Sorting the wheat from the chaff involves doing your own research.

For instance, there are some claims on here at the moment,as have been for months about the effectiveness of a system out forward as 2011System of the Year. The claims have beenrefuted by a couple of posters who have provided factual evidence. These posters who have refuted the effectivenessI respect very much. BUT, to those newon here, I would recommend that you always DYOR in every case. How can we not get consensus on what should be a matter of reporting facts?

Why should we do our own research when the data is in front of our eyes and genuinely offered?

Coz the input data might be flawed ….. (chrome prince’s data I would back with my life, but saying that, still DYOR, and he would surely say the same)

Coz the program analysing the data might be flawed …..

I’d also be wary of systems offered up, not necessarily on here, that don’t have back-up data. It’s my perception that some might offer a system up, then check to see how many mug punters have followed it, then lay the systems they are offering as a winner, or punt the system they are offering as a lay system. Then run a similar process, with similar rules all over again. I’m sure this is a little money spinner for some. It’s the mug punters fault for sure, no-one else’s, but DYOR.

There’s many a system offered on here, especially way, way back in time that seem to do very well indeed, and have data that can be checked. There the ones I’d look in to,there the one’s that may have stood the test of time.

Hi Barny, could you give some examples please? Do you have back up results to prove it?

Bernie

Strange question Bernie given that the point of my post was to DYOR.

Ah Barny, just the answer I expected. Not even a mention of a system that does very well indeed. You do have results to prove that one does exist though?

I figure its easier to get blood from a stone than it is to get a straight answer to a simple question from some members.

But thats fine - everybody is different and everyone reacts in different ways.

I seem to remember Punters Choice, saying the System "Dark Horse" had made a profit for many years, and continued to do so, I know it was based on horses that had finished in the first 4 (I think) in their last 4 races this time in, but can't remember the sub rules now, anyone know it?

Placed at last 4 starts, not broken by a spell.
Not to have won last 4 (3?) in a row.
Must be $4.50 or more PP.

That is from memory.
Could be more rules, but that is the gist of the original.

There was an updated one which disregarded the spell and a few other rule changes I seem to remember as well.

__________________
Jose'.

If this is the dark horse that was 30 odd years ago then one of the rules was that the last start or second last start must have been in the city.

And Bernie, Ahjays system was spruiked by many as being profitable, then there's the system crash made up, the No Brainer, there's been many from bhagwan early days ..... maybe if you transferred your money into my account I could save you the trouble of even having to have a bet bernie. You've only got to look bernie. There's also a recurring system on here, which sounded very good, the poster was privateer?? (I think), but you have to dig and dig to get all the rules.

DYOR bernie, the harder you work the luckier you'll get ..... Gary Player said that !!

Courtesy of this forum Bernie, there would be 200+ decent systems that do have some logic as their base. A lot of them rely on last 4 runs, but there are many including others, including the 'longshot' system that provide some sound information for you to build a system that suits your style.

Many systems posted here show excellent POT results going back for 4 years from the time they were posted. Over the past few years the posts have concentrated more on "running your own book" and ratings based, rather than early days where information was shared in pursuing winnning systems without ratings. This doesn't suit me, but it might suit you bernie.

The dark horse(original) equestrian publishing.

1= Must have finished 1-2-3 at each of its last 4 starts (Current campaign)
1111
1112
1113
1211
1212
1213
1311
1312
1322
1323
1333
2111
2112
2122 etc etc

2= Eliminate all prov and cntry meetings plus sandown and caulfield.

3= Eliminate all those whose last start was not in the city,
Accept the following tracks as qualifiers(Southport-Bundamba -Canberra)

4= Delete any horse drawn wider than barrier 12 after scr unless it is,
The pre-post favourite (AFTER SCR)

5=Remove all horses longer than tenth position in the morning newspaper,
(aFTER SCR)

5= This rule took a while to find as it went two pages before it appeared
Will qoute.

Any horse still qualified which is to be ridden by one of the,
Top=3 riders in that state is a selection for the " SPECIAL BET "

6= Eliminate all pre-post favourites which are not special bets.

The rest of the book contains results and staking plans.

Hope this clears it up.




CHEERS.
Garyf.