 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
15th November 2005, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Chrome Prince.
I have noticed there are some silly people on this forum. And I have noticed some stupid people on this forum. I can't recall if I put you in one of the above categories. Well if I did,you're not. 
|
|
#2
11th November 2005, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If the system worked that well why did u give it up???
|
|
#4
11th November 2005, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I must be the 'old man' of the forum with [getting close to it] 40yrs. at it [punting:-)]. What I have learned is forget looking for 'the winner', look for the right price for your selection. If you can't get it, ignore the race. You will come out on top in the long run.
Look at it this way: If you average SR is 1 out of 10 or 4 out of 10, you are looking for odds for your selections that leave you in profit. Backing winners is pretty useless otherwise. Something else to think about if you are totally bamboozled by the game, consider the fact that 31.5% of favorites win [but you'll still be out of pocket backing them]. If you can spot just 5% of favorites you think will lose and back the rest, your ahead of the game. Increase that to 10% and your making very good money. It's as simple as that :-) The only other thing of significance I've leaned over all these years punting is that 'women and horses will always make fools of men'. I've succeeded very, very well in achieving my last point. Last edited by crash : 11th November 2005 at 03:25 PM.
|
|
#5
11th November 2005, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Hi crash, the trouble with eliminating a few false favourites is that while the strike rate will improve, the odds of the remaiining winners will probably shrink because the ones you eliminate may be obvious to most others. Unless you can find favourites that fallover quite regulary at short odds that most others miss.
|
|
#7
15th November 2005, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I take it you are not leaving to be a salesman. That is possibly the worst sales pitch I have ever heard. Here are some winning systems. I do not need them anymore because I am quitting the punt. Glad you are not asking for money.
|
|
#8
15th November 2005, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Firstly I respect the work (time) you have put in and thank you for sharing three of your systems with us. I can't help noticing that all three systems have a common element to them, and as I am a student of systems and have a belief that the ultimate system will only exist for a brief time due to the dynamic (changing) nature of the racing industry itself, which I have voiced several times on different threads, I am interested in pointing out to you the narrow scope of your systems. The first and most obvious point that comes out of the (specifically the first two) is that you are using someone else's selections. Nothing wrong in that, I don't like reinventing the wheel any more than anyone else, and I am a big believer in reusable code. However the point is made that your system is dependant on selections and does not in itself create selections. Your third system does via criteria create selections if they exist. What your three systems (I understand you have many more) do not do is step outside the narrow corridor you have set yourself up with. Is it because you don't have the time or the inclination that you don't create a system that evaluates every runner in every race? Their is value in every race, as has probably been said an infinite number of times, finding the winner is not the vital factor in that equation. I have noticed since I arrived on this forum some two months ago that most published systems are dependant on a static state and a narrow set of conditions that must be met. By definition, if nothing else, what these systems do is reduce the possibility of value, and I am not so sure that wealth preservation is maintained abnormally highly to compensate for the skinny number of times most systems actually yield a betting proposition. By way of an alternative I offer the dynamic state such as the volume of money being wagered at any given point prior to a race, to my mind this is almost obscene not to be taken into account in one's selection process. This of course implies that I factor a higher priority to dynamic influences than static (historical) influences. However saying that in track parlance, I would rather follow the money than trust the ************s tipping for the newspapers :-) I recall another thread on this forum that discussed the difference between perceived 'smart' money and just money and to me, I believe that you can design filters that will match patterns that show the difference by and large. Regardless of the 'quality' of the money, I can't understand why a system wouldn't want to incorporate that dynamic state into whatever other factors go into the system. To take that a little further, I can't fathom why when constructing a system, you wouldn't want to harness every single bit of information available to you. To my mind, it all goes into the mix to make up what racing is really all about, and might help. I guess I am a chaos theorist rather than a simple devotee, in racing systems, keeping it simple might just equate to keeping you broke. These are just my thoughts in between races, as I sit at my desk :-) Please don't flame me, I am a simple and fragile type! Tailwag (Woof)
|
|
#9
15th November 2005, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tailwag, I also recognise that the changing state of the punting market will render once profitable systems usless. My thoughts at the moment are concerned with the information you CAN'T get off a PC as I think there is a new legion on smarty pants punters who think if they download enough they will turn a profit at punting.
|
|
#10
16th November 2005, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yes Dirk, I am with you there. I also believe that data obtained from non-internet sources are invaluable. I am not referring to newspapers or subscriptions to magazines or TV either. I am referring to other forms of information which is free providing you go where it exists i.e. the racetrack for one, a trainers complex for two and so on. Can't give up all my secrets, but you are certainly on the right track by incorporating data from non-traditional sources. These sources, in their own right, are as valid a part of the racing industry as any other aspect. I know this is so corny to say, but the sum of all the parts is greater than the whole, meaning that ANY part is a valid part than can benefit the whole system. Even a sublime issue like trainer A differs from trainer B in certain aspects. These aspects can influence the result of a race and inturn, this directly impacts on you!!! Now I hear a lot of groans out there saying you can't interview every trainer re every training aspect, what are you on about :-) Of course I agree with that, but there are certain constants that are adopted almost universally, knowing them is useful. From a racetrack point of view, the heart and soul of any system because this is the domain of the industry you are trying to analyse, supplies an abundance of information. The local feel, transactions, colour, coat pullers, rumours, way they 'Vigorously' whipped the horse in the straight and a vast number of other factors can be gleaned on a regular basis by visiting the racetrack. Most of all you can see the real volume of money supporting horses, which is a better gauge than reading the starting price in the next days newspaper. These factors can be quantified and entered into your algorithms and hey presto, its free and enhances your static, standard limited data collection from traditional sources i.e. Net, newspaper, etc. Any system is only as good as the data that goes into it. Here I go with another saying...sorry....'Garbage in - Garbage out'. This is true for a racing system or a cinema program, so if you have the most diverse forms of data, given that their is relevance, you can filter for a better result. I sound like I know everything and can tell you I don't, I am only trying to share what I believe. I believe that a racing system should follow best system practices, just like any other system, coin collecting, video cataloguing, weather prediction. The system output should be clearly defined, and I doubt that many are. I read what other listers write and they have a collection of constraints that need to be met to yield a profit. For example, no 2 year olds and so forth, this to my mind is not a system, but a method of culling a large list into a smaller list. My ideal system would evaluate every runner and compare them against each other and against a predefined ideal which would take into account every possible variable, such as weather, track condition, time of year, class of race, weight and so on. There are literally hundreds of possible variables from the numerous sources. Some of which would be static (known in advance or sourced from a historical standpoint) and dynamic sourced from a live stream of data either electronically or in human form on a track. With very powerful computing power today in ever decreasing size, you can setup a virtual office anywhere and have real processing clout for a very small capital outlay. Most people (well some people) bet more in a single bet than the price of a good laptop :-) So, the very first question to ask is, what do I want my system to provide (output), then what data do I need to supply (input), to get my desired result. The desired result is usually the grey area, most people seem to want a short list of horses at backable odds so they can have a bet. I however want my system to rate every horse and show me where the value lies, and in this day and age, it might not be in finding a winner, or placegetter, in fact there could be more value in knowing a horse that is legless and simply can't win. I feel that in the future the best value might come from correctly identifying the 4th, 5th and 6th best horse in any given race. I can't go into why I believe that, but switched on people will probably agree that, that is where the greatest value may lie. Okay, I'm off to chew my masters slippers (woof)... Tailwag
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
