BENDIGO
6/13 x
DUBBO
3/5 [7.90w 4.00p]
7/8 [$1.70p]
MACKAY
5/8 [$4.60p]
8/12 x

Someone might want to check these results.

ICE BREAKER
 

I broke even today - thank god, I could use the money !
an oldie, but a goodie.
Come on guys - aren't we all friends deep down with a common goal.

cheers Mancunian

Hay, I'm partial to a little fancy fiddle playen.

I think our friend, now finally knows, what it feels like & why others have become cranky in the past, leave the site & never post a thing ever again.

That's how sites become very quiet.

There are some fools out there who say they do it just to get a gee-up out of people, as a form of weird joke, well no one ever laughs, except the sole, mouth breathing fool, just like a teenage bully does.

There are also some who see themselves as some sort of policeman & beleive its their right to attack wild ideas in the name of protecting the average punter from losing all their money , yet never make a positive posting on how to make or protect the punting money to replace the idea, that they are attacking, no matter how wild & woolly the idea may be.

My favourite, are the ones who go through all the postings & critisise others spelling & grammar- Weird! But never contibute anything positive about punting.

I would personally like to see those who have felt they have been bullied into silence by the bullies, making their, valuable contributions known once more, no matter how wild the ideas may be .
Dont let the bully boys get the upper hand , make it known to them that their nasty nonscence is offensive & you dont like . Maybe an official complaint to the moderator could be in order.
Maybe the fool bully boys can laugh that one off aswell.

Now, where's that fiddle of mine.

did you actually back em this time or do you need to "I only realized I hadn't won on the horse after checking my betting account after you pointed out the mistake." again?

this is hilarious

Yesterday elsewhere I experienced an incident which will occupy a prominent place in my burgeoning scrap book.

In response to an implication that I was incapable of comprehending flat staking, I calculated flat staking of a modest $1,000 over the disclosed 2,000 bets at 35% S/R and 35% POT. An eye-opening $700,000 profit.

But that objective information was deleted, and today a Kelly Staking calculation met the same fate.

This means that certain people there can claim any S/R or POT they choose and remain protected from my objective observations.

Kinda' like those who pumped Davnet up to $3 billion before reality pricked.

Now by contrast from what I can see here Crash published his picks beforehand, then claimed a winner that was not there.

How can that be anything but an innocent oversight?

If you want to malevolently claim fictitious winning figures, then you don't publish picks beforehand which everyone can verify.

Instead you might just claim extravagant S/R + POT with no corroborating evidence, or go p57's celebrated route of having very fluid rules which only get disclosed after any long-shot bolts in.

The massive outrage over what was clearly no more than a mistake again says far more about the accusers than the target.

Yep, it just won - Sebring.

See.... I told you ;)

Pointless being in a competition crash, as it doesn't reflect either the way I bet, nor the odds I take.

I'm not good at picking winners, I've always held that belief, my niche is punting to value, and laying poor value.

My competitions don't have a start and an end, they are forever ongoing.

Working out profit or loss using TAB dividends is like working out wages in India for me.

If I can't get over or under a certain price, I pass.
Sometimes I can't get the price, I'll trade on the race, knowing the ants will come out of the hill to feed and drive the market into a nice slice of profit.

Give me a competition that works this way, and you have a serious challenge on your hands ;)

So far this week, I've more than doubled my bank on UK racing using 2% flat stakes to liability :D

It's all about price I reckon.

O.K. if you have no Betfair account we can't play, it really would have been fun, regardless of us having a go at eachother here.
It would have been a pretty good battle I reckon - it's a shame.

The only rules were work out the profit per unit after a month and supply the Betfair account summary and csv file for verification.

That was it - no other rules.

Chrome raises an interesting point for all punters.

That is... a punter has to ask himself the question, am I more intersted in hitting a winning profit or am I more interested in hitting a volumn of winners.

Cheers.

I think it's an interesting point too. Perhaps he should create a thread on it?

Flaming ... contents deleted.

Very close to a suspension.

Moderator.

The answer
 

A simple answer for me. I want a volume of winners and a profit. If I can't achieve that i'll settle for selectivity and a profit.

Sunday
BALLARAT
5/16 x
DUBBO
3/10 [$2.30p]
8/13 [$7.10p]
EDENHOPE
4/11 [$5.40p]
5/9 x
8/14 x
HOBART
7/11 x
SUNSHINE COAST
5/3 [$3p]
8/13,14 [$5.30p]
WAGGA
5/13 x

Please note:

There will be a zero tolerance policy.

This means if there are any more inflammatory posts and breaches of Forum Terms of Use suspensions will follow. People do not join this forum and post to be verbally attacked.

Also please note use of the "f" word and other profanities, directly or implied, is inappropriate on a public forum and will result in suspension.

Should you see a post in breach of Forum Terms of Use you can report it by clicking the bold red triangle.

Moderator.

Re Chrome's volume of winners -v- making a profit.

The answer is a no brainer, it MUST be making a profit. The other basic thing that punters do not consider is that a horse does not necessarily have to be first past the post for the punter to make a profit on the bet. A lot of punters seem to focus on that "win only" often to their detriment.

Privateer,

From reading over your old posts you bet 1/3 ratio. What percentage would winners contribute to your POT vs the 3 units the place?

'volume of winners -v- making a profit'

I think the terms need greater definition to be meaningful or at least an example should be given.

That's an interesting point about ratio's Stix. I read a long time betting guru's web in the US that said 'after much trial and error, the best win/place ratio was 1w x 6p'. The idea being I guess is it's a place system while skimming a bit of cream for the win, but little damage if a place getter.

Read 'em again because I've answered that previously.

You didn't have to reply. In line with the zero tolerance policy in this thread, one day's suspension for this unpleasant reply.
Moderator

Tuesday:
BENALLA
5/8 x
6/9 [$9.20w $2.50p]
7/11 x
TOWNSVILLE
4/8 [$6.60p]
5/6,7 x
7/10 x

Didn't think it deserved it, but Gee thanks for your curt reply.

Thought it was a rather inert question....I shall not bother you again, you seem very defensive.

Crash, if you are going to 'play' your system you must pay more attention to the selection process. :)

Benalla 8/11 Win $43-20

(This system is throwing up some nice priced winners but long term will prove a substantial loser)

Why is it so?
 

Wunfluova
Can you tell me why you are so sure that it will be a substantial loser long term plse?

Jacfin, I tested it roughly over the period of the results posted in this thread and despite several good winners it produced a substantial loss.

I don't want to 'crash' Crash's thread but if he so wishes I can do an analysis over whatever period he might care to nominate and post the results. Could even post a list in Excel of the actual bets which would give a basis for further refinement if so required.

The main reason why I haven't already tested it over a longer period was simply because a shorter period made it easier to manually isolate the races with three or more selections that needed to be eliminated. (was a bit pressed for time)

If a longer test period is desired then I should be able to do this elimination programatically in Excel or if preferred just leave all the 'raw' selections in the list.

Post removed. Flaming moderators is not tolerated. 7 days' suspension.

Must have had a Seniors moment [part of life nowadays]. It's not that hard to miss a bet here and there, but typically I missed the most important one. I'm sure other's following the system didn't miss it as after all I'm only posting the system results on this thread, So for Tues. as far as the system goes:

Tuesday [Unitab]:
BENALLA
5/8 x
6/9 [$9.20w $2.50p]
7/11 x
8/11 Win [$34.10w $8.50p]
TOWNSVILLE
4/8 [$6.60p]
5/6,7 x
7/10 x

I hope most punters having a whack at this system, got them all.

Your probably right, as I did say at the beginning of the the thread:
"I've moved this to it's own thread and waiting until it collapses I guess. Going strong at the moment".

It's never bothered me betting straight away on a system I've come up with, without confirmation that it will still be going strong in 1yrs. time. If it wins for the first week, I'll follow it for another etc. etc. No past stats. are going to show how this system will perform over the next 3 mths. or so. The main thing is it's winning at the moment.

Thanks for the research offer in your other post, but I probably really don't want to know the results :-)

I backed them all, Crash. RL paid $46 and $9 on STab. Onya.
I also had TE Race 2/7 which seems to pass the rules. Can you tell me if I have missed something with that one?

That doesn't make sense mate [?]
If you tested the results over the same period as I have been posting the system results you would not end up concluding a substantial loss. In fact quite the opposite is true.
-------------------------------------
[post no.13] System totals then were:
Win out 137 Win in 168.20 Profit 31.20
Place out 137 Place in 163.10 Profit 26.10
-------------------------------------
[since post No.13] System totals to Tues.22nd:
win out 43 in 70.10 profit 27.10
place out 43 in 69.40 profit 26.40
-------------------------------------
Total win out 180 in 238.30 profit 58.30
Total place out 180 in 237.60 profit 57.60
Total E/W out 360 in 475.90 profit 115.90

Regardless how anyone bet the runners, win, place or e/w, a substantial system profit was made.

'Singrid'. I just checked and it does pass the rules. I didn't see it as I'd been out and missed the jump on that race, so I only checking for selections after r2.

Time to let this system drift off the page? :-)

I checked Crash's published selections from the start to last Wed and then worked them out for myself and bet on them after that. My figures are similar to his.

Could be a good idea. You are to be congratulated for this little gem.

Thanks jacfin, hope you make plenty more on it and doesn't bomb out anytime soon. Good luck to anyone else following the system too.

CANTERBURY [heavy 9] ?
The selections there were [before price assessment]:
3/8 [9.90w 4.20p]
4/7,8,9
5/7
6/11

Sticking with your wet track theory. It improved the system.

It's nice to now only see posts discussing the actual system and its results.

Yes, very pleasing , particularly as the two selns in CY4 ( No 7 was not on the minimum ) ran 1st and 3rd.
I'm also pleased to see the posts getting back on topic.

I'm pleased to see it back on topic too. One accounting mistake and the thread became ablaze but not about the system. With almost 4,000 hits on the thread, I really didn't want to abandon it, as obviously a heck of a lot of punters were getting something out of it. Good for them. Ironicaly, I have seen more prices drift than firm.

A few winners today [Unitab]:
$9.90w
$7.30w
$4.50w
$4.00w
and 3 bets still to go at Ascot;
7/7
8/12,14

Cheers.

We are keeping a close watch now. Also don't forget to press that red triangle should any post break the Forum Terms of Use.

Thank you.

Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!! :) (in no way suggesting anything deliberate, just perhaps a shade of carelessness at the end of a working day)

Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following :

26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)

28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)

3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)

4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)

7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)

AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of :

26th March - Bunbury 5/5, Chelt 2/6, Sand 3/8, Sand 6/16

etc, etc...

Having said all that I do understand that some of the above only became non selections after Crash added to or amended several rules - so some of these were true selections at time of writing but need to be adjusted for if you want an accurate assessment of the final system. If you don't want to bother with these sort of details then go with what you have got.

Previously I posted that I expected this system to be a substantial loser long term. I have had another look at it and the figures are not nearly as bad as I first thought. Will probably show a loss but would benefit from further pruning.

Couple of comments :

- this would be a very low strike rate system and if followed to the letter will try the patience of all but the most dedicated (and well organised) of systemites.

- it's easy enough doing this analysis post race but in practice using something like an arbitrary $51 cut off is going to drive you crazy in the long run. e.g. you let one go because its $56 at the jump but it then comes out and wins the race after firming up to $48 after final pools are calculated.

Not meaning to have a go at Crash as he has obviously taken a lot of time in checking and posting the results in good faith but just trying to point out the need to check everything out for yourself before getting too carried away.

Wunfluova said: "Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!!"

Creative accounting on my part [again] I suppose?

I'm NOT cooking the books. This system's results are easy to check [already checked and agreed with by another poster] from day one and I don't appreciate the innuendo [again] of misrepresenting the results of this system.