most of us will have tried a system, and then dumped it - for a variety of reasons.
Often, with a bit of tweaking, or just by looking at it through different eyes, the system may be made to work better and could actually be successful.

I'd like to propose we create a little "systems" bank with forum members donating "dead" or discarded systems they have used for the rest of the group to toy with and research.

All results should be published to the group and if we find something can be made useful we can all put a few razoos on it and enjoy.

So, I shall donate a few that I have played around with in the past and any thoughts on those systems are welcome. And if anyone can make one work, even better.

System 1...
greyhound trifecta system

after looking at the random nature of many greyhound results and the regularity of outsiders winning I decided (last year) to research a trifecta system whereby I selected the outsider for first, the favourite for second and the field for third.

It paid some ripper dividends, my best being about $2000 if my memory serves correctly.

But...(there is always a but !)
I didnt know how to reduce the number of races I was betting on. I was sitting here betting on every greyhound race every day except those races where there were less than 8 runners.
For a few months I made money, averaging a profit of around 50% overall but it was physical hell and I couldnt stay up for the very last races so often I had to bet in advance if I was still going.

I used to stop the moment I had my one good divvie for the day and I would use the prices as shown a minute or two before the race.
On most days I would get my money back but it was too much like hard work and the moment I went into a short downturn I bailed out to preserve my moolah.

In my opinion the problem with this system was not being able to figure out which races to leave out.

if someone can make such a system work, go for it.

After reading another post today, I also believe this kind of system would work at the trots but, again, it needs research.

System no. 2
maiden races
I always tend to go where the mainstream views say not to - I sense there is more value there.
A while ago I noticed a trend with maiden races that I worked on and used for a while.
I noticed that often the person in the paper making their selections would pick the winner amongst his three picks when that runner had no previous form. And often that horse would pay a very healthy price since the public had nothing to go on.
I picked up a few $30 horses in this way and the wins came pretty regularly.
Again, a momentary slump saw me head off in another direction so I never looked into this beyond a few months. But I suspect there is food for thought here.
This system did not seem to work well in NSW.

System 3.

DFS ratings
for those of you who use the NSW TAB you will be aware of the free DFS ratings we get.
I noticed that picking those horses that ranked top in time and class seemed to produce good results but because I dont understand classes in racing too well I felt that there would have been races I should have left out.

This method also seemed to work better in country races than in the city and should have more legs in it if one puts the time into it.


ok, there you go...

three disused systems that are aching for new life from someone with another way of looking at things.

I might finally add that I do feel that whilst most of us use time and class and form to base our selections, that there is room for purely mathematical systems that dont care less about form and I would strongly encourage any one with ideas in this area to throw them around to see what we can come up with .
Even the idea that the fav comes first the most often etc... should open the gate to logical conclusions that allow for profitable betting. I just have to get my head around it a little more... :smile:

all thoughts welcome

see ya
Every Topic


[ This Message was edited by: Every Topic on 2002-12-12 17:49 ]

Great topic - Every Topic (forgive the pun).

The downfall of many a system is, as you say, not finding the winners, but eliminating the losers and the races which are not good betting.

Often with a very firm, even odds on favourite in a field, the price of the "outsiders" is way over what it should be.
One thing I have done in the past is to do the form without the odds on pop included to see just how far over the odds your choice would have been if the hotpot wasn't there.

Now, the problem here is that the odds on pop is often odds on for a reason, but from a value angle, your outsider might be a better bet.

The actual result has to be seen not from the one race but in longterm view.

So I would include the outsider in odds on fields or small fields, as sometimes there is great value, as the horse is not a "bolter" but actually has a realistic chance of winning.

Never overlook the fact that the horse, dog, trotter or fly with the best form and class doesn't always win. Bad luck in running should never be underestimated.

In other words, "If the odds on pop gets a bump, a check, gets trapped wide, is my outsider hopeless or has it a real chance?"

I'll have some systems to provide to this topic later.

Every topic........good idea mate!Just had to throw my hat in the ring here!Here is an old "dead"purely mechanical system that I played around with some years ago with some degree of success.Scan each race on any program,any day of the week.Look for any horse that has identical placings at it's last three starts,i.e.222/333/444/555/666/777.I used to cut it off at 777,and never bet on 111.Another "golden oldie".In open handicaps and Welters,add the prepost odds to the weight to be carried.Lowest total is the selection,backed on an each way basis,prices permitting.Do not take apprentice allowance into account,Another one...In handicaps with 15 or more runners,concentrate on the top 6 in the weights.In handicaps with 12,13,14 runners concentrate on the top 5 in the weights.In races with 10 or 11 runners concentrate on the top 4.To qualify further,the horse must have finished 1st,2nd,3rd or 4th in at least TWO of it's last 4 starts.Any contender must have had it's last run within the last 21 days.For any contenders remaining,add up the form figures of it's last 4 starts.the horse with the lowest total is the selection.Good luck!!

with the d.f.s.ratings why not go to the better class races.same criteria but field strength figures of -20 to +1.5.races class 6 0r better.

Here's one that I used with some sucess for a while but then went off on a tangent.
Sydney and Melbourne only Sat only. Staring at race one,(then race 2 if no selection etc) and working down the TAB numbers (from no 1) the selection is the first horse that won both it's last two races. So a maximum of 100 bets per year. Just for fun todays bets are SR3-3 and MR1-2
NB The selection is the first horse that won its last 2 RACES (not 3 more)

another 2 winners Saturday with the above, although one a bit skinny

Something I've been looking at recently is backing a number of horses in races where a lot of horses are resuming (i.e 1st or 2nd up). My rationale is that these races are unpredictable and hence throw up many long priced winners. For the purposes of my research I looked at fields of 13+ with 5+ horses first/2nd up. In the short time that I've looked at this it has thrown up some remarkable winners in my top 6.
Most recent good results have been Umanoolla ($71 NSW) and French Revolution ($58) both on the same day at Adelaide (not a bad double return for a $36 outlay). Other good winners in the last 12 months have included Crystal Finale ($38), Fighting Harada ($70 +). THere have been many races where the stake was returned (i.e. a small amount + or -) Needless to say all of this is in retrospect and I didn't have the money on.
For anyone interested there is one bettable race today, Adelaide race 7 which I have rated 12, 14, 2, 3, 9, 16.

Thanks for tge tips, Percentum. Decided to back each of your selections for a few dollars --- and Shocks came home at $25.10 in NSW!!!

Glad you did Merriguy. Has a good strike rate (naturally backing 6 runners).
Must do more research on it though.
Have Wizards back to 1992 so it's a matter of finding the time.

Had a chance to do a bit more research on this. Randomly grabbed my 1994 pile of Wizards. Flat backing of top 6 resulted in an approx. 12% loss. There were, however, many good winners and to back 6 and get this result reveals, I believe, that there is some merit in concentrating on the events that fall into this category.
I think that if one were to consider the top 6 in my ratings but only back those showing $25 + that a good profit could be made.
Due to time pressures many people fall into the 'put on in the morning and forget about category' (myself included unfortunately).
Clearly these results show that the method will not return an overall profit if handled in this way. Nevertheless, as it only usually involves one or two races a day this does not mean a full Saturday of screen watching,
rather about 10 - 20 minutes. My sample year had none of the huge results of 2002 as listed in my earlier posting. I'll keep posting these in bettable races if anyone is interested. Basically what this is doing is lessening the outlay (i.e. number of horses backed - remember, anything under $25 doesn't get backed) but still retaining those lovely long priced winners.
Essentially what I'm doing is a form of punting 'big game hunting'i.e. trying to find races which throw up big dividends.
There are about a dozen races a year (group & listed with 15+ starters) which have shown 100 % + profits every year except 1992 and 2002 backing my top 9 to win and standing out the top 6 with the field in quinellas.
Even better results with trifectas surrounding the top 2 with the top 16 (outlay $1260). Trouble is the outlay and the impact of flexibetting on NSW dividends
(see my much earlier postings if they still exist). I think that the Vic Tab would be the way to go here. Anyone interested in forming a syndicate to have a go at these?