Having just finished reading the 80 odd posts in this thread, I asked myself the simple of question of "What new information am I taking away with me?"

The answer, "NOTHING"

TheEasyRun has provided nothing more than the fact the he/she believes the fittest horse will win providing it has sufficient class and no other factors need to be looked at.

On one level I can agree with this. If the other factors were taken into account you could probably avoid some losers but wouldn't find new winners.

All in all nothing new to anyone who has the slightest amount of knowledge about the horse racing game.

I would suggest to TheEasyRun to provide a workout for a race, as this may provide something new and innovative that we have not seen before.

Brad

Quote Crash

I've never been any of those professions you quoted [I can spell mathematician and individual though] so I wouldn't know and the guy never got half a chance to explain his reasoning did he.


Lolol Crash I missed your cheap shot.The paragraph containing those spelling errors was a quote from your mate The easy run.

Brad I totally agree with what you say.

If you look back at page seven you will see that brave chief was pretty close to the money,in his opening statement.

As far as studying horses on the track Geoffrey Hutson's book "Watching Racehorses" produces excellent advice with regard to the behavioural patterns of racehorses.

In that book Dr.Hutson says,and I quote, "Fitness is hard,if not impossible to measure simply by looking at a horse".Of course Geoffrey Hutson is one of those post war educated idiots.Though he too can probably spell mathematician and individual...Unlike (as our friend Crash so aptly points out)
The easy run.

Bradw, like I said I'm still listening "INTENTLY"

Lolol here too mate. I was aware it was a quote [bleeding obvious, as it had 'Quote' on each end of it]. No use claiming it for a cheap shot at yourself. It was meant for the writer, Meaning, if your going to dismiss people due to profession [or whatever], at least spell them right.

See, I lambaste everyone equally:-))

I've been following this thread with great interest and IMO the most pertinent details/facts were contributed in Post88 by Sahasastar. He succinctly put the mathematical evaluation of this complicated issue into a simple formula which is easily digested by the wider betting public.
More such practical evaluations of complex issues of this kind please!

Cheers.

Quote Moderator 3

"Whether or not a profit of $3,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $400 or a profit of $30,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $4000 has been substantiated by TheEasyRun is our opinion the main issue"


The owners of this site have told us repeatedly over a period of years (to my own knowledge) that the above proposition is unrealistic,and I totally agree with that.(not impossible,not much is,but not credible.)

The easy run seems to be claiming his results are the result of watching horses.If that is the case,other than posting his betting history it will be difficult.(to say the least),to ascertain the veracity of his claims.

As I said earlier,it's all been good for a laugh.and probably racks up a few hits on the site.

The last paragraph from the Moderator post could be better worded as follows:

Can a profit of $3,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $400?

Can a profit of $30,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $4000?

This is the main issue brought up by TheEasyRun and needs to be substantiated.

Moderator.

Moderator,

You are spot on.

Every forum has people spruiking all sorts of holy grail methods but very few are ever substantiated. Anyone can post the "Rules of Punting", but actually using them and making a profit from horse racing is a totally different thing.

In my opinion the hardest part of making a profit is having the correct mental attitude to handle the peaks and troughs that occur to one's capital. It is the ability to be able to treat punting as a business and no longer a hobby/enjoyable interest that is the real challenge.

I find it difficult going to the track with a couple of selections and not having a few more bets to fill in the day. This is a discipline I am working on this racing year.

Nirvana for the average bloke on the punt would be around $50,000 a year.....roughly $4000 to $5000 a month. A $6000 starting bank for that is plenty.

If no one else can see that this is in fact impossible to sustain and the chance of losing a year's wages or even a $500 bank betting on 7/1 shots, is actually odds-on probably 1/20, then I just give up.

Unless you can pick one in two winners @7/1, then it might be possible, but there is reality to deal with!

I'll have a wee look at Sahasastar's post:

Let's assume his strike rate is 1 in 5.. and he makes $7.50 on average.
An extremely healthy 50% POT, hard to acheive these results but certainly not impossible if your selection processes are thrifty.

I ran a drawdown simulation 50 times on these excellent returns over 1000 bets, the average drawdown was 33.3 units. Now factoring in an unexpected bad run might occur the average of the highest 25 drawdown results is 41 units. Let's say we are prepared to bet on this very successful system aggressively and are happy in the knowledge that if a bad run might occur we are very confident we'll still be okay as our betting is geared towards this bad run happening.

And just how exactly is TheEasyRun or anyone else going to make $5,000 per month betting 2% of a $6,000 bank on each selection?????????

The average drawdown matters not one iota, it's the maximum drawdown that will bust the bank. Some simple calculations tell you that to earn $5,000 per month, your selections have to be invested in far too heavily on too small a bank and therefore it would not take anywhere near the maximum drawdown to kill the bank.


So we'll bet 1.2% of our account (factoring in the 41 units drawdown might occur). That's saying if the bad run occurs in the near future we won't lose more that 50% of our account.


I agree protect the bank, but how are we going to make $5,000 to match our monthly wage with a $72.00 bet at 7/1, even if it wins?


How many bets using this method to turn $6,000 into $50,000?


If he has a phenomenal strike rate not that many, but I don't think he's going to find that many bets @7/1 that fit his criteria AND win in any month!


If you've been doing it long enough how hard would it be to find just 1 horse out of the 100 odd that race every day that is 50% or more over the odds.. just 1 horse.


Crikey, if it were that easy (forgive the pun), everyone would do it.
That 1 horse has to win and that is exactly what has not been factored in anywhere - when they don't win.

All this pie in the sky stuff is what dreams are made of, reality pays the bills!


So let's stop ridiculing the guy and hear what he has got to say.


If you do the math properly it's obvious that he is the one ridiculing us and it appears that only myself and one or two others have picked up on this.

Very surprised, when the basics are faulty.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 402,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/05/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Rightio.... Chrome.

The 50 sims I ran the worst drawdown was 58 units.
On the sim I had already factored in the 37th worst drawdown result (half of bottom half). You could reasonably expect it to be around half of the sims.. only 33 units.. not the 41 I done it on. No-one knows the exact drawdown, it's impossible to get it exactly right. So I played the percentages, yet still overcooked it to be safe.

Let alone not running the expected drawdown on only the 350 bets. I would say the expected drawdown that could occur would decrease significantly with such a small sample of bets. Yet I still ran the test over the longer term.

Now, assuming the 2% chance of the worst drawdown did happen - 58 units
(1 in 50 chance of the 58 units occuring)...

Betting 1.2% x 58 units = lose 70% of bank.. Broke.. certainly not!!!
I'd suggest the system might need reviewing though, or it'd take balls to ride out of the rough trot and stick to it.

..or recalculate your bet percentage for a 58 unit drawdown if that makes you happy... 0.8%. The power of compound interest would at a guess turn the 350 bets into maybe 450-500 bets at worst without running a sim. Slightly over a year at 1 per day, but still PFG.

Surely you Chrome understand that we don't care if the overlay on the day does not win.. it's the average return WHEN THEY WIN!!.. a winner each 5th day at $7.50 on long term averages.
Was that part hard to understand for you, I'll explain it on a blackboard for you with big writing in chalk.

Previous 12 months results on a few of my betting systems:

Just a small sample.

51 sel, $122 ret, 29% srw, 59% srpl.
56 sel, $119 ret, 27% srw, 61% srpl.
74 bets, $130 ret, 39% srw, 67% srpl.
86 bets, $151 ret, 25% srw, 51% srpl.
60 bets, $86 ret, 22% srw, 52% srpl.

That's about 300 bets in the last year returning 70% profit.. once again, I under-estimated my simulation for fear of not being believed.

With the amount of place getters to winners, I can certainly expect these returns to continue.

I agree that 1 year would be pushing it.. but CAN IT BE DONE!
Absolutely without a doubt it can be done, someone is doing it out there, and I expect to be doing it real soon.

Would I bet these percentages though? If I was returning the figures quoted I'd have no problem at all betting 1% of my account.. and as my account grows by 1% each time. Diminish my bets be 1%. Easy.