Please note Forum Terms of Use.

It is a condition of joining the Forum that these Terms of Use are BOTH accepted and followed by the Forum member when posting.

Noone is being forced to join the Forum with a gun held to their head.

Any person is free not to join if they do not like the Forum Terms of Use.

Aside from the thought police comment which could be considered derogatory to your good selves this question from stebbo is a legitimate one.
The forum members who contribute freely what must be considered the drawcard to this site have an interest in threads they are generating. That's what makes them worth reading. I know I've come back after 24 hours eager to see how something has developed and been quite annoyed to find all trace of it gone.
I have no argument with your right to remove posts or threads to protect your legal position or the integrity of the site but for the sake of us poor saps who have an interest in what's going on I would ask you to do it with some sensitivity. I've known a few interesting threads removed in their entirity because someone got out of hand towards the end.
Personally I would find an a post from the moderator with a few explanatory words along the lines of - several posts removed because of xxxx - much more satisfying. Or maybe a post saying - xxxxx given a yellow card for insulting language - would be entertaining as well as informative.
Probably people who breeze in would find it entertaining too if you show a little creativity instead of merely brandishing the rule book.

Now standing in the hall with an excersise book down the back of my pants waiting for my turn in the naughty room.

KV

I am a little confused at your confusion in this post Crash.
Are you saying that in 12 months of punting, you could not double your initial bank? For anybody that lives off the punt, I find that very difficult to believe.
Remember profit, and profit on turnover are 2 completely different things.

Who said I was stupid enough to buy them ?

Darky,

Well I'm not going to GIVE you the Bridge. What a nerve!!!

Chrome,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you last point [not rule, but point] is a lot of unsubstantiated crock and your first rule even more so, instigated by system sellers: 'we have tested this system over thousands of past races and our 70% POT stands up to scrutiny".

But I'll agree to disagree if you like on your assertions. The onus of proof is on you of course, as it is your claim [statement actually]. Special pleading won't do the job either:-)

You wrote.

"Criteria for a winning mechanical system....
1. Must be tested over thousands of bets
2. Must have very few rules
3. The profit must come from more than a couple of longshots.
Get all three points and you have a winning mechanical system" End Quote.


Re: Rule 1: A mathematical result based on a past paradigm of events is not equal to a mathematical result for a future paradigm of events
where large numbers of variables are in voled in both results [if we could test thousands of future bets with the same rules].
Racing is one such area where those large numbers of variables are present.
Actually [as any Uni. maths student would tell you, the greater the test number of bets, years, whatever, the greater the different outcome will be to the eventual future result. The greater the variables, the more extreme the error. So you may as well test over the last 20 races.

"The more an incorrect myth is repeated [rule 1], the more it will be believed by more and more people regardless. Even if even the world's leading mathematicians would disagree" [not sure who said that, but I have always remembered it].

I await your proof :-)

Cheers Chrome.

Hi Stebbo,
I am very much like u, where i find studying the form tedious but love spending many hours designing and trying out new systems. I have been working on greyhound betting systems in my spare time since i was about 16 (im now 22) and I have a mechanical system fully operational at the moment and 1 more i hope to start January 1st. They certainly do work. My main place betting system for the calender year has had:

bets: 248
wins: 172
av: $1.72 (STAB)
total: $48.68 (for $1 unit)
POT: about 19.6%

It went slightly better last year, the average was around $1.76. I bet over 4 accounts (STAB, NSW, UNI, AIS) and I outlay about $500 on each bet. Obviously I could never share this system as I pretty much bet the maximum without affecting my dividends too much. The system has never returned a loss after 23 months of operation and also a year of trial results.

So in my experience mechanical systems can most definetly work.