So I guess (as I gathered from your earlier posts) the only way to follow the money is to spot when the big guys are throwing a dummy and somehow know what they are trying to lure you away from. Is the real money always put on too late to follow? And what are the mechanics of this late plunge to get the timing just right.

KV,
The real money is usually put on too late to follow, but what you have to remember it may NOT be put on the TABS.
Just think of how many betting places there are that pay out on the TAB divi, usually NSW TAB.
So the smokey is set up the sheep follow,the smokey comes in, the nag they want to bet goes out, and the money goes on at the last few seconds.
There was one offshore betting agency that was nearly sent broke by the smarties using this method, until they realised what was happening.
Just remember the smarties are making a fortune out of this game, and it's usually not the main meetings.

Cheers

Hi Gizzard,
You have interpreted the rules correctly.

I thought I explained the reasoning behind it ,so , at the risk of sounding boring, I will repeat myself ,the reason for this approach is based on the fact that the majority of venues have 2+ favs get up or none at all .
It is rare that they only get just one Fav up .


Now, I am not talking about one weekend ,I`m talking about several thousand races. 7 days a week.

You could follow the idea betting down the board (as you suggest) instead of across , but one has now altered the logic of the parameters to a point where they have no correlation what so ever to the original concept.


Cheers.

Hi Gizard,,
I overlooked something in your question.
The 1st winner does not have to come from the 1st 4 races , as you seem to have interpreted, it can be the 6th. You may note that I stated up to max . 4 outs in a row.

May I suggest reading the original posting of this method.

I like the idea of looking over other people shoulders for the selections , preferrable total strangers with a crazed look in their eyes.

Dont worry about their dopey looks , they could be runners for the bookies in disguise.

What if they are not ? I hear you say , well then, I`m affraid you have just done your dow.

An answer to my original post in this thread is as follows: Size of sample 569 meetings from all states except WA & Tas. No of consecutive favs winning=179 (31.5%) . An interesting sidelight is that a fav won the first race on 228 occasions (40.1%). I find this stat interesting in as much as the first race on a program is invariably a maiden, 2 y.o. or a jump. Races which most of the time we are told to steer clear of. I also looked at Bhagwan’s idea of stopping after 4 outs. Thinking along the line that even if the 4th bet does get up, and by being fav you would probably lose on the day anyway. My findings were that it would still (probably) be economical stop after 3 outs. The results show that the combinations of a fav followed by a fav OR a fav followed by a miss then a fav OR a fav followed by two misses followed followed by a fav won on 367 occasions

The way I see that is that say you have a SR of 30% (on average) then from any 100 selections (on average) you will have 30 winners, and then following those 30 winners the next bet will also have 30% SR (on av erage), so in other words 9 times. (from 30 that is)

i.e. the 30% SR does not alter on ANY given selection regardless of whether the previous one won or not.

That's what I was thinking Partypooper which was why I was asking the question about how this tactic gave an advantage over the normal 30%.

Gizzard, yes I think it's more of a mental thing, we persieve that if we've backed 3 winners in a row then must be that were not going to win again, when if fact we still have the same SR of 30%.

I recently improved my POT on a ratings based selection method by stopping after 2 winners on any given day. All the experts tell me that this was pure luck! they MUST be right but, it is still better on the nerves when you walk away a winner. Needless to say it hurts when the next rating romps home @12-1 and youre not on it.