well it comes down to what you want? I want more selections, higher turnover.

This results in consistency. For example if I have 10 bets a day and have a 50% strike rate there is going to be days of 5 winners, 3 winners, 7 winners, etc. Which results in huge swings on a daily basis. This could range from 0% - 100%.

But if I have 1000 selections in a day then I am more then likely going to get results in the range of 450-550 (45% - 55%) and this is what I am looking for. I will get days every so often of 350 - 400 and I will lose. Losing is part of gambling. But more selections in a day usually mean more consistency in daily returns.

To get more selections you have to give up POT. But a profit of 5% on 100 selections is the same as 1% on 500 selections. But I have far more confidence in the 500 selections then the 100 selections.

The minute you think you've got it figured, You're wrong?? he hee
Fuzzy logic at work

to follow on-
Generally speaking if you look at long term results of even money chances, intuitively one thinks that they get closer and closer to "equipartition" as the number of events increase. Although it seems correct, it is wrong.

As the number of events increases, deviation from equipartition increases, while the deviation as a percentage of the number of trials decreases.

This "decreasing percentage" becomes very important in your quest for consistent $$$$'s profits

We have missed your wisdom, woof43.

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

woof,

Can you elaborate a bit more. I get the idea of equipartition but I don't understand your statement that the deviation from equiparition increases ?

I assume your saying as the more races we bet on the more different types of results we are going to get therefore increasing the distribution of prices around the average return. At the same time because of the distribution above and below this average return the actual deviation away from the average is going to get smaller and smaller as one result has less impact on the average return ?

Did I get this right or am I completely wrong.

LG

5 % on Turnover is a massive amount since your turning over the bank X amount of times.

If your making that most years then your beating the majority of Australian punters.

This idea of 20 - 30 % POT was brought in by the con merchants flogging useless systems and the mugs thought it was a standard.

Be happy, very happy if your making 5 %.

Bit hypocritical there dd, as you've brought many old systems on here with outlandish claims. At least be consistent.

If you havent anything sensible to say Shifty wouldnt it be better to say nothing.

shifty does have a valid point darky

Have a look at Chap 7 p41 et seq of Aczel's book "Chance" or Feller's book "An Introduction to Probability Theory and it's Applications". "Chance" is simpler to understand the other is a 'classic'. They examine the random walk results of 10,000 tosses of a fair coin.