Systems, Mechanical or Otherwise - Can they or can't they?
 

Crash wrote in another thread...


Hi Crash,

sounds like we need to crank up the old "mechanical systems" debate once again.

I am a systems man through and through, and before we get stuck into this debate we really should have an idea what we mean by "mechanical system". To me, a "mechanical system" is one which does not rely on ratings. It's the "horse must have 2121 in it's formline and started within the last 28 days" type rules. "Ratings based systems" are those that are based on ratings. They are most likely "mechanical" in every other sense of the word, except that they also include a ranked ratings selection.

I have made a profit each year for the past 3 financial years based upon systems, both mechanical and ratings based (my first year was only a few months so not a full year). I have doubled my turnover each year as well, again based purely on systems. I couldn't support the level of turnover that I currently have without being even a little bit profitable.

At last count I have some 50 systems currently in work, with about another 10 in the sidelines waiting to prove themselves. Of these 50 systems, about 10 of them are purely mechanical, 10 were purely mechanical but have been "tightened up" a little with ratings, and the rest are ratings based - sensible filters applied to a ratings "top rater" which produces a profit.

Of these 50 systems, only about 20 of them were actually being bet 12 months ago, and only about 5 of them were being bet 24 months ago. I monitor each of my systems (I prefer the word strategy but will stick with system for this thread) very closely, and at the first sign of trouble chuck them.

It's interesting that Nick Mordin in his book "winning without thinking" concluded that mechanical systems *DO* work, it's just that most of them have a use-by date. I have found that 99% of systems support this theory (with many of the use-by dates predating their release).

I note with interest that Davez also said in another thread


I find doing the form tedious - but I can sit up till all hours designing a new system, pulling it to bits and finding out how it works and trying to predict how it will go into the future. Seeing all that hard work come to fruition and picking some good winners is just as enjoyable to me as backing the winner based on form study.

Cheers,
Chris.

I have a strike rate of about 50%.

50% of the time I know the horses name that I have money on, 50% of the time I don't.
Mechanical is the only way for me. I don't have the patience for doing form of any kind on a consistant basis.
I am going alright at the moment, but will never be 100% confident in what I am doing. There are just too many things that can change. But I believe that is the case with anything involving money. Very few people have a 100% guarantee of consistant wages, whether employed or seeking other financial ventures.
I am happy to ride the wave while it lasts, and realise that I will have to monitor and adapt. I don't believe in throwing away a once profitable system and starting again. Things change, we need to adapt.

Slow night Stebbo ? Me too.

Firstly, so my position on this subject cannot be misconstrued by anyone: I have never said anywhere, no mechanical [or rating based] system cannot make a profit [that would be an absurd and unprovable axiom]. My thrust is that mechanical or even rating based systems are inferior to handicapping.

You wrote:

"I find doing the form tedious - but I can sit up till all hours designing a new system, pulling it to bits and finding out how it works and trying to predict how it will go into the future. Seeing all that hard work come to fruition and picking some good winners is just as enjoyable to me as backing the winner based on form study".

Lets get that one out of the way. I agree, horses for courses.
I too enjoy messing with systems. Mainly because I do serious form study for about 4/6 races a week [mostly starting very early Fri. for Sat. Races]. My tennis is crap, the fishing here is stuffed and I'm not too big on gardening. Messing with systems and speed handicapping [10min.for a race], gives me something to do here in God's waiting room.

Now to deal with a bit off possible smoke and mirrors[?] in your post. you stated:

"I have made a profit each year for the past 3 financial years based upon systems, both mechanical and ratings based (my first year was only a few months so not a full year). I have doubled my turnover each year as well, again based purely on systems. I couldn't support the level of turnover that I currently have without being even a little bit profitable".

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately ambiguous or not here. You say you have 'doubled' your turnover' every year for 3 yrs.. Turnover does not necessarily come from profit. Are you saying you have double it from profit? 100% profit each year for 3 yrs? Even I couldn't achieve that feat and I'm a decent lier. If that is not what you meant, you have not mentioned any profit/outlay ratio [units please not $$$] for any of your methods/systems.

Lets clear up those little points before we move on.

Hi Crash,

no ambiguity intended - I meant what I said. It's easy to double your turnover. Two simple ways are to 1. double your bet size, or 2. double the number of bets. Mine is a combination of both. For example

03/04 I made 4839 bets average bet size was $15
04/05 I made 6383 bets average bet size was $23

Are you saying you have double it from profit?

In a way yes. The only reason I can increase the number of bets and the bet size I've made is by being profitable. I do not claim to have made 100% profit each year though... Far from it.

As for figures for individual systems, I'll give you my current "gem".

This system has had 638 bets since 19/02/2004. Original starting bank was $500 and $10 unit. S/R has been 29.5% and POT has been 30.4%.

Actual profit for this system is 72.38 units at current bet size of 16 units. If I had remained true to my staking regime (2.5% of highest bank non reducing) the actual profit would easily be triple that. However, I'm a "profit taker" and have been siphoning profits from this one for quite some time.

I have had two others like this over the past 3 years, but alas the other two fell over badly and I don't bet them anymore.

Cheers,
Chris.

PS I see the thought police have removed that other thread. Did something happen at the end that I didn't get a chance to see?

looks like you have a good system there stebbo,and thats full mechanical is it?.

not sure what went on with the thought police(thats very funny)i was the last to post and when i came back it was gone but i think you might find that your mate might be in the naughty room....cheers gazman..

Morning Stebbo,

I don't think there was anything untoward in that thread. I added no more, but perhaps JFC added something 'colourful'[?], or management misinterpreted some of the posts in it being something other than friendly tongue in cheek banter. I suspect the latter.

You wrote,
"The only reason I can increase the number of bets and the bet size I've made is by being profitable. I do not claim to have made 100% profit each year though... Far from it".

For about 95% of punter's, turnover comes from capital [any capital], not just betting banks which can and often are just topped up from capital. I take your point as meaning what it says for your situation.

With regard to the main subject and to gain a better perspective of it [unlike JFC, I'm easily dazzled by too much maths.] from your point of view, lets talk totals, as you use lots of systems and I'd rather not get lost in cherry picking exercises.

Your total outlay and total return % [all systems combined] displays a more meaningful figure. I think you stated elsewhere your overall SR was 20 point something % ? Average price returned ? 2nd. year, 3rd. year [forget 1st as it was a part year, getting it together period say]. Keeps everything clear and simple rather than opaque.

One advantage of handicapping we can agree on. Handicapping doesn't "fall over" [I don't mean runs of outs that both handicapping and systems have]. That is something of a major concern with systems and we should call that 'Disadvantage [I] to Systems, Advantage [I] to Handicapping so far [Score 0-1]. Handicapping [should] improves with age, systems sour.

It is generally impossible to determine if/when a system has gone pear shaped, or is having a run of outs. All profit [and more] can be wiped out in those situations before the offending system is dumped.. That point could be debated re. money management practice, max. draw-down calculations etc., but a possible [Score 0-2] there.

Your serve.
Regards, Crash.

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
 

Obviously you have developed your OWN system as I have over 300 of the ************s from your friendly system sellers and I can tell you that 99 % of them would NOT be worth the paper they are printed on .
The few that DO work are RATING based .

Mind you their advertising blurbs are great for a laugh though as in the latest offering - 72 % WIN strike rate at average odds of $6.35.

Cheers.
darky.

You've bought 300 systems Darky? I can't believe your were so gullible.

Tell you what, I can get all that money back for you. I inherited this bridge that makes a packet in tolls. The only reason I'm selling it is because I'm sick of painting the damb thing. All it needs is one coat a year. Easy money and a lick of paint the only effort. Special price for you only, just to help you out [How much money do you have left?].

Criteria for a winning mechanical system....

1. Must be tested over thousands of bets

2. Must have very few rules

3. The profit must come from more than a couple of longshots

Get all three points and you have a winning mechanical system.

The problems with most mechanical systems are that they are tested over very few relative bets.

Some have ridiculous illogical rules, like "must be barrier 1 to 5, between 55 and 60kg in weight, between 4 and 6 years old, between 1000m and 1400m."
This is retrofitting.

Gather up 90% of commercial systems and take out the four longest priced winners and you have a dud.
The odds of a system continuing to be profitable based on 4 longshots is 1000/1, yet people put money on these things!

Mechanical systems can and do work, providing they have the required ingredients to be profitable in the first place.

I am a little confused at your confusion in this post Crash.
Are you saying that in 12 months of punting, you could not double your initial bank? For anybody that lives off the punt, I find that very difficult to believe.
Remember profit, and profit on turnover are 2 completely different things.

Hi Stebbo,
I am very much like u, where i find studying the form tedious but love spending many hours designing and trying out new systems. I have been working on greyhound betting systems in my spare time since i was about 16 (im now 22) and I have a mechanical system fully operational at the moment and 1 more i hope to start January 1st. They certainly do work. My main place betting system for the calender year has had:

bets: 248
wins: 172
av: $1.72 (STAB)
total: $48.68 (for $1 unit)
POT: about 19.6%

It went slightly better last year, the average was around $1.76. I bet over 4 accounts (STAB, NSW, UNI, AIS) and I outlay about $500 on each bet. Obviously I could never share this system as I pretty much bet the maximum without affecting my dividends too much. The system has never returned a loss after 23 months of operation and also a year of trial results.

So in my experience mechanical systems can most definetly work.

CRASH.
 

Who said I was stupid enough to buy them ?

Darky,

Well I'm not going to GIVE you the Bridge. What a nerve!!!

You wrote
"For about 95% of punter's, turnover comes from capital [any capital], not just betting banks which can and often are just topped up from capital. I take your point as meaning what it says for your situation.

Absolutely, I have never topped up my original punting bank since day 1. If it ever runs out I pack up my bags and give punting away.

You wrote
"Your total outlay and total return % [all systems combined] displays a more meaningful figure. I think you stated elsewhere your overall SR was 20 point something % ? Average price returned ?"

The average price is a little meaningless here, because of different sized stakes etc, but I can tell you that the first full year I made 6% POT, and the second I made just on 2% POT from horse racing. This year the horse racing POT is around 5%.



Sorry, I can't agree. I think handicappers can easily fall over, and that's just as bad. People become stale and set in their ways. Racing changes, and if handicappers don't keep up with the changes then they fall behind. [Score 0-0] :-)



Again, totally disagree. There are a number of statistical calculations that can be made to determine if a system is going through an expected run of outs or has gone pear shaped. Particularly if you have long term stats on the system, you can determine whether the current trend is expected or not expected. Chi-Squared testing and rolling bet sequences are two of my favorite statistical tests. [Score remains 0-0].

Furthermore, I don't believe you can do this with handicapping. There is no way to tell if a current run of outs is due to luck, or due to your handicapping method falling over. I know of two excellent "handicappers" (by your definition) that have had horrible runs recently, and I suspect that this is because what they were doing is no longer relevant to current racing trends. It will be far more difficult for them to rethink their ways than for me to determine the system has crapped out and chuck it [Score 1-0].

Lastly, the emotional thing is a very powerful factor in punting. It is easy for me to remain unemotional about my systems. A handicapper has the added problem of poring over the form for ages, and then having all of his work thrown in his face by his/her horse not winning. If this happens long enough then the vast majority of handicappers will most likely change something about the way they are going about their selections. In many cases, they may change their ways purely due to a statistically likely bad run when there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. Ouch! (score 2-0)

serve returned and driven long to the baseline

:-)

Cheers,
Chris.

Chrome,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you last point [not rule, but point] is a lot of unsubstantiated crock and your first rule even more so, instigated by system sellers: 'we have tested this system over thousands of past races and our 70% POT stands up to scrutiny".

But I'll agree to disagree if you like on your assertions. The onus of proof is on you of course, as it is your claim [statement actually]. Special pleading won't do the job either:-)

You wrote.

"Criteria for a winning mechanical system....
1. Must be tested over thousands of bets
2. Must have very few rules
3. The profit must come from more than a couple of longshots.
Get all three points and you have a winning mechanical system" End Quote.


Re: Rule 1: A mathematical result based on a past paradigm of events is not equal to a mathematical result for a future paradigm of events
where large numbers of variables are in voled in both results [if we could test thousands of future bets with the same rules].
Racing is one such area where those large numbers of variables are present.
Actually [as any Uni. maths student would tell you, the greater the test number of bets, years, whatever, the greater the different outcome will be to the eventual future result. The greater the variables, the more extreme the error. So you may as well test over the last 20 races.

"The more an incorrect myth is repeated [rule 1], the more it will be believed by more and more people regardless. Even if even the world's leading mathematicians would disagree" [not sure who said that, but I have always remembered it].

I await your proof :-)

Cheers Chrome.

Hi Darky,

yes, most of the systems I'm currently running are my own creations or have been given to me by friends.

However, one of the two "gems" I mentioned above was compliments of your friendly systems sellers. It also happened to be one of their freebies, and went great guns for about 16 months, then went pear shaped. I baled out when it's "downtime" (time since it's previous bank high) extended past 4 times as long as any previous downtime.

I still ended up with a great profit for the system... 417 bets for 34% S/R and a 21.1% POT. I still keep track of that one and hope that it may one day bounce back, as it was a license to print money when it was running hot.

However, I'm not holding my breath. Knowing the rules for the system, I feel fairly certain that the nature of racing has changed whereby many of the horses that this system used to select will no longer be candidates, and there goes the profits. (The S/R is still a healthy 30%, but there's no value in the horses being selected).

And for the record, this one was purely mechanical.

Cheers,
Chris.

Please stop making value judgements about other posters such as calling them "gullible" etc. or ridiculing what has been posted in all genuineness by calling it "unsubstantiated crock" etc.

That is how threads turn into slanging matches.

Carefully read and UNDERSTAND the Forum Terms of Use.

Acceptance of those Terms and abiding by them is a condition for being permitted to make use of this free service.

Crash,

I'm not out to prove anything, as it's quite obvious that the proof you require lies in the future and you will not be satisfied that even future bets are proof enough ;-)

"Unsubstantiated crock" is a little harsh.

Unsubstantiated to whom, to you?

I have substantiated this for myself and a few other forum members offline, and that's good enough for me.

I never mentioned thousands of past races, that means nothing - I said thousands of bets, which is an entirely different thing.

Show me 70% POT over thousands of bets, and I'll send you the cheque tomorrow!

Basic statistical law refutes your particular claims, the more data you have, the better the reliability. Not the reverse.

It is how one uses the data, that makes or breaks a system, not the data itself.

Please note Forum Terms of Use.

It is a condition of joining the Forum that these Terms of Use are BOTH accepted and followed by the Forum member when posting.

Noone is being forced to join the Forum with a gun held to their head.

Any person is free not to join if they do not like the Forum Terms of Use.

Hi Crash,

I tend to agree with you about the "thousands of bets" rule. Not a single one of my current systems has been tested over "thousands of bets". Hell, the "gem" system I outlined above was based on an observation over a couple of dozen races.

However, I must agree with Lindsay on the "profits must come from more than a handful of longshots". I wonder how many systems will appear in the not too distant future based around Summer Nation's win the other day at Ascot. I can just see them "Fitness First Up" or "First Up Franchise" will be the names. Rules will consist of
1. Must be first up from a spell
2. Must be a Metro track (midweeks acceptable)
3. Must be the only maiden in a non-maiden race.
4. Good tracks only.

Of course, a $100 winner will help any system out, and all you need to do is to devise a rule which picks it and one more and you have a system capable of sucking a lot of people in.

The problem comes when following them in real time... It might be another two years, if ever, for the next $100 winner to come along, and if it comes along at all, there could be 100 people on it and it doesn't pay $100, but more like $20, and there goes the system's profit.

Cheers,
Chris.

PS running the above rules (which I just made up thinking I was being stupid) through my database gives 447 bets, S/R of 5.6% (just 25 winners) and PROFIT of 76 units or 17.0% POT. Wow!

PPS. I'm claiming the copyright on this one :-)

PPPS. I'm calling it "First Up Foolishness"

The thousands of bets refers to one criteria, to give better odds that a mechanical system will not fall over.

This has to be part of the structure not all.

That's not to say a few hundred bets won't work, but how many systems based on a few hundred bets will be around in 5 years time.

There are no mechanical systems, that I know of, that have failed which satisfied all the criteria.

There are hundreds which failed to satisfy just one part of the criteria, and wound up as toilet paper.

To suggest that a large statistical sample indicating a trend is no evidence that the trend will continue is absurd. Show me a roulette wheel which in 10,000 spins turns up 9500 blacks and I'll take even money black for the next 10,000.

Why?

Because if you're not "retro-fitting" (term used earlier, never heard that one before but I like it) then if something happens over a sample that large it happens for a reason. In the case of the roulette wheel the reason will be because it is biased. In the case of form, it'll be because those form factors work, whatever they might be.

If anyone actually does believe that the 10,000 results is meaningless, let me rig up a roulette wheel here at home, come over and give me even money black. Oh yeah, bring a lot of cash.

Give me a method proven over thousands of bets any day over one that has been tested on 200 or less....


To me it's bit like the "Global warming" debate...we measure temps for less than 200 years and decide we have a problem..its complete b.s..200 years, in the context of the time this planet has been alive, is less than the blink of an eyelid.

Aside from the thought police comment which could be considered derogatory to your good selves this question from stebbo is a legitimate one.
The forum members who contribute freely what must be considered the drawcard to this site have an interest in threads they are generating. That's what makes them worth reading. I know I've come back after 24 hours eager to see how something has developed and been quite annoyed to find all trace of it gone.
I have no argument with your right to remove posts or threads to protect your legal position or the integrity of the site but for the sake of us poor saps who have an interest in what's going on I would ask you to do it with some sensitivity. I've known a few interesting threads removed in their entirity because someone got out of hand towards the end.
Personally I would find an a post from the moderator with a few explanatory words along the lines of - several posts removed because of xxxx - much more satisfying. Or maybe a post saying - xxxxx given a yellow card for insulting language - would be entertaining as well as informative.
Probably people who breeze in would find it entertaining too if you show a little creativity instead of merely brandishing the rule book.

Now standing in the hall with an excersise book down the back of my pants waiting for my turn in the naughty room.

KV

I guess of all of us you would be the most qualified to make a set of rules like this. I wonder if you could quantify them at all. I realise the number of bets must depend on the size of the divvy etc but I would like to see some figures. How many bets for what average price using how many rules would you say would guarantee a system is going to keep winning.
Aside from the obvious benefits of knowing your answer to this question I've always seen backfitting as a fun project to try to undertake and a few figures would give a target to aim at. Like is it possible to devise a system that would win over a thousand bets just using the letters of the horses names as a silly example.
Come to think of it a good example of retrofitting like that would serve as a good lesson to would be system creators to show how easy it is to fool yourself into thinking you have a winning system.

KV

Hi KV!
I have checked it out, and it works! Never followed it myself but if you are interested I can look up the results and post it.
I actually went through the alphabet and checked the name beginning with the first letter ,second letter etc.

Sounds interesting Marcus if it's easy to find.
I did one myself once on all the races in the last 10 years at some obscure WA track (it's on the forum somewhere). First letter t or something had a great record but only about 30 or so races. Funny thing is it fell over at the next meeting. :-)

KV

Hi KV,

I am not sure about qualfied, but thanks for the compliment.

I have studied system viability over many years, and the rules are something that emerged after studying WHY systems fall over.
In fact there are many systems which can be turned into winning ones, with a little tweaking.
Firstly you have have to ditch the rules which have no logical basis other than snaring longshots.
Then you have to apply rules which have a logical basis and don't just throw one or two longshots.

Admittedly, with any system, the profits come from a small number of winners.
If the small number of winners are very long prices, then you are relying on horses with very little winning chance and are bound to not repeat, as the same horses are not running over the next set of bets.

To quantify the rules, if you want a system with a very good chance of not falling over, deduct at least 1% of the winners which are the longest price, very few systems can withstand this deduction and inevitably fail anyway.

If a system can withstand this sort of deduction, chances are it will hold up in the future, but of course there is no guarantee. It is about increasing your chances of maintaining success.

I cannot really supply exact ratios and figures, because every system throws different patterns and strike rates and average dividends.

But I can give you an example:

One of my (many) systems :D

Selections: 612
Winners: 299
Strike Rate: 48.86%
Profit: $56.60
POT: 9.25%
Average Dividend: $2.24

Now let's dissect this...

1. There are not thousands of bets to qualify this system, which means I cannot be confident of a future profit, BUT these are the reasons it works....

1. All the horses are well supported in the market.
2. The profit does not come from a handful of longshots
3. I started following this system around three years ago, and consistently tested in real time with real bets, and it has held up well with only very small bad runs.
4. It always bounces back after a loss (to date).
5. Before testing in real time, I ran a system test over 12 months, then a seperate test over the previous 12 months, then I contacted someone with a very large database going back to the 1980's to test it on those races independently, he also confirmed consistent profit.
6. The MAXIMUM win dividend is $2.90, divide that by the profit and you have 19.5 longshots :D making up the profit.

This summarises how this system is viable in short.

Horse's name
 

Hi KV,
Being a magpie I knew I had it tucked away someplace, well here it is.
It should be self explanatory, the name of the speadsheet tells it all.
FirstLetter.xls is where the horse's name begins with the corresponding letter, SecLetter.xls where the second letter in the name corresponds with the letter in the line etc.
I can't remember why I done it (somebody must have asked for it) but it proves one point, if any, mechanical systems can work if you stick to them long enough, but first you must test them (retrofit??)
There is about four years of data involved, so it should be OK.
I personally could not be bothered with it because my rating works well enough, if not for the jocks and trainers I would be a wealthy man.
Cheers

Hi Marcus,
Just an observation, I notice the letter "R' has been omitted.

I beleive that one has to have a min of 4 years of stats to see if it has any long term legs to it. Even then there is no guarantee. But it is a stronger guarantee than something based on just one year .

I get confused where certain people use the word retrofitting as a derogatory term , the opposite to this is creating systems based on the future with results unknown as yet.
Past history is an excellent starting point when creating systems .

I run a number of plans all at once , the SR is there but the divs fluctuate markedly, thus , the POT changes month to month.
E.g. 21-25% SR and a POT from 1%-40% in any given month.

The suggestion that a large data base is no more affective than a small sample , is a mathematical abserdaty.
All data companies rely on large data samples to help obtain a truer picture of probability towards the future. e.g. engineering , space research , medical research , science and the running of many simulations , not just one or two.

The first question of any statistical analysis that is always asked is , what size data sample was used?
The larger the data sample , the more credability it is given, rightly or wrongly.

Cheers.

Hi Bhagwan!
You are right the letter R is missing, must have left it out of the control array.
May run it again. As you can see the number of records involved is quite large well over four years of data, but I think it is only of curiousity value.
Just for fun really, although I have seen systems sold for money that performed worse than some letters.

Hello Bhagwan,

To someone who has a Science degree, I find your claims and those of others here in a similar vein rather odd, especially when comparing Horse racing probability to Casinos or Science. You are all correct as long as you are working with known data. If unknown data is involved, the larger the % of unknown data, the greater the result variable will be the more times it is tested.
Casino game variable data is a known quantity, so the odds can be easily calculated. In other words the casinos certainty of winning increases the more one plays. The less bets the player has the greater his/here chance of winning. Mathematically speaking, one play only is the best chance a player will ever have because the odds are against them. From there on the players odds of winning diminish. The reason Casinos are rich is because players keep playing at odds that are against them. The more they play, the more they will lose regardless of player strategy or staking methods. Players believe otherwise and are encouraged to do so by the Casinos. Something similar is at work here it seems.

Horse racing cannot really be compared to casino games nor scientific probability experiments with known data. Isn't unknown data in horse racing greater than 50% ?

Anyway, just my $0.2 cents worth. I'll let you boys get back to solving the mysteries of winning probability. I'll stick to my Tea leaves as my main selection process in picking winners at the races. It seems to work just as well as anything else, and I get to drink the tea !

All the best,
Zoe

Hullo Zoe
I guess when you live with someone for so long, your philosophies tend to become aligned with that other person.
You sound so much like your husband, it's scary.

RE ZOE - TEA LEAVES AND SCIENCE
 

Gees Zoe ./Sounds like my latest SUPER DOOPER .

MURRAY BRIDGE XMAS CUP

SYSTEM 1
1 - 2 - 5 - 7 - 8 ( bet as many as you can as to make a profit Whichever one wins)

System 2 - numerology (a bit like the tea leaves )

1 +2 + 5 + 7 + 8 =23 = 2 + 3 = 5 ( for 1 horse a race bettors)

Cheers.
darky.

I think Chrome's parameters for a winning system are a bit too rigid but he makes a couple of excellent points about keeping it simple and retro fitting.

It looks like a few people have very different veiws on retro fitting,to me it is looking at past results and adding rule after rule untill the POT is high enough to make you happy.

Trouble is that unless the added rules are very logical and have each been tested over hundreds of races all you are really doing is finding anomalies of the time that probably will not stand up when it comes to future racing.

An example would be to include a rule like must be in the top 5 weights to an angle you want to pursue,a short test could show this helps the POT a little but the reality of the situation could be that whilst the rule got rid of quite a few losers,during the short test period you performed those in the top 5 weights were running hot and those outside the top5 were going through a dry spell,when it comes to betting the system the situation corrects itself and your system goes bust.

So in the above example your intitial angle that showed a lot of promise was destroyed by your own over eagerness and greed when you applied a rule that was retro fitted.

Keeping it simple and putting say 80% of your systems fate in the hands of your inital angle is about the only way to make mechanical systems work.

Coming up with that inital angle is the hard part,get that right and yes you can make a profit from a mechanical system,dont let those black hats who are oblivious to their own mechanicaly influenced handicapping tell you otherwise.

Yes Crash that last bit was directed at you,your own words about how you are very strict about betting only on certain race types proves how oblivious you are to your own mechanicalism.

Zoe,
I don't see how you can think a larger database doesn't help in formulating systems. Taken to extremes if you have a database of one race you might find that barrier 5 at track x wins 100% of races, an obviously false conclusion. With a database of 100,000 races you would probably end up with a reasonable sort of curve biased towards the better barriers. Something you may want to use as part of a system.

Dale and Bagwhan,
I tend to agree with Dale's view of the word retrofitting and that was what I alluded to with the "letters in a horse's name" system. I'm sure you could retrofit a reasonable number of races backfitting an assortment of letters in an assortment of different positions until you get some impressive results. But having said that I suppose we all retrofit in a way to try to invent systems, even handicapping is retrofitting of a sort, so Bagwahn's view holds water too.

Chrome and Marcus,
Thanks for those posts. Interesting and informative.

KV

Sorry, double post.

Hi Kenny Victor,

Yes a large database helps in formulating systems. I never would disagree with that. But winning systems not necessarily. You can make curves about known facts like your above example and they are useful. It's the unknown ones that become the problem. We get into probability here and chance. The greater the sample of unknown 'events' rather than facts the greater the error in interpreting them correctly to be of future use.

Lets look at a probability example:

In any case of probabilities of an event, the individual probabilities of the situation must add up to one. However, in horse racing the odds often add up to more than one. How come?

Let me first clarify the difference between probability and odds, just to be sure we're using the same terminology. The probability of an event is:

(Chances for)
P(x) = ---------------
(Total chances)

So, for example, the probability of drawing an ace in a single deck of 52 cards is 4/52 = 1/13 (or about 0.077 = 7.7%).

Odds, on the other hand, are given as:

(Chances for) : (Chances against)

Of course, (Total chances) = (Chances for) + (Chances against), so we can determine (Chances against) as (Total chances) - (Chances for).

When the odds are converted to probabilities, they usually add up to more than 1 to give the house or bookies their "edge" - that's how the Casinos and bookies make their money.

Let's take a simple example. Suppose we have a series of 12 races with 4 horses, given the following betting odds (for simplicity, we'll only consider the odds of winning each race):

Horse Odds Probability (from odds)
----- ---- -----------------------
Horse A 1:1 1/(1+1) = 1/2 = 6/12
Horse B 2:1 1/(1+2) = 1/3 = 4/12
Horse C 3:1 1/(1+3) = 1/4 = 3/12
Horse D 5:1 1/(1+5) = 1/6 = 2/12
-----
Total Probability = 15/12 > 1

Now suppose I were to bet $1 on each horse for each race. In order for me to break even on each horse, horse A would have to win 6 of the 12 races - then I'd win +$6 on the races A won and lose -$6 on the races A lost. Similarly, horse B would have to win 4 of the 12 races for me to break even -- I'd win 2 * $4 = +$8 (because of the 2:1 odds) on the wins but lose -$8 on the losses. Horse C would have to win 3 of the 12 races (3*$3 = +$9 on the wins, -$9 on the losses), and horse D would have to win 2 of the 12 races (2*$5 = +$10 on the wins, -$10 on the losses). Of course, this means that all together, they have to have 15 wins in 12 races, so somewhere they're going to fall 3 short of my "break even" requirement.

If, for example, horse A only wins 5 races and horse C only wins 2 races, then I've lost -$2 on horse A (+$5, -$7) and -$6 on horse C (2*$2 = +$4, $10).The bookie has just collected $8 from my pocket.

As long as no horse wins more often than its "probability" (based on odds), the bookie wins. Of course, it is possible that horses D and B will win 4 races each, horse B will win 3 races, and horse A will only win 1 race. In this case, I will lose -$10 (+$1, -$11) on horse A, break even on horses B and C, and win +$12 (4*$5 = +$20, -$8) on horse D for a net winning of $2 - But you can "bet" that that won't happen too often. ;-)

Systems have a notorious lack of selecting their odds that are in their favor, and very few punters really understand them anyway. So big problem number 1. Next, with relying on data that includes what, 30 to 40% max. known facts [like your example] and up to 60% or even more, unknown facts collected from thousands of races, you are really up the creek because the more the unknown facts collected the greater the chances of the conclusions being incorrect for future prediction.

Hope this helps, but I really don't want to get into this crazy system business.
Zoe

Massive generalization in that statement.

The second part is a throw away line to justify your personal view.

The variables you have outlined apply just as much to handicapping as they do to mechanical systems.

Did it occur to you that some purely mechanical systems (the good one's) actually contain within them, one of the most powerful handicap techniques available?

Chrome Prince,

Ah, it was a reply to your 'statement' of what constitutes a winning system by 'Crash' [he called one of your points 'a load of crock'] that had him banned from the forum, that was the only reason I visited this thread really in the first place, to have a look at what the fuss was about.

Crash also said Darkydog was 'gullible' in answer to his post here about having [tongue in cheek] bought over 300 systems [now there is a way to make money from systems!]. Crash then went on to try and sell Darky the Sydney Harbor Bridge for whatever money he had left. He wants to buy it and expects delivery on Xmas day:-)
After reading this thread and the posts concerned, I really can't understand the fuss. There was obviously no malice in either comment from Crash. Blatantly obvious regarding the post to Darky, but his 'load of crock' comment was perceived by you as 'harsh' according to your reply post. The one member who complained to management perhaps? I'm not saying you did though of course.

I would have used different language than a 'load of crock'. Crash is just a bit old fashioned. 'Massive generalization' would have been my choice of words.
Interestingly, I was looking at another thread of yours: 'Chrome tipped arrows'.
One of your rules that Crash didn't criticize, mentioned 'must not rely on occasional long shots'. I notice your 'Chrome tipped Arrows' does exactly that. Decide a few rules and chance is doing the rest. Nothing scientific there. If it's making a profit at the moment, it's chance at work not probability.

Beyond explaining some probability in my post with some simple maths., yes I indeed summarized my final point with a bit of reason. 40% facts collected into a database and 60% 'events', collected over thousands of races is going to provide long term, predictable future profitable outcome? You really have to be joking right? Are you involved in selling systems or something?.

'Generalized' is your claim about my final point in my post. OK if you like, I'm not trying to prove anything here. If I was I would have decided not to summarize, but used another language completely, advanced maths. which was not needed for the simple explanation about probability.This is a punting forum, not a science forum right?

If you would like to change the language of your disagreement with my point of view here Chrome Prince, I'm willing to oblige if you also can speak the language. Crash would not be able to, but with a Bachelor of Science degree, I certainly would have no trouble.

I tried to keep my post's point simple. Do I get banned now too:-)?

No offense meant Chrome Prince and all the best,
Zoe.