Merry Christmas and Happy New Year stugots,

What seems to be the trouble?

Many people express their opinions within these forums. I will certainly agree that some posts get moderated but that occurs when they breach the Terms of Use. The Terms of Use are there to guide users and to protect OZmium.

We do run a business and like everyone else work to make sure that our members get the best. Obviously it is not in our best interest to have posts promoting our competition. If you have negative comments and feedback we are more than happy to take it on board and see what we can do to enhance the experience for everyone. These comments are best brought to our attention via the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page.

We do sometimes post requesting feedback, comments and suggestions but at the same time need to try and keep things positive and not just a whinging match because someone doesn't like the range of smilies or avatars that we have available.

I'm happy to discuss this further and can be contacted via the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page or via email at support@ozmium.com.au.


Kindest Regards,

__________________
- Rikki
OZmium Support

NOTE: All posts are my personal comments which may not be the view of OZmium Management.

Rikki, email sent.


Stugs,
The programs on offer for sale or lease can be used either way like your "as automated as can be" spreadsheets,for tools to further develop where the spreadsheet ends it's limited functions, or, like many and myself, to do what it's capable within it's range. Whether it be simple maths, or send a bet.

The program that takes over from the spreadsheet as mentioned in that previous post is not a package. It's more or less a solution for the many and varied punters requirements to punt, be it spreadhseet or programmed ( it may cater for both).
But the punter, who wants to punt using programs/software needs to undederstand now, they have to learn some programming (not to create programs) to code superior programs to utilze their functions.
The biggest advantage is, the punters own claculations stay secret.

Testing is not required to see if the program "wins".The win is in the punter who configures the program/tool to work the calculations
In other words,tedious and repetitive tasks are taken care of according to how the user of the program directs it to do so.
Whats there to test then, the punters calculations, or the programs ability to crunch the numbers/calculations?

In answer to jimdegriz original question,on staking plans for hedge,I have answered it already, "it can be done,correctly".

Stugs, so we back to square 1.
How the calculation and staking is done is not the issue if it's done by spreadsheet or other advanced methods, correctly or incorrectly.
The question is, is there a staking plan for hedge ?
In addition to my first answer, "correctly" is not about the mathematics of a hedge calculation, it's about applying that calculation after it's been calculated. The strategy of those sums, or,"how you play the game"
This is where punters might win or break, and no computer/program/programmer,the whole dam human race for that matter can ever say they have a "better" method to win.
Programs give an edge to the strategy.

Why hello puntz,

I'll provide responses beneath each of your paragraphs.

There are no posting requirements and as such there are no penalties for not posting. It is entirely everyone's own perogative as to whether or not they post. If you feel that you are not going to post then so be it.

As for the issues you are having with your firewall, advertising **** and your choice of internet browsing with high security, let me start with your firewall.

Your firewall should have no bearing as to your ability to access the forums as they use nothing beyond the standard HTTP protocol over port 80. Your firewall could have additional features or personal configuration which may potentially inhibit your ability to access the forums but I don't see why it would be setup in such a way. I personally run a hardware based firewall and a software firewall. Both have complex configurations that do not affect my ability to use the forums, nor am I required to disable them. What firewall are you using?

With regards to your comment about advertising **** I'm a little stumped. Currently there are no more than 2 ads per page, with one being a banner image and the other a brief text ad. The advertising does not require cookies and should not be causing you any trouble.

What seems to be the trouble that you are experiencing with our advertising?

Cookies are a fact of life and will be for a long time to come. They can store various bits of information that do not necessarily need to be considered a security risk. What web browser do you use?

If you're security conscious you wouldn't be using IE and would be better off with something like Netscape or Firefox with the latter probably being the best choice.

I personally use Firefox but test every page with the 4 main browsers; IE, Netscape, Opera and Firefox.

In each of those cases you can manually setup a cookie override setting to allow cookies from forums.ozmium.com.au. If you are using IE you will find that the forums work perfectly fine with the Medium High security setting and no cookie override settings.

It is disappointing that you didn't submit an email via the contact us link and resorted to this post instead.

I am willing to liase with you to work through these concerns. Please contact me at support@ozmium.com.au.


Kindest Regards,

__________________
- Rikki
OZmium Support

NOTE: All posts are my personal comments which may not be the view of OZmium Management.

[QUOTE=puntz]Firstly, to management, There is no compromise, I am the "customer" !!

You got a hide, puntz. Your the customer are you? Well how about telling us how much youve paid to access this forum? As a "customer" have you paid the business running this show anything?

in your dutch betting are you guys just backing your top 5 or so or are you assigning price to selections and backing the overs?
i use to dutch bet and had good success with it.
i would take all horses that i assigned price to if they were overs i would back them provided i could make %70 profit and i would take quinella banking the biggest under or fav with my selections.
and are you guys talking about backing each horse to get back same amount?
and if so i have s/sheet that does that if anyone needs it.

Rikki, you should now have receieved it twice as a forwarded email from the original email address it came from.

however that email server has had some issues in the past, so one re-sent email would have come from the ISP email address and another secure email server. Both original messages would have come with the original email sent with an attatchment. Meaning, I sent it to myself to see if it works, it did, so perhaps there are issues elsewhere ?

Dingo,
I have a program that does exactly what you ask.

The project started a while back and been refining it.
There are major issues with the markets if one thinks they can "trick" it by eliminating favorites, next 3, 4 or whatever.
The question on price reduction makes no difference either. It will, and can pay well under the prices one may choose to quote.

If, let's say you had a module selection system, meaning, Module A does selections as you mention, like I have, the module will be thrown away.
So Module B selection system would be re-created, and tested.

Module A is still on test using your similar method
20050105 18:26:53 --> BalanceA : 5580.20

today/now, the same parameters:
20050106 21:34:53 --> BalanceA : 282.10

This is leaving out the fav, next 3, 4, it don't matter.
It loses.

I can run a test, just let me know what parameters you want, and let it runa few days.
Starting balance would be best at 7500.00
There is no database to back test, it's set, and let run.

dingoboy,

A few years ago I ran a system on paper for a full year.

The system was the fav had to be 5/2 or better the second fav 7/2 or better, the third fav 9/2 or better and the fourth fav 11/2 or better.

If this scenario came up then the bet would be the same amount on the 3rd 4th and 5th fav.

The bet would be 1% of the bank on each horse.

Starting with a $10,000 bank after 1 year the bank was $500,000.

When the bet got to $500 per horse it stayed at that figure, the theory being that one had to get set and if the bet kept increasing it would be too hard.

In the one year there was many many losing days.

Only 4 losing weeks out of 52, but never a losing month.

This looked like the holy grail, but like most systems was worked out on the results the next day.

The main problem being, was as I said there was many many losing days,
so basically one could not miss one days racing, or in fact one race that complied with the rules, as sure as hell that would be the day when when you got the last 3 losing days back plus a good profit, or the race you missed is when the 10/1 salutes.

I still look at it now and again and it still works, but as I said nearly impossible to implement.

The other thing was that there were many days with no bet.

Cheers

By the way:
20050106 21:53:55 --> BalanceA : -42.90
============================


case scenario:
20050106 21:52:33 --> Market (20050106TG09)
T WIN
2. 2.80 out fav !
3. 4.60 in ?
1. 5.90 in ?
6. 7.40 in ?
8. 9.60
7. 10.30
5. 10.90
4. 72.10

updated just before start of race !
20050106 21:53:55 --> Market (20050106TG09)
T WIN
3 2.40
2 3.80
1 7.50
6 8.20
8 11.10
7 12.20
5 15.90
4 73.20
results:
2 $3.60
3 $2.20 !! for place
1 $1.30

This is just one race, but these scenarios
I am sure most are familiar with.

This idea has had some success.

Target races with 12 + runners.
TAB fav has to be paying $3.80+
Back the 3rd,4th,5th,6th & maybe 7th Fav , prices permitting.

These type of races can produce some big payers.

__________________
Cheers.