Statistically minded experts required please.

I read somewhere that suggested a 4/1 odds has a 17% chance of saluting the judge.

Does that mean that a 4/1 odds has an 85% chance of producing one winner every five races?

What is the probability of two 4/1 odds winning within a range of five consecutive races?

[kenchar]

Butternut,
All these maths and so called probabilities of a sequence of events are a myth, NOTHING in racing runs to a regular pattern.
It all comes down to IF and IF my aunt had b**ls she would be my uncle.

Cheers

kenchar, with the greatest of respect, and I've read your posts, and I would drown in your bow wave sir ...........

I'm thinking that a 4/1 "pop" (or there abouts) has to win fairly regularly. What I'm trying to do here is eliminate the ratings, eliminate horses over the odds or under the odds (who knows!) and try to do the reverse of what most punters do. And that is lose and chase their losses.

I'm trying to "cash in" on a good day, not an exceptional day, just a good day.

I just wish there were a few others that would put their two bobs worth in.

FWIW I am in no doubt that systems do fall out of favour and pay well for a short time.

[davez]

bn don’t know if we are on the same wavelength but here goes anyways -

I have found that a lot of the time the price of a nag has not a lot to do with it's true chance of winning, therefore if my work throws up a 30/1 chance I back it the same as my run of the mill 3 or 4/1's.

so what this means for me is that, for example, when all indicators are that 'sinbad the sailor' should have walked in at cessnock today but instead runs like an old greyhound I once had to put down, but the day before I back 'monterertuso' at ballarat but have little confidence because its drifting, I have to slap myself & say "snap out of it, don’t worry what other punters think cause they are WRONG!"

Well, at least I hope they are wrong, some or most of the time.

So trust your own judgment bn & stuff the price.

[kenchar]

Davez,
More winners drift in the betting than are backed in.
Butternut,
I'm not trying to be a smartie, but I have have been through more facts, figures, form, and stats, than anyone I know.
Apart from what Mark does I don't know of anything that is more successful than what I do.
I lived off the punt years ago, didn't know the front of a nag to the back, justlearned to watch markets to try to sus out a collect.
I left the punt and went into business for some years, and did very well, but with the advent of GST and other problems closed and went back on the punt.
I went back to the track and had a measure of success but then decided maybe my way was not the best, so I subscribed to umpteen rating services and downloaded form daily.
Biggest mistake I have made in my life.
I now try to read a market again and have very few losing days.
I know my way is not for everyone but it works for me.
You can ask me the name of the nag which was my winning bet 2 days ago and I probabily wouldn't remember, and thats the way I prefer it.
No emotion, just odds, and if I sus it out correct I collect, stop and relax for the rest of the day.
I wish I could contribute more but I can't post what is running through my head minutes before a race.

Cheers

[Mark]

Ditto.

[Hammers]

Butternut,

Obviously your simplified theory of adding the percentages does not work. How can one in 5 winners be an 85% chance. Does that mean 1/6 is a 102% chance? There is no such thing.

I've worked it out for you, free of charge.

No need to ask others to do it.

Good luck with your system. If you ever get ahead put the money in your pocket and change tactics. Like casino games and poker machines, the longer you play the better chance you have of losing.

[Shaun]

I often wonder if what we have today is better....in terms of information people would say yes you can find out anything you want to know about a horse or a system or an idea just by picking up the paper or going online......but there are far less profesional punters today why is that don't you think with all the information it should be easier to pick winners.

[jfc]

Use the BINOMDIST function on your spreadsheet.

For something with a 17% chance of winning, after 5 tries:

Wins Prob
0 - 39.4%
1 - 40.3%
2 - 16.5%
3 - 3.4%
4 - 0.3%
5 - 0.01%


So probability of:

1+ wins = 60.6%
2+ wins = 20.3%

[puntz]

I offered stats.assistance, and no reply.
Why ask in the first place...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: puntz on 2004-08-30 18:25 ]</font>

Hammers, you brain dead moron, you are nothing but a s..tstirrer. Here is my post, nothing like how you interpreted it.

"I read somewhere that suggested a 4/1 odds has a 17% chance of saluting the judge.

Does that mean that a 4/1 odds has an 85% chance of producing one winner every five races?"

Now go away.

[Hammers]

Butternut,

I gave you an answer. It was based on mathematics.

You bleat when no one praises your wizardry (????) and no one answers your email requests.

More than one contributor has helped out but you still don't get it. I'm not s stirring, I'm trying to help you as you need it.

5 17% winning prospects do not have an 85% chance of cracking one winner. That misguided logic would mean that 6 17% prospects have 102% chance of one winner which even to a simpleton cannot make sense.

Only trying to help. I will do as you say and go away as I'm afraid you appear beyond help.

One last piece of advice. Give up the punt and get into macrame or something else - you have neither the mental agility nor the temperament to make a go of gambling.

[davez]

a bit of fire in the forum! got to love it!

&, whilst i am no mathematician, i would think that hammers has hit the nail on the head!!

[AssumeTheCrown]

If each of your selections is a 17% chance of winning, then the chance of backing at LEAST one winner out of 5 bets is about 60%.

This is calculated by working out the probability of backing NO winners in 5 bets and is equal to .83^5 = .3939 = 39.39%. Therefore if there is a 39.39% chance of backing NO winners in 5 bets then there must be a 60.61% chance of backing one or more winners. This is based on the assumption that each bet is independant of any other.

See JFC's post for breakdown of chances as they are correct!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AssumeTheCrown on 2004-08-31 14:00 ]</font>

From Hammers to me "One last piece of advice."

If ever I need advice from an imbecile I'll give you a call. You would have to have the IQ of a house brick. If you cannot see that some of my posts are tongue in cheek then you really do need to try and reverse that charisma bypass operation you had!!

Say Hi to pjjp for me, you only need to look in the mirror!

[Squirter]

Keep ya cool there ole timer.

Cheers

Thanks Squirter ..... yesterday at Sandown there were three winners in five races. An outlay of $200.00 for a return of $2,003.40. This goes with the return of $3,960.00 one week ago. I'm not suggesting anything, other than consider doing the opposite to chasing one's losses, and maybe not concentrating so much on a mechanical system.

[Hammers]

But A Nut

Mythical wins - still works for a boss.

[moeee]

On 2004-09-02 16:58, Butternut wrote:
Thanks Squirter ..... yesterday at Sandown there were three winners in five races. An outlay of $200.00 for a return of $2,003.40. This goes with the return of $3,960.00 one week ago. I'm not suggesting anything, other than consider doing the opposite to chasing one's losses, and maybe not concentrating so much on a mechanical system.


Wouldn't mind getting returns like that for investment of $200.
Can't quite see how you done it.
Don't want to steal anything off you,but what's the go.Treble.all-up,quaddie,what?

[moeee]

Hey JFC WHERE YA BIN?

Like your stuff.
Now that the AFL season is almost gone,want to get something happening with the greyhounds.
Stick around my main man.

[moeee]

Just noticed that the Butternuts been booted out.
Bit like the casinos.Just when someone comes up with a winning system,the big boot.
Anyone out there got an idea how he wins so much for so little?

[Mark]

Good imagination?

[moeee]

Nah it wasn't that.
I found it under the topic "In place of a good system"

I believe it to be a fortunate set of circumstances.
Still,he's smiling!.:smile: