Hammers you asked the right question and the responses have been very good. But I would be a little bit wary with the fact that your test period is only for the past 39 days unless you have data from before this that franks your system.

Over 39 days you could probably find periods where backing every favourite returns the attractive figures you have quoted so I would recommend that you start off with a small bank.

Your win strike rate is also very high for the volume of bets stated unless you are using the market at very close to jump to determine your selections, this appears not to be case given your longer priced winners. A win strike rate of 31.3% with that volume is equivalent to the strike rate of favourites and in my experience there is no system or person that can select more winners over all races than what the market eventually determines is the favourite. So I would also be a little bit wary of your current high strike rate.

Thanks for your comments Memsie,

I agree that 39 days isn't long but I wonder whether a method that gives one selection per day for three years is any more reliable than my 1000 odd selections in 40 days as far as a testing period goes - similar volume. It is an intriguing question and I guess only time will tell.

I first toyed with this method last summer and had similar results over a period of about a month - some 700 selections. My laptop was stolen from my car and it wasn't until September I decided to revisit the idea and I was pleasantly surprises to find it still chugging along.

Above all I am realistic. I do not expect 30%+ winners at $4+ average for ever and ever. At 25 or so bets per day I would very happily cop a 5% POT as a $200 bet unit would realise an annual income of $90000 tax free. Given that the excellent betting products available today make it possible to bet in 100% markets or thereabouts I don't see 5% POT as unattainable.

The feedback from the good readers of this forum confirms my belief that 0.5% to 1% of bank on a sound selection method is conservative enough to withstand bad runs yet aggressive enough to encourage growth.

Cheers,

Hammers.

Hi, Hammers.

You mention a hypothetical method that covers 3 years but with not too many selections.

I would feel more comfortable for a profitable system over a 3 year period because I would assume it would look at all types of races - low class ones to black type which would also include some races where horses are being run in unsuitable races solely to prepare them for a higher race. And also, the system is being bet during the four seasons of the year.

However, not knowing anything about your selection process I cannot really sugget that the time factor would be more important than the number of races to be bet, or vice-versa.

In spite of saying that, if there are multiple selections per race in your method I would be inclined to say that the number of races might then be of more importance than the time factor.

However, if I had a system that performed just as well as yours I think I would have put real money on it by now, even if it was a small amount. And if the strike rate continues then the staking plan can be even more aggressive. Imagine what Maria's result would have been if she had applied a higher percentage of her bank!

Good luck with it.

Let's face it's better to lose your money by your own hand than by someone elses.... i.e. following other tipsters. I'd rather put faith in my own abilities than following/depending on someone elses.....

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

No one here has managed to provide the correct answer.

Which is:

Not only should you be betting this now with Kelly Criterion staking, but you should have started around bet 160.

This question occurs time and time again, and I have answered it time and time again, but for some reason no one seems to be able to grasp the simple concept and retain it.

kelly - full, 1/2, 1/4? which?

& probability of winning %, how does one calculate this magical figure? pulling it out of you know where seems a common enough method...

an example based on hammers numbers would be most welcome jfc

Full Kelly. Fractional Kelly is only for those who don't understand what Kelly means.

Hammers' observed strike rate of 31.3% is 305/976

statpages.org/confint.html

Feed that in to the confidence tool to find:

28.35% is the strike rate that you can be confident of exceeding.

Presto.

thanks, so there was a rabbit in the hat after all

Another idea for testing , but not as accurate .

Is to have 2 mnths results.

Then run live with small amounts of money for the next 2 mnths.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.

Hammers,

do you have a breakdown of the performance (Number, S/R and POT) for selections that start above and below $3.50 ?

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion