Betting system tips posted every week

[King Mouse]

I haven't found a betting system that wins yet. I have bought quite a few but wasted my money. I have tried to work out systems myself but even if they win for a while I end up losing. I'd love to see someone post all the rules of their betting system and the selections every Saturday morning. Is anyone game?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King Mouse on 2002-01-05 16:26 ]</font>

[The Catparrot]

You are wasting your money buying any racing systems. No systems win. The systems you have seen are all retro fitted. The rules are made up after the results to catch the winners and eliminate the losers.

[mac]

I'm sort of game :)
I started with this 'system' based on a few books I have read and feedback from various sources. At the beginning of the spring carnival. I put a whopping $100 into 2 online accounts (to spread my bets based on who was paying the best odds). At the end of last weekend I had $152. Given the amount of time I've put in, this equates to about an hourly rate of 1c an hour :wink:

Seriously, it has not been worth the effort from a financial perspective - but I am enjoying the challenge.

So, without giving you the weightings for each category, below are most of the statistics I collect on the history of each horse running in a race that interests me :

1) Race class (difficulty)
2) Loosing Margin (in lengths)
3) Course
4) Barrier
5) Jockey
6) Running 'issues' (checks,blocks,etc)
7) Weight (carried & limit)

Each one adds up to a 'score' for the horse. You need to do this for the past few runs for each horse to get an idea of the horses form (improving or not).

For the race you are interested in you take the score for each horse and modify it based on:

1) Ratio of number of wins to races at this distance.
2) Ration of number of wins to races at this track
3) Penalties for 1st run back from a spell (weighted by age)
4) Penalties for previous declining form or bonus for previous improving form
5) Jockey
6) Barrier
7) Weight carried & weight limit
8) Ratio of total wins to races
9) Race class difference from previous runs(is the horse going up or down in class for this race)

From this I end with a final score (in lengths) for each horse and from this I frame a book. If the TAB odds are better than the ones for my winning horses, then I bet on them. I don't just pick one horse for each race, that's too hard. I try and place a number of smaller bets around my top 3-5 horses (depending on score), so that if ANY of the bets come in, I covered all others for that race. For example, if you look at my tips for the past two weekends, I've had a few donkeys in there. Fortunately, a few have paid well (Just Devine/La Zoffany quinella, Sir Talaq/Cousin Alf quinella both last week &
Let's Planet Win the week before).

Simple, right?

There are (quite) a number of faults/limitations to this 'system' that I have uncovered over time and am trying to eliminate. Most of my work has been in automating the above so I don't spend hours doing it manually.

I'm sure you can poke a few in it yourself. However, in this limited period of testing, it seems to be working reasonably well.

The above system only HELPS me work out where there is possibly a value bet. It's based on quite a number of assumptions, such as knowing when to ignore a previous race when calculating a horses history.

I'll let you know how I'm going (if I'm still going) in a year from now.

(now I wait for the waves of laughter of how I waste my time & money...)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mac on 2002-01-09 16:26 ]</font>

[Reenster]

Sounds less like a system and more like a way you've developed to organise your form study into a way of rating a field.

$100 into $152 is not much but it's exactly the same as $1000 into $1520 or $10000 into $15200.

Not a bad return for a few months work.

Good luck with your projects.

[Mark]

Mac
Don't be put off by your "hourly rate". 52%profit over a few months is huge. I suggest you forget your TAB accounts & get to the track. Betting with bookies you may well have doubled your bank by now. Go for it!

[mac]

The results are worse than they look at first glance...

I had a bank that I only put $100 in, but my total turnover is over $700, giving me just over 7% profit on turnover (which is more relevant than my starting bank).

So I've never 'topped up' my original $100 but it, along with the winnings, have been invested again and again giving me a total outlay of $720 and a total winnings of $772.

The profit on turnover figure I think is the most relevant, even though you do need to have a large enough bank to cover bad runs - Melbourne Cup & Oaks Day were EXTREMELY bad for me...

[acv4]

mac,

Don't get put off by the low P/T percentage. At least it's positive. I pick value winners quite consistently, yet I haven't managed to find a way to make my bank account positive yet. After about 2000 bets, my winners percentage is at 24%, showing a bank deficit of 12% on turnover at level stakes. I only bet on value runners - it's quite normal to see winners paying around 10-15/1 mark in my book. However, the 24% winning percentage hurt me in the end. I need about 27% to break even.

If you keep trying, you may find yourself on to something. I found it possible to improve the win percentage to around 30% but you'll have to accept poor value runners. The financial results would turn out to be worse. I have always focussed on races with reliable form lines, and the "reliable" 24% mark seems to be the best I could achieve. I'm now trying a radically different approach, getting value from unknown factors, i.e. betting on 2yo, maiden, jumps races. Positive figures so far :wink: but I won't uncork my champagne bottle until I've accumulated 500 bets or so.

Keep us posted with how you go. Good luck!

[The Catparrot]

acv4 you wrote .

"After about 2000 bets, my winners percentage is at 24%, showing a bank deficit of 12% on turnover at level stakes. I only bet on value runners - it's quite normal to see winners paying around 10-15/1 mark in my book. However, the 24% winning percentage hurt me in the end. I need about 27% to break even."

I mean this constructively.
Are you really backing "value runners" when from the figures you have given your average winner must be less than 3/1?
If that is the case how "normal" really are those 10/1 to 15/1 winners?
Maybe you need to have a close look at the odds you are getting. It may well be that a lot of the horses you back are not value. You also don't say whether your bets are on the tote or with the bookies. If they are on the tote at average odds of less than 3/1, then you would be showing a profit backing them at top fluctuation with the bookies - assuming they are not bush races, but Saturday/Wednesday metro races.

[acv4]

Catparrot,

Thanks for your constructive comments. I guess when I used the term "normal", it was a bit misleading. To clarify that, I'd like to add that it's usual to see 10-15/1 winners every 30 bets or so.

Value is a subjective concept. I believe that my perception of value is based on sound form analysis (although I'm always ready to be told otherwise), thus 2/1 or even money winners can be value sometimes. A weird pattern that I've noticed is that even though at times I've been ahead with a couple of long shots getting home, I always seemed to struggle with getting *consistent* wins paying 5-9/1. The longshots always went hand in hand with 2-3/1 winners. I haven't managed to explain this, as it seems to be associated with racing seasons. I get more 4-9/1 winners during winter, and more long shots + even money types during spring/autumn.

Here is a typical snapshot of my betting run - this one looks normal though, you probably don't want to see the losing runs.

The top fluctuation form of betting is, I admit, something I haven't got on to. I bet with DAS.

<pre>
ODDS RESULTS
3.8 loss
7.5 loss
6.5 loss
2.2 collect
10.5 collect
9.5 loss
3.0 loss
4.5 loss
17.0 loss
2.0 collect
3.0 collect
8.0 loss
7.0 loss
12.5 loss
6.5 loss
2.5 collect
7.5 loss
6.5 loss
14.0 loss
6.0 loss
12.0 loss
</pre>

[The Catparrot]

I hope you don't mind me saying this but there is form analysis and there is form analysis. It may well be that many of those losing horses at around $2.50 to $3.00 should only have been backed at around $5.00, so you may have really been taking unders.
Many horses around $8.00 are very poor value, but because the odds look generous punters also take them.
If those short priced collects are tote collects you are losing out big time. Go to http://www.propun.com.au/bookmakers.html and check out the tables. They are updated weekly and are a real eye opener.
DAS are brilliant with their DiviPlus for most longshots - best tote odds. But if you want to bet top fluc you must make sure not to have 5% or 10% of your winnings deducted whenever you back a winner. It is a competitive market however.
One other thing - have a look at the punting tips on this site in Punt to Win. Again, it's great value, and they are free.

[acv4]

Catparrot, thanks for spending the time to give advice.

[Reenster]

Why anyone would put up with any bookmaker taking 5% of your winnings for betting at top fluctuations is beyond me. DAS might provide a reasonable service in some areas but their policy of taking a percentage of winnings on top fluc bets is highway robbery.

When you bet top fluctuations YOU are doing the bookies a favour by giving them an opportunity to frame an early market. Why do you think they offer top flucs in the first place?

There are plenty of bookmakers who offer top flucs and don't pinch your profits.

[mr magic]

Spot on Reenster,
In fact the name top flucs for the DAS product is a joke and is misleading. It should be called "a twist or two below top fluc".
$100 @ 8/1 gets $900 at top flucs or $855 with DAS ( around 15/2 ).
If your profit margin is 5% ( not bad long term ), you break even betting with Darwin. Why would you?
I have a feeling these posts will be erased in the near future.

[Reenster]

It would be hypocritical of Propun to delete these posts. Neil Davis's weekly Punt to Win report (an excellent feature of the site) is constantly on the back of bookies to lift their game.

The criticism of DAS is valid, constructive and fair. I simply can't see how DAS can compete with other bookies by charging for a top fluc service.

This forum promotes healthy discussion of all issues in racing and this is one issue I feel strongly about. I won't have a bar of any other aspect of DAS because of its top fluc policy. I pay my bookie too much on my losing bets, there's no way he's getting any of my winnings as well.

[The Catparrot]

Mr. Magic I'm surprised you think these posts would be deleted.
Pro-Punter would know that top fluc. minus 5% would mean even poorer Adelaide bookmaker prices than what they currently are. They regularly slam the Adelaide bookies so it's pretty obvious what they would think about top fluc. minus 5% betting on Adelaide racing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Catparrot on 2002-01-30 19:43 ]</font>

[Reenster]

And yet they remain strangely quiet about it. It's probably the one thing about bookmakers I haven't heard any criticism about from Propun.

Sometimes the silence can be deafening.

[The Catparrot]

I think you have made a mistake there Reenster. I think every week they are criticising bookies odds with a % deduction taken out from winning bets. If you go to http://www.propun.com.au/betting_advice.html you will see some short priced favourites in a table with top fluc given and punters told "See the minimum prices you should have received. Make sure you do." Every week this is updated with the same message in Punt To Win. Note the "Make sure you do." I think it's pretty clear they are saying don't take odds from bookies with a % deduction."

[Reenster]

No mistake Catparrot. Read even further and you'll find that the table which asks whether you accepted tote odds or got the best bookmakers odds then tells you to click here to find out how you can.

The link brings you to an offer to open an account with DAS where "Also, for thoroughbred racing punters..." you can get "Top official betting ring price fluctuation."

To its credit it does make a brief mention of the 5% deduction but then you're not really getting top official fluctuations are you? So the table telling you to make sure you get the top fluctuations is an ad for a bookmaker who doesn't offer those prices.

Look, Propun is a fantastic site and in many ways is regarded as an industry watchdog which is great. However, in this case there is an apparent conflict of interest because I'm sure if the company didn't have a deal with DAS, Neil Davis would be screaming from the rafters about the nerve of a bookmaker taking 5% of punter's winnings as well as their losing bets.

You're right, they are not completely silent but they are a hell of a lot quieter than they normally are about bookmakers and much less noisy than they would be if a rails bookmaker tried the same trick.

And that speaks volumes.

Cheers

[The Catparrot]

I did. I might be missing something, but the page heading highlights DAS divi plus, and I didn't see any mention of top fluc.

[Reenster]

I'd love to be able to say that that is exactly my point (the fact that they make no mention of the top fluc minus 5% "deal") but I can't.

Further down the page there is a heading in bold, "Also for thoroughbred punters..." and this is where it mentions top fluc betting.

I don't know why we're arguing about this anyway. Please tell me the rumblings wouldn't be much louder if an Adelaide bookmaker was taking 5% of punter's profits on bets laid at top fluc.

[The Catparrot]

Hello again. You wrote:

Further down the page there is a heading in bold, "Also for thoroughbred punters..." and this is where it mentions top fluc betting.

I looked again. After that the heading is "Competitive betting ring prices".

You wrote:
"Please tell me the rumblings wouldn't be much louder if an Adelaide bookmaker was taking 5% of punter's profits on bets laid at top fluc".

I guess the point is punters know they are betting top fluc. minus 5%. For many punters, considering $50 bets are accepted, it is probably better than they can do if they went to their local track on a Saturday
and wanted to bet on the interstate races with the few (one?) bookmaker betting the call (usually less) on interstate races.
Apart from the difficulties of even getting anywhere near top odds by trying to place bets from an infrequent call where there can be big price movements.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Catparrot on 2002-02-01 11:49 ]</font>

[Reenster]

We're arguing different points. I know punters who take top flucs are fully aware they are giving away 5% of their winnings and that this might be better than being at the track where if they miss the best price and a horse firms in the market that that price is gone. I'm not arguing that.

My point is twofold. Firstly, for a bookmaker to charge a commission on winning bets is a crime. There are plenty of bookies (No 1 Betting Shop for eg) who offer top flucs and don't charge. Remember, top flucs benefits bookies more than it benefits punters. THAT'S WHY THEY OFFER IT.

Secondly as I've said previously, this website promotes itself as an industry watchdog. Why is there nothing said against DAS charging punters on winning bets? Read these words again. THEY ARE CHARGING ON WINNING BETS.

You said yourself in a previous post that punters shouldn't be paying 5 to 10% of winnings as a commission for receiving top flucs.

[mr magic]

Consider this ...
Darwin hold $100,000 on a race. $90,000 is to be paid in winning bets so the house profit is $10,000. But Read's mob only pay out $85,500 after the 5% rip which the increses their profit by 45%!!!
Wouldn't you love to find a way when on the punt that you could increase your winnings by 45%? That's like getting 6/4 about every 1/1 winner.
As Reenster points out, there are plenty of competitors offering no take-out top flucs ... now that the Vanuatu boys have hit town I think Mr Read might sharpen up a bit.

[puntz]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: puntz on 2002-06-10 00:13 ]</font>

[Mr. Logic]

Puntz, top fluctuation is the top price that is commonly available in the betting ring where the race is held. Eg. if a race is at Rosehill, the top fluctuation is the top price that is commonly available in the Rosehill betting ring.
Hope this helps.
Mr. Logic

[mr magic]

Logic,
I think in a market where there is a reasonable variation in prices, the top fluc is the most generally available "good price" if that makes any sense.
For example, in Sydney there are about 15 rails bookies and there may be 5 betting 2/1, 9 betting 9/4 and one has 5/2 up. The fluc is given as 9/4.

[Reenster]

If you opt for top flucs with a bookmaker, generally you have to place your bet well before the market is framed, ie before midday or sometimes up to 30 minutes before race time.

Once your bet is on you are guaranteed the top official fluctuation in prices for that race. Eg. If your horse opens at 3/1, then drifts to 7/2, then tightens to 5/2, you are guaranteed the 7/2. Similarly If your horse opens at 10/1 and tightens to 4/1, you get 10/1.

Puntz, you say a bet is a bet is a bet but if you accept 5/1 and that price drifts out to 7/1, you miss out on those extra couple of points. With Top Fluc, you are guaranteed the longer odds.

The drawback is of course having to place your bet so early. I've mentioned before why it's a service bookies provide but rest assured, it's not out of heart felt generosity for the punter.

Cheers

[puntz]

Thank you.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: puntz on 2002-06-10 00:14 ]</font>

[Mr. Logic]

I wrote:
".top fluctuation is the top price that is commonly available in the betting ring where the race is held. Eg. if a race is at Rosehill, the top fluctuation is the top price that is commonly available in the Rosehill betting ring."

mr magic wrote:
Logic,
I think in a market where there is a reasonable variation in prices, the top fluc is the most generally available "good price" if that makes any sense.
For example, in Sydney there are about 15 rails bookies and there may be 5 betting 2/1, 9 betting 9/4 and one has 5/2 up. The fluc is given as 9/4.

I agree with you.
I thought that was also what I wrote!

[Reenster]

Puntz,

I agree with you. If you've assessed a horse's chances and you think it's value at say 5/1 and you get 5/1 then you should be happy and not rue the fact that after you took 5/1 the horse drifted. You got your assessed price and that's that, particularly if the horse wins.

Whenever I use top fluctuations, I always set a minimum price I'm prepared to accept. My instructions to my bookie are top fluctuations with a minimum price of (say) 5/1. That way I get the best odds while at the same time protecting my value. If 5/1 is not offered, there is no bet.

I am totally in agreeance that no bookie should charge a commission on winning bets placed at top fluc which gets back to our original argument. Bookies who skim off a punter's winnings are rip off merchants. If they can't offer genuine top flucs (and there are plenty who do) then they shouldn't offer anything at all.

[Reenster]

There is an excellent article about top fluc betting in this week's 'Punt To Win'. It is unbiased and offers clear, sensible advice.

Betting on horses is one of the riskiest things to do with your money (although it does fall short of feeding a poker machine but that's not risk, that's just dumb). The ONLY way to have any chance of staying in front long term is to be as conservative as possible and to calculate every risk you take.

That means getting the maximum value out of your selections and setting the minimum price you are prepared to accept.

Knowing when to bet is one thing: knowing when NOT to bet is even more important.