would it be a fair assumption..
 

Count me in sonny.......

This the comp. 'Autumn Comp.'
----------------------------------
This week 29.3.08
Sportz $745
Rabbitz $580
Gold Coaster $520
Mr Quaddie $480
YoungBuck $450
Makybe Diva $390
Maverick $380
Crash $180
Spartacus $170
Horse Whisperer $165
Sirpent $105
----------------------------------
Leader Board:
YoungBuck $3640
Rabbitz $3315
Crash $2725
Mackybe Deva $2205
Raw Instint $2040
Sportz $2005
Goldcoaster $1800
Horse Whisperer $1565
Sirpent $1360
Mr Quaddi $1145
Maverick $1100
Panther $830
Spartacus $675
Nutter1 $160

Welcome aboard. I'm impressed that you will at least have a go new boy. That's a lot more than many opinionated punters here will do. Good on you mate I'm liking you already.

Would it be a fair assumption if...
 

OK Ive checked the Comp Rules out on another thread - only one question -
What is the deadline for bets to be posted?

Thanks mate............

Oh I'm a bit easy there. 1/2 hour before they jump for any selection. If any of your selections is a late scratching, you get the SP fav. unless you nominate a sub.
Anyhow, welcome aboard with heartfelt approval. Not many of high opinion here every get on board. Some of those I highly respect because of the way they bet: Chrome, Bagman, Party and quite few others on this forum page just don't suit a betting comp. because they bet lay, or odds just before they jump.

Would it be a fair assumption...
 

OK Thanks for that...look forward to saturday.....

cheers:cool:

Chi Chi Choo Choo
 

There's an easier way, a quick and dirty way to test systems that is very accurate.

1. Take the maximum win dividend
2. Divide the profit by the maximum win dividend
3. The resulting number is the number of winners you're staking all hope and your bank on.

Example:

One of my systems
1187 selections
368 winners
31% S/R
Profit $130.80
POT 11.02%
Average Divvy $3.58
Maximum Divvy $28.80

$130.80 / $28.80 = 4.54

In this case, I'm clinging onto 4.50 winners to make money in the future.

So what does this mean?

With your systems, use it as a bank percentage tool, in this case I'm betting 1.23% of my bank on the selections. (4.50 winners divided by 368 total winners).

The higher this number (confidence) the more of your bank you're betting, the lower the number the lower the bets.

Your confident systems will make more money and if your others turn ugly, it will make up for it.

As average systems flourish, you're betting more and making more.

Back to my coding....

* Very few marketed systems actually show a positive result when more than two of the maximum dividends are taken out.

Well I'm glad we ended up on friendly terms there! Just remember with many of my posts, my tongue is stuck firmly in my cheek. Playing Devil's advocate gives the place a bit of interesting reading.

Being a new member has no bearing on your punting ability, but we can have a bit of fun until the comp. finishes. Good luck!

In your opinion.......

Pixie or anyone else.

I have a system which has ran for about eight months and the last month was disasterous, losing 24% of the total bank. But that was the first losing month, and the overall figures remain:

126 bets, 50 winners, Ave SP $3.94, SR 39.68%, POT 17.71%.

I just tried the Chi test and got: 1.84812E. Now i know i did it right because i got Pixie's correct score from his example.

It is obiously a damn good system so far, but can anyone shed light on the CHi score i got?

Losing streaks
 

Posts 1 and 2 of this thread began with the assumption that most punters drop out after a few weeks. Over 40 years ago, I joined a syndicate where the professional writer undertook to bet if sufficient followers gave him the betting bank, and he took a small percentage for himself. (These days few would entertain the idea, but nevertheless I was among those who did.)

His methods were most educational. If each syndicate contributed 100 pounds, he began by having a betting bank of 50 pounds, with the remainder kept in reserve. Usually he bet on one horse, with a saver on a second to cover the original stake. If the bet won, he added half the winnings to the reserve, and put a third of the winnings on the next three bets. I think his unit was 10% of the bank.

He had a terrible trot to begin with, so when the betting bank was low, he took not the remainder, but only half of it, that is 25 pounds.

He then took a spell because of bad health, started again and with just three consecutive wins ( which meant increasinglh higher bets), he made every syndicate in profit, and retired because of ill health. He was a real gentleman.

It does point out that perseverance can pay off, and shows that doubling up to "get out of trouble" is a risky business.