Yeah, funny that.

Hi Zoe,

Firstly, I had nothing to do with crash being banned.
Yes, I thought he was harsh, but I'm more thick skinned than to run crying to anyone.
I have never complained to management about anyone on this forum.

Often times I've had some good hearted banter with crash, so I'm not offended, but he had one winning day "handicapping" and proceeded to tell everyone on more than one thread, that his way was the "only" way.

Firstly, he had a great day and his handicapping paid off, but posting 2 selections does not make his way the only way.

Chrome Tipped Arrows does rely on longshots, you are correct.
I never implied that it was a winning mechanical system, nor that it would hold up even next month anywhere on that thread.

I am making more money on the Best Bets than on the longshots, and the Best Bets are showing a small loss. I have bet the Best Bets in a very different manner (no staking plan) to achieve much greater success.

Having said that, it is only one of my strategies, and I don't think that other methods won't work or work even better.

Both yourself and crash seem to be very much of the same opinion, that you cannot entertain anything other than your own methods.

Seeing as you brought up "joking" and am I involved in selling systems, well no I am not. I sell a database which contains four FREE systems based on my ability to create VIABLE systems.

I can also tell you that anyone who has bought my database can verify in real time, that every one of the four FREE systems is still profitable to this minute.
No handicapping required.

I started with these mechanical systems 2 years ago, and they have stood the test of time, even though I only have 40% events in them.

What does this mean anyway, what has been left out?

Is personal judgement 60% of the criteria for handicapping methods???

How can handicapping account for a poor ride today, bad luck today, the horse off colour today, the trainer not serious about winning this one today etc etc etc.

Your generalization was just that, and having a science degree does not make you right. Your statement was skewed with no supporting facts, just personal opinion.

How do you know for a fact that very few punters understand systems?

How do you know that mechanical systems do not select odds in their favour?

This is a very bold statement, because I can prove that one of the reasons all my systems work, is because the systems select more winners where the odds are in my favour than against!

We are not discussing science, advanced maths or anything else, but pure logic.

It is just a disagrement, there is no malice or personal agenda against you or crash. I just find it frustrating, when someone is closed to anything other than what they do.

And no, as far as I'm concerned you don't get banned, I had absolutely nothing to do with crash having a holiday.

Tell him I say hi, and wish him a Merry Christmas from me.

Hi Zoe,
I'm not 100% sure where the 40% known, 60% unknown figures come from but I assume you are referring to 60% of the factors which determine the final results being attributable to "noise", luck or random events (like blocked for a run for e.g.). BTW I'd be interested to know where you come up with that figure.
If this is the case I would assume (and I use no mathmatical basis for this, just common sense, experience and a garage sale book on elementary statistics :-) that a larger database would be a distinct advantage. The reason you get a half presentable curve on something so tenuous (in my opinion) as barrier advantage over 100,000 races is because these random events tend to cancel each other out. In a small database they don't get the chance to cancel out.

KV

Hi to everybody.

Rather that answer the threads here individually that find it odd that Crash and I hold similar opinions regarding successful punting after 19yrs. together. I have played devil's advocate to many of the ideas he once held. Now he has changed some of them to his profit as it has turned out. His approach is far more intense than mine.
I have too many other things, including work to do. I did back the Diva for her last 3 Melb. Cup wins though and Vintage Crop at 15/1 before that and had good successes during the spring.. Crash missed all the Cups except 2004. His last win was Rain Lover! Don't laugh too loudly though, he is a very shrewd punter with nothing personal to prove in that area [at least].

Chrome you wrote:

'How can handicapping account for a poor ride today, bad luck today, the horse off color today, the trainer not serious about winning this one today etc etc etc.'

That's exactly what handicapping can have insight into. Studying trainer patterns, race selections and lead ups and sudden major Jockey engagements among many other general things. Intuition alone after long experience has more brains than any system. A system is as blind and dumb as my PC to everything, although good rules can make them seem to have intelligence. Indeed many of them fain intelligence very well.

A system has no way of knowing that it's selection for a race has another runner [that doesn't fit the system rules] in it that is going to eat the system selection alive. A good handicapper can spot that in a flash. He can also be selective about the odds he selects. Most systems can't. Not all systems though of course, but most. A handicapper can think, a system is a dumb Bitc..and they usually [nearly] all spit the dummy after a decent run, and not of outs either.
A handicapper has the possibility to grow and improve as a handicapper, even though not all do. A system remains a moron for life and as about as interesting as watching paint dry. OK if that's your thing I suppose. Whatever takes a punters fancy.

I will be butting out of this conversation now, I have a very busy week ahead of me. It's been both interesting, provided me with greater insight into the punter mind [not being used in a derogatory sense] and a generally informative experience. A bit strange too, as this is a mens world here and I feel I am trespassing.

All the best to all and sorry I never answered all posts,
Zoe

(In Homer Simpson voice) - Who's doing what now?

ZOE.
 

All the best .

The short time you were here added a large base of knowledge that I hadn,t considered previously.

My regards to"CRASH "

Cheers.
darky

Hi Zoe,

We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

I'll stick with my "dumb" old "moronic" systems that get beaten by handicapping every time...


BETS 2369
WIN RETURN $2,781.71
WIN PROFIT $412.71
WIN POT 17.42%
WINNERS 769
AVERAGE DIVIDEND $3.61
MAXIMUM DIVIDEND $29.40

Profit comes from more than 14 winners based on maximum dividend
Profit comes from more than 114 winners based on average dividend

Purely mechanical.

Lots of bets for a system
 

G'day Chrome

Have been reading the Systems Forum with interest the past few weeks....

Just wondering from your stats what the timeframe is for your 2369 bets and your average bets per week.... just curious (seems a lot of bets for a system - which appeals to me).

Thanks in Advance

Hi Stix,

The time frame is approximately 5 years.

It gives around 8 to 10 bets a week, city race meetings only, so we're talking Wednesday and Saturday betting etc.

Level stakes it gives one to two units profit per week consistently.

Of course, there are ways to maximise the profit without staking, such as exotics, but I've left that out of the debate, because we are talking win betting only at this stage.

I should also add there there are multiple bets on the same horse a number of times, when they qualify under more than one system. These results are the combined 4 systems all together.

Cheers Chrome

Good luck with the system(s)

A problem with mechanical systems... when to bet, what to eliminate?

I have numerous mechanical systems that are quite good.
Here is an example of one..

BETS RETURN POT% WINNERS S/R APW
126 $192 53% 24 19.05% $8.02

Now normally after 100 bets, 50% POT, I'd lock this system in.
However, I can break it down into 8 sub-systems. They are..

BETS RETURN POT% WINNERS S/R APW
10 $12.30 23% 2 20.00% $6.15
26 $20.00 -23% 3 11.54% $6.67
9 $22.10 146% 2 22.22% $11.05
5 $6.00 20% 1 20.00% $6.00
14 $40.20 187% 5 35.71% $8.04
19 $20.10 6% 3 15.79% $6.70
23 $48.60 111% 5 21.74% $9.72
20 $23.10 16% 3 15.00% $7.70

I wouldn't back a system until at least 100 bets are in it, with at
least 30% POT. Which the system as a whole has achieved.

Would one be happy backing the system as a whole knowing that
you would be confident that at least 4 of the sub-systems will not show
a decent profit in the future based on other data I have? Even though the
whole system is returning 53%, after over 100 bets.

Or would one wait until each sub-system has 100 bets too?
That would take another 15 months at least, I am too impatient for that.



Now,
Another problem with mechanical systems, I have many systems showing a small 1-10% profit after 300 bets.

Example :
BETS RETURN POT% WINNERS S/R APW
260 $289.90 12% 33 12.69% $8.78

I read somewhere that you cannot filter too much of a system because
you would not know then what could be anomolies in the system that you
are keeping. ie, just a good run.

Now if I was to eleminate 150 bets in this system using 3 common-sense filters, those 150 bets returned only $100. Leaving the system with the following :

BETS RETURN POT% WINNERS S/R APW
110 $185.40 69% 22 20.00% $8.43

Now surely after 5 months watching this system (after the 3 filters)
clean up continuously month after month, a mechanical system can work
no matter how heavily filtered it is? Correct?


Last question, mechanical systems. How many bets in the database would
each of you be happy with before you start betting?

It's ****ing me off because I am not confident enough to bet on my selections
religiously yet. All the doomsday articles I read make me unsure if I should
begin yet.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

Thanks, I'll go with that.

Are you sure?

Well the positive feedback is great. Why not...

But your name is not Sportz, Chrome or xpt,
and you ain't involved in a p1ssing contest..

Silly me, and I thought this was the place and the thread to share thoughts on punting systems.....

The reason I didn't reply to your post, is because you asked the questions and then went on to basically answer them yourself.

Personally, I would not dissect the systems too much, as you risk trimming down the data which will distort the results.

You are right, there are dangers in using too many rules, the best systems are straightforward and have the least number of rules.

Bear this in mind, the more rules you have, the more data you need to try it over, as the probability of backfitting increases with each rule.

your on the money there sahasastar...you see your post had to much merit and it could not be pulled apart ,,and you made too look like a dik...................cheers.......slowman........ ...............

Morning!! What's going on with all Sahasastar's replies (52-55) to posts which are NOT THERE??? Anyway, when it comes to "systems", I start betting when I genuinely believe I'm onto something (there is no "trial" period of waiting and watching). This means noticing something "odd" and quickly scanning a few records. If this oddity shows up again and I can explain it (to myself) then I BET it continuously, immediately. For example, let's say I notice that a number of Stable A's horses have been winning with Jockey "X" aboard and that they are paying well. I quickly note that this has been the case for at least the past 3 months. I ask myself why this is happening (especially if "X" is not the most accomplished jockey riding Stable A's nags). Is it "random"? I discover that "X" is the stable foreman's nephew (sound like a Melbourne Cup winning hoop now riding in England????). That's it. a system is born. So maybe it doesn't work out but mostly these "hunches" DO, until the rest of the punters wake up to "X". This principle (bet immediately) is the "best waves" surfing theory in action.
When I would go surfing I noticed that snap decisions (if soundly based!!) were best. WAITING for several great waves to go by BEFORE jumping on often meant missing the best rides of the day. You were consequently sitting out the perfect breaks and leaping aboard the "duds", experiencing the troughs, losing confidence, and then seeing ANOTHER "pipeline" go by while dithering. My advice is BE BRAVE and trust yourself to be on the Crests, in the surf and on the punt!!

Hi Sahasastar
 

apologies for not responding earlier, but I was like Sportz..felt like you answered your own questions. In addition to number of bets, I would also feel more comfortable with at least one full racing season, to take into account the different periods of the year, tracks, race quality etc. I personally think the measure of a system (for safety) is not only the number of bets, but also the time period of at least one full season, preferably two seasons, or more...but I understand one's eagerness to get on with it and start throwing real money at it.


It's ****ing me off because I am not confident enough to bet on my selections
religiously yet.


Therein is your answer I think. If you do not feel confident, my suggestion is ,either bet very small to gain confidence, or wait awhile longer until you do feel confident about the data you have built up.

Confidence is a major requirement for success..it is as important as the system itself..one cant really work without the other.

System+confidence+ discipline = success

all the very best to you!

W924 is right in a way with that advice; bet small if you aren't confident. However this then opens the door to regrets when your system turns into a success, and falls apart when betting bigger. You may discover that "overall' you should have been betting big all along. Anyhow, have a look at Chrome Prince's thread and his Arrows to see how betting "Best Bets" (ie shorties**** is a painfully slow way to make a little or lose a little, while his "longshots" are really doing the job despite the much poorer SR. Had he stayed in last weekend CP'd be even further ahead on the longies system. My experience is that anything mechanical needs a HIGH minimum price to succeed. Set one Mr S(!!**** and you will be both increasing your POT and betting less often (using the same system, that is****. Good Luck.

Not necessarily so - the following are the results of a purely mechanical system that I back-tested for two years before starting to bet on at the beginning of October 2004 and it is still producing the goods without one change to any of its rules.

WIN PLACE
Races Bet : 87 87
Races Won : 34 55
S.R./Race : 39.1% 63.2%
Outlay ($): 87.00 87.00
Return : 109.50 86.92
$ Profit : 22.50 -0.08
% P.O.T. : 25.9% -0.1%
(1/10/04 to 30/11/05 - Dividends as per NSW tote)

With an average winning price of $3.25 it could hardly be claimed that a high winning price is required.

This month there has been only three selections so far:

12/12/2005 Murwillumbah
R5 #13 Hattie Placed $2.30
02/12/2005 Moonee Valley
R4 #1 Tagine Won $2.60 Placed $1.30
02/12/2005 Hamilton
R1 #8 Fanny Won $3.80 Placed $1.50

Very selective with few rules (all logical) but very satisfying.

G'day La Mer
Interesting returns for those that think 1unit/win, 4 unit/place is some sort of magic bullet.
They can't seem to grasp that they are simply betting a percentage of their win bank at level stakes and a higher percentage of their place bank at level stakes.
Both investments, even though on the same horse, have to stand alone.

and what about punter who know that place bet not win but put 1x4 becos he think that it smooth up and downs. when i model this on computer up and downs mostly get much worse with this model.
Thank you. Winston.

Thanks guys, was being tongue in cheek!

Probably did answer my own questions, but was interested
in hearing others thoughts, as I've only recently been seriously getting interested in punting the last 12 months, and am still very much a novice,
but a seriously determined one at that.

Probably my first lesson that I have already brained into myself is..
PLACE BETTING IS FOR MUGS!!!!

I don't record the place return, and will probably never do so on any system
that I create. Some are good at it I will agree. But I reckon when it comes to any system over 100's or 1,000's of bets. The win will out-perform the place return all day long.

Thanks for the tips, taken onboard.

With that statement, you show that you aren't a novice at all ;)

I agree 100%.

La Mer, I don't doubt (well, maybe I do**** that some "lucky" punters can win betting the shorties (your post 62**** but it's hard to tell what to make of it when the "stats" are presented without the individual results and bets. For example your average win price of $3.25 over 34 winners from 87 bets (= $110 return**** could be 33 x $2 winners and 1 x $44 winner (also $110 return****, could it not?? The single longshot COULD then be the only winning factor(or not****.
I'm not saying this IS the case but who knows? You DO, but not us. As is well known, stats are very slippery things and don't tell us THIS! See that excellent thread about the "two dead ends" for more!!!!!!!! Have you broken the POT down into individual POTs at certain SP/Tote bet prices,for example? If, of your 87 bets 33 ONLY were on $2 chances (100% success from above example**** and 54 on $44 shots (failure from above example**** then the conclusion would be "the shorter the better"!!! This is NOT an attack but just a warning to anyone contemplating statistical approaches to BE CAREFUL AND CAUTIOUS. As you can see the raw stats COULD be based on two totally different results (ie in one the Longie saved the day ;in the other the host of shorties**** though the temptation to jump to conclusions (ie the AVERAGE winning price was short, therefore the short-priced horses were the cause**** is strong. Anyhow, I was referring specifically to the exposed tipping or system selections often presented on this forum, which we CAN follow. How often have I read HERE that we must be wary of the occasional big priced winner distorting the POT etc etc?? IS THIS TRUE?? I say NO! P57 out.

Punter57, Fair comments, but in fact the longest priced winner was $7.70, the shortest $1.70, while the trimmean was $3.04 (with the trimming of the hightest 10% and the lowest 10%) and the median $2.80.

Over a period of time you have been too dismissive re short-priced runners, THEY ARE the ones to back IMHO.