Crash;

I'm an advacote of the majority of your beleifs but use mechanical means to restrict and reduce my bets to a point where i feel it safe to bet in some of your races to be avoided,eg;2yo & 3yo.

On the each way debate i can't see the point of regardless of price each way betting,but if you set yourself a minimum place divy and only bet the place on top of your win bet if you can acheive that price then i'm all for it.

A bigger minimum place div might make someone feel better at the time, but the shorter the win price the more the percentages favour the place bettor.


[ This Message was edited by: shoto on 2003-09-06 00:12 ]

Shoto,

I know where your comming from and in principal agree as it is the same for a win bet.

However, it is a hard task to plonk money down on a horse paying 1.10 for the place or worse, the ones we regularly see paying "money back" after the jump and you can't do anything about it. If the horse dosn't place you loose your money and if it wins you get it back without a cent profit!

I backed five odds-on horses [amongst three others that won thank god] on Thursday as I thought they looked safe money. They all lost. Luckily I didn't back them for a place as it would have hurt a lot worse.

Moral? I will now stick to the wise council and maxims of past punting sages [never bet odds-on]that I have usualy got by on nicely and not to anything I read in this forum because as those sages say, "what can go wrong, often does" [five times in a row and I mean losses on those five races with three zeros ]. A very good lesson from the past.

Cheers and good punting to all.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-06 07:06 ]

hi all

was interested when i saw this post. the question i have bases on what you have indicated is if a horse has the following stats
40starts win 2 2nd 1 3rd 0

then under you model this horse has as w/p ratio of 66% yet this is not a consistent horse given the number of starts.

Have you found this to be a problem or have you factored in some minimum or max starts etc.

regards
ubetido

Hi Ubetido;

At this stage i have no starts requirement instead to avoid that type of situation i am sticking to horses with a win% of 25 or more.

I do see a need for a cut off point in relation to starts as the older a horse gets the less likely it is to still have that winning edge but at this stage i have not decided on that number,somewhere around the 34 start mark would be my guess.

Ohh and i also ask for horses to have won at least 2 races.

Play around with it people and let me know what you come up with.

becareful,

Every time any contibutor suggests that Mark's ideas are flawed you come to his/her rescue.
Do we have our first romance on the forum?
Interested in your response.:razz:

Xanadu,

Crash made some incorrect assumptions about Marks betting (ie. that he was doing it on the TAB). In the same post I also correct some other things I felt were incorrect about Crash's statements so I would hardly call it rushing to Mark's defence!

Besides I am a happily married man (and I think Mark is too) :razz:

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

...and you're an idiot Xanadu.

Tch! Tch!roll:

[ This Message was edited by: xanadu on 2003-09-11 11:12 ]

[ This Message was edited by: xanadu on 2003-09-11 11:14 ]

Becareful,

My original comments on this thread were a response to Dale pointing out [in another thread] about the lack of comment his ideas where geting regarding his thread here.
My preface comment : "Point taken, so I'll put my Two Bobs worth here" refers to that.

My opinion[s] in my post were not "statements" [of facts] that needed "correcting".

Disagree with me sure, but to correct ? If you wish to claim the mantle that response implies, fine by me but beware the burden that comes with it.

Most punters know that one man's punting Bible can easily be another man's toilet paper and with that very much in mind, I presented my opinions and maxims and Marks response was fine [as he can I'm sure speak for himself], but your latest post invites comment I think.

My comments about place betting as well as some of my other opinions, were a generalisation [ie. "smoking is bad for your health", but just because there are 90yr. olds still smoking, does not make that point invalid] only concering most punters and in the spirit of the original thread.
Mark had not even posted on this thread until after my comments that included place beting and his following opinion[s] were accepted as that.

As to my incorrect "statements" I made according to you , how about addressing them to the writer? rather than to the forum as if a corrected pupil?

Saying that someone bets with a bookie for set place odds and that future Betfair oppertunities might be good for place beting is not the same as saying I have made incorrect assumptions and statements [needing your correction].

I don't mind being corrected regarding a statement of fact, but not when I have made none!

Changing a writers obvious opinion into "statements" that you need to "correct" say more about the corrector than the writer.

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 12:31 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 12:46 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-11 13:37 ]