Rules are:

Adel Bris Syd Melb metro only Sat and Mon
4, 5 and 6yo only
Field size 10-24
Eliminate last start winners
Eliminate runners with WIN% less than 10%
Career starts 10-40
Eliminate runners not weighted to carry at least 2.0 kg less from last start set weight
NSW TAB $21.0 or more (of course)

Results from July 2001 through end October 2005 are:

Races 1,650
bets 2,560
won 83
SR% 3.2%
P/L 694 units (per $1 unit bet)
PoT 27.1%
ave div $39.25

LLS of 161 - imagine that. Made a profit in every year (ave 600 bets).

The rules are few and simple and can be accessed via the torn out section of every newspaper in the country.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It's been my expierence that many many horses at double figure odds,even $20 plus if you like have a far greater chance than their odds suggest.

Why cant people get that?

Why relentlesly critisise other forum members who looks to specialise in finding these discrepencies?

The potential for your selction to drift alarmingly and put itself into the absolutely massive overs catagory is great and every racing expert i have come across states that getting overs is the name of the game.

Some people cant see the forset for their favorite trees!

Why not tell us what you really think?

These rules seem quite logical and sensible. They choose horses that have been around long enough to have established form. They show that the horse is capable of winning although its price indicates it has the patchy form most punters shy away from. I didn't understand the weight thing but looks like it might mean the horse is coming down in class. Good work Dr P. I'm a little worried by your Sat and Mon rule, it looks like you could be retrofitting (God that's a dirty word).

KV

KV!
If I apply my ratings to the horses selected by the simplified P57 method,
instead of betting blindly on all of them (just bet on the first selection after the rating) there were no loosing days. I assume you have a rating method yourself?, why not try it? Even under the strict rules, where there is more than one selection?
Also I read your post where you were wondering as to what to do with horses just under twenty? Well I regard any over 18 as a qualifier!
True if you have a rule you must stick to it, but then, did you run a check on different price ranges? I did.....
Hint re. rating of these long shots, ("Time" seems to be best)
Good luck.

kv ,i think the monday will pick up the public holidays.........


dale,i think you'll find that the ones who cant see the forrest are to busy puting methane in the chinsaws..........
...............cheers......................slowman .....................

I was having a joke Kenny but the joke (the important part) got edited from my original post and all that got left was the system. Strange world.

The system may have some legs but I won't be betting it. I thought the Sat and Mon only criteria was indeed valid being the main dates for the best class races. Leaving out Mondays (public Holidays) would be cherry picking.

The 4,5,and 6yo animals with WIN% >10% concentrates selections on horses which have some proven past ability and are not too old to take advantage of it. The career starts restriction 10-40 reinforces this criteria.

Going down in weight suggests to me a class rise or at least a handicapping anonamly. Either way the I think we can assume the Trainer is not completely oblivious to the situation. My theory is along the lines that the last run was the "dean'un" aimed at setting up the "kill". (Oh dear God I'm starting to sound like p57 - please forgive me) Hence the rule no last start winners.

At the end of the day most of the rules were backfitted to suit. 2, 3 and 7yo+ all lost money. Field size under 10 starters lost money. Career starts under 10 and over 40 lost money. WIN% under 10 lost money. And to crown it all horses under $21.0 lost money!!!

SYDNEY lost money. Perth got murdered. Without SYD the numbers look like:

races 1,379
bets 2,200
profit 812
PoT 36.9%

Go to it Dreamweavers.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I don't know if you are/have ever won consistently on the punt Dr P, but so long as you regard studying past results (at the races, in business, in life?) as "backfitting" and therefore "bad", you are going to have problems maintaining an edge. In every thing we do, we take note of past successes and failures and try to repeat the successes; we look at what went right and what went wrong. Especially we look for the tell-tale signs (nice nautical term) which were NOT SPOKEN and NOT OBVIOUS at the time. This is the dreaded "backfitting". Most importantly; there should be no jumping to conclusions without UNDERSTANDING. To do this properly, because history doesn't repeat itself EXACTLY, you need broad paramaters AND to apply your conclusions with "discretion". Next time is not the SAME as last time ,but often enough (or sometimes more rarely) it's CLOSE.
I suspect that you are confounding BASELESS backfitting with reasoned backfitting, when you "bag" it. ie the last three Melbourne Cups were won by a jockey in red blue and white, so look for that again (only $500 for this system!!!), vs the past 50 Cups have been won by horses at 56.5Kg or less, who have won G1 or G2 events at their last start etc etc (For example). hmmm. You may STILL have plenty to choose from, but you are getting there ( now for a PRICE FILTER!!)
It can be frustrating to see longshots winning every day, not being on them and not able to explain them, either. That's normal. How come my home-garage business never took off and BILL GATES' did?? How come my little supermarket is only turning over $250,000 pa while GJ Coles (remember HE started in Sheffield, Tasmania with a little shop) is the biggest retail conglomerate in Australia? There are times Dr P when it seems that the odds are STACKED AGAINST US. Don't give up. All of us, Doctors or not, can still be winners!!! Cheers. Go the "backfitters"!!!!
PS I don't know if you're starting to sound like ME, but maybe you are more '"aware" than previously, of certain things (I do NOT say it's because of anything you've read in THIS FORUM).

Gee...thanks for the advice p76. And just to show you that I'm really listening we're going make some much needed alterations to the Dreamweavers.

First of all in the results quoted above there were no less than three 100/1 +++ pops winning accounting for a bloated 180 units of net profit. To back a 100/1+++ winner you need a miracle - I don't believe in miracles (especially at the races) so all contenders showing more than NSW Tab SP > $100.0 are eliminated.

Since we are getting rid of the extremes then let's not ask our Dreamweavers to cover more/less than 400 metres from last start distance. Anything but Saturday metro races are out and so are those starters attempting to back up with anything less than a seven day break.

Dreamweaver rules:

Adel Bris Melb Saturday metro only (no Sydney)
4, 5 and 6yo only
Field size 10-24
Eliminate last start winners
Eliminate runners without at least a seven day break
Eliminate runners with WIN% less than 10%
Career starts 10-40
Eliminate runners not weighted to carry at least 2.0 kg less from last start set weight
max distance rise/drop 400 metres from last start
NSW TAB >$21.0 but less than $100.0

Results from July 2001 through end October 2005 are:

races 1004
bets 1433
wins 57
SR% 4%
P/L 712 units
PoT 49.7%
ave div. $37.65

Sydney yields -56 units LoT 12%

Removing the price filter from Dreamweavers results:

races 2045
bets 4406
wins 316
SR% 7.2%
P/L +643 units
PoT 14.6%

The price band $11.0 - $20.9 yields LoT 5.9%
The price band $0 - $10.0 yields LoT 21.7%

Fill your boots Dreamweavers.

PSS Don't let all these facts and figures put you off your game p57. The're only put up to verify claims of punting profits, and besides, anyone with with the most basic of databases could either confirm as fact or expose as folly all or some of the above. You wouldn't want mess with all that peer review song and dance stuff.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Who cares about the song and dance,does anyone have an opinion as to why Sydney is in the red?

I have some theories relating to field size but maybe i'm wrong.

Because it's backfitted and does not pass the basic rules for a successful system longterm.

A system that has stringent yet illogical rules and fails in one State but rockets in another based on longshot results is not a viable system.

This is merely a statistical anomoly of extreme results.

There is no reason why 9 career starts or 41 career starts should influence the results or be left out. There is no logic.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg