A System from my site
 

A lot of people ask why I run my web site to test your own system.

Here is the reason.


There were 78072 horse form lines in the database at this point in time. We update when we get time.There were 2250 selections for the System
There were 1988 races for the System
There were 709 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 31.51%
There were $2644.34 returned for WIN (after 5% commission) which means a Profit or loss of $394.34 or a percentage profit/loss of 17.53%


This system has come out in front every month except for 1 since Aug 11 in which it only lost by less then 5 units.

I won't reveal the rules as I didn't find this system. I log all profitable systems and check them over myself. This one looks very promising.

I run my site as lots of punters have different ideas to test and I can just verify any exceptional results.

There are many other systems I have logged which are profitable. This one caught my eye becuase of the consistentcy (strike rate of 31%) and the good profit over thousands of bets.

Evening UB,

Its a gem of a tool mate - very much appreciated. Especially for moments of inspiration ie a new idea that springs to mind where you want to get a quick initial handle on SR, POT etc I do see the merit in finding a system that returns many selections and a reasonable rate of return. I have found a few with good results but most have only a smallish sample of selections, to date.

Incidentally, do you have access to PP odds and can you see any merit in their inclusion(any version would be helpful), assuming it would not be too much of a burden to load, of course. As a form of ratings, they could be used as a filter alongside DS / the Neurals, perhaps?

Apologies if you have been asked this one before or included them in your system in some form and I have somehow missed them with my stitch-on eyes!


Cheers LG

I do have that info but not on the site.

I'll see what I can do.

Hi UB

Thank you for looking into this.. Something tells me there is considerable value under that stone!


Cheers LG

Speaking for myself UB I was slightly disappointed to read that. If it's not already there, perhaps you should mention that clearly on the site. ;)

It is written, i seen it the first time i used the program, i guess you use it at your own risk but to be honest no different from posting results and such on this forum.

As long as you don't see your successful system for sale from UB.

LOLL!! Shaun.

Especially if you been doing your balls using it :)

Its been on there since day 1:

http://testyoursystem.000space.com/

We collect information on the systems you produce but we do not collect any personal information. (ie no cookies). Successful systems are stored in our database.


I wouldn't even know how to go about selling them. I'll leave that up to the magazines. I might end up betting them though.

I think you'll find that darkydog2002 and myself came up with a sure fire marketing plan for selling a system UB. Contact us at darkyn'barny@berniemadoff.org

I wasnt aware of the disclaimer but figured that the site was set up to gather information.

Not much different to asking Wesmip or whoever it may be to test something for you, if they find something promising they are going to use it, fact of life and no one has done anything wrong.

Useless Better is offering a great service.


Ive got more of a problem with people who run a test for you and perhaps give you a set of results that may or may not be the true representation yet claim to all and sundry they are offering their services to help people.

Agree Dale, there are many left in this world who are fair dinkum.

Dale, gotta tell you that I have experienced exactly that with 2 individuals that post regularly, one in particular, that you would think is beyond reproach. No I'm not going to reveal who, (repercussions you know) I mention it just to re-iterate your warning!

tres interessante ..... I think you might be surprised how many on this forum would be sus to what / who you're on about partypooper.

We're not all as dim as we sim ..........

Happens all the time where money's involved, esp when there's a possibility of getting newbies sucked in .... and playing them for all they're worth. I did in fact post on this subject a while ago, but no-one responded, but I'll bet someone took notice.

These dudes thnk they're too clever by 'alf.

It goes on here, I'm 99% sure, it has to.

A card game with several really good and long time friends used to take place, stakes we're fairly high. A 'stand up' bloke, an RSL man and his son were 'waxing' as it turned out. Fleeced us all they did and they were long term friends.

Money eh ..... turns people into ********bags at times.

Any clues Party?????

Hey Barny, can you explain the term "waxing". As I have never run across it before.
I am presuming it is ganging up, or pairing up, but could be way off.
Cheers.

Sorry to hear I’m not alone Party and Barny.


Jose as for clues I'm not revealing anything either but as is the way with these things don’t trust people who are keen to tell sell themselves, people who are genuinely helpful don’t do this.

Is it me? :(

lol @ moeee.

Very interesting.
I have kept my mouth shut since being TOU'd and will continue to do so.

Food for thought though, it's amazing how many things are posted, but when checked are completely the reverse, yet they continue to do well for certain individuals.

Amazing.

SPOT ON CHROME PRINCE !!! You being TOU'd is a knee jerk reaction by whoever has the authority to TOU posters, and further, the person who actioned the TOU doesn't know what's going on right under their nose.

Probs see you lot in a month, if I'm lucky.

You see - this is where I keep messing up.
I begin having similar thoughts , and decide to post , because thats what Forums are for you would have thought.

But it seems its not about that at all.
Its about only posting when its politically correct.

I hope you still with us tomorrow Barny.
Almost as much as I hope I still am :(

moeee, There's more to it than just being politically correct. I think you could interpret somewhere an inference of mistrust, yup that'll do. Of course it could all be oh so innocent too ..... I trust CP's stats and everything he posts with my life. He has integrity in spades.

ciao

Here is one that looks promising.


There were 78993 horse form lines in the database at this point in time. We update when we get time.

There were 220 selections for the System
There were 203 races for the System
There were 65 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 29.55%
There were $354.71 returned for WIN (after 5% commission) which means a Profit or loss of $134.71 or a percentage profit/loss of 61.23%

Test Another System

The Rules used were : distance > 1200 and lastStart < 3 and age > 4 and careerWins > 2 and winStrikeRate > 30 and daysLastStart >= 5 and daysLastStart <=28 and runners < 14

Could some kind person (maybe UB) please enlighten me of the difference between the above rules and how I have interpreted them to test in my own data base. I assumed the above meant :-

Race Distance: 1200 - 3200
Race Field Size: 1 - 14
Age of Horse: 4 - 12
Horse Win %: 30 - 100
Career Wins: 2 - 99
Days to Last Start: 5 - 28
Last Start Finish Pos: 1 - 3

If I have read correctly, I get a huge difference in the results back to mid August last year.

Enjay

Just another thing please. By changing the > 4 to >=4 another big difference to UB,s tester results.

So what does The Rules used were : distance > 1200 and lastStart < 3 and age > 4 and careerWins > 2 and winStrikeRate > 30 and daysLastStart >= 5 and daysLastStart <=28 and runners < 14 mean in real terms.

Thanks

Enjay

Hopefully this will make it clearer Enjay.

Distance - 1200 or longer
Field size - maximum of 14
Age - 4 year old or older
Win % - 30% or higher
Wins - at least 2 wins
Days - between 5 - 28 inclusive
Last start - no worse than 3rd

I'm no e x p e r t (far from it :rolleyes: ) but where there is only a < or > it doesn't include that figure - only higher or lower IMHO.

So where it says >1200 I would take that to mean 1201m and up (not 1200m). If it included 1200m races that it should be >=1200

Well, that's what I think anyway. :p

Thanks Ocho.

Hi Ricardo

I am in fact running the rules that you state in your last message (see my first message to confirm.)

I am only running back to August last year (that is when UB data starts I think) and get heaps of selections.

Enjay

Hi Enjay,

Are you using Bet Selector? When I ran the rules using the greater than and less than (but not including) numbers Ricardo stated I got almost exactly the same number of selections and winners so I think yours and Ocho's interpretation was correct.

After looking at the selections there were 2 $20+ winners which is where most of the profit came from, especially as they probably paid quite a bit better on Betfair in UB's database.

Cheers,

Matt.

Rules in Bet Selector:

Distance: 1201-3200
Field Size: 1-13
Age: 5-12
Win%: 31-100
Career Wins: 3-99
Days Last Start: 5-28
Last Start Finish: 1-2

From 31-3-12 to 1-8-11

225 selections
63 winners
29.9% S/R
30.7% POT (lower prices on NSWTAB)

Thanks for clearing that up for me mattio.

Ricardo,

I have tested your filters back to 1-1-10 and got the following:

639 selections
170 winners
28.5% S/R
10.4% POT (NSWTAB)

Looks like there is some promise there mate.

Cheers,

Matt.

I notice that #31 has last start finish 1-2, while #27 has 1-3. Could this be clarified please.

Hi Truckie,

Post #31 is my interpretation of the rules and the results based on this. Last start finish <3 to me means either 1st or 2nd so that is what I used to test with.

Cheers,

Matt.

Hi, mattio,
It seems you received almost the same result with last start 1 or 2, although the last line of # 27 is "Last start- no worse than 3rd."

Go back to post #24 mate, last start <3, that is why I got almost the same result - if you add 3rd place it changes the results.