Illogical Betting - Can It Work ?

[stebbo]

Hi All,

I have two stories to relate whereby "systems" with no logical base have worked for me.. admittedly in the short term. I'm curious whether other people have similar stories, and perhaps ones where they have worked for longer periods of time.

Up until 3 months ago, I was betting with the aid of the Neurals. My settings had been researched over a period of time, and intially they looked like they'd be a winner, but I ended up almost losing my entire bank for that system. I had noticed that simply betting race 1 and race 2 on the card was very successful, so I put the last few bets on the bank on race 1 and 2 only, and managed to win back my original bank over a period of about 3 weeks. I stopped at that point. Now many will say Race 1 and Race 2 are maidens or poor class events, but analysing all races on the cards that were maidens or of a similar class didn't work... It was simply race 1 and race 2.

My other "system" is a system which takes ratings and bets them only on those tracks where they appear to have won in the past. I did an analysis of each track and simply picked those (yes - backfitting, I know) where they worked in the past. A list of 21 tracks. I've been betting these selectiosn for the last 4 months, and have doubled my bank. What makes this even more bizarre is that I don't bet these selections if any of my other systems select them, and my actual profit is far better than it would be having bet them all.

Now, I recognise that both these approaches are quite illogical. I have no faith that either of them will actually work long term, but they both have appeared to work over a period of time. The "tracks" approach in particular is 4 months and 500 bets.

Comments?

Cheers,
Chris.

[hermes]

Irrational systems can work, and they work the same as logical systems, i.e. temporarily.


Hermes

[sportznut]

Illogical betting systems can work, but I treat them simply as a bonus to my other betting. I've just posted a pretty wierd illogical sort of plan on the 'Maiden Over' thread, and while it actually does pretty well, I wouldn't rely on it as a main part of my betting.

[sportznut]

Speaking of wierd illogical systems, there's a guy that gives a few tips on Radiotab up here and he likes to bet on horses with form of 0x or 00x. He actually backed a winner at about $120 a month or so ago and today a $98 winner popped up at Cessnock which had form of 00x, so perhaps he was on that one as well.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2004-01-05 18:34 ]</font>

[MyHatMyCoat]

Was having some profitable (at the time) fun backing last start beaten favourites, next start, until a mate of mine with one of those huge results databases told me that without filters - only around 19% of last beaten favs win next start. Put me off completely :roll:

[sportznut]

Yeah, I like backing last start beaten favourites, but if you simply bet on every single one of them without any further rules, you probably won't do that great.

Personally, I like to look at last start beaten favourites which meet any of these criteria:
(a) won their second last start
(b) won at this distance at this track
(c) last start within 7 days
(d) starting from barrier 1
(e) favourite in a maiden race

There you go, there's a few ideas which I've used. Perhaps you can have a go at them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2004-01-07 15:15 ]</font>

[Lenny]

I personally think irrationality has a lot to do with horse racing success. For want of a better word, I guess this unknowable, illogical gut feeling is the basis of "luck". It works better for some than others.

~Lenny

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lenny on 2004-01-11 03:20 ]</font>

[kenchar]

On 2004-01-05 18:32, sportznut wrote:
Speaking of wierd illogical systems, there's a guy that gives a few tips on Radiotab up here and he likes to bet on horses with form of 0x or 00x. He actually backed a winner at about $120 a month or so ago and today a $98 winner popped up at Cessnock which had form of 00x, so perhaps he was on that one as well.

Sportz,

Another one yesterday in Hobart $98 nswtab

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2004-01-05 18:34 ]</font>

[sportznut]

Oops, I'm sorry. I didn't quite explain myself well enough. It's not simply one or two noughts before a spell. Those noughts must be the horse's ONLY race starts, so in other words:
0x means just one start for nothing followed by a spell and 00x means just two starts for nothing followed by a spell.

[hermes]

I find that the better systems usually pull both ways - one rule finds the talent and another rule finds the value. So something like (1) best average prizemoney in race and (2) ran 0 last start, works better than a combination of obvious talent-seeking rules like (1) best average prizemoney in race and (2) last start winner. Its the seemingly irrational rule that gives you profit.

Hermes

[hermes]

Here's some irrational or counter-intuitive rules that I try sometimes:

*Ran 0 last start
*Ran 6th or worse last start
*Middle barriers only
*Only horses with single names
*Horses rated below 90 on the TABQ
*Declining finishing positions over last three races
*Only horses with a 0 in one of last three races

If you take a really solid statistic - like the incidence of TABS 1-4 finishing in the money - and combine with one of these counter-intuitive rules you often have the basis for a productive system. I use a system daily that does OK (about 6% POT over 3 months, but consistent) and two of the rules are:

1. TABs 2,3,4 or 5 only.
2. The second lowest rated of these horses on the TABQ ratings.

Why the second lowest? Seems irrational. You'd get more winners if you tried the highest rated but you wouldn't make a profit. The second lowest rated places you in the band of runners that win less often but pay better. Rule 1. chases talent and rule 2. chases value. (There are other rules in that system too, not just those two).

Note also that Bahgwan posted a beauty a while back: small fields, selection ran 9th or worse last start. Seems irrational to single out poor performers but it pays in such races. With most systems the way I approach it is to try to find ways to gently reduce strike rate while increasing average return and to do that you can often resort to quite irrational rules (as long as your first rule is rational and gets a solid strike rate).

Hermes

[kenchar]

hermes,

Sorry can't agree thats why I now place bet,CONSISTANCY with small divis over long runs of outs for big priced winners will do me, But as we say all to our own.

Cheers

[hermes]

...or you can go for strike rate.

My real money goes on a placegetter system, solid and consistent (although not lately). Systems with long runs of outs I bet tiny amounts or just monopoly money.

I strongly believe in running several systems of different types anyway. No system is consistent enough for me.

Psychologically strike-rate based systems have a big advantage. I agree. Cheers Kenchar.

Hermes

[Lenny]

Hermes,

I like your idea of mixing overall good form indicators with current poor form. I'll have a tickle on PPP with this idea.

BTW do all your systems revolve around the TABQ ratings? If so, I doubt they'll perform any better than the ratings themselves do. Perhaps give something new a go?

~Lenny

PS: Has anyone ever rolled the dice or used a pin before, just for the heck of it, and won?

[hermes]

I find the TABQ ratings useful for these mini-systems. In the past I used the weight ratings in the Sportsman, which are excellent. I just found that if I sit down and spend hours doing form I come up with similiar results to these rating systems - so why not save myself time and effort?

My most succesful system (used daily) is based on inside and outside barriers with no reference to ratings.

I've never used a pin but one day when I was in a hurry I got races and horses mixed up (race 3 horse 4 instead of race 4 horse 3) and accidentally landed two $20+ winners. It would never happen again....

A friend has a system that involves selecting several runners per race and choosing one of them by going alphabetically. He claims it works. I doubt it. He's always broke.

Hermes

[hermes]

The best illogical system I've seen seems to be the preserve of ladies. I take my girlfriend to the track. She picks the one with the nice colours. Wins every time.

Hermes

[Shaun]

lol....doesn't that drive you nuts...you do form and ratings...she picks colours and numbers and wins heaps....

[stebbo]

On 2004-01-14 08:33, hermes wrote:
The best illogical system I've seen seems to be the preserve of ladies. I take my girlfriend to the track. She picks the one with the nice colours. Wins every time.

"One of the nice things about being a guy is that you only need to know the names of 4 colors"
- unknown

[sportznut]

You mean there are MORE than four??? :lol:

Let's face it, if it wasn't for John Hawkes and the Ingham brothers, how many blokes would actually know what CERISE looked like? And if they did, would they admit it??? :grin:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2004-01-14 14:56 ]</font>

[hermes]

I don't know how they do it. My girlfriend approaches a race as a fashion contest. Looks for grooming and pleasing silks. Sure enough her selection jumps from the gate and wins in a romp.

Has anyone ever bet on something just because it looked good in the mounting yard? The form says no way but you just liked the look of it? In late races (after a few beers and the formguide is getting hard to read) I've tried hanging around the mounting yard and picking one on looks alone. I have no idea what I'm looking for - the big brown one with the pretty handler? - but I have fluked a few winners over time. A truly irrational system. Doesn't work if sober.

Hermes

[Shaun]

When all else fails i like for the hottest looking Strapper.....if she is cute and smileing i back the horse