CANBERRA.
1/ 3,2,1
2/ 1,8(7,16)
3/ 1,9,10
4/ 3,4,5
5/ 7,6,10
6/ 5,9,2
7/ 12,13,4

HAWKESBURY

1/ 1,5,6
2/ 9,6,1
3/ 9,1,4
4/ 8,4,11
5/ 1,5,11
6/ 1,12,5
7/ 6,4,3
8/ 3,1,7
9/ 14,13,8
YARRA GLEN.

1/ 2,5,10
2/ 6,14,7
3/ 1,4,2
4/ 1,4,3
5/ 8,7,1
6/ 1,6,2
7/ 5,9,2
8/ 3,1,11


Good Luck.

Tuesday results.
Races =24
wins =15
places=35
Q =7
Trif =3


Good Luck.

G'day

The results look good overall but in order to back the 15 winners you would have needed 72 bets, right?

And the same with the placegetters?

Would there have been a profit on say a $1 e/w bet on all runners?

I'm not being critical just interested to know whether the selections were profitable.

Ewan

Hi.
EachWayAllDay.
I don't give to you statistic of lost or win
and how much every runner was pay.You have to check.Every news paper radio,Tv tipster
selecting 3 chances.In PRO-Punter you can check FREE tips and you find 4 picks per race.
That's fair?

good luck.

wjp.

If you are given 3 selections a race you don't back the 3 selections a race each way. If the selections are good, over time there will be a sprinkling of long priced winners. That's what you look for - horses at good odds, not three horses a race to back each way.
Keep the selections coming. I enjoy following them. I've even backed the occasional one and picked up a few nice winners. Thanks.

I suppose my argument would then be, if you are given 3 selections in a race, which one do you support?

Secondly, why do tipsters select 3 or sometimes 4 horses in a race? Is it so that when their 3rd selection wins at 10/1 they can claim it (despite the fact that their other 2 selections at 6/4 & 7/2 were unplaced).

How about this...a tipster makes 3 selections in order, say numbers 1, 2 & 3. Now this shows that in the view of the tipster No. 3 is the third pick. Why is it then that when No. 3 wins, the tipsters then adds that to their claim of tipping winners? He hasn't tipped it to win!

It does not require any analytical ability to select the first three horses in the betting and list them as "my selections".

Personally I'd like to see tipsters right across the board make one selection only which would then give those of us a better guide as to which tipsters are actually worth following.

Note that this is not intended to be critical of any person who tips on this board, just somethig I've thought about for some time and seeking some clarification.

Each Way, when I make my selections in order I do not pick a winner. I put them in order of their chances of winning.

If I think 3/1 is needed about my top selection and it is even money I don't back it.
However I might think 6/1 is needed about my third selection and if say 12/1 is available I will back it.

For most races you really have to say about every horse that it should lose, not win, because in most races not one horse has a 50% chance of winning, but significantly less.

If I can regularly find 10/1 winners in the three best winning chances for every race I look at then I would absolutely clean up.

Mr.Logic

As I've suggested, perhaps the "experts" should select one horse per race that they believe offers the most value to punters. Most of the people who follow these tipsters are generally small punters who would prefer to support their favourite tipsters selection at 7/1 rather than 10/9.

Whilst I'm on the soapbox, it really annoys me that the ex-jockey tipsters on Sky always seem to say "The top three lookers in the mounting yard are............" 99 times out of 100 they coincidentally are the top three in the market, funny that?

I've seen many a "good looker" in the yard who couldn't run out of sight on a dark night!

Thanks fellas.

Each way, you said, "As I've suggested, perhaps the "experts" should select one horse per race that they believe offers the most value to punters. Most of the people who follow these tipsters are generally small punters who would prefer to support their favourite tipsters selection at 7/1 rather than 10/9."

Far be it from me to support the media tipsters but the difficulty with providing "value" runners is that often you don't know which horses are going to be value until the market is framed 30 minutes before a race.

A favourite is only favourite because it is the horse most people think will win the race. It's not necessarily the horse that has the best chance of winning. Good ratings are about accurately assessing the winning chances of every runner in a race. The key is to then compare your opinion with that of your bookmaker. As Mr Logic says, if you've assessed a horse at 6/1 and the bookies think it's only a 12/1 chance, you back it. It may not be your top rated runner but it provides much better value, especially if you can rely on your ratings.

A fundamental problem with tipping services is that they tell you which horses to back but they don't tell you what price to accept as a minimum.

It's fine to know when to bet, much more important to know when NOT to bet. That's why 3,4 or 5 rated runners (with their assessed prices) is a valuable punting tool.

Hi
EachWayAllDay.

Nobody ask me to post my tips to this Forum.
You don't have to back this horses if you think that they are not good.You can buy news paper,,get free tips from this site,listen racing radio,even seat and do your own rating the choice is yours.
I'm posting my tips because I like to share what I know and what I think.

Regards.

wjp.