Will it continue.....
 

Can the systemites tell me the odds of this one continuing..

It's purely mechanical.. over 9 weeks Saturday Metro, averaging just under
2 bets per Saturday, many filters have reduced it to this..

RESULT PRICE RUNNERS
1st $7.00 12
3rd $9.00 12
dnp $7.00 11
1st $12.20 13
dnp $11.70 8
2nd $6.00 11
2nd $7.50 11
2nd $8.60 8
1st $11.50 8
2nd $6.00 9
3rd $6.50 13
1st $5.50 9
2nd $5.00 12
2nd $5.00 8
2nd $6.00 11
1st $8.00 9

As you can see 16 bets..
1sts - 5 (return $44.20)
2nds - 7
3rds - 2 (14 places returned approx. $31.00)
dnp - 2

Is it $$$$$$$$$$$$$ time....?

For the returns quoted, take the money and RUN !!!

bang on the money crash, good to see you back as well! Mate you need a LOT longer results than that to determine if its a winning system - even my 1/1 system has had 7 winners out of the last 10!

Hi Sahasastar
 

"Will it continue?"

In spite of Sir Crash's opinion of my 14 posts I will give you another opinion in an effort to share my experiences. As far as I can tell the chances of repeat ability increase with one's SR. So far your SR is 88% (place) but the problem lies in the number of tests. For this SR you would need in the region of 250 Bets before you should think about pawning your wedding ring.

Another factor to consider when using systems is whether your variables that you use have stability over time. (Maybe you follow one or two trainers but what happens when they have a lovers tiff (they're gay trainers see) and their judgement or commitment is impaired?

Don't think that because your test spans nine weeks that repeat ability is guaranteed. There is no substitute for number of bets.

Does anyone have any kind of table compared to win or place strike rate, then the number of bets needed before a system should be given the green light?

Sahasastar,
 

Hi again Sahasastar,

I don't think you can put this sort of stuff into a table as there are just too many variables that would impact on any calculation.

Re the number of bets thing. I'm sure every systems man can tell you of stories where everything runs sweet for yonks & then falls in a spectacular heap around your bruised bank. Many of these collapsed systems can be profitable if viewed over a longer time frame but few people persevere. Many of these collapsed systems are nothing but a coincidence of events ( and it is this factor that gives people such as Crash the ammunition to shoot systems down in flames). My advice is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hold onto that system and see where it leads. Even if it turns to shyte there may still be a valuable bit of data to use in another system.

"It won't happen overnight, but it will happen!"

Sahasastar, another way to look at it is the more results under your belt the less impact the inevitable horror run will have overall. I have a place system with 1050 results so far, with a S/R (at the moment) showing 69%+ and an average divi of $1.68+, so there have been 725 hits out of 1050, now lets say that we got a run of 10 outs (it's never happened but still) so we would now have 725 hits from 1060 or 68.39%, hardly touches it does it?? The POT also is hardly touched. Whereas say there is only 20 or even 100 bets so far, a run of 10 outs would probably kill it (when place betting anyway) So in my opinion it's the long haul that is the acid test.

Theres nothing wrong with Crash's methods i.e. "doing the form" I was good at it with UK racing but never mastered it here, so I rely on other people doing the form in the form Ratings and then apply my own pet filters, so far its working for me.

I think someone posted an excel spread sheet at one point where you could enter various parameters like percentage strike rate, average div, etc, and get some guide as to whether it would likely continue.
Have no idea where to start looking though.

KV

Results for today:
3rd $1.80
1st $5.40 & $1.70
1st $1.90 & $1.00
3rd $1.50
1st $2.20 & -
2nd $1.60

Reults for Yesterday:
Unplc
3rd $2.00
1st $2.10 & $1.30
1st $3.40 & $2.20
Unplc
1st $2.40 & $1.20
1st $2.20 & -

WILL IT CONTINUE? I doubt it :o

Howdy Chuck, good to see you still in the game.

I think everything said here so far is basically meaningful and rather than add my own bit of meaning to the pot in a similar vein, I'd rather step out of the cement mixer [this stuff goes around and around but never sets].

A system might show a 20% profit over 5 yrs. yet 3 of those years showed a loss [a common system problem, unevenness]. Which year do we start betting in without hindsight ? Tilt.

Watching a system for a year that turns out profitable often leads to the conclusion that we are onto a winning SR. Nothing could be more uncertain. Having thrown 30 heads from fifty throws of a penny [a good SR], no one here would ever conclude we are onto a long term winning strategy by always backing heads, because we know it would be flawed logic at play. However, we will apply that same logic to punting systems. Why? Because we don't realize the same logic is involved. The odds we are looking at might be different, but the logic isn't.

Finding 'value' [often enough] is we know the crux of winning long term and value without hindsight, just can't be factored into any system. Backing the 'overs' [value] only doesn't help either, because there is no such thing as 'a' over or 'a' under. It's all subjective 'informed' opinion at it's best and a good guess at worst. Working out your own price line, and keeping at it until some accuracy is attained, is to me anyway the only way to find real overs and eventual profit. Hard work though of course and that's the rub. No 'easy' money in this game and I'm still working at it after 35 yrs. or so punting. It's been more pleasurable than profitable.

Cheers.

Sahasastar,

Take the profit.

Divide it by the MAXIMUM win dividend.

The higher the number, the more likely to succeed.

16 races is unfortunately a drop in the ocean, you need close to 1,000 to get any clear indication.

If the profit is made up from 1 or 2 winners (based on the above calculation), then relax and take it carefully, it is not likely to succeed.

Here is an example of what I would call likely to succeed.

Selections: 586
Winners: 289
Strike Rate: 49.32%
Profit: $60.60
POT: 10.34%
Average Dividend: $2.24
Maximum Dividend $2.90

20 runners make up the profit based on the maximum win dividend.

The chances of 20 occurrences being a coincidence are very small indeed, over 586 bets.

Hi Chrome,

Can we have the system for that example please? 8-)

Sir Crash,
 

"Can we have the system for that example please?"

You have a great sense of humour Sir Crash. Seriously though, this does highlight another aspect of systems which many people fail to grasp.

Because a system is just that (mechanical) without the input of judgement by the likes of Sir Crash, it means any idiot (even me) can apply it to make money. Herein lies the rub. If anyone can use a system to their advantage, then it must follow that as soon as this system is known to anyone other than the author the system will become useless.

Ergo: you must write your own systems until you find that 'HOLY GRAIL' and when you do, tell NOBODY!!!!!!!!

I think you could stick a successful system on the footpath outside Randwick races and it wouldn't make a jot of difference to it's profitability. To prove my point ( and TwoBETS please prove yours) Dr Ziemba et al demonstrated way back in 1984 that the place divvies on short priced favourites were inefficient. That is, backing shorties for the place could generate profits. Such inefficiencies in the place market across the three TABs still prevail today.

I believe you have access to PPPro TWOBETS. Enter Sat metro ABSM for SP 2.0 or less and tell me you couldn't extract profit for the PLACE using best of three TABS. And remember, this system was published for public consumption over twenty years ago.

Back to you Chrome Prince. Please post the rules for forum examination otherwise I can not see the point of your post saving "bragging rights". Same with you Pooper, give as a look at your place system because we've had a gutful of the Plum Mover Muck.

Hi Crash,

Of course you can....

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=10642

It's one of four FREE systems you get with the program.

:)

Then you missed the point.

You see, I'm just a wide eyed innocent fool. Well... you're not in the vendor game Pooper so I'll pin what remains of my Forum faith in you. Don't waste the opportunity - we all believe in your good heart.

My database is an authorised advertiser on this forum with consent and mutual agreement with management.

It seems you paid for another progam, so why not go to that forum and attack that vendor?

The whole point of the original post was to help saharastar with calculating winning strategies.

After that, I got asked a question and answered it within forum guidelines.

End of story.



7% loss on turnover using best of three TABs.

DR. (P.I.T.A.) Pangloss

Same with you Pooper, give as a look at your place system because we've had a gutful of the Plum Mover Muck.

how many of you are there? (We've)

Dr Pangloss - what exactly do you add to this forum?

Dr Pangloss wrote:

"I think you could stick a successful system on the footpath outside Randwick races and it wouldn't make a jot of difference to it's profitability."

"To prove my point ( and TwoBETS please prove yours) Dr Ziemba et al demonstrated way back in 1984 that the place divvies on short priced favorites were inefficient. That is, backing shorties for the place could generate profits. Such inefficiencies in the place market across the three TABs still prevail today."

I would have to agree with the sentiments of the first statement above.

The second statement is spot on. Anyone who wants to spend the time at it, could make a nice little earn on place divvies from short favorites. This well know anomaly re favorite odds, does seem to support the sentiments expressed in the first statement.

Seems like 2 very valid points [?].

Punters are overly paranoid about system secrecy. Any profitable system that was printed here for free will be dropped like hot cakes by most users at the first decent run of outs. Have the odds shortened over the years for short priced favorite's place div. because they are well know? Not by a cent.

Hi Crash,
I'm not privvy to this well known anomaly. Would you care to fill in those of us who are less enlightened.

KV

Kenny, you have a quote there you are assigning to me that belongs to someone else.

Being:

"To prove my point ( and TwoBETS please prove yours) Dr Ziemba et al demonstrated way back in 1984 that the place divvies on short priced favorites were inefficient. That is, backing shorties for the place could generate profits. Such inefficiencies in the place market across the three TABs still prevail today."

Sorry mate, I missed a page when I read this thread. I'll look up the original reference.

KV

It is true that a winning system will prevail, because of so much impulse money and so many different strategies and opinions.
I released a system last year, and a lot of people have it, if anything the profit has increased proportionally.

It is true that the market price of short price favourites is less efficient, but there is no evidence to support that it is inefficient, by being able to profit from place betting. This is based on the last three years figures using the best TAB dividend.

Chrome,

I would have to agree with you about the figures and if you extend them further back you will probably find the same result. However, I think Dr. Pangloss is refereeing to 'exploiting' the inefficiency, not backing every short priced favorite for the place which I think your figures are referring to [?].

I have done it a few times for short periods but it is such a mind numbingly boring exercise, I always quickly dropped it. Being selective is the key to profit in that area of betting and that is where the inefficiency lies, selectively being able to exploit it profitably.

Unfortunately, it will continue

http://www.pangloss.com/index.html?

bluetown wins
 

I am busted. At last I have been busted.

Time for a new a character - any ideas Chrome?

Hi Crash,

I've always found the inefficiency to be far greater for win betting on these shorties. The very best I could do with filters was -2.88% LOT for the place using best TAB price.

There is one system that has a 4.89% place POT based on speed figures, but again the win POT is 14.45%. (Athough it's a long stretch between selections, so not a great deal of action).

Let's churn out some numbers then from June 2001 thru end July 2005 relying on NSW TAB divs for starters paying 2.00 (WIN) or less Sat metro Adel, Bris, Melb and Syd. Results are for the PLACE.

bets 807
placed 684
SR% 84.8%
P/L -35.78 $1 units
PoT -4.4%

Apply two simple filters - eliminate fields 7 runners or less, eliminate maidens:

bets 485
placed 412
SR% 84.9%
P/L -5.06
PoT -1.0%
ave div $1.17

Now allow for a modest 'Best TAB' premium of 7 cents per winning (place) dividend:

P/L 25.88 units
PoT 5.34%
ave div $1.24

Chrome your unsubstantiated figures of a 7% LoT can not be reconciled with the above results. Either the data base is hopelessly flawed or you ought to refund all money paid by your many many subscribers. Which is it?


.....

furthermore
 

Here are the numbers for all non-metro tracks Australia wide on every day except Saturdays, July 2003 thru July 2005 - no filters just starters $2.00 or less for the WIN, results are for the PLACE:

bets 2513
placed 2063
SR% 82.1%
P/L -141.74
PoT -5.6%

Just to reiterate the point - a horse-race market inefficiency was identified (and widely published) over twenty years ago on the other side of the planet. That market inefficiency is alive and well within Australian racing today EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Even if you did not attempt to exploit the inefficiency yourself, what right thinking punter would attempt to profit from place bets in races where the favourite was showing $2.00 or less? (The effect of rounding down dividends renders the position even worse for hapless punters in such races)


.....

Dr Pangloss, my figures are far more accurate , because "your" program only uses win / place dividends from nswtab and the closing price of all runners SP.

My "unsubstantiated" figures are substantiated by TAB realtime records of win/place dividends and accurate TAB closing prices.

I know which it is... and so do all my customers. :D


And just where did this unsubstantiated figure come from.

Remember we are talking odds on favourites for the place - 7c on a $1.04 shot???

You just proved your own argument to be incorrect.

And using available SP is a completely different story to using TAB prices.

There are that many myths and fallacies printed, that I can prove to be wrong using actual substantiated figures, it's not funny.

Guess which track condition is the worst result for favourites?

Dr. Pangloss,

We are not promoting the software programme you mentioned provided you with your data.

Please do not mention it in your posts. We are not giving it a free plug here.

Moderator.

C P,

I'll have a stab that the track conditions that are the worst for favourites winning is a good or fast track.
I know in the UK the best results for favourites are in maiden and 2 year old events on a slow track.
If the stats here are the same and I cannot see why not then that just shows all the crap that is shoved down our throats about which races to bet on are just that CRAP.

Hi kenchar,

we are force fed "stay away from heavy tracks"

The stats do not support this...

FAST - 32%
GOOD - 31.11%
DEAD - 29.33%
SLOW - 28.65%
HEAVY - 29.36%

So ranking them in order best to worst...

FAST
GOOD
HEAVY***
DEAD
SLOW

No reason to avoid Heavy, better to avoid June/July than July/August.

It's amazing how some punters' mindsets are.

A bolter wins in Spring, and it's "How did I miss that, better go back over the form!"

A bolter wins in August, and it's "Should stay away from Heavy tracks, all the nags come in!"

:D

Chrome,

Those figures regarding track conditions are a bit of mischief, though I'm not doubting they are correct.

What happens to field sizes on rain effected tracks? They go down [and so do the odds by the way]. The more rain affected ground, the more scratchings. The smaller the field size the more favorites win regardless of conditions.

Your stats. support a deceptive conclusion only, they certainly don't disprove that it is easier to win on good and dead tracks.

There is a mathematics professor in the USA who at the start of every year 'proves' to his new students that 2+2=3.99 !!!

You are comparing apples and oranges using smoke and mirrors and stats. are a great way to do it [just ask any politician] :-)

muddled
 

Chrome

you are confused. Taking the 'best TAB' price will always generate a premium over and above the base NSW TAB used in the data base. The value of that premium must necessarily range from .01 thru .99 - experience demonstrates on the odds range under discussion it is worth .07 to the punter.

The data base I use has been subjected to wide ranging public scrutiny, on this very Forum in the not too distant past, and currently on another very public racing Forum. Such scrutiny would quickly expose any flaws especially in the record keeping and results.

May I suggest you subject your own database to such scrutiny. What have you got to worry about - what have you got to lose?


........

[QUOTE=Sahasastar]Can the systemites tell me the odds of this one continuing..

It's purely mechanical.. over 9 weeks Saturday Metro, averaging just under
2 bets per Saturday, many filters have reduced it to this..


Sahasastar based on my expierence and what you yourself posted i would say no it will not continue at its current rate.

The reason i make this assumption is your words "many filters have reduced it to this" i've been there done that,some call it retro fitting,basicly the mistake we make is designing filter after filter to eliminate as many losers in our research peiod as possible,sure it may look good on paper but unless each and every additional filter is tested for soundness over hundreds of races how can you really tell if each filter is sensible and suits this current system.

Lets say you ruled out horses outside barrier 6 because in your short research period there were no winners outside barrier 6,a couple of weeks later you will start missing heaps of good priced winners in barriers outside 6,the frustration and self doubt set in and the system is one step from the scrap heap.

Mate keep it simple think very carefully about additional filters you apply and only add them once their worth has been tested over a couple of hundred races.

Hi Crash,

Agreed about the field sizes, however, more favourites win on Heavy tracks than Dead or Slow. This means that the secondary benefit is strike rate and return.

Let me run less than 10 runners and see how we go....

FAST - 36.70%
GOOD - 36.31%
DEAD - 33.84%
SLOW - 35.26%
HEAVY - 34.64%

Dead still being the poor cousin.

There still is no great dip in the Heavy stats to suggest to not bet.

It's the shifting track condition which is the bugbear. Trainers will often run horses to see how they go on Dead/Slow, but would definitely scratch on a Heavy track, which is bourne out by the number of scratchings.