hi,
I've been lurking for a while getting used to the personalities and I was looking through all the previous posts and the arguments for and against all kinds of systems and staking plans. Usually when one mentions a system I grab the latest results and flick through to see how that system would have gone on what is a random day - today. And usually the answer is hopelessly.
, he says with all due respect:-)

And then I spotted Bhagwan's post about pairing the horses together, picking the best formed horse of the pair and voila you have lots of winners. To which many of you replied with contempt since its appears to have no merit or scientific basis.

Because I could never bring myself to bet on 4 horses in one race anyhow, I needed another qualifier so I added to Bhagwans theory.After picking the 4 horses I then took the one with the lowest advertised price.( I am assuming I have got this right)

As I spotted this yesterday I applied it to yesterdays results. Assuming I have the thrust of his theory correct I was amazed at the results.11 races qualified, there were 4 winners at 5.80,10.50,4.00 and 3.30 - a nice profit for 11 bets and 10 of the 11 ran a place paying between 1.20 and 3 for the place.

I havent looked any further back because I dont keep form, but it was interesting to note because - as I said - when people mention any system I have a quick look and they are usually very unprofitable.

People mention ratings - I look, hopeless unless you are going to spend forever filtering the results out.
People mention all kinds of online websites ranging from the neurals at racing and sports to free picks.

Never had success with any of them.

But Bhagwans little number system romped in.

Maybe it was a lucky day with 4 tracks conducive to favourites coming in - but I will be keeping a lookout on this little method.

interesting...

see ya

Well done Everytopic, for sharing your feedback & findings.

I`m used to the negative people who bag everything they see ,but never offer a positive input , the same will happen to you & anyone else who tries anything left of centre.

The drone everyone is sick of hearing is "Spend hours & hours, doing all the form work & the winners will present themselves" ,
I say Bollocks & double Bollocks.

There`s more than one way of approaching anything , finding the successful approach over 150+ races that makes a quid ,is the challenging bit & the most frustrating.

Keep up your input ,it will be appreciated by the silent majority.

May the Punt be with you.

__________________
Cheers.

thanks Bhagwan,
have an open mind to everything so I always give an idea a chance and flick it around. I do, though, often scratch my head and wonder about the devotion to things like ratings. When I look at the form, and look at the ratings and see huge differences then I do wonder about the validity of them.

And I'm sure there is some smart cookie out there making a squillion by betting number 1 or 2 in every race, with a couple of qualifiers and using an even smarter staking plan to ride the bumps.

As I sit here watching the NSW TAB "latest results" list go past my eyes every day I cant help notice the number of times good old number 1 pops up - and how rare the non appearances are. :smile:

By the way, of the 11 races your system qualified for yesterday - using my alterations - 5 were at Northam which is one of those tracks, like the Gold Coast, where form seems to mysteriously go out the window so it was no wins at Northam but 5 places.

have a good day,
see ya

Agree with your comment re Northam, Every Topic, form does often seem to mysteriously go out the window at this venue.

I've given up trying to relate Perth city rating form for runners when they appear at Northam.

Once thought generally a great course for the back markers, running on. More recently of the opinion seems to suit those horses settling no worse back than mid field!? Very seldom bet on Northam anymore.



_________________
All the best from the West

Sandgroper :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Sandgroper on 2002-09-20 12:28 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Sandgroper on 2002-09-20 12:30 ]