going up in weight blah, blah is a little like swimming agin the tide, but constructive, but does it increase the POT ?

I have 6 filters which individually improve any system I've tested, and make a profit with all of them in the same basket no matter how disjointed it seems they are.

The Pareto philosophy is good, but have we got all the components, Isuspect NOT !!!!

[Barny]

I'ld like to see him tip a single winner.
This is a systems thread moeee, one for those of us who aren't cerebrally challenged.

[moeee]

This is a systems thread moeee, one for those of us who aren't cerebrally challenged.
hahahahaha!!!
Not a single one :)
On any thread in any subForum

[beton]

Of course I can, but I'll do better than that and tell you how I came across them. In the longshot system jacfin, for the first time I'd seen on this forum, exploded one of the biggest racing myths. I didn't take much notice of it at the time but it stuck in my head. It's now the BEST filter I have, the BEST.

Partypooper, in a couple of his systems came up with one of the very best filters, but they went along largely un-noticed - Why - Because it's safer to stick with the crowd, even tho'rowd in this case leads you to a loss of 15% at best. remember 95%+ of punters lose, and some don't just lose the obligatory 15%, they do the lot.

Then there was sarge1.

And there is a SP filter which runs along the lines of Privateers filter.

And another one from Partypooper.

And lastly from the poster who posted, who's name escapes me, who posted the longshot system.

Why the Pareto thread has been so appealing is simply the fact that it reinforces everything punters want to know. The tried and True SAFE method ..... but does it work ? I'll guarantee that Privateer had a few other things up his sleeve.

I've no doubt the way the pre-post is constructed that you could do something creative with that, and that going up in weight blah, blah is a little like swimming agin the tide, but constructive, but does it increase the POT ?

I have 6 filters which individually improve any system I've tested, and make a profit with all of them in the same basket no matter how disjointed it seems they are.

The Pareto philosophy is good, but have we got all the components, Isuspect NOT !!!!
Barny
This just says that you have found 6 filters within the forum. It does not say what they are. It does not even cryptically say what they are. It does not even say where we can find them if we were to do our own research. To be blunt are you going to share or just continue patting yourself on the back? The basis of the forum is to learn and contribute if you have something to give back. I think you have well and truly learnt from the forum and good on you. I apologize if this offends you but this is the way I see and I am trying to be honest and polite at the same time. I am just trying to say "Remember where you learnt what you have learnt". Beton

[Chrome Prince]

Allow me a moment to have a little bit of a gloat. It comes from researching almost every post on here, a lot of which have been archived into history. It also comes from a recent purchase of a database, of which I've been able to put to use to reinforce a couple of my systems as profitable, but moreso to bust quite a few myths of racing. I've ended up with a list of 6, different to Privateers Pareto list, wherby mine, actioned individually on any system I've trialled, has improved the POT. I'll say that again ..... I have a list of 6 filters, each of which applied individually will improve the POT of any system, sometimes dramatically (eg; from a lowly 6% to 91.25% ..... I think I've posted this fact before).

Now the rub is this ..... each of these 6 filters applied together in their entirety show a POT of 21.3% which is ABSOLUTELY REMARKABLE when you think about the fact that these filters aren't really in Sync with each other. Another myth exploded, and actually one of mine.

Forever, I thought a decent system had to have a sound base and then filters that complemented each other filter, in sync, and in sync with the base. Apparenty not.

The Pareto thread shows that decent filters do not have to correlate or be in sync with each other.

I'd like to thank the originator of this thread ..... My 6 filters are oh so different to Privateers and in keeping with my theme, are outside the square, but the proof of the pudding has been the extensive testing, and realisation that there are single filters which will improve any system.

I don't want to turn this into an ad for the database, but suffice to say as Barny has found and many others, there are so many myths that can be busted when you run them across years of racing data.

Finding what filters impact profit rather than just strike rate filters is crucial to having an edge in this game.

[mattio]

So long as the filters have logic to them and are not simply there to boost POT, otherwise I firmly believe they will cause more harm than good in the long term.

[Chrome Prince]

Of course that's a very important consideration mattio.
Consider for example topweights, when using this as a filter often improves the strike rate dramatically, but it is the most overbet proposition of all.
This is taking all of them, not using other principles.

[mattio]

I actually like betting the topweights, its a key filter in a number of my systems providing there is value there as you are right Chrome, they are often overbet by the public but do tend to increase the overall strike rate.

[norisk]

Barny
This just says that you have found 6 filters within the forum. It does not say what they are. It does not even cryptically say what they are. It does not even say where we can find them if we were to do our own research. To be blunt are you going to share or just continue patting yourself on the back? The basis of the forum is to learn and contribute if you have something to give back.

par for the course Benton, lots of words with little substance

[Barny]

So long as the filters have logic to them and are not simply there to boost POT, otherwise I firmly believe they will cause more harm than good in the long term.Exactly as I thought mattio, for as long as I could remember. I've been searching for systems for decades and having a link between the filters seems to be the way to go, and it is too (yup a cointradiction), BUT I have 6 filters (one is price ..... whoopee $4.00 to $30.00 - big deal eh ?) and the others can be used on any system and improve the POT - which you believe will cause more harm than good - fair enough too. I would have argued till I was blue in the face about the same thing, BUT I now believe it's wrong.

I pump in some logical filters and continue to test each of these 6 filters, and it keeps improving the POT, or reducing a LOT.

The one name I couldn't remember last night was punter57, who hosted the longshot system. There's a wealth of information in there including a few standout arguments for and reasoning for going against what nearly all punters have as "non-negotiables".

Go against the "non-negotiables", and all things being equal (ie; they all have four legs), your POT has to improve, coz' no one has their money parked there !!!!

[beton]

Hello Barny
That's one filter and very generic but a start. Plus a direction to search. That's a start as well. Are you going to put up or play hard to get. As I said "the forum is about learning and once you have learnt some CONTRIBUTE".

GIVING - surpasses all the WONDERS OF THE WORLD. Beton

[Barny]

I've spent 1,000's of hours studying this forum and there is NO way I'm listing my filters.

All I'll say is it's logical to go against the non-negotiables to increase the POT. i've been fairly consistent in my contributions in this area, it's just that I've found an 'edge'.

I've given you the idea, you can draw your own conclusions as to whether it's logical, and if your half smart you'll think of these filters, and then probs some, and trial them. It's probably like the longshot systyem, you have to have the mentality to challenge the norm, and be comfortable with that position.

good luck .....

BTW, I did have one filter many months ago that I thought was the bees knees and it turned out OK, but not great. BUT that was before I had a database capable of checking these things.

My thought processes on punting have done a 180 deg turn.

Go against the "non-negotiables" and you'll have a bigger slice of the pool.

[Barny]

hey beton, you posted this after I asked for help on the Pre-Post thread !!

"Barny
The rules are simple and they are all here. GaryF has gone to a lot of time and trouble to post. Please respect that and take the time and trouble to read. There are no easy sheets on this one, but it has been summarized several times. Beton"

What goes around comes around eh ......... at least I've given you and idea that has been spawned from 1,000's of hours research and 100's hours of testing. Probs more than you'd give me eh ??

[moeee]

Seems everyone is a Winner on this Forum , but not a single one member has posted a winning selection :)
EXCEPT ME.
I'm posting Lots of Winners , but I'm still Losing.

This Forum is rapidly turning into FantasyLand if it wasn't already.

[darkydog2002]

Mooee,
You obviously havent been reading the threads.

[Barny]

Seems everyone is a Winner on this Forum , but not a single one member has posted a winning selection :)
EXCEPT ME.
I'm posting Lots of Winners , but I'm still Losing.

This Forum is rapidly turning into FantasyLand if it wasn't already.
As I've suggested to you before moeee, you cannot continue to do the same thing and expect different results. You complain a lot about losing yet you don't seem to be receptive to change.

You seem to know quite a lot about racing but it looks to me that your stuck in the traditional method of selecting winners, which is fine.

But you're swimming with the lemmings and whilst the S/R might be OK the return has to be shared among too many lemmings for you to make a profit.

You need to do more research and less complaining. Hope this helps!

[Vortech]

I'll put money on another being field size. Probably 8 +

[Barny]

I've looked at field size, especially with a system that is based on Win% and it only showed a POT when the field size was less than 12. To me this wasn't logical, and it took a while for the penny to drop! There are multiple selections in the bigger fields, especially during the Spring Carnival.

I have a system to cull multiple selections down to one which include selecting horses from QLD, WA SA or NZ and culling the locals, purely based on the premise the "outsiders will be better than fair value.

I just don't see field size restrictions as a logical filter, although many do, esp bhagwan.

[Lord Greystoke]

Hi Barny,

Have noticed that the Exacta comes into its own,
With fields of 11-12 runners by taking your top pick,
Plus remaining runners in top 6-7 Pre-post.


Cheers LG

[mattio]

Exactly as I thought mattio, for as long as I could remember. I've been searching for systems for decades and having a link between the filters seems to be the way to go, and it is too (yup a cointradiction), BUT I have 6 filters (one is price ..... whoopee $4.00 to $30.00 - big deal eh ?) and the others can be used on any system and improve the POT - which you believe will cause more harm than good - fair enough too. I would have argued till I was blue in the face about the same thing, BUT I now believe it's wrong.

I pump in some logical filters and continue to test each of these 6 filters, and it keeps improving the POT, or reducing a LOT.

The one name I couldn't remember last night was punter57, who hosted the longshot system. There's a wealth of information in there including a few standout arguments for and reasoning for going against what nearly all punters have as "non-negotiables".

Go against the "non-negotiables", and all things being equal (ie; they all have four legs), your POT has to improve, coz' no one has their money parked there !!!!Barny the filters I refer to are things like "47-64 days since 3rd last start" or something like that where there is no logic to it and the only reason it is there is because a database says it made a higher profit. These are the types of filters that will lead to failure.

What do you determine as "non-negotiables"? I'd like to see whare your thought pattern is going with this.

[Vortech]

From reading many of the posts and investing some big hours into different rating strategies I've come up with a few things to consider

1. Determine your base value for a horse - How can one measure the success of a horse in a race without consideration to this. For example last start win has no bearing what so ever unless you can adjust his base to the current race day conditions. This adjustment to the race day needs to include throughts around

Barrier Trials- When reviewing the replays, look at the run in 200m or 400m or 600m sections. Trainers have a tendency to send the runner out to do a specific piece of work and then will ease down, the trial will show it finishes 7th but in fact very happy with the run.

Trackwork - Generally light work in the early parts of hte week and then increasing around Thursday. Look for horses around 12 sec per 200m or better. They are fit.

Develop a good Par Times theory - All tracks are different and variations need to apply through condition and rail changes. Just a simple example. Over a 1400m race at Kembla Grange on a good I have seen a Par value time of 82.12. Bunbury same distance and condition is 84.78
So if horse A runs 82.50 at Kembla vs 84.20 at Bunbury which is better??? Of course things need adjusting

Velocity ratings - Comparing sectionals from the early marks through the 600 / 400 / 200 can give a clue on how quick the pace was and how good the backrunners really were.

Position in Running - Need to calculate which horses have early pace based on the distance today.

Strength of the Race - Different classes different days need to be considered.

Price - The big factor.

Once you have a base rating and then can make the adjustments to the horses rating by these factors



Happy days!

[beton]

hey beton, you posted this after I asked for help on the Pre-Post thread !!

"Barny
The rules are simple and they are all here. GaryF has gone to a lot of time and trouble to post. Please respect that and take the time and trouble to read. There are no easy sheets on this one, but it has been summarized several times. Beton"

What goes around comes around eh ......... at least I've given you and idea that has been spawned from 1,000's of hours research and 100's hours of testing. Probs more than you'd give me eh ??
Barny
Best advice that I could give you or anybody. The basic rules are in the first post. This anyone could read quicker than writing a post to ask what it is about. If you are serious about punting then you must read the entire thread which is a tutorial on how to punt. Nobody could summarize it and do it justice. Read it and then judge my post. GaryF took the time and effort to contribute something that is worth reading in its entirity. AND TO GET FULL VALUE ONE SHOULD READ AND STUDY IT IN IT"S ENTIRITY. To give you a summary would be shortchanging you, GaryF and every other contributor. I offer my thanks to GaryF again because he showed what the forum is about
Learning and giving back. Beton

[moeee]

I'm with Beton.

Barny , you have made all sorts of claims , but all you have provided is hot air.

[Barny]

I'm with Beton.

Barny , you have made all sorts of claims , but all you have provided is hot air.
I haven't made any claims about winning $x amount of dollars moeee. All I've done is mention I have 6 individual filters which improve systems POT or reduce the LOT. In a couple of other posts I've mentioned that the easy part is to find systems with a decent POT, and it is. Ask anyone who has a database. bhagwan apparently runs many different systems. I also mentioned that I now believe there is a fine line between winning and losing as one (or two) filters can make or break you.

And I did post two tips, one ran second at 12/1 the other ran midfield, one was a system horse (the one that ran 2nd) the other a "stable" horse.

All I've posted are my findings moeee. You could buy a database moeee and then find out that it is easy to develop winning systems with a decent POT. But that woiuld require you to do something constructive and different moeee.

[moeee]

I haven't made any claims about winning $x amount of dollars moeee.
But you have Barny.
You have posted that you have a System that is producing over 90% Profit on Turnover.
I would certainly be using it had I a System capable of that.
But I wouldn't tease other members about it.

[Barny]

That's it moeee, you win, no more posts from me .....

[beton]

Barny
You keep on about your 6 filters. And you say you are not going to share them. That's ok. Just don't carry on about them. But every chance you have you say "look at me I've got 6 miracle filters". You have introduced them into the forum, the sporting thing is to at least point people into the right direction. I am certain that you have a lot more to learn from this forum. All I am saying is "it is a twoway street" Beton

[moeee]

Barny
You keep on about your 6 filters. And you say you are not going to share them. That's ok. Just don't carry on about them. But every chance you have you say "look at me I've got 6 miracle filters". Beton
I don't know why Beton , but my feelings were hurt by you on previous occasions.
But you sure as heck hit the nail on the head here.
Perhaps I was the nail in a previous thread and didn't want to accept responsibility.
Cheers.

[beton]

I don't know why Beton , but my feelings were hurt by you on previous occasions.
But you sure as heck hit the nail on the head here.
Perhaps I was the nail in a previous thread and didn't want to accept responsibility.
Cheers.
I try to be polite and diplomatic as I appreciate others opinion. Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't truck rubbish.

[beton]

The pareto rules are based on Saturday and the better Mid week Metro races. I have been looking at how and whether it could be put into 7 day mode. To do so the rules need relaxing. Thus I have been looking at the almost complying. Sunday there was one almost qualifying and placed. There were 3 possibles today for 2 wins, Looks promising. I will alter the rules for other than Saturday and monitor. Beton

[Star]

I have done some more research on the Paretto Principal and was , am going to go into it further when my other thread on Systems -- Pros & Cons is done and dusted.

I have some difficulty with the title Privateer gave his thread, so, because I do not know what the opening post was will stick to my thoughts and go along with it.

He could have called it anything and the same great thread would have been produced and rehashed, just like we have done.

I intend to do a new one called the 80/20 Principal which is what Mr Paretto was all about. it will be initially directed to the principal and thinking, not necessarily about gambling but then we can pick over the bones to see if their is anything their which might highlight a different thought pattern and qualifications.

You old timers will be able to tell me if Privateer looked at it this way and if not , how and why did he use that name.

Star

[beton]

Star
the Privateer took his long service leave and went into the library and researched the results of past records. A long and tedious task. He then analysed his results and applied the Pareto principle to them, culling the filters that only marginly altered the result and leaving those that had a major difference on the result. The more filters you have the less selections you have. He looked at the selections and the value. So yes he applied the 20/80 rule. The 20/80 bit is hockum. Most of anything comes from a small portion of what you do, most of your problems come from a small part of what you do. The area inbetween breaks even or a modest profit. Pareto simply said take the small portion that gives you the most and bin the rest.
Privateer did this. From his rules there is no more to do other than run them through a up to date database. Whilst the Pareto principle outlines a course to follow, in the real world most businesses cannot implement it for many reasons. 9 times out of 10 you need the bulk to be able to get those juicy bits. In punting you still need lots of average winners to be able to score that big one. Think of it like fishing. You have to be fishing to catch a big one, in the meantime you will catch a lot of smaller fish that you have kiss and throw back. You also get a lot of average size ones. These bide you over. Thus you have to watch what you cull any further. Beton

[Lord Greystoke]

Think of it like fishing. You have to be fishing to catch a big one, in the meantime you will catch a lot of smaller fish that you have kiss and throw back. You also get a lot of average size ones. These bide you over. Thus you have to watch what you cull any further. Beton

Interesting post beton - I found it extremely thought provoking.

In other words we open up the filters so as to have best chance of capturing most of the opportunities - big and small (and medium).
All of which are helpful to our overall success in some way.

Can be applied to much that is important to life I think.
e.g. looking for a soul mate, life partner (yeah, a bit deep for here!)
e.g. the world of sales i.e. lead generation-conversion for instance

Cheers LG

[rails run]

Star
the Privateer took his long service leave and went into the library and researched the results of past records. A long and tedious task. He then analysed his results and applied the Pareto principle to them, culling the filters that only marginly altered the result and leaving those that had a major difference on the result. The more filters you have the less selections you have. He looked at the selections and the value. So yes he applied the 20/80 rule. The 20/80 bit is hockum. Most of anything comes from a small portion of what you do, most of your problems come from a small part of what you do. The area inbetween breaks even or a modest profit. Pareto simply said take the small portion that gives you the most and bin the rest.
Privateer did this. From his rules there is no more to do other than run them through a up to date database. Whilst the Pareto principle outlines a course to follow, in the real world most businesses cannot implement it for many reasons. 9 times out of 10 you need the bulk to be able to get those juicy bits. In punting you still need lots of average winners to be able to score that big one. Think of it like fishing. You have to be fishing to catch a big one, in the meantime you will catch a lot of smaller fish that you have kiss and throw back. You also get a lot of average size ones. These bide you over. Thus you have to watch what you cull any further. BetonA nomination for 'Classic Posts'.

[Star]

Star
the Privateer took his long service leave and went into the library and researched the results of past records. A long and tedious task. He then analysed his results and applied the Pareto principle to them, culling the filters that only marginly altered the result and leaving those that had a major difference on the result. The more filters you have the less selections you have. He looked at the selections and the value. So yes he applied the 20/80 rule. The 20/80 bit is hockum. Most of anything comes from a small portion of what you do, most of your problems come from a small part of what you do. The area inbetween breaks even or a modest profit. Pareto simply said take the small portion that gives you the most and bin the rest.
Privateer did this. From his rules there is no more to do other than run them through a up to date database. Whilst the Pareto principle outlines a course to follow, in the real world most businesses cannot implement it for many reasons. 9 times out of 10 you need the bulk to be able to get those juicy bits. In punting you still need lots of average winners to be able to score that big one. Think of it like fishing. You have to be fishing to catch a big one, in the meantime you will catch a lot of smaller fish that you have kiss and throw back. You also get a lot of average size ones. These bide you over. Thus you have to watch what you cull any further. BetonBeton.

While I agree with nearly everything you have said in this post and and all the others . I thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking.

However, in my view Mr Paretto never said that quote, or, to my knowledge, which is not very great he didn't.

Mr. Paretto was an economist, I called him a matamatician in an earlier thread and his claim to fame lie in the fact that it was he when studying the wealth distribution of England that the approx 80% of the wealth was in the hands of 20%

He did further research to see if this was repeated elsewhere which he found at the time it was. Now Paretto was mainly enter the Economic theory and because he was not very good at explaining the principal it was not taken seriously.

Others, picked up on it to see if the results affected otherthings in business and life.

Then in the fifties it became in vogue again and others put their spin on it.

eg. The Principal of Imbalance


------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------

One researcher has this to say.

The main tenants of the Paretto theory are:

1. The doctrine of the Vital Few and trivial many

2. There are only a few things that ever produce important results

3. When something is working well, double or triple your bets. You may not know why its working well, but push as hard as you can while the forces of the universe are bending your way.

Pretty sure he was not talking about us and racing , but you can guess what he means.

4.Stop thinking 50 / 50

5. Think Skewness, expect 20% to equal 80%. Expect 80% to Equal 20%.

6. Look for the invisable 20% and the subterranean 20%
( Its there.-- Find it )

Unexpected success is one giveaway.

Develop the facility for mentally blocking out the 80%

eg

The easy Answer
The Obvious reality
The conventional wisdom
The prevailing consensus

None of these is what it seems or worth its weight in the basest of base metals.

These 80% are huge blots on the landscape, stopping you seeing the 20% beyond.

Look around these ugly blots, look over them, look beneath them, look through them.

However you do it, do it, ignore them, pretend they do not exist.

Free up your vision for the elusive 20%

Those who ignore the 80/20 Principal are doomed to average returns.

Author: Richard Koch
The 80/20 Principle

------------------------------------------

There you go, he was not talking about racing but some of his terminology might lead you to thinking so.

I am sure their is something in there for us all, even if it is only 20%.

No need to do my new thread on it now, it may as well die here.

Star

[beton]

Sorry Star.
I should have said IMPLIED.
We are talking here of punting and how the paretto principle can be applied to horse racing. The Privateer in his mind applied the principle to his system of selecting his bets. He kept the vital few filters and binned the trivial many. Which is not 20/80. You keep the filters that give you the most improvement in return. You take the filters that negate your return and bin them. You take the filters that have some improvement on your return and assess them as follows. Do they assist with the best filters? Are they necessary to obtain the best filters? Or are they passive? If they are passive and do not help the main filters perform better then they get binned as well. Now the Privateer has done this. One question is "Has he done it correctly and successfully?" Another is "Can it be improved?" It may well be because he did it without the use of a computer. Which leads to two other questions. “Can we produce a better result?” and “Has the matrix changed?”

In the interim I am looking to see how my interpretation of his rules fair. Strictly on Saturdays and Metro midweek and a little relaxed weekdays all venues.
Today there are two relaxed selections Geelong 8 #3 and Wyong 7 #4
Tomorrow there are 4 strict selections MR6 #7, MR7 #4, SR3 #6 and SR6 #7. There are also another 18 shortlisted most which only just did not qualify. I will see if there is any value there.
Time will tell
Beton

[Star]

I like your work! Beton,

I think we have a bit in common, I am doing all this for fun and to see where it goes.

I have done a lot of research work in business and have decided to see if any of that work has a place in racing. The basics of the Paretto Principle interests me, whether the matrix has changed is another matter.

Their are other research info I have got and hopefully that can be applied also. My main aim is to get out of the way of the mob, the trivial many and concentrate on the vital few.

See, thats the thinking behind the 80/20 not the actual numbers as you have recognised but the organised imbalance in nearly everything. Having said that it is still important to know as much as possible about a subject otherwise we will not be able to detect the vital few only what we know.

Here is an old Research Saying that one famous idenity obviously knew and he used it to explain a delicate situation he and the country were in. Only problem was that, time, the great truth teller, proved that he did not know as many knowns as he thought.

There are known knowns, These are things we know we know,

There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we know we don't know.

But there are also unknown unknowns. These are the things we don't know we don't know.

Please remember, everything I write is written with racing in mind, we just have to see how relevant it is. I do not want to go down the dusty track where others have gone before.

I have a lot of sayings and verses that remind me not to follow the herd to closely if it can be avoided. I try to be different, doesn't work often enough, but it suits my personality. I have never applied it to racing though, so we will see where this journey takes me.

It"s also a refresher course in life and business to remind me not to get stale and look at the obvious,I am trying to be different and see what others cannot. Trying to be a trend setter or early adopter and not a laggard.

Star





Star

[beton]

There are known knowns, These are things we know we know,

There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we know we don't know.

But there are also unknown unknowns. These are the things we don't know we don't know.



Star

There are also the things that you think you know but you only know a portion off. There are things you should know and there are things you are better off not knowing. There are a lot of things that are a complete waste of time knowing.

The biggest problem with gaining knowledge is how most gain it. Most learn and research in order to implement something. All theory and no experience and usually nothing gets implemented. The commitment gets tangled with getting all the facts and nothing gets started.

You are better to work out where you want to go, how you want to get there, find out enough to get started in that method and START. Take safe steps and learn on the way. You don't know everything but nobody knows all, everyday you learn more either in a good way or by trial and error. But you are DOING whereas most are GONNA. Beton

[TheSchmile]

You are better to work out where you want to go, how you want to get there, find out enough to get started in that method and START. Take safe steps and learn on the way. You don't know everything but nobody knows all, everyday you learn more either in a good way or by trial and error. But you are DOING whereas most are GONNA. Beton

Great advice Beton, put simply and succinctly!

[beton]

Wyong Track heavy would not qualify

[beton]

Geelong 8 #3 (Unplaced )and Wyong 7 #4 (heavy no bet)
Tomorrow there are 4 strict selections MR6 #7 (3rd but no bet Heavy) , MR7 #4 (2nd But no bet heavy), SR3 #6 (scratched) and SR6 #7 (unplaced). There are also another 18 shortlisted most which only just did not qualify. I will see if there is any value there. (Of the 18, 16 have been run (2 Perth races) we have 4 1st, 5 placed and 7 unplaced. )
I like.

[beton]

Today we have 3 clear picks for the Paretto system adapted for weekdays to trial, Townsville R4#5, R8#2 & R10#1, Two almost made it R7#4 and R9#4. Bet 1x3 EW if >$4. I am posting these to keep the waters clear. It was a Saturday only method. We will see if it will work midweek. Suitable races are hard to find.

[Luckyboy]

Gee, it has been a long time since I graced this forum...

It's been really interesting to read about the Pareto Principle and how one tries to minimise their form analysis into a few pearls of statistical wisdom.

I was around and in contact with Privateer at the time of his postings and can remember what his base system was then. I also know that over time he did modify the system as he found some statistics became more meaningful than others.

I won't fully disclose the system out of respect for another punter but for what it is worth the statistics in the base system covered:

1. Average Prizemoney
2. Last Start Finish Position
3. Sportsman's Zipform Ratings
4. Career Place Percentage
5. Pre Post Price Range
6. Barrier
7. Career Starts
8. Weight Change from last start

As some of you have found through your investigations, Privateer has a simple punting strategy of 1 x win, 3 x place. You could consider him a professional place bettor.

And, finally his most sage piece of advice was to never, ever bet on a track worse than dead.

Enjoy putting the jigsaw together and thanks again for the thread of reminiscence...


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[beton]

Thank you for your post Luckyboy. I am of the belief that the system has legs. I was of the belief that I had the system covered but your list throws some concern as throws up some items that I thought were considered and dismissed. Beton

[Luckyboy]

beton,

I wouldn't be too concerned as I know Privateer did modify his system from this base over time.

I did likewise as I found a couple of the statistics were not as consistent as some others.


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[beton]

Luckyboy
Just going through your list with my comments in brackets.
1. Average Prizemoney (I have this clear)
2. Last Start Finish Position (I have this clear as with the 2LS)
3. Sportsman's Zipform Ratings (See below)
4. Career Place Percentage (I have this clear)
5. Pre Post Price Range (I have this clear)
6. Barrier (There was mention of this but other posts dismissed it)
7. Career Starts ( See below)
8. Weight Change from last start ( there was a mention of this and I keep an eye on it but have not included because it seemed to be dismissed)

Item 3 I have not picked up anything regarding this at all, however he does mention saddlecloth number.
Item 7 Again I have not seen this point at all, again this may be because of his rule on saddlecloth numbers.

I ended up with 13 rules which were more than Privateer's number, however some of the rules such as venue, day of week and price may well be givens.

Again I will not post the rules as the privateer said on many occasions that he did not want them posted. I simply went and read his material.

If you wish to enlighten me more my email is whughes at salternas dot com dot au. Thanks Beton

[beton]

Townsville R4#5 (unpl), R8#2 (unpl) & R10#1 ( 1st no bet <$4), Two almost made it R7#4 and R9#4 Both unplaced) . Not a good day but I will keep in there.
Luckyboy I sent you an email that bounced back and then I resent it. Pls confirm or I will try again. Beton

[Barny]

Quote Privateer "On barriers, when I did my results analysis Iwas quite surprised that they didn't figure quite as prominently as I thoughtthey would. After 30 years of punting the mugs way it took me a lot of selfdiscipline to learn to accept what the stats told me and not what my brain wassaying."

[beton]

He had originally mentioned barriers 1-7 but later dismissive of them. Thanks Barny for the post.

[Chrome Prince]

This is the hurdle with trying to work out barrier impact.
As a group it doesn't have as much impact as other filters, but it certainly does at certain tracks over certain distances.
I think it's the 1600m start at Caulfield, there is a rise before a tight turn and any horse stuck out wide has to travel three times the distance as a railer.
Wide barriers are a huge disadvantage.
There are many individual cases where the barrier draw is crucial, but as a group it doesn't make much impact because it evens out.

[beton]

This is stats Sydney Metro <$10 circa 2004 which only confirms that barriers do not matter with quality horses. When you add all horses it halves the strike rate. The spike in the ROI on the outer B10+ can only be from odds.
Barrier Wins Starts StrikeRate ROI
1 230 1262 18.23% 88.75%
2 241 1291 18.67% 80.70%
3 256 1306 19.60% 87.43%
4 241 1301 18.52% 82.98%
5 237 1253 18.91% 85.17%
6 204 1189 17.16% 79.99%
7 194 1125 17.24% 82.14%
8 158 948 16.67% 81.81%
9 143 820 17.44% 89.07%
10 108 567 19.05% 101.99%
11 65 378 17.20% 92.99%
12 46 249 18.47% 110.29%
13 22 111 19.82% 121.74%
14 7 65 10.77% 68.46%
15 4 13 30.77% 209.62%
16 2 12 16.67% 112.50%
17 0 3 0.00% 0.00%
18 0 3 0.00% 0.00%

Having said this there is definate bias at tracks at specific distances and rail positions. In UK Racing I read somewhere that you can get a book with all the bias data. Some trainers scratch purely on drawing certain barriers. From memory some tracks were the outer, others the inner and some had the middle barriers. Beton

[Barny]

I've followed Privateer's selection method with a great deal of interest, and for the life of me I cannot see how it can produce a profit.

[TheSchmile]

Hi Barny,

My tip would be that he uses these factors along with extensive racing knowledge to seek high quality value selections.

The key to his approach is the discipline to bet only once a week when the conditions are perfect and most predictable.

Before you go on about predictability and how perfect the market is, remember favourites only win 30% of the time and LOSE 70% of the time. There's money/margins to be had.

[Luckyboy]

The barrier statistic needs to be looked at from the perspective that if you have 2 horses identified from your selection method and one has drawn barrier 6 and the other barrier 12, what does your logic tell you?

The issue as later described by Privateer as 'didn't figure quite as prominently', had more to with field size, than barrier from my own analysis.


Cheers,
Luckyboy

Beton: Email received and reply sent. All the best.

[beton]

Only one contender today SR4#5. Track Slow no bet. Weekdays is a monitoring exercise to see if there is any merit in extending the system into weeksdays.

[Star]

I have had a few days away. I thought this thread had died but Beton and Luckyboy have breathed some more life into it.

My best wishes to Beton , if anybody deserves some success with it , it will be him for all the effort he has put in. Good Luck.

Star

[Star]

[QUOTE=Barny]Quote Privateer "On barriers, when I did my results analysis Iwas quite surprised that they didn't figure quite as prominently as I thoughtthey would. After 30 years of punting the mugs way it took me a lot of selfdiscipline to learn to accept what the stats told me and not what my brain wassaying."

-------------------

Thats an interesting point Barny. Infact, the more research I do, the more I find that things I considered fairly consistent are not proving that way with more detailed research.

I think our friend Mr Privateer has really opened up a Pandora's Box. I am now starting to get an inkling that we cannot accept anything as gospel and to me now, nothing is sacred and everything is fair game.

Thanks to all for adding to this thread.

Star

[rails run]

Thats an interesting point Barny. Infact, the more research I do, the more I find that things I considered fairly consistent are not proving that way with more detailed research.

I think our friend Mr Privateer has really opened up a Pandora's Box. I am now starting to get an inkling that we cannot accept anything as gospel and to me now, nothing is sacred and everything is fair game.

Thanks to all for adding to this thread.

Star[/font][/font]
Hi Star
So if Joe Public considers your same things are fairly consistent, but they indeed aren't, then they would have applied the same bias to them as you did. I think it was Woof43 who handicaps the handicappers! But it relates best to certain conditions including tracks & distances... you just have to find which ones.
It would be good if you could poll the punters ( sounds painful) and list their top dozen decision factors ranked in order for picking winners. Then, watch for the highest ranked to fail consistently in certain conditions.
This should flush out false favs leaving overlays to gather up in a net... backing or laying :)
I like the way you get things rolling Star. Keep up the good work & inquisitive mind! :)

[Star]

Hi Star
This should flush out false favs leaving overlays to gather up in a net... backing or laying :)
I like the way you get things rolling Star. Keep up the good work & inquisitive mind! :)

Getting things started is easy for me, it is the finishing that I have problems with.

But true Rails, When I started this thread that was what I was aiming at, but then Privateer's old thread appeared which maybe applied the same thinking.

You have explained this much better then my foggy mind could, but what I have written and my Quotes from various sources that I have put in this thread are very much in my mind and I still think are worth investigating further until they are killed off.

Star

[Star]

Following up on Rails Run post I thought I would apply some more thoughts to think outside the square. This is for rails and anybody else who might appreciate it.

it is put in to lighten the thread abit, but may also be thought provoking. it has helped me in the past while researching non racing issues. Maybe it might have a place here too.

THE CALF PATH

[Star]

Following up on Rails Run post I thought I would apply some more thoughts to think outside the square. This is for Rails and anybody else who might appreciate it.

It is put in to lighten the thread a bit, but may also be thought provoking. It has helped me in the past while researching non racing issues. Maybe it might have a place here too.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE CALF PATH


One day, through the primeval wood
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
but made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.

Since then two hundred years have fled,
And I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail.
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up the next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;
And then a wise bell-wether sheep
Pursued then trail o'er vale and sleep
And drew the flock behind him too,
as good bell-wethers always do.

And from that day o'er hill and glade,
Through those old woods a path was made,
And many men would in and out,
And dodged and turned and bent about
And uttered words of righteous wrath
because 'twas such a crooked path.

But still yhey followed - do not laugh,
The first migrations of that calf,
And through this winding wood-way stalked,
Because he wobbled when he walked.

This forest path became a lane,
That bent and turned and turned again,
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And travelled some three miles in one,
And thus a century and a half
Thet trod the footsteps of that calf.

The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street,
And this before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare.

And soon the central street was this
Of a renownwd metropolis,
And men two centries and a half
'trod in the footsteps of that calf.

each day a hundred thousan rout,
Followed this zig zag calf about,
And o'er crooked journey went
The traffic of the continent.

A hundred thousand men were led,
By one calf three centuries dead,
They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day,
For such reverence is lent,
To well estabisshed precedent.

A moral lesson this might teach,
Where I ordained and called to preach,
For men are proned to go it blind,
Along the calf paths of the mind,
And work away from sun to sun,
To do what other men have done.

They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in and back and forth,
And still their devious path that others do,
They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move.

And how wise old wood-gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf,
Ah, many things this tale might teach,
But I am not ordained to preach.

Sam Walker Ross, 1895


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe the above helps LG understand my thinking as well.

Star

[beton]

Yesterday there were no contenders. Today there was. I got back just at the off and there were only 7 runners -so no bet. It won $5.50 on the TAB. Tomorrow we have 4 clear contenders plus a clear contender in Adelaide and one in Perth. There are also 13 near contenders (just miss one filter) that I have my eye on.
SR6#3, BR4#7, MR6#3,MR7#7. AR6#1. and PR4#5. =>$4 no wet. I have some original rules which I still have incorporate later.

Thanks to Luckyboy, rails, Star, CP, TS and Barny for their support.

[woof43]

Hi Star
So if Joe Public considers your same things are fairly consistent, but they indeed aren't, then they would have applied the same bias to them as you did. I think it was Woof43 who handicaps the handicappers! But it relates best to certain conditions including tracks & distances... you just have to find which ones.
It would be good if you could poll the punters ( sounds painful) and list their top dozen decision factors ranked in order for picking winners. Then, watch for the highest ranked to fail consistently in certain conditions.
This should flush out false favs leaving overlays to gather up in a net... backing or laying :)
I like the way you get things rolling Star. Keep up the good work & inquisitive mind! :)

I have suggested a number of times, that you need to identify the strongest variables for the Favourite in each race and then the gap/strength between it the 2nd Favourite.

Once your identified your Variables for todays race Favourite, one would then do a percentile rank of all horses based on those identified Variables, then you normalise the difference of each of the percentile ranks. One would do that over an over for hundreds of actual races based on those variables and you would generally have an idea of the % wagered on each entrant.

Once you know the Variables that made todays race Favourite. It is then a matter of running your other 140 odd variables or whatever number you have in a multi variate analysis and what you will find is a group of other variables that will outperform todays race Favorite variable.

And if you were to do something like above, you start all your analysis from races that have first starters or those with limited form.

[TheSchmile]

Yesterday there were no contenders. Today there was. I got back just at the off and there were only 7 runners -so no bet. It won $5.50 on the TAB. Tomorrow we have 4 clear contenders plus a clear contender in Adelaide and one in Perth. There are also 13 near contenders (just miss one filter) that I have my eye on.
SR6#3, BR4#7, MR6#3,MR7#7. AR6#1. and PR4#5. =>$4 no wet. I have some original rules which I still have incorporate later.

Thanks to Luckyboy, rails, Star, CP, TS and Barny for their support.
Best of luck Beton!

Looks like Flemington and Perth would be the place to invest with Dead and Good tracks respectively.

Question: Does anyone recall Privateer's thoughts regarding the straight track at Flemington? I'd imagine he wouldn't be the biggest fan being such a disciplined investor and the variables it can provide at times.

[TheSchmile]

Hi Beton,

Don't be discouraged by yesterday's results, a few points I noted:

1/ Be wary of horses having their first go on the straight track, unless you can secure massive overs (at least 3 points over your assessed price)

2/ Resumers - I noted two resumers yesterday, both without a trial or any means of gaging fitness levels.

3/ 3yo races - I find the form often unreliable as some horses don't hold form as well and others improve dramatically run to run.

This is probably all stuff that you know, however I thought I'd throw in a few things I noticed that might improve your systematic approach.

Best of luck!!!

[Privateer]

G'day fellas (and any ladies that may be posting or reading!)

Yep, I'm still breathing AND still having a bet. Not in the amounts as I was previously but still ticking along well. I've spent a fair bit of time in China over the past few years. My wife is Chinese and a doctor, she was tempted back there to work on a lucrative contract. Now we're back in Oz (Brisbane) and she has diversified into another field with great success.

I must say it was great to see posts from some of my old mates like Wise One and Luckyboy. Darky and Moeee - nothing changes does it? :)

I'm not going to re-hash what has already been written throughout the thread and nowadays I don't have the time to devote to the site to be able to reply as often as I'd like so:

*Wet track means slow and heavy.
*Check pre post betting market in Friday's paper...look at those $11 and
under
*Bet on quality races only! This usually means Saturdays. It certainly does
not mean midweek handicaps at places like Wyong.
*Average prizemoney - look at the top 5 average earnings. (TIP: Use the average prizemoney earnings to establish the quality of a race. Set yourself a bottom limit. I do)
* Trackwork and barrier trial results are gold. The Spotsman is my bible for those. The key to trackwork though is not the overall time recorded for a distance, rather the speed of the sectionals.

Some posters are quite correct. For any method (I hate the term "system") of punting, your mindset be flexible enough (and tough enough) to change things up or down or add or delete criteria as required. It is impossible to set things in concrete then expect them to be successful over an extended period. My basic method still works although with some variations with the passage of time.

If there are any questions, I'll try to get back to answering them.

Today? I posted Proisir but who knows? I'm not a fan of the Valley.

The Big One: How do they beat Americain and Dunaden? I was taken with Winchester's run in the Caulfield Cup though. Flemington will suit him.

Whatever you do, have fun and punt sensibly.

Cheers

Privateer

[Barny]

* Trackwork and barrier trial results are gold. The Sportsman is my bible for those. The key to trackwork though is not the overall time recorded for a distance, rather the speed of the sectionals.

Hi Privateer, I read your posts on Pareto many, many times over, it's as if I was in the library sitting next to you. I think I got the gist where you outlined important recurring stats in good fields were a pointer to realistic chances in the race. Pre-Post and Fitness seemed to be your top 2, and I was interested in reading about trackwork and trials .....

Quote "But should mention that my extensive trackwork and trial logs wouldn't fall under the heading of "basic handicapping" and they are the key to this little method."

That sort of shut me out of any further involvement with your method as I simply wouldn't know what to look for. Any further heads up on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

[SpeedyBen]

G'day fellas (and any ladies that may be posting or reading!)

The Big One: How do they beat Americain and Dunaden? I was taken with Winchester's run in the Caulfield Cup though. Flemington will suit him.

PrivateerI think the handicapper has already beaten them over the 3200 trip. I'll be laying both to my maximum liability. Americain has been very good to me the last two years firstly as a winner of the Cup and then as a loser last year. I backed Dunaden as my anchor in the trifecta last year ( successfully ) but will be laying him this year.

[ianian]

I was wishing to know if you used the class factor in the sportsmen as to not backing horses dropping in class based on their assessment, I have not done the research but - the 92% is this horses rising in class get beaten.

[ianian]

That should be rising in class not dropping- sorry dont know how i let that pass.

[wise one]

HI Privateer

Good to see you are still around and having a bet. No doubt you are looking forward to next week’s racing.

As for me, I have moved to Perth, and still have a bet most weekends, but due work commitments don’t have the time follow them as closely as I used too.

As always I look forward to reading your postings

Wise One

[Privateer]

His Wise One. Hope you are keeping well old mate.

Barny - trackwork is quite subjective. I have been a student for many years and feel I am able to make an assessment of a horses chances based on its work on the track. There are a few do's and don't though:

* Use The Sportsman
* Avoid wet track times
* Don't consider times recorded on dirt or sand (or at Broadmeadow)
* It is not just the overall time I look for. I like a good time but with fast
last 400/600 metres. I base that on the fact that the last 400/600 of
a race is often where it is won. The ability to come home fast is essential.
As an example, Nechita ran 800m in 46.11, last 400 in 21.33 last
Tuesday. Sensational work. She of course won today.

Just before they jump in the next at Flemington, Homuchdoyouloveme and
Miss Marx have both worked very well this week.

[norisk]

Yeah Miss Marx is one I like today

[Privateer]

Hi Ianian

I assess the class of a race by the average prizemoney of the runners. You are correct about the 92% stat although I wouldn't necessarily not bet on them simply because they are dropping in class. They could still be an attractive bet and as I say, they don't have to be first past the post for you to win money.

[ianian]

I don’t know if I put a foot in both our mouths- but do you mean rising in class.
My post was a bit confusing.

[ianian]

Hi Privateer -Back again -I don’t mean to pry- but this is my question.
Given a choice between backing a horse up in weight = same or + as a straight stat as a judge of a drop in class or same- or using the Sportsmans class figure D,S,U . which do you think would be better.Given that the weight rise would also cover field strength as well as a measure of class.

[ianian]

I was wondering if you knew the other side of the coin as to what percentage of horses do rise in class.

[Privateer]

Sorry for the delay Ianian.

I have never checked to see which percentage of horses rise (or drop) in class.

As a stand alone statistic up or down in class (IMHO) doesn't have a great deal of merit. However as class is generally determined by allocated weight, (and using my own selection parameters) given the choice,I'd rather a back a horse going UP in WEIGHT off a last start win than a horse going DOWN in WEIGHT from a last start win.

Cheers

Privateer

[Privateer]

G'day to all.

I just read through the entire thread. I must admit that I laughed out loud a few times. Of course I did not reveal all of my methodologies back when I was posting regularly. I still won't. What I will say is that everyone wants a winner but if you want to make a profit from punting you need to understand that you don't necessarily need a winner to make that profit

I might have said this before but when analysing race form most punters make a basic error. They search the form for reasons as to why they should support a particular horse. I look for reasons to dismiss horses.

The thread also touched on my love of analysing trackwork times as a clue to a horses chances. There is a gold mine waiting for you inside the back pages of any weekend Sportsman. Now alone, they are useful but not infallible. Find a horse working well and when it fulfils other analytical requirements, hit it hard!

I should also come clean and reveal that I am a qualified intelligence analyst (retired now) and that certainly helped me sort out a few filters!

From this weeks Sportsman I have come up with my idea of good trackworkers. Follow these up over a few starts...Asterisked horses are racing tomorrow:

Sydney

Swift Shadow
Blazing Snitzel
Somepin Anypin
She Happened
Magita
Almighty Charge
Twinzig
Scarborough
Tamariz *
Fiveandahalfstar *
Emeritus
De Shamekh
Command More*
Runaway Star
There's Only One *
MidSummer Music*
Swift Succession
Manighar*

Melbourne

Le Bonsir*
Smokin Joey * (in Sydney)
Saturn Rock *
Hunger *

Pity it's a wet track in Sydney and the Melbourne races are at the Valley!

The Slipper? If you must...

1, 16, 12 , 4, 13. (I dislike favourites)

In the BMW I have actually been tipped Mawingo from 2 different sources.

Whatever you do guys, good luck.

Cheers

Privateer

[TheSchmile]

On the basis of track work and the prevailing conditions tomorrow, it might pay to have a dabble on Mid Summer Music each-way.

Nice post!