Hi All,

just wanted to relate a couple of stories that might help some others out there.

Last month I had my first winning month on the punt that wasn't created by a large trifecta. I've been punting seriously for about 10 months, and have had winning months before, but the others were all due to a couple of big trifectas.

About 6 weeks ago I made some very minor adjustments to the way I bet, and things have been going well ever since... But not everything went rosy right from the start.

My main midweek system was on a downer from day one... After Monday's racing it was 45 units down. I might have started to get worried, but I knew from statistical analysis that it's previous max drawdown was about 70 units, so I wasn't too worried. (I've structure the bank for a 100 unit drawdown) This system is predisposed to picking the longer priced horses, and they came home with a flourish this week, and the system has finished in profit after Friday's racing.... No small feat for such a short time given that it turns over about 40 units per week.

Before I knew as little as I do now, I also subscribed to a well hyped longshot system that many have taken swipes at here and on other forums. It went well for a while, but has been on a downer for the last three months. Today the bank I set aside for this system was pretty much broke... I split what was left and put an equal amount on the 4 selections.... One of them got up at $48.63 on IAS... "My last dollar" and the bank is now back into profit... I was tempted not bet them today... The bank had 2 units - there were 4 selections, and the system had selected one winner from the last 53 selections....

Apart from wanting to share my excellent day on the punt, I wanted to point out that having a plan, sticking to the plan, and structuring a betting bank appropriately is paramount in this game.

I hope everyone else had a good day on the punt.

Cheers,
Chris.

Ditto to that stebbo. Suprised at lack of comment.

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-11-09 19:10 ]

Stebbo.

I was wondering how many systems you run concurrently ? I understand the logic of it but not sure what you do when two [or more] systems come up with different selections in the same race. Do you still place the bets ?

I have always been a critic of backfitted results mainly because they are done on and include many horses that are no longer raceing [say a new batch every 5yrs.], but more importantly because a lot of sane filters just can't be configured so are replaced with meaningless ones that lead to error. Within 2.5 lengths from winner [as opposed to a finish position, except first of course] is an example that I have just discovered can be checked. What about 'must be no worse than 8th. at the 800m', which establishes being on the pace ?

The whole business of systems is very exciting but I have never had much faith in them. Working out software solutions that fit decent filters seems to have more merit that force fitting filters to suit the software [most systems around].

Cheers.

On 2003-11-10 07:53, crash wrote:
I was wondering how many systems you run concurrently ? I understand the logic of it but not sure what you do when two [or more] systems come up with different selections in the same race. Do you still place the bets ?

Hi Crash, I am currently running 16 different "systems", 13 are Saturday systems, 7 are midweek systems, and 4 are all days systems. 6 of the systems are all based around Price Predictor Better Ratings, so they'll always pick the same horse, and some of the systems are very selective, with only one bet per week on average.

The problem of what to do when I have two runners in the same race presented itself the first day I ran multiple systems, and I decided then that I would bet them all. My reasoning was that if one system didn't win, the other might, and I don't expect my systems to win each week. I don't dutch, I just bet the amount determined by each system's bank. I place about 40 bets on a Saturday, and will bet multiple horses per race in about 3 to 5 races each day.

This is not as bad an idea as it sounds, as out of the 7 "discrete" systems I run on a Saturday, 3 of them are "mainstream", and the other 4 are longshot systems. I have absolutely no problems betting an "in the money" selection for a win and a longshot selection each-way in the same race.

The other thing that needs to be determined is what to do when multiple systems select the same horse. Do you double-up or not? I have decided that when totally different systems select the same horse then I will double-up, but if systems based around my Price Predictor ratings select the same horse, then I don't double-up.

...snip... but more importantly because a lot of sane filters just can't be configured so are replaced with meaningless ones that lead to error. Within 2.5 lengths from winner [as opposed to a finish position, except first of course] is an example that I have just discovered can be checked. What about 'must be no worse than 8th. at the 800m', which establishes being on the pace ?

Price Predictor stores the sectional times if available in the form, but these are not available for system testing unfortunately. However, sectional times are only available for mainly metro tracks, so are pretty much useless for midweek betting. On Saturdays, there are a lot of horses in a lot of races that are racing at Metro tracks for the first or second time, so sectional times might also be misleading here as well. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of being able to select on the pace horses, especialy at certain tracks. And if you're restricting your betting to the better class Saturday races then they can be very advantageous, it's just that I don't restrict my betting to that area.

The whole business of systems is very exciting but I have never had much faith in them. Working out software solutions that fit decent filters seems to have more merit that force fitting filters to suit the software [most systems around].

I agree wholeheartedly. I find that working out the systems is more fun than betting the systems. I actually have two databases, the Price Predictor database, and a database that I have created myself which links to the Price Predictor one.

I have done this for two reasons, firstly my program is several orders of magnitude faster than Price Predictor. I like to test individual variables over their entire range, so will run thousands of analysis. Secondly, I can include variables that are available in the form database but not available for the system selector module. This means I can actually test on any variable that is available in the form... This latter has allowed me to create some very good (admittedly backtested) systems, but these are actually performing reasonably well at the moment.

For instance, one thing that I have played around with quite a bit was selecting each runner's "best run" out of their last 5 runs, and comparing elements on those runs. So, for instance, rather than specifying "won last start", you might specify "won best run", or rather than "distance change from last start of -100..100", you might select "distance change from best run of -100..100"..... I haven't finished this particular area of analysis yet, but it is looking quite promising.

I haven't played with sectional times yet, mainly because I haven't figured out what to do about horses that don't have this information available due to where they've been running.

Beaten lengths is something that I've tested a lot more extensively than can be done in Price Predictor, as I've looked at beaten margins over the past 5 runs, whereas Price Predictor only tests last start.

I believe that designing a system which goes beyond what is capable in a normal system builder gives me an edge that a lot of other punters won't have. So far it seems to be working.

Cheers,
Chris.

Hi stebbo & crash.

I agree stebbo in sticking to the rules and carrying on through the bad patches, provided you have a solid history of profits.
This has happened to me on many occasions and I think it's more appropriate to the longer priced horses especially, where one can have a very long run of outs.

crash,

I see where you're coming from regarding backfitting.
There is a solution to this for the database user.
Split the database up into a half or quarter of RANDOM results.
Test your theories, then apply it to the entire database and see if it holds up.
Also I tend to test my filters on various systems to make sure they hold up in general.

Why backfit?, why not just make your own history, select, "bet", result. If it wins, why "fix" it..If it loses, then make adjustmets.
Going back, is a bit like...gee I don't, but it don't make much sense.

I also note there is too much emphasis on selection and trying to get a 100 % strike rate. That's what it seems from here, testing 16 systems.
Been there to stebbo, at the end of the day, it comess down to one system for select, and another for bet/money management.

Either way, any of your 16 systems, may require a management, unless you have that figured out.

Hi Puntz,

I know 16 systems sounds like a lot, but I never set out to start betting this many. It sort of just turned out this way.

Backtesting to me makes perfect sense. I don't want to risk money on a strategy if I have no confidence in it's ability to work. When I started this journey I knew very little about horses and horse racing in general, so for me to try to do the form and succeed was simply not going to work...

I recently spent 3 months going through my past database using a ratings system. I tested about 20 different variables using discrete values. For instance, I tested the top rated selection if it was up in weight by exactly 0.5Kg, again if it was up in weight by exactly 1.0Kg, 1.5kg, etc, etc, etc. I did this for lengths beaten or won last start, in 0.5 length increments. I did this for days since last start in 1 day increments, for last start finish position in increments of one, for changes of distance in 100m increments, etc, etc, etc. I then started testing some of these variables in pairs.

I learned so much from the exercise. I know exactly how those ratings perform in a large number of different scenarios, and found that a surprisingly large number of factors that others think are important, are in fact of little importance.

At the end of the exercise, I took what I learned and built a system from it. I'm now running that system in real time, and it's working quite well.

Half my systems are based on ratings, and the other half are "mechanical" systems. About 6 of my systems are commercial systems that I've purchased, the rest I've devised myself or traded with others.

Others on this forum have attacked almost every commercial systems provider I know of, and I find this quite amusing. Before I purchased my first ever system, and I knew nothing about racing, I automatically assumed that there was only a small chance that the system would work.... But I took the risk anyway. (and the first one was a huge flop too :sad: )

My current best performing system is one which I got out of a magazine for free.... 130 bets, 34% S/R and 25% Flat stakes POT.... :smile: Mind you, with the first 56 bets it was never in profit, and lost 60% of the bank... Again, I could have been tempted to give up at that stage, but I stuck with it.

Having 16 systems allows me to turn over larger amounts of money than I would be comfortable with if I only bet 2 or 3 systems, and remember that POT * Turnover = Profit, and it's Profit I'm interested in. To illustrate, so far this financial year I have turned over some $27,000 on win/place bets alone, and my largest single system bet is currently $36. While I will agree that there's not a lot of difference, I'm much happier putting $20 on 50 bets on a Saturday, than $500 on 2 bets. My aim is to turn over about $1M per year, with a 5% to 10% POT.

Every time I introduce a new system, I go and find $500 or $1000 and physically put that into my punting bank. I consider it lost from that moment on. At worst, I hope it lasts 6 months so that at least I can get some enjoyment out of it... At best I hope that it grows to $5,000 or $10,000 or .....

As many have said before, there's many ways to skin the punting cat. My way is probably not the way many would choose to go.. some may even suggest that I'm mad.... It may not even be the way that I end up with in 3 or 4 years time, but it is currently working for me.

But I will reiterate what I said earlier on, the only way that it will continue to work is if I stick to my plan. I review my plan every 6 to 8 weeks, and review my financial position weekly. I have been tempted a few times to do something different, to not back that particular donkey that's starting at $20 or $30... Each time I've been disciplined enough to follow my plan, and more often than not it pays off.

Cheers,
Chris.

stebbo,
yeah, seems like you went on, where I took a detour, and then settled for just what one works.
The same attitude I had, knew sweet f.a.
The fun part was, so many pc's crashed during trials, it just edges ya on to get it right.
cheers.

Chrome,
Well I can see by your suggested method that someone sees my angle on backfitting. Havn't got the data base for it but your method would be one of the ways I would do it if I did.

Struth Stebbo, that many systems !!!
I can't see myself walking down that road though. Old habits die hard and I will probably always a remain pen and form man. I do use stats. sheets [ and history checks etc. online ] for storing all sorts of info not available in form guides. After so many years at form study [sportsman and winning post mostly] handicapping, I find it relaxing and fairly easy. Nice spot in the garden on a fine day... well I don't think I could beat it sitting in front of a screen. A device more comfortable to a younger age group I think. An hour on here and thats about it in one hit.

I do have an exciting way of testing new systems I work out though. I just run 'em and bet 'em with no backfitting software needed! They then become an evolutionary project over time [betting small initialy]. One I finaly became happy with and gives me about 6 tips besides what I work out from form [if my system has a pick going in a race I leave it for the system]. I am more than happy with it even though it is still evolving at a slower pace. I change a few of the rules around depending on the time of year.

Cheers.



[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-11-10 17:04 ]

Hi Chris,
Just a thought, you use price predictor and cyberhorse.
I know it's hard to believe with all my go to the track stuff, but I also have price predictor and import cyberhorse daily, because obviously I can't get to the track everyday.

I don't use price predictor to work out (systems) but to easily import cyberhorse.

In their database they have their own ratings for the race and I have noted their top 4 rated have a very good strike rate, with some at very good odds.

Have you ever looked at these for a basis for a system?

Cheers