|
To my intepretation of Privateer's rules.
Mel R2 #6 Mel R3 #4 Mel R6 #6 Mel R7 #2 Mel R8 #3 All Mel races no bet Slow track SR7 #6 heavy no bet BR5 #3 Dead track OK. One bet for the day. |
Quote:
--------------- Because of heavy Track in Sydney no bets there. So only 3 for today. Melb & Bris. Melb problamatical on his rules also because of Slow 7. So realistically only BRISBANE : RACE 6 HORSE 9 HANDSOME DANE But it is a dead track in brisbane but I will go with it because I am not sure what the intention was with no wet tracks. I suspect even Privateer could not select that. But only 208 pages of forum to go to get the rest of the info. that remains from that original post. |
What about Saddle cloth only #1 to 7? Only slow and heavy tracks out (wet)
|
Quote:
Beton. I can only go on from the end to page 209. You old timing fellows ( from a Cheech and Chong movie ) know more about the original thread. Mine is mor like the old Army saying before modern communications. Quote. " Send up reinforcements where going to advance " Pass it on down the line. By the time it went down the line to Co headquarters the message received was " Send up three and fourpence where going to a dance. " But, as ass has it, forgetting about 1 to 7 and wet tracks. So far so good. Summary to follow after the races. Remember this is all in fun, no sheep station here. You guys know more then me. |
NO and yes, yes, yes BR5#3 for a place 1 from 1.
|
I,m not pulling anyones leg here and frankly I,ve never heard of this but it was given to me by a Farrier so I,ll let loose and cop the ridicule if any.
He was talking about mud runners. He always bets a mud runner with large hoofs.. Now I,ve heard of thinking outside the square a number of times. The problem with us poor sods is that we,re not Farriers. |
To my intepretation of Privateer's rules.
Mel R2 #6 1st Mel R3 #4 4th Mel R6 #6 3rd Mel R7 #2 Unpl Mel R8 #3 2nd All Mel races no bet Slow track SR7 #6 heavy no bet Unpl BR5 #3 Dead track OK. 3rd One bet for the day. $3.30 for the place I like. Should be a steady winner. It is definately a place picking system. The hardest thing would be following the rules. Cannery Row was borderline and got in because I was looking for bets rather than what the rules are about- eliminate the situations that do not produce the bulk of the returns. |
Quote:
|
DD One of golf buddies owned a runner years back. They used to train it walking up hills and racing down. Everybody said the trainer was mad. But it lengthened the stride and made it a winner. Bombora backed up again today. Straight from the trainer. Beton
|
Hi Beton.
I also knew a trainer that did that too.Increased the stamina and fitness to a peak.The horse always gave a good show in any race it was entered in.. Cheers. |
Beton and Star
Good results for both of you. I don't know what rules you used. I have been searching for Privateer's Pareto Principle but can't find it. I did come across a post where I said that I had been following his information and had been making a profit. I don't know why I stopped. Here is some of his information that he shared based upon his stats analysis. ( I found this on a piece of paper that I have kept for at least 10 years) 1. 88% of winners have a place SR of > or = 40%. 2. 69% have a place SR of > or= 50%. 3. 72% are at 10/1 or less. 4. 72% are in the top 5 average prize money. 5. 58% 1 or 2 last start. 6. 83% 1-5 last start. 7. 75% not more than 2kg rise from last start. 8. TAB nos 1 - 6. 9. Winners in the top 5 Prepost 10. 92% of winners ????? He would not devulge this. ( It could have been LS within 21 days. Someone else might know?) At around the same time as this info was given out Topper, Mr Magic, and Gunner were doing something very similar. |
Researcher.
You have the missing link. The post the Privateer posted and then edited when the naysayers gave their 0.00001% worth of nothing. He has spelt out all the rules but they are in about 50 different posts. Beton |
Quote "10. 92% of winners ????? He would not devulge this. ( It could have been LS within 21 days. Someone else might know?)" Unquote
This could well be true, however he is contradictory in that if the LS was in the top 2 he would still back it this time even if it was first up from a spell. It seems the only logical stat. It is also one stat that is not spelt out and he does not bag. I would say his terminology would be recently raced (2.5 weeks) Maybe someone can have a quick check on winners in <21 days. Beton |
Quickly from testyoursystem.000space.com
With no rules: There were 10400 races for the System There were 10418 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 10.4% With 1 to 21 days There were 10274 races for the System There were 6892 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 10.78% So its probably not that stat as it only makes it 66%. |
92% ... Could be anything. It could be a prepost rank, ratings rank, etc.
Top 10 TAB number (ie saddle cloth 1 to 10) wins 93% of the time. Mind you it probably makes up 93% of all runners. |
Re: 92% unknown
I did have Poll? also written against the 92%. This was probably my own guess as he did only bet on Saturdays.
|
Quote "Top 10 TAB number (ie saddle cloth 1 to 10) wins 93% of the time. Mind you it probably makes up 93% of all runners." Unquote
Not this one. He had TAB #s 1-6 and later increased to #s1-7. Poll? Got me there. |
Quote:
If only betting on a Saturday that, Would be freely available on that day. Also it's not mentioned in post=91, Of Researchers listed stats. The problem here is how far do you go, Down the list to acquire 93% Top 6-7 etc. Cheers. |
One post mentions running this distance before, another mentions having carried this weight before. Both do not logically say 92%. He makes no mention of gender anywhere that I have seen. Entered in the race, started and ridden by a jockey are all 100%. There I have bared my intellect.
|
Hows about...
10. 92% of winners open shorter than their pre-post quote? LG |
LG
Could well be. But he bets 1 x 3 EW =>$4. Which could be a clue. He did not back favs as no value under $4. Beton |
Evening Beton,
I made the suggestion because someone here recently said he remembered a poster had done some research a while back which indicated that at least 85% of winners had opened shorter than pre-post. But he couldn't remember who. As a consequence of garyf's pre-post thread, I have been following opening prices in selected races for all runners(not just top A.A.P.), and have noted that there are often many runners which open shorter than pre-post i.e. not just the Fav, 2nd Fav, 3rd etc. This might also help to explain why such a high multiple of all winners open shorter, just as with Top 6-8-10 Tab No.'s etc? LG |
I found this from privateer in response to Gary f comments
Maybe a tipsters poll from a paper, If only betting on a Saturday that, Would be freely available on that day This was privateers response to that same question Briefly...my advice is to totally forget racing "tipsters". Generally speaking, they all tip favourites and are in competition amongst themselves. Take Bart Sinclair in Brisbane. His 3 "best bets" are mostly the 3 shortest priced faves on the program! How hard is that? Try this, use any paper and follow the tipsters for 1 month. At the same time YOU select your tips as well. Total them up at the end of the month and I'll bet you are not last! They do not have any more of an idea than the average punter, if they did, they wouldn't be giving away their tips free in a newspaper! |
This Paretto thread is getting interesting. Looks like our Mr Privateer spoke in riddles.
I have no more clues, so will take a back seat. I guess it is now up to you old timers now. Thanks Researcher for adding to the thread, maybe others can think of other things as well. Star. |
Quote:
Maybe that was it, that's one we can get rid of, Although i must admit i haven't read any of his threads as yet. Was just a guess, good luck to those trying to find what it was. Cheers. |
Quote:
Mind you, if you run it throguh a database it comes up as a loss, but it's pretty hard to do as I believe he was very selective in what races he bet on. He also used trackwork extensively !? |
Quote Privateer "If deadly serious and you consider fitness to bea prime factor you then need to track a horse from the beginning of a campaignvia trackwork and barrier trials. Of course you are limited somewhat by theamount of information available but there is still plenty to occupy yourselfwith.
There are a few little clues (which I do not intend to share) that can bepicked up by analysing trackwork times and barrier trial results." |
Maybe the 92% doesn't relate to opening shorter than pre-post.
Quote Privateer "The prices are PRE POST Friday newspaper prices- come raceday after blowing out, I've had plenty of $20, $30 and the oddlonger winner plus placegetters paying $5, $6 $7+..." Quote Privateer "I'll also say now that I don't worry about dayssince last run. Some of my better priced divvies have been from 1st uppers." |
For mine 92% of winners are shorter than thier pre-post price. This is a place picking system, any winners are bonuses. He is not backing favorites at >$4 nor is he looking at the second fav in a two horse race. He is backing proven place getters that are proven fit, at better odds.
|
So, trackwork seems to be the key?
|
Isn't a majority of the starting horses shorter than pre-market price due to the market percentage being less at jump?
|
Quote:
I do not know the statistics but my first thoughts and from what I see is that most horses are shorter then Fridays paoer prices. So I do not think that is the missing liunk. |
From what I can see, the privateer did not post a set of rules. He posted a set of stats that formed the basis of his system. The theory behind his system was to get rid of the 80% of the rules that only gave 20% of the return and keep the 20% from where 80% of the money came from. He saw no value in the fav. One of his sayings was that the horse did not have to come first to win. Hence he found more value in place betting and he stressed many times 1 x 3 EW betting. The only two points that I can think of are 92% of winners come from shortening horses, or 92% of winners are under their true odds. The latter saying that if you backed any of the winners long term you would end up in the poorhouse. Hence the point of the stat was to say look for value other than the winner. And everybody looks at the winner even for a place. He is looking for a placegetter that could also win. He saw value in a proven placegetter with proven peak fitness in quality races with quality fields. Beton
|
Quote:
Looks like a very succinct summary of privateer's principles. Thanks Beton. Cheers LG |
Quote:
I think Beton has used the Paretto Principal well in his summing up of our research. He has cut back to the chase and summed up our research so far. Anything else we can add will be a bonus. The key might be in Beton's last sentence. Star |
I think most of his posts on Pareto Principle are gone from the forum, too old I guess.
He had 9 criteria, and yes he was right into place betting. He said he punted $600 x $1800 and had a 24% POT over time. |
Quote:
I edited my previous post just as you posted this. If I had seen this before I did my post I still would have hit the send button. Unless someone comes up with another hypothesis it looks like Privateer was a place better looking for an edge rather then a win better looking for a saver. Interesting different approach. |
Quote:
That argument plainly doesn't make sense at all. I'm with Vortech. |
Quote:
Probably bought himself an island paradise and is there now drinking coconut shell martinis being entertained by grass skirt clad hula girls. |
Quote:
Moeee I thought I was agreeing with Vortech too ? |
| All times are GMT +10. The time now is 08:33 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.