Smartgambler
Pro-Punter

Go Back   OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums > Public Forums > Horse Race Betting Systems
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark all topics as read

To advertise on these
forums, e-mail us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 8th December 2012, 11:31 AM
mattio mattio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 268
Default

My post was not to attack Barny either as he does spark some good debate and has different views and ideas, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about the term "backfitting" and what constitutes backfitting and what doesn't.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 8th December 2012, 11:34 AM
Vortech
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thats a very good summary of the use of filters.

I think with a lot of data even going back past 2009 you can can a good feel for the strike rate of two variables.

For example - not knowing the stats but if in the last 2 years the favourites are winning at 35% but over the last 50 years favourites win at 33% one might think that with limited data the 35% is the common trend.

Some punters like to look over particular tracks and distances and see if particular running styles have an advantage from particular barriers and rail positions. If you only have 2 years of data you might only get 100 selections. Over 12 years you have 600 selections - giving you more of a idea long-term.

I suppose its a personal thing and what you are trying to achieve.

I think with Barny's approaches and the higher POT approach you would need more data to get a more realistic idea of the long term profit.

Anyhow - off to see if my $1000 propun horse gets me the cash today.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 8th December 2012, 11:51 AM
darkydog2002 darkydog2002 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 4,332
Smile

Hi Vortech,
I,ll have a bet on it.
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 8th December 2012, 12:37 PM
Barny Barny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattio
Sorry but I have to disagree with here Barny, all bar the Metro filter is backfitted regardless of whether you say they are one of your standard filters or not.

Before you jump up and down and get defensive probably 90% of all system filters are backfitted in some way and if it works for you then great but don't kid yourself by saying that those filters aren't "backfitted".
Can't disagree mattio, any system filters, including Ratings could be classified as backfitted ..... That's why my favourite system is following a horse.

What's the 10% ????

Last edited by Barny : 8th December 2012 at 12:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 8th December 2012, 12:41 PM
Barny Barny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by evajb001
Basically what mattio is saying is if say one of your filters is a horse must have a winning % above 23.37% then you've clearly backfitted to get the 'best' result. However if your filter is it has to be above 20% or 25% then thats not so bad as your using general numbers and not backfitting to a precise number.
can't agree evajb001, you using "perception" to kid yourself that you're not backfitting.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 8th December 2012, 12:54 PM
mattio mattio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barny
Can't disagree mattio, any system filters, including Ratings could be classified as backfitted ..... That's why my favourite system is following a horse.

What's the 10% ????
The 10% is just a number mate, its probably closer to 1% because every filter is essentually the result of a back test. What I would consider to be filters that fall in that category are things like Metro run last start, no claiming apprentices, winner at the track/distance, no first up horses. I try to develop systems that find good horses with good jockeys that are proven at the track and distance with very few surprises in the race. Unfortunatley I am still looking for the ideal system but I have a few that make a consistent profit so I can't complain.

I like your idea of following a horse, in fact there are horses that you can follow literally every start and they will make you a good profit - especially under certain conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 8th December 2012, 04:32 PM
darkydog2002 darkydog2002 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 4,332
Smile

Well Bolton ran nowhere.
Ah well another one might come up in a year or so eh Barn.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 8th December 2012, 05:16 PM
Vortech
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=darkydog2002]Well Bolton ran nowhere.
Ah well another one might come up in a year or so eh Barn.

Cheers[/QUOTE

A similar system I use DD you might like

conservatorium Ascot 5. At value worth a crack if your up like me for the day!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 9th December 2012, 04:00 PM
Barny Barny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattio
The 10% is just a number mate, its probably closer to 1% because every filter is essentually the result of a back test. What I would consider to be filters that fall in that category are things like Metro run last start, no claiming apprentices, winner at the track/distance, no first up horses. I try to develop systems that find good horses with good jockeys that are proven at the track and distance with very few surprises in the race.

mattio, You're just plain inconsistent when you suggest that some of my filters are backfitted (or whatever term you want), then you put up a couple of your own filters which are apparently not backfitted like track and distance winner. How is that particular filter different to me restricting my betting between $4 and $30 for instance ? There's no logic at all in what you say. My career runs of between 8 and 21 starts, I've been usuing for a ling, long time and it's designed to get a horse that may still have imporvement left in it ..... you "c" and "d" is designed to get a horse that can handle the track and distance, yet your filter is "pure" whereas mine is backfitted, and implied as useless ?? Geoff Murphy never bet on hids horses if they were less tha 4 / 1 ($5.00), because he knew with his S/R he could win this way. Ity's lucky for him he didn't know he was backfitting !?

..... and then you've got no first uppers !! Nope, no logic there at all mattio, you just reckong your filters are the bees knees, that's it.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 9th December 2012, 05:00 PM
Barny Barny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,091
Default

mattio, I just ran your system

Last run Metro
Won "d" and "t"
No first uppers

Ran it for the last five runs, two categories that it's last run / 2nd last run / 3rd last run / 4th last run / 5th last run was either 1-4 placed or 4-24 placed. For the five runs the 1-4 placed show a LOSS of between 16% & 17%, quite consistent. for the 4-24 placed it show a LOSS of between 21% & 24%.

There's no coming back from there ......

Problem is mattio, that everyone else is on the same nags, have been doing so / making the same mistake for yonks, and will continue to do so. That's why those of us who chase divvies are smiling at those of you who look for Win S/R.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2008 OZmium Pty. Ltd. All rights reserved . ACN 091184655