Spliting Top 2 in Most Fav.Col-FORMULAR

[Bhagwan]

I`ve come accros a formular that seems to work very well on the top 2 selections in the most favoured in any of the papers with a tipsters poll e.g. The Australian.or the 2 TAB Favs. You take the weight Less its last start position Plus it`s pre-post news paper odds. E.G. 58kg-6th + $3.80=55.8 You bet the one with the highest rating of the two. I would appreciate any feed back.

[Mr. Logic]

[quote]
On 2002-01-05 05:45, Bhagwan wrote:
I`ve come accros a formular that seems to work very well on the top 2 selections in the most favoured in any of the papers with a tipsters poll e.g. The Australian.or the 2 TAB Favs. You take the weight Less its last start position Plus it`s pre-post news paper odds. E.G. 58kg-6th + $3.80=55.8 You bet the one with the highest rating of the two. I would appreciate any feed back.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is guaranteed to return a loss.
Too simplistic. Is finishing sixth beaten half a length worse than finishing second beaten by five lengths? You'll also fall into all the popular false favourites. Winning at racing is a full time occupation. It is not possible to win long term backing short priced TAB favourites.Stands to reason you must lose - the TAB wins every race and you are doing what most TAB punters are doing - backing the TAB favourite!!!! So you must lose.

[Bhagwan]

Results.Using Bris. Courier Mail.Sat.5th.Jan.for Syd.Mel.Bris.Betting on races with 9 starters or more. 6 from 17 35%wins. O/L $17 Ret.$30 Prof.$13 78% POT. You will notice that the system does not necessarily track the short priced paper favorite. The individual prices were $4.70+$5.90+$10.30+$3.90+$2.10+$3.30 .Even with the $10.30 deleted it still showed a profit.

[Mr. Logic]

Nice result but it will not convince me because it relies on popularity polls eg. tipsters' top two and formwise is dubious - tenth beaten a length is worse than third beaten six lengths.
Marketed racing systems are based upon finding a set of numbers which work over a statistically small sample.
It is easy for you to check your method - just go back over hundreds and hundreds of past results.
I suspect you will be disappointed.

[Reenster]

G'day Bhagwan,

I agree with Mr Logic, it was a nice result for one day but there are a couple of things I also noticed.

When you listed your formula rules, you made no mention of choosing races with 9 or more starters, or about using the Courier Mail as your guide. These seem to have been mentioned after the fact. I might be just being picky but this is what they mean by retrofitting or choosing criteria after the races have been run to make results seem better.

If your rules eliminate races with fields of less than nine (and I think we discussed this in a previous post) then it should be stated up front, as should all the rules, and the results monitored consistently for at least 6 to 12 months before a bet is even laid.

I admire your willingness to share your theories and far be it for me to criticise but you do have to be careful.

Cheers

[Bhagwan]

Dear Mr. Logic. I appreciate your insights , short prices can be the biggest killer, that`s one of the resons for looking at races with 9 or more starters.The lenghs beaten makes sence on paper up to a point but after 5 lenghs beaten or more , becomes purley accademic.If lenghs won or beaten were true to form & using Neural Algorithims to analyse the main form criteria you would hope for a bunch of winners , but sadly the long haul says you might break even. What we`re trying to do here ,is explore the realms of possability where we know 45% of winners come from the top 2 sels.in the paper polls ,so even if we could delete 2 of the 8 races that wont win,or poor value, your in as a chance.Also try not to back the final selection if its paying less than $3.00 . Further comments would be appreciated.

[Bhagwan]

Dear Reenster.Thank you for your comments.The formular given was purely given out as an obsrevation noticed over several months of results hoping others out there would research it further to maybe put some ideas forward for improvment as you have done.The system could be modified to say "bet only on races with 9-15 runners,using any news paper tipping poll with 5 or more tipsters Friday or Saturday editions. It`s not a compition or trying to sell something .Its about sharing ideas & putting it out there for general scrutiny by the punters for the punters.The strike rate with the top 2 of 45% is the same ,over time,no matter what paper you use ,yes ,you could be looking at different horses,but at the end of the year strike rate is the same & dollar return very similar.The formular its-self might be able to perform well over time or it might fall into a steaming great hole, never to see the light of day again.The system may seem a bit quirky, but thats how it can pull the value also,if one based everthing on pure form,you would end with short priced wins most times, because thats what eveyone else does.The idea is to try somthing different to get the value. It would be good to see if anyone else out there has any constructive ideas on the top 2 subject .

[Reenster]

Bhagwan,

Absolutely, that's why I think it's great that you raise these types of issues.

There is, however, a fundamental problem with any system or formula which is based around selecting favorites. A favourite, by definition is the horse which most people think will win the race, nothing more, nothing less. The problem is that if a horse is touted by the media and for whatever reason comes up favourite, every man and his dog backs the horse simply because it's favourite, not because they think it can win. This is when you get false favourites. Just because a horse is favoured or favourite, doesn't mean it has the best chance of winning.

Furthermore, over the long term, it's impossible to profit from these selections because of the extremely poor value they inevitably throw up.

Backing favoured runners or trying to devise a system based around favourites is frought with danger in an already highly risky business.

Cheers

[Mr. Logic]

Bhagwan,
Reenster has made some very good points.I think a far better approach for system betting is to concentrate upon horses with both at least five wins and say a 40% winning strike rate. You will quite often be on horses here at double figure odds, believe it or not!
Good luck.

[Mark]

A millionaire bookie that I worked for many years ago said, "Give me a punter with a system, in the end I will have his money, but he will still have his system".

[Mr. Logic]

Too right. I do not believe any system works. But punters will at least have a better chance if they don't start off their search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow by looking at the most popular horses in every race.

[The Catparrot]

No system returns a profit over the long haul.

[Rubber Duck]

I just do not believe that. Of course systems win. I've had winning systems but lost because I didn't follow the rules. I didn't like a system horse and sure enough it won at $20.00. That sort of stuff. Then there were times I got the start of the race wrong, you know, having a drink. I'm not on and up bobs the winner without me. Then I go throw out the system. I reckon if you have a good system and follow it through thick and thin which I just don't seem to be able to do you'll win.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rubber Duck on 2002-01-09 14:21 ]</font>

[mac]

There are systems and there are systems...

I believe it is possible, through a LOT of work, to define a systematic way of betting that makes a profit. This is different from a system you buy for a few grand that takes little input and is supposed to magically work out the winner, but it is still a 'system'. Now I do believe it is possible to automate a lot of the hard work (which is what I am trying to do), but it still has to be done.

I guess horse racing is like everything - you get out what you put in (hopefully with interest :wink:

I have observed one case where hard work wasn't needed.

Around 5 years ago while camping out with 7 other families, we stumbled across a country race meeting - my first visit trackside. After 3 races I had picked last, last and 3rd last (I stopped there).

One of my friend's daughter (13) picked 2 winners in three races. When we asked here how, she said she looked at the horses in the ring and saw which ones were old, fat, or out of shape. She has ridden horses virtually every day for 5 years and just knew what to look for.

So if you are at the track and know what to look for, I think this can be a definite advantage...

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-01-08 12:06, Mr. Logic wrote:
Too right. I do not believe any system works. But punters will at least have a better chance if they don't start off their search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow by looking at the most popular horses in every race.


I am amazed at the number of people who don't believe that systems work. And I mean real systems, not favourites and tipsters.
The only time a system doesn't work is when you throw it out because you are embarrased due to a lack of funds. As long as you can finance a system, it will work if you stake carefully and never SWEAT on the outcome of a race because that's your petrol money going around in the last at Dapto greyhounds.
:grin:

[becareful]

On 2002-05-08 21:44, Equine Investor wrote:
The only time a system doesn't work is when you throw it out because you are embarrased due to a lack of funds. As long as you can finance a system, it will work if you stake carefully and never SWEAT on the outcome of a race because that's your petrol money going around in the last at Dapto greyhounds.


EI - In my opinion that is a VERY DANGEROUS attitude to have! There are plenty of systems out there that don't work and if you keep throwing money at them you will end up broke (or stuck at the Dapto greyhounds with no petrol). Whilst there are some systems that do work there are far more that don't (and generally speaking the ones that work are kept very quiet by their developers - you wont see them advertised or discussed in magazines).

One important criteria for a good system is that you should NEVER have to put more money in to it once you have your initial betting pool - if you have to keep adding money then you are not winning, you are losing! Any system that requires you to keep increasing your bet size when you are losing is doomed to failure.

[Bhagwan]

Dear Equine Investor;

I tend to agree with your valid comments.

[Placegetter]

But Bhagwan, Equine investor endorses systems that don't revolve around favourites.

These are exactly the systems you have been bringing up on this forum? I'm confused.

We can't write off all syatems. Agreed.
We can't condone all systems. Agreed.

There we are, you're both right.

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-05-09 10:26, becareful wrote:

On 2002-05-08 21:44, Equine Investor wrote:
The only time a system doesn't work is when you throw it out because you are embarrased due to a lack of funds. As long as you can finance a system, it will work if you stake carefully and never SWEAT on the outcome of a race because that's your petrol money going around in the last at Dapto greyhounds.


EI - In my opinion that is a VERY DANGEROUS attitude to have! There are plenty of systems out there that don't work and if you keep throwing money at them you will end up broke (or stuck at the Dapto greyhounds with no petrol). Whilst there are some systems that do work there are far more that don't (and generally speaking the ones that work are kept very quiet by their developers - you wont see them advertised or discussed in magazines).

One important criteria for a good system is that you should NEVER have to put more money in to it once you have your initial betting pool - if you have to keep adding money then you are not winning, you are losing! Any system that requires you to keep increasing your bet size when you are losing is doomed to failure.


Hmmm Think you misunderstood me there.I was saying that you can progressively stake a system.
And most systems will work if you have unlimited money, and don't keep backing favourites. Most of my bets are between 2/1 and 10/1 (overall).You must set a stop gap if you encounter a long run of outs to preserve your total bank.

...and becareful, if I showed you a system that returned 500%min per annum with plenty of action, a progressive staking plan and statistics to back it up - Both Past And Future.
Would you still be sceptical????
And this isn't to sell you anything, I just want to show you that there are systems that work, and I earn my living with this system. It's no secret, others use different systems but where they fail is in failing to stick to the rules.

[cameron398]

I agree Equine Investor. Do not let emotion enter the equation. Stick to your system rules at all costs. It is much less stressfull that way. There is no second guessing yourself and if you miss out on that good win then you just blame your system (and not the fact that you chose that last horse because the name reminded you of an old girlfriend...)

[Bhagwan]

Dear Equine Investor;
i for one would be interested at looking ar your staking plan.

Please contact on email below.

[Placegetter]

Equine Investor,

Forget Bhagwan. I would be interested in BUYING your system.

You say you strike a winner every two or three selections. If you come up with nine selections this weekend and three pay, I would say you were onto something.

Then I would ask.......why would he/she share?

Placegetter

PS. If you want to post selections for us all to see as a once off, I'm sure it would create a lot of curiousity.

[becareful]

EI,

My point was that although there are systems that work (and maybe you have one) there are A LOT that don't and telling people that they will work if they keep throwing more money at them is a recipe for financial disaster. As for most systems working if you have unlimited money that is also false - if you are betting on TAB then your bet size is limited by the size of the pool you are betting into (bet too much and the return diminishes), if betting with a bookie then they have bet limits so even with unlimited money you are limited by the size of the bets you can place. It is the same as the old "doubling" plan for roulette - it will work 98% of the time but the other 2% will send you broke sooner or later.

As to your offer of a system - if by progressive staking plan you mean one where you increase your bet when you lose then I am not interested unless it would also show a profit with an equal staking plan. I will stick to my system that shows a good profit with even bet sizes (actually the bet size varies according to my bank - so if I lose money it decreases, when I win it increases).

[Equine Investor]

I am not interested in selling my system.
I have no motivation to profit in any way from others - the system works. That is why, I believe, anyone asking for more than a nominal subscription fee, you should steer away from.

I will share my system with you right now for FREE.

I will post full results from the weekend here and you can follow it this weekend too. (on paper if you wish).

Oh and it makes a very small profit at level stakes.
Firstly pick your jockeys.
These are mine..
-D.Oliver
-D.Beadman
-P.J.Harvey
-B.Prebble
-C.Munce
(they change a little from time to time but for this weekend and this month at least I will follow these).

The system is this...
Back all their rides for a *place ONLY*.

This is the staking method...
1 unit may be $2.00 or $2,000 whatever you decide. At the moment for me 1 unit is $100.

Start at 1 unit if it places keep going with one unit until you hit a loss.

The next bet is 2 units only if you lost.

Then the next bet is 6 units the place only if you lost.
Then the next bet is 18 units the place.

IMPORTANT

This is the most important part of the system here. If your 18 unit place bet loses,***STOP*** with that jockey only until he places again. Do not make your next bet on him 32 units, restart the system at 1 unit either that day or next week or month, whatever, his losing streak is. If he goes through a few weeks of not placing, something is wrong and review your jockey list.

Profits are small but consistent, and my current strike rate is 56% and average dividend is $1.83. The leverage of the staking brings a healthy profit as 4 place losses in a row are extremely rare.

So, I will post my results here for all to see....

ENJOY!

(all dividends will be in VicTAB divs).

_________________
Invest - Don't Gamble!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-05-10 14:19 ]</font>

[Placegetter]

On 2002-05-10 14:15, Equine Investor wrote:

Profits are small but consistent, and my current strike rate is 56% and average dividend is $1.83. The leverage of the staking brings a healthy profit as 4 place losses in a row are extremely rare.

So, I will post my results here for all to see....



Equine Investor, I just applied becareful's mathematics, which you appeared to agree with (see a forum instigated by Bhagwan recently), to your stated results and the result was 1.0248. Greater than one, no argument, but a healthy profit?

Placegetter

[becareful]

EI - Interesting. The secret to this being successful is being able to maintain that strike rate * dividend at greater than 1. As per placegetters comment the 2.5% profit margin is a bit slim but as long as you are very consistant it should be OK - you would need to watch it very carefully in case it started to drop at all.

I must admit the thing that would concern me is the $1800 place bet value when you have had 3 losses - that is quite a large place bet - you would have to be betting on pretty big races to be able to put that size bet on without having a big impact on the dividend for the horse you were betting on.

You might want to consider looking at using a 3 unit even bet rather than your increasing bet size - mathematically (based on your ave. div. and strike rate) it works out to the same sort of profit with a much lower risk and you will not have a problem with the huge bets affecting the pool (this, in theory, should help that profit margin as your ave. div. will be reduced by the large bets you are placing with the $1800 bet).

I look forward to seeing your results for the weekend.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-05-10 21:23 ]</font>

[marylin]

Goodness me, I have 432 pages about how to rate horses,and now i have to learn to rate jockeys and no doubt someone is going to come up with a system that utilizes trainers.
So i started with the Friday Sportsman.
Question ?
When I look at Jockeys/trainers standings, does the total for placings include the total for winnings, or does the total placings refer only to 2nd and 3rd. And what does "OUTS" refer to.

[Placegetter]

Marylin, given that you are racing greenly, I would consider a simpler method of evaluating jockeys.

Perhaps count it in if the current jockey has won on it before or at least ridden it?

I know one guy who thinks that who is riding it is a load of bollocks. Appears to be pretty successful too.

And once you've mastered those horse ratings, perhaps you might share what you've learned? I can learn from anyone.

Good luck.

Placegetter

[Equine Investor]

The power of the system is not in the average dividend, it is actually when you have your $1800 place bet on the jockeys ride and he places and pays three or four dollars a place. This is not all that uncommon.

[becareful]

On 2002-05-11 04:20, Equine Investor wrote:
The power of the system is not in the average dividend, it is actually when you have your $1800 place bet on the jockeys ride and he places and pays three or four dollars a place. This is not all that uncommon.


So are you saying that you are somehow better at picking the $1800 bets than the $100 bets? If not then you will make more money if you bet with a constant amount. A $300 bet gives mathematically the same returns as your system but with only half the risk - with the same risk you can do $600 even bets and will double your overall return (the reason being that you will get 6 times the return on all the first up bets that win). You do the maths and you might be surprised (unless of course your strike rate/ave.div. figures are not what you have said they are).

[Equine Investor]

No that's not what I am saying at all!

I just can't seem to get my point across here.

Ho hum.

The strike rate and dividend result in a small profit at level stakes. The leverage betting as I call it results in much greater returns.

If your first two bets lose and you win with your third bet at say 2.20 the place, because that bet is six times the first bet and double the total of first and second bets. You get back your investment and make a profit.

This repeats itself many times over.

Level stakes just won't bring as good returns as this, but still returns a small profit.

Hope this helps.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-05-11 11:53 ]</font>

[becareful]

I cant seem to get my point across either :smile:

The "leveraging" as you call it only increases your return if your average dividend is HIGHER for the larger bets. Lets look at an example using your average dividend:

1L, 2L, 6L, 18W@1.83 (I know you cant have this div but go with it for a minute).

Your dividend is 1.83 * 18 = 32.94 units

BUT - you will only win on this 4th bet 56% of the time (so if you get to the 18 unit bet 100 times you will win 56 and lose 44).

So from those 100 bets you will win 32.94 units * 56 = 1844.64 total winnings. Take off your 1800 units in bets (100*18) and yuo have a profit of 45 units from 1800 invested (2.5% profit)

It doesnt matter if some of those 56 winning bets pay 2.0 or 2.5 or even 5.0 - if the average is still 1.83 then you are only getting a 2.5% profit margin.

As I said before it only works for you if you can have an average of higher than 1.83 (with your 56% return) for the higher value bets.

[Placegetter]

becareful, do you work for NASA? That is one awesome calculator you use.

Equine Investor, as you have previously said, you weren't trying to convince us anyway. If I'm correct, your system seems to be having a good day? Depending of course on which jockey you decided to follow, or would you just follow them all?

[Placegetter]

Which just goes to show how much I understood your system, I thought it was winning!

[Equine Investor]

Prebble let me down today but there's no excuses.
Yes I see what you say becareful but what you haven't factored in is the frequency of getting to that fourth bet. 10-20% of the time and the profits you make 80-90% of the time outweigh any short fall you might lose on that bet. Even if the dividend were $1.00 (moneyback) as long as you maintain the 80-90% before you get to that fourth bet, then you will come out ahead.
NOT saying i pick 80-90% winners(placegetters for magic). 56% is my ratio but that is 80/90% of the time...hope I explained this enough...even I'm getting confused on how to explain it :grin:

[becareful]

No placegetter - I don't work for NASA - just a humble computer programmer that knows how to really use Excel! I have done some work for one of the TAB's in the past though so I know a bit about analysing the performance of punting schemes.

EI - I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the benefits of your staking system. I could post a full analysis of your system versus even bet amounts but I don't want to start a war - or bore everyone to death :grin:

[Equine Investor]

I welcome healthy debate as I am not selling my system only sharing it with others. If you don't like it fine. It works for me. If you want to post that analysis that's great, or contact me via email that's fine too.

[Placegetter]

Post it becareful, I'm keen to have a look also.

[becareful]

I have posted that analysis but it a new topic (as it is quite long) :smile:

[Bhagwan]

Dear Equine Investor;
Thankyou for shareing your staking plan.
It looks sensible to me.

If your successful with it ,it must be frustrating reading about someone trying to rip it appart trying to tell every one its better to do it another way when they themselves have not posted any plans of their own.
Everything does not run to the rule of thumb if it did it would be easy & we would not have bookmakers in existance.

[becareful]

Bhagwan, Was that last post ("someone trying to rip it apart") directed at me? If it was then I think you had better read my posts again. I have never disagreed with EI's system as such, based on his posts to date and his promise of further statistics it looks like he may have a winner. All I have done is stated my opinion that his staking system is STATISTICALLY no better than an even betting system. Further, rather than posting stuff like "if you can't see my system is the best then you are an idiot" I have posted a full analysis so that everyone can have a look at my reasoning and come to their own decision. You should have also noticed that I have said there may be cases where his system will outperform an even stake system - but if this is the case then there is an underlying reason that should be investigated.

I think, throughout the postings, that both EI and myself have simply stated our differing points of view - I certainly respect his point of view and, based on some of his comments, I think he respects mine. You don't always have to agree with someone to respect them you know!

Finally most things do run to "a rule of thumb" in the long run - that is why we do have bookmakers (they know that in the long run THEY, not the average punter, will win). That is why, to succeed in this game you need to take the time to develop a winning system, like EI seems to have done - you dont just say, lets bet on the jockey that won the last race and if we stake it properly we will win.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-05-14 10:37 ]</font>

[Bhagwan]

GOD`s going to get you for that!

[becareful]

Which particular GOD and what is he going to get me for?

[Golly]

EL - After reading this post and the other post about your plan, I take it your seletion of jockeys are picked by your observations and not from a top ten list posted each week ? ( Although they are all top riders ). Have you found that a jockey's ability is different on wet tracks compared to a dry track. I can see merrit in your staking plan and will follow your system over the coming months.
Good Luck.

[Equine Investor]

Golly thanks for your interest - yes the jockeys I select aren't necessarily the ones at the top of the premiership table....I study rides where their mounts got boxed in etc and judge rides to see who will be in my system. Also the jockey must be a class act. Strike rate must be good and if he gets out of form for whatever reason he must be dropped quickly for this system to work. If say he has a particularly bad week and doesn't bounce back the next it's time to reasses.