Hi, Grand Armee,

you're not bursting my bubble because I'm aware of the dynamics and unpredictabilities of the game and that any method/ratings/staking plans,etc has to be tested extensively before any could be deemed worthwhile. So I'm not holding my breath but would be surprised if any of my three types of betting eventually went into the red because they are so far in front at the moment. Its early days but time will tell and might prove me wrong. Even though I haven't bet on Duets or First Fours, both are showing (on paper) excellent results, so its quite encouraging.

I started betting my system on Mon 21 Jan so I'm betting on approximately 2 races per day. To bet on 1,000 races would take about 1 and a half years. At the moment I'm considering one year so that it covers all four seasons to see if there are any hot or cold periods.

hi michaelg,

interesting method you seem to have come across there. The races that you decide to bet, I take it you are looknig for races where the favourite is obviously quite vulnerable. To decide this, are you going by the odds of the favourite? Or are you using another method? I understand however if at this stage you are not willing to share this info.

I too have played round the idea of backing as many horses as possible after the fav to try and show a profit. I was looking for races where the fav was paying around the $5 mark, so would in turn have a poor strike rate, and then depending on the next priced horse would back as many runners as possible. Ie if the 2nd fav was showing $6, back the next 6 horses, using the 2nd fav a saver type bet.

I had mixed success with the method, but then on the occasion where the fav, or a outsider which i was not on, got up, the losses were quite heavy. I quite liked the idea though because of the high strike rate, (i'm not the sort of person that could go 20-30 races without a winning bet) hence why i was looking at ratings in my first post. I guess with teh high strike rate, you could use a progressive staking pan, as the run of outs would be pretty minimal, its just finding teh right mix of agression and control to make it really work.

Hi, Thorns.

We are more or less on the same page when it comes to selecting the bettable races.

I originally had quinellas in mind, because after testing many previous methods where I box multiple selections I realised that in every one of them that quinellas in the long term outperformed trifectas. Maybe its due to the lesser commission by the TAB on quinellas or maybe the impact of flexi betting on trifectas, or even both? But whatever the reason(s) it soon became apparant that quinellas was the way to go.

When I began my current selection method (without real betting) I only recorded the quinella results as I was looking for qualifying races where I expected high quinella divvies. I had little interest in Win or trifecta betting, but soon realised that there was a very good strike rate for both (it is striking one in every two trifectas) with surprisingly good divvies. So when I began betting with real money I included both. Also, previous systems I have worked on showed it was better to omit the fave in Win when betting on the TAB, which I am doing.

What I'm really getting at is even though our selection process is different, have you considered boxing your selections in quinellas because I will be surprised if my quinellas eventually do not outperform my Win and trifecta results. If you have records of your betting selections you might check them to see how quinellas have fared?

I will definitly be looking into the quinella method then as well, at this time I havent particulary been recording my results, more just watching the races when I get home form work and watching how many times, the method I outlined above seemed to succeed. But with your info as well, I might have to start looking at recording teh results to get true idea of how this method is achieving in real life.

Cheers
Paul

Thorns, getting back to quinellas - there was one qualifying race today. The fave won so I lost on the Win bet, I did not have the third horse so the trifecta bet lost, but I had the quinella for a most acceptable 38% POT.

One race certainly does not support my preference for quinellas, but it might be indicative that they could be superior, even when the fave is involved in the divvy.

With your quinella method, I notice form your last post that you are including the fav, how many horses are you generally boxing up?

I box half the field in win, quinellas and trifectas, but I omit the fave only in Win betting. If the fave does happen to win the race I am not too concerned because even though the Win bet has lost, there is a current 72% chance of snaring the quinella and about 50% with the trifecta. Of course these percentages may reduce, time will tell...

If there's an uneven number of runners I rate upwards. For example, if the qualifying race has 13 runners I box seven. Half the field (and slightly higher) is a huge number to box but I'm hoping the method identifies those races where the divvy should be worthwhile and that the selection process provides one or two horses that are "overs" in compensation for the large outlay. My best winner so far has been $42 which was an "over" on the TAB.

Thorns, like you I also prefer high strike rates, and this method provides it. All it needs is also to provide a profit.

Yesterday at Ipswich race 7 the system snared the winner, quinella and trifecta, paying $23.10, $99 and $3,370.

But now looking at the Unitab divvies which paid $25.00, $209 and $6,150 I feel almost cheated. I have never seen exotic divvies double those of another state, and I have often compared them on the IAS website. And no, my minimum bets did not affect the pools.

I can accept that flexi-betting could affect the trifecta dividends, particularly the higher ones, but this does not apply to quinellas.

This is one time that you wish this forum would not censor expletives.

Hi michaelg, I feel your pain.
I thought NSW TAB and Supertab were the same?
It paid $29.6 win, $281.4 Quin amd $6736 Tri on supertab.
I got the winner (but I skew my rating for long shots), but don't play tri, or quin, alas.
better luck next time!

Ouch!!! I bet that does hurt. Quite strange though that it was UniTAB with the highest prices, usually when I'm testing a system, I use there prices because they are generally the lowest. So if someting make a profit using there prices, it should be even better at other TAB's or bookies.