![Old](images/statusicon/post_old.gif)
8th October 2013, 08:01 PM
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 589
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinconpaul
Call me dumb or dumber Beton, but I just don't get it? In both posts you start off with $ bet matches Outlay and then the outlay seems to go through the roof, $63120 for 995 races??
Maybe it'd be better if you just one line it for me. Are you saying that the system as described in your first post is a loser, big time? Yes or No?
|
Ain't no one here dumb or dumber.
The system in the first post was for UK. That being said there should be a similar result in Aus. The first post was lay the LSW FAV so it has to be BF or equiv. The increase in outlay was that the test was run thru betselector and the $63120 is their default first four outlay. The test is on Aus races and tote prices.
Based on the claims of 84% it did not seem right and if it was true then it really puts the cat amongst the pigeons. So I thought I would run a representative sample 1000 races and see. I tested looking at the non LSW which I expected a good result but wasn't. so I did the same looking at LSW.
So would you get 84% and 130% laying here unlikely. In the UK is another story.
Several questions are raised but. My database of races which is prior 2006 spits out 27.78% ALL FAVS (can't split them) and the current test in 2012 only gives circa 20%. Could have been a bad patch. Or it could highlight some current theories that with the advent of computers both the handicapper is getting better (ave 1.7 len winning margin down to 1.3 len) as is the punter (lower market prices).
I doubt that the overall fav SR has improved but I suspect that there is an increased recognition that some races are one horse races, some are two horse races and some are wide open.
|