I must admit to being somewhat baffled, Easy.

Doubtless I'm not alone.

Perhaps you could explain with some concrete examples for the upcoming Saturday city meetings. Just (say) three selections with your reasoning behind each of them.

Sorry TheEasyRun i cant agree with you on that one. Weight, barrier draw and sectionals have a direct influence on the race. For instance a noted leader running in a 1000m race at Ipswich that has drawn badly with speed everywhere inside it faces a huge task as opposed to the exact same field/barriers at a course like Warwick Farm. As for weight, well "weight can stop a train"!

IMO working out a speed map along with each runners potential final 600 would be one of the first things i would be looking at. Granted if the horse is not fit then its not going to win no matter what. But take Lonhro's last run against Grand Armee, Beasley walked the first 1400 and with Grand Armee capable of coming home in around 34, with Lonhro so far back he would have had to break 32 seconds for his last 600! Not possible.

Agreed!!!

I have to agree with MV2040 (and Crash alluded to it also) that even if a horse is in good condition and its last run suggested it might improve, if its running style doesn't suit the likely pattern of the race (i.e. leaders dawdling the first 600m or going like the clappers first 600m) it will struggle.

Crikey, are we all so thin skinned that a bit of debate gets to this!

Possibly the best post for propogating opinion in ages.

But that does not mean I have to have my arm twisted to agree with him - surely.

To each their own, I am not criticising him, just his "advice".

I do not believe that it is something someone else should follow especially given the dollar figures.

The maths is flawed - blind freddy could see that.

Much of what he states is logical and good, but there is a lot that is just plain illogical.

By passing comment (not putting the boot in) I now am the subject of the same treatment.

It doesn't take a mathematician to see that it doesn't add up, and anyone following this path will lose their bank!

For the record I did not agree with the names, I agreed with this....

think the words "social conscience" fit in here somewhere.

There are several threads in here where posters refer to $2 bets.I applaud those people.They are enjoying the sport and clearly operating well within their budget.

Once again,,Encouraging people with low incomes to "invest" (ha ha) in the region of 20% of their annual earnings stinks.

Are you saying Class is Fitness, and Fitness is Class?? That doesnt make any sense to me, and taken by itself that statement is false. IMO, ""class"" is comprised of certain elements, of which Fitness isn't one. Its a completely different thing altogether.



So there's no need for conventional form analysis?

Track Conditions have no bearing ?? .. i dont understand this one ..
Barriers aswell ...i agree a fit , class horse can over come a bad barrier but barrier postions cant be ignored...a good horse can overcome a wide barrier depending on its barrier speed and the run into the first turn..,,

example : Rashini last weekend at Doomben...the horse is flying but from that outside barrier raced wide the whole way and was a certainty beaten..

I agree with just about everything else though..
especially staking and your thoughts on progressive stakings...

must admit i'm still confused on your selection method though...

Unless your on track and a good judge on horse flesh and even then fitness is hard to judge... Most trainers have a there own full size track with stable mates to run against...,,its hard to judge how much work they've done and especaily how much fast work.....
You can get a gauge a horses fitness sometimes by guessing there intended target race and how they've gone first up ...but its still not an exact science..

Great thread Easy..i hope you keep it going and explain to us novices exactly how you go about your selection process..

My two cents..

Back to the original thread and lets look at it for what it is....

The blokes assuming $6,000 can be turned into $50,000 in 1 year on
$7.00 selections. (I certainly hope he doesn't mean returning 700% each time on average.. that would have to be impossible.)

Let's assume his strike rate is 1 in 5.. and he makes $7.50 on average.
An extremely healthy 50% POT, hard to acheive these results but certainly not impossible if your selection processes are thrifty.

I ran a drawdown simulation 50 times on these excellent returns over 1000 bets, the average drawdown was 33.3 units. Now factoring in an unexpected bad run might occur the average of the highest 25 drawdown results is 41 units. Let's say we are prepared to bet on this very successful system aggressively and are happy in the knowledge that if a bad run might occur we are very confident we'll still be okay as our betting is geared towards this bad run happening.

So we'll bet 1.2% of our account (factoring in the 41 units drawdown might occur). That's saying if the bad run occurs in the near future we won't lose more that 50% of our account.

So the starting bet on $6,000 would be $72.00.

How many bets using this method to turn $6,000 into $50,000?

Assuming each time we bet our 1.2%.. and get back 1.8% on average.
It would take just over 350 bets to turn $6,000 into $50,000. (The power of compound interest!)
(The next year that $50,000 would be over $400,000)

That is 1 bet per day, starting at $72 bets. Certainly not impossible if one has the selections.

If you've been doing it long enough how hard would it be to find just 1 horse out of the 100 odd that race every day that is 50% or more over the odds.. just 1 horse.

So let's stop ridiculing the guy and hear what he has got to say.

I think a lot of you are barking up the wrong tree saying TheEasyrun has encouraged people to bet a large part of their income on the horses. I'm not the smartest of people but I reckon he was saying you've got to have an intimate knowledge of horses appearances, personalities, behaviour etc. in the mounting yard then you can pick plenty of winners. That rules out just about everone from betting on the horses. Im also sure those who know horses best like trainers also know that what TheEasyrun said does not work. Thats why so many stable plunges miss out. Also look at sportspeople. Good physical appearance doesn't mean they will win. Most look up to the task.
Asking TheEasyrun to give you some selections for tomorrow won't work either, because the horses arent in the mounting yard now.

On our interpretation the TheEasyRun is simply posting that from his perspective of what is a small starting bank, $4,000 can make about $30,000 profit in a year, and a starting bank of $6,000 can make about $50,000 profit in a year.

Maybe some forum members would feel more comfortable if TheEasyRun had posted that a small starting bank like $400 can make about $3000 in a year?

However, is there a difference? Anyone can extrapolate from a bank of $400 making about $3000 in a year that a bank of $4,000 can make $30,000 in a year!

Anyone can extrapolate from a profit made using $2 bets what the profit would have been using $10 bets, $20 bets, $100 bets, $200 bets and so on...

So even if TheEasyRun had posted that a small starting bank like $400 can make about $3000 in a year, the average person earning $30,000 would be able to work out that a bank of $4000 could make $30,000 in a year and a bank of $8,000 could make $60,000 in a year.

Whether or not a profit of $3,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $400 or a profit of $30,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $4000 has been substantiated by TheEasyRun is our opinion the main issue.

Moderator.

Having just finished reading the 80 odd posts in this thread, I asked myself the simple of question of "What new information am I taking away with me?"

The answer, "NOTHING"

TheEasyRun has provided nothing more than the fact the he/she believes the fittest horse will win providing it has sufficient class and no other factors need to be looked at.

On one level I can agree with this. If the other factors were taken into account you could probably avoid some losers but wouldn't find new winners.

All in all nothing new to anyone who has the slightest amount of knowledge about the horse racing game.

I would suggest to TheEasyRun to provide a workout for a race, as this may provide something new and innovative that we have not seen before.

Brad

Quote Crash

I've never been any of those professions you quoted [I can spell mathematician and individual though] so I wouldn't know and the guy never got half a chance to explain his reasoning did he.


Lolol Crash I missed your cheap shot.The paragraph containing those spelling errors was a quote from your mate The easy run.

Brad I totally agree with what you say.

If you look back at page seven you will see that brave chief was pretty close to the money,in his opening statement.

As far as studying horses on the track Geoffrey Hutson's book "Watching Racehorses" produces excellent advice with regard to the behavioural patterns of racehorses.

In that book Dr.Hutson says,and I quote, "Fitness is hard,if not impossible to measure simply by looking at a horse".Of course Geoffrey Hutson is one of those post war educated idiots.Though he too can probably spell mathematician and individual...Unlike (as our friend Crash so aptly points out)
The easy run.

Bradw, like I said I'm still listening "INTENTLY"

Lolol here too mate. I was aware it was a quote [bleeding obvious, as it had 'Quote' on each end of it]. No use claiming it for a cheap shot at yourself. It was meant for the writer, Meaning, if your going to dismiss people due to profession [or whatever], at least spell them right.

See, I lambaste everyone equally:-))

I've been following this thread with great interest and IMO the most pertinent details/facts were contributed in Post88 by Sahasastar. He succinctly put the mathematical evaluation of this complicated issue into a simple formula which is easily digested by the wider betting public.
More such practical evaluations of complex issues of this kind please!

Cheers.

Quote Moderator 3

"Whether or not a profit of $3,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $400 or a profit of $30,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $4000 has been substantiated by TheEasyRun is our opinion the main issue"


The owners of this site have told us repeatedly over a period of years (to my own knowledge) that the above proposition is unrealistic,and I totally agree with that.(not impossible,not much is,but not credible.)

The easy run seems to be claiming his results are the result of watching horses.If that is the case,other than posting his betting history it will be difficult.(to say the least),to ascertain the veracity of his claims.

As I said earlier,it's all been good for a laugh.and probably racks up a few hits on the site.

The last paragraph from the Moderator post could be better worded as follows:

Can a profit of $3,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $400?

Can a profit of $30,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $4000?

This is the main issue brought up by TheEasyRun and needs to be substantiated.

Moderator.

Moderator,

You are spot on.

Every forum has people spruiking all sorts of holy grail methods but very few are ever substantiated. Anyone can post the "Rules of Punting", but actually using them and making a profit from horse racing is a totally different thing.

In my opinion the hardest part of making a profit is having the correct mental attitude to handle the peaks and troughs that occur to one's capital. It is the ability to be able to treat punting as a business and no longer a hobby/enjoyable interest that is the real challenge.

I find it difficult going to the track with a couple of selections and not having a few more bets to fill in the day. This is a discipline I am working on this racing year.

Nirvana for the average bloke on the punt would be around $50,000 a year.....roughly $4000 to $5000 a month. A $6000 starting bank for that is plenty.

If no one else can see that this is in fact impossible to sustain and the chance of losing a year's wages or even a $500 bank betting on 7/1 shots, is actually odds-on probably 1/20, then I just give up.

Unless you can pick one in two winners @7/1, then it might be possible, but there is reality to deal with!

I'll have a wee look at Sahasastar's post:

Let's assume his strike rate is 1 in 5.. and he makes $7.50 on average.
An extremely healthy 50% POT, hard to acheive these results but certainly not impossible if your selection processes are thrifty.

I ran a drawdown simulation 50 times on these excellent returns over 1000 bets, the average drawdown was 33.3 units. Now factoring in an unexpected bad run might occur the average of the highest 25 drawdown results is 41 units. Let's say we are prepared to bet on this very successful system aggressively and are happy in the knowledge that if a bad run might occur we are very confident we'll still be okay as our betting is geared towards this bad run happening.

And just how exactly is TheEasyRun or anyone else going to make $5,000 per month betting 2% of a $6,000 bank on each selection?????????

The average drawdown matters not one iota, it's the maximum drawdown that will bust the bank. Some simple calculations tell you that to earn $5,000 per month, your selections have to be invested in far too heavily on too small a bank and therefore it would not take anywhere near the maximum drawdown to kill the bank.


So we'll bet 1.2% of our account (factoring in the 41 units drawdown might occur). That's saying if the bad run occurs in the near future we won't lose more that 50% of our account.


I agree protect the bank, but how are we going to make $5,000 to match our monthly wage with a $72.00 bet at 7/1, even if it wins?


How many bets using this method to turn $6,000 into $50,000?


If he has a phenomenal strike rate not that many, but I don't think he's going to find that many bets @7/1 that fit his criteria AND win in any month!


If you've been doing it long enough how hard would it be to find just 1 horse out of the 100 odd that race every day that is 50% or more over the odds.. just 1 horse.


Crikey, if it were that easy (forgive the pun), everyone would do it.
That 1 horse has to win and that is exactly what has not been factored in anywhere - when they don't win.

All this pie in the sky stuff is what dreams are made of, reality pays the bills!


So let's stop ridiculing the guy and hear what he has got to say.


If you do the math properly it's obvious that he is the one ridiculing us and it appears that only myself and one or two others have picked up on this.

Very surprised, when the basics are faulty.

Rightio.... Chrome.

The 50 sims I ran the worst drawdown was 58 units.
On the sim I had already factored in the 37th worst drawdown result (half of bottom half). You could reasonably expect it to be around half of the sims.. only 33 units.. not the 41 I done it on. No-one knows the exact drawdown, it's impossible to get it exactly right. So I played the percentages, yet still overcooked it to be safe.

Let alone not running the expected drawdown on only the 350 bets. I would say the expected drawdown that could occur would decrease significantly with such a small sample of bets. Yet I still ran the test over the longer term.

Now, assuming the 2% chance of the worst drawdown did happen - 58 units
(1 in 50 chance of the 58 units occuring)...

Betting 1.2% x 58 units = lose 70% of bank.. Broke.. certainly not!!!
I'd suggest the system might need reviewing though, or it'd take balls to ride out of the rough trot and stick to it.

..or recalculate your bet percentage for a 58 unit drawdown if that makes you happy... 0.8%. The power of compound interest would at a guess turn the 350 bets into maybe 450-500 bets at worst without running a sim. Slightly over a year at 1 per day, but still PFG.

Surely you Chrome understand that we don't care if the overlay on the day does not win.. it's the average return WHEN THEY WIN!!.. a winner each 5th day at $7.50 on long term averages.
Was that part hard to understand for you, I'll explain it on a blackboard for you with big writing in chalk.

Previous 12 months results on a few of my betting systems:

Just a small sample.

51 sel, $122 ret, 29% srw, 59% srpl.
56 sel, $119 ret, 27% srw, 61% srpl.
74 bets, $130 ret, 39% srw, 67% srpl.
86 bets, $151 ret, 25% srw, 51% srpl.
60 bets, $86 ret, 22% srw, 52% srpl.

That's about 300 bets in the last year returning 70% profit.. once again, I under-estimated my simulation for fear of not being believed.

With the amount of place getters to winners, I can certainly expect these returns to continue.

I agree that 1 year would be pushing it.. but CAN IT BE DONE!
Absolutely without a doubt it can be done, someone is doing it out there, and I expect to be doing it real soon.

Would I bet these percentages though? If I was returning the figures quoted I'd have no problem at all betting 1% of my account.. and as my account grows by 1% each time. Diminish my bets be 1%. Easy.

Chrome Prince.

Nowhere have I mentioned 7-1 shots or how to stake them. I thought I made it quite clear that a bet should not be made unless it can return over $7 for every dollar bet.
A 7-1 win bet is fine, a 14-1 win bet even better, and a 28-1 better still. A 4 or 5-1 win bet needs a single parlay, but any win price lower than that needs dismissing. And those I will show how to stake.
Exotics were mentioned though. Not an exotic punter?

Mod 3 said
[ Can a profit of $3,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $400?

Can a profit of $30,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $4000?

This is the main issue brought up by TheEasyRun and needs to be substantiated.

Moderator. ]

I'll go one better Mod 3.

The next few pages will go into detail on the subjects I've already mentioned. Then onto new ones, including why an yearly average Profit on Turnover of less than 80% should be cause for worry.
After the last chapter it will be time to play.


Unfortunently, what with the time constaints involved of finding $7 shots to tip to unsuspecting battlers, and standing at the mounting yard sticking pins in horses, it will take a few weeks to set it up.
Plus this is not yet the right time of year to have a full Punting Stable.

Time to pull out of the debate for me when the *********
It's irrelevant anyway.. if you have decent overs of 20-30% or more long term and bet them sensibly you'll make a killing anyway.

Sahasastar, in fact the Moderator told me to give the Easyrun a fair go, so I don't know where you pulled that one from????

There is no dispute on making a killing at 30% POT either.

The issue, for me, is trying to exude $5000 a month out of a $6000 bank regularly on 7/1 shots, which in fact TheEasyRun did suggest. One would need a lot more bets at greater risk to the bank, and the risk is what has been overlooked in my opinion.

and I'll ask the same question again, either you want to bet $72 on each 7/1 shot to preserve the bank (in my opinion the right way to stake, just not the right method here) or you want to make $5,000 per month off a $6,000 bank...which is it, because you cannot have both - it doesn't add up.

If you ever make it add up, you can do all my betting for me and I'll be a very rich man ;)

gawd, I don't know if I can survive the SUSPENSE!!!!!!

The system and maths boys here are perhaps looking into the wrong envelope on this [their own]. Nothing wrong with that as we all tend to see the world through our own glasses, but it might be missing TheEasyRun's point on staking completely. Hopefully he'll get to a couple of examples to clarify what in some peoples books, can't work.

I don't bet a set % of bank and mostly never have and I'm sure their are plenty of other punters who don't either. I bet mostly flat stakes to win [a bit of place too] but as to staking amount or % of bank it's a [rough] sliding scale depending on the odds and what exposure to loss I feel the bet has.

Generally the average punter bets the largest amounts on the smallest odds and the smallest amount on the largest odds. To many punters that is just crazy as then odds alone are being used as a risk assessment [the punter has no faith in their own assessment ability] and that leads to confusion about SP odds and true odds and also the smallest returns from the best overlay opportunities.

I had three bets yesterday, all with differing odds and exposure to loss based on my own personal judgement. My largest bet [Campeche] paid 4/1 and my smallest [On Bail] paid just over evens. My middling bet [Beautiful Dragon] started at 6/1 and lost. My evens bet was the smallest because it had the least overlay value even though I gave it the best chance of winning. The middle size bet I felt had the most loss exposure, but it was the largest bet in my opinion that has the best value. However, it could have been the 6/1 bet with the largest bet amount if I had felt differently about it's exposure to loss.
Looking at it in pot terms, my profit for the year is running at about 35%, but if all bets had been the same size % of my bank, the profit would be about 20% pot. I'm sure there are much better punters out there than I am.

I'm sure there are plenty of other punter with a similar staking outlook to myself and sitting down with a calculator and working out what is and isn't possible, just never enters our radar. We just bet and keep tabs on progress [or lack there of] and our noses to the ground looking for good bets, not better staking theories of what's possible and what isn't.

Ahhh,the waters are being muddied by mathematics.

Lets see the selection method !

I'd certainly want more than $7 odds about any new quality contributors here after they witness the hostile xenophobic reception given to TheEasyRun for his debut effort.

Presuming he is genuine there is no harm in what he posted and he should be given an opportunity to have his say, rather than being subjected to well-worn despicable tactics such as conveniently misquoting him in order to start a stoush. The challenges should wait until he's been heard out.

There are a number of regulars who would benefit far more from some firm scepticism.

----

Now apropos CP's perplexing position:

Assume fractional odds of 6/1 (= 7$ decimal).

And a 36% POT - hardly that staggering for a selective system, particularly when you contrast that with the p57-esque headlines now embraced by management.

And apply the Kelly Criterion.

That means staking 6% of your bank.

With average luck that equates to notionally growing your bank by 2.16% a bet.

So you'd expect your bank to double after 33 bets.

And triple after 52 bets. Not very long to wait.

If you start with $2,000 betting $120 (and keep your day job as TER stated) then it won't be that long before that triples to $6,000 and $360 bets.

Then cap your betting at that because it gets far more trickier and uncomfortable in leviathan mode.

How much the above fits in with TRE's scheme is yet unknown.

But until we hear more, TRE's claims have not been proved outrageous.

And if Darren Beadman rides the card in Sydney 4 consecutive times, it won't be long......

The reality is it could happen, but the odds are well and truly against it.

Let's remember we are talking about 7/1 shots.

Run of outs is inevitable.

Even at 30% POT, how long do you think it will take to triple the bank on 7/1 shots?

You're not going to make $5,000 per month.

And you jfc, a master at numbers, surely you can see what will happen even if the "system" is even a little out of luck.

CP,

I remind you that the Kelly Criterion formula is the Bank fraction:

Edge/Odds

So the relatively large (fractional) odds of 6/1 are factored into that.

If, for argument's sake, the odds were 2/1 with a 36% Edge then you would expect to triple your bank in only 18 bets.

The formula assumes average luck. It's not too hard to find free on-line graphical Kelly calculators to demonstrate how fickle luck is. But anyone unable to cope with that should find another recreation.

I recall an account by Blackjack entrepreneur Ken Uston where he endured ~30 (from memory) consecutive losing full-time days, but then things picked up again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Uston

Those twits that infest forums with their fanciful ponderings about quitting their day jobs to gamble full-time would do well to consider how they'd like to handle such inevitable runs outside their control, with nothing to fall back on.

Hmm how exactly do you work this out? Backing how many winners? What if you back 1 winner, 2 winners etc.... If your trying to make a profit form horse racing and you are using mathematical formulas your wasting your time.

nothing like a good debate to bring out the "true colours"

Are you kidding, punting is all about mathematicl formulas.

If the bookies didn't use them they would go broke, we use them every day to find winners, it is also the way you can understand if you can make a profit or not.

If i said to you can you make a good profit if you have a win strike of 31% with an average divi of $3.74 can you give me the answer and the profits.

A few years back a couple of punters on here came up with a risk free system to win on the punt all because of mathematics.

Sorry i might have been misunderstood.... i do agree that you can use mathematics to your advanyage to maximise profit and minimise your loses but to say you can "triple your money" in 18 bets buy some formula is completely false.

Of course if the bookies didnt use them they would go broke, but anyone framing a market down to 130-140% at best would be able to make a tidy profit.

too true party,,let me know when it starts will ya LOL

Not possible. If you are betting on the TAB or any bookmaker i have come across. Unless you can find one with a market under 100%

Spot on Shaun!

It would have to be the best advice on this entire thread.

Having just spent the past few hours reading this entire post from go to whoa I cannot believe the levels of critisiscm,the verbal jousting,and the somewhat blatant hypocrisy from some of the more regular posters.I am only new on here but I have browsed the archives,so I know most of the regulars by their handle.No wonder Mark put himself into voluntary exile!Is this forum so dominated by regulars that anyone new that ventures an opinion that is outside the square gets shot down in flames from the word go?Without a chance to explain in detail where they are coming from?Would appear that way to me.What everyone seems to be missing with this,the guy never mentioned backing single bets @7/1,he originally stated you need to get a return of$7 for every $ invested.Maybe I'm just stupid,but as far as I can see,he has not been given any sort of a fair chance to explain how he does it.When I first joined I had intended to post a trifecta strategy that I use,but there is absolutely buckleys chance of that happening after reading this post!

Assuming your trifecta strategy works, and I have no reason to think otherwise, if others reading about it followed your ideas and came up with the same selections, then there would be "buckleys chance" of it continuing to work as well. The reason is obvious. The tote is going to win no matter how many people get the trifecta. So the more winning dollars on it, the smaller the dividend it pays to everyone.

Mr Logic.

thanks for your reply,and yes,logically speaking you are quite right.However,as my method is "outside the square" there aint' much chance of that happening.

The greater percentage of rank and file punters will take a 3 horse box or stand a hot fav as a banker with the field hoping for roughies to fill the placings.A lesser percentage will box 4 horses,and an even lesser percentage will box 5 horses.They will never win long term,or short term either.

Boxing is a shortcut to the poorhouse.

However,I am being quite rude in digressing from Easyruns original post

cheers