 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#12
11th November 2005, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Hi sixgoalhero
I never actually bet any money on that system because all the work needs to be done before i go to work. I leave pretty early in the morning so i didnt get much time. To come up with those results i would check the paper when i got home and work it out from there 
|
|
#13
11th November 2005, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you are really clever, you might even try to predict the course of some factors and beat others to the punch  Cheers Tailwag
|
|
#14
12th November 2005, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know not what you mean. How about some examples of factors that change with time.
KV
|
|
#15
12th November 2005, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Oh yeah, stop sucking me in, we/I know you know what I mean :-) Tailwag 
|
|
#16
12th November 2005, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
We now have the TAB in pubs, betting exchanges, PC's to download endless facts for handicapping and systems, you name it we have it. Agreed. But the racing ?
The % of favorites winning hasn't changed and although we have changed and the hype has changed and our perceptions [and expectations] of the game have changed, the horse is still a horse with a jockey on it's back. They are still racing against each other and the fastest one to the post wins. What's changed as far as the racing itself is concerned except the amount of it? Metres have replaced furlongs ?
|
|
#17
12th November 2005, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't have several hours right now to explain the many many ways in which basic horse racing has changed, but you are right that we measure it over an agreed distance, and the first to pass the end point is declared the winner. However that is a far cry from the essence of horse racing then to know. Just to give you a quick example why your assertion is inaccurate. Have you ever heard a trainer put a stayer into a sprint race on returning from a spell, saying the horse may sprint well fresh, but we are really aiming him at a later race over more ground? Well, of course, this statement is a declaration that we are not really interested in winning this race, we would take it if we could, but we are just using it as a stepping stone. In this instance, they are not cheating (per se) but they are not overly trying either are they? You might argue that they did this in the past, and yes they may have, but it is a normal training pattern these days, where trainers map out years at a time for their charges, and work to that game plan barring injury. The whole racing scene has changed, not in terms of the winner being declared given a set of circumstances that are met i.e. a race, but in a million other subtle ways which evolution has brought us to. I really want to give a better answer than this, but I have to run. Cheers. Tailwag
|
|
#18
12th November 2005, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Off the top of me head a couple of things that have changed are...
The amount of racing,Crash you mentioned something on this forum about the amount of week class 3 type races now on metro cards. I bet the introduction of those races have thrown a spanner in the works of a few systems. One other thing i think has and is continuing to change is training styles,ever since Vintage Crop won the cup more and more trainers are waking up to the fact that all their horses arent the same and they need individual preperations,that could include racing a horse fresh every single time it races,a punter who blindly follows the 21 days since last start rule will be missing more winners.
|
|
#19
15th November 2005, 02:53 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.
|
|
#20
15th November 2005, 04:18 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)
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
