LG,

Yes I am able to to do that, in-fact Axis has the ability to use any of the 3 totes as the div, plus Best tote and middle tote for anyone wanting to match their betting activity against obtainable corporate products.

You can contact us through Ozmium and I will then email you the printout when Im doing the end of month consolidation. We are more then happy to help those that genuinely want to consider Axis, its features and how it can best fit in with their betting methods and budget.

It should be noted, that we offer these Free system selections to showcase the programs ability, the actual systems showcased will be replaced with a new one from time to time in order to be fair to those that have actually purchased our product.

Michal

Thanks Michal. All understood, will do.

Cheers LG

Do you take into consideration the starting price vs your rated price?

Hi Vortech

The results are based on the best of SP (official starting price) and NSW tote. FYI, tests have shown that top fluctuation would deliver an additional 4-5% increase in POT.

Ok - What I was trying to see is if over time the starting price or avg dividend dropped by 50c this would affect the long-term profitability of the system.

If long-term your system is showing around 45% strike rate and many of horses in the future are priced $1.50 (underlay) as most ratings people say, would you consider only those over the assessed price?

Hi Vortech

You raise a valid question however it would be almost impossible mathematically for the current average dividend which stands at $2.25 (5/3/10 to 28/5/13 - 2,742 sample size) and a long term strike rate which is currently 46.4% to move downward towards an average dividend of $1.75 (50c drop) without the propensity for the strike rate to move upwards to around 60% and in doing so maintain the same POT of 4.61%.

As stated in my last post, it is more than feasible to expect that you can improve the average dividend to around $2.34-$2.36 by obtaining top fluctuation. Of course having the ability to generate these or other potential system qualifiers well in advance of the race is a significant asset.

Hope that helps.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how it is deterimined to be mathematically impossible - even in a separate thread.

Is this determined by proportional betting tests, sample size or winners

Hi Vortech

It is not determined by proportional betting tests, sample size or winners, but rather the fact that Australian horse racing in particular demonstrates and has done so for decades, a strong Favorite Long-shot Bias. This means that horses (in particular at the shorter end of the market) at the dividends that we are talking about win almost nearly as often as their probability implies. So $1.75 chances win around 55% of races v their implied 57% probability, whereas $4.00 chances win only ~20% of races contested which in turn implies true odds of $5.00. As the dividend on offer increases, the bias against them magnifies even further.

I am interested to understand though why you think it might be possible that true $2.15 chances (consistent with the sample and strike rate) might suddenly be less effective to the point where their odds on offer at starting price might skew to the point that implies their chance of winning was more like a $2.82 chance.