It is actually "LOMACA" in lower case.
Wesmip1!
I will not argue about it, the case was made as far as I understood that "a losing system can be made profitable by staking methods", sorry it cannot be done!
Now I read that some can be turned around, sorry (unless they sometimes win sometimes lose, but overall they are in profit), that is also untrue.
If you take the only valid test, that is, bet on every selection, never stop if in front, never miss a bet, if the system is a losing one, in the end you will lose no matter how much or little you bet.
Luck may favor you and you will profit for a time but eventually the crunch will come, or the crunch comes sooner than expected.
As far as I can see, if you can make it profitable by manipulating the method by stopping when in front, or betting different amounts, or not betting on some, then it will work on level stakes too, meaning it was in the + all the time you just did not see it.
But never mind, each to his own.
Good luck

I concur.
You cannot make 10 plus 8 equal 20 in the longrun.
You can fake it for a brief period, but 10 + 8 will aways equal 18 and not 20.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 409,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/10/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Sorry I'm new to all of this, i thought handicaping was just to do with making a horse carry a heavier weight, to give the other horses a chance.

Do you look and 2nd, 3rd & 4th finishers in their last race and what lengths they were beaten by in selecting a horse? Then if its showing value with the odds its paying you'd back it? So basically you know you won't win every bet but because its "good value", when it does pay it makes up all loses and then some?

Well I've been slowly working my way towards that sort of selection system, am I on th right track? What lengths beaten by is acceptable, 1? I'm guessing 1 length is the length of a whole horse? If its beaten by one whole length surely that bad?

Pengo, there are a lot of variables when it comes to handicapping, you have to take the whole race as an entity and measure each horse against the opposition, rather than just rating each horse solely on past achievements.
Of course, you have to measure each horse, but it is in context of today's race.

For example, 1 length beaten is quite good depending the class of the race, the distance, the barrier the opposition, the settling position of the horse and whether the horse was running home or fading at the end.

It is a complicated matrix of variables.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 409,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/10/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

the item that i was talking about was the "gold system" it required the horse to win its last start.

as i only bet on listed horses i restrict myself to those.

i have found that horses that have a long period since qualifying in listed company have a poort strike rate and winning two in a row is unlikely.

if we extend the system to 2nds and other placing then we are onto another system.

however restricting it to just listed horses is a downside as many horses on the up win from restricted class into city class and then win at good odds.
but i would trust this to older horses.

__________________
laurie

in my previous post i accidently said i would trust this to older horses i meant i wouldnt trust older horses to win two in a row but then again thats why we look for the fluke result isnt it.
so i wouldnt take short odds.

__________________
laurie

That system does work, because the odds are greater than the strike rate - simple really

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 409,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/10/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Hi!
I ran some tests over the past results re. favoreds winning and losing by staking.
Found some interesting facts.
Stands to reason that level stakes bets are losing.

If you multiply your successive bets (after losing) by less then ~1.6 you will still lose!

Now this number will change with strike rate and avg. odds and only applies to TAB favs.'s strike rate and return.

If you multiply your bets over the 1.6 mark, in the end you will win, BUT you can be down as much as -$751.00 and your next bet is $450.00 (this is on a 1 unit base one month only)

If you go to double your bets after losing, it becomes impractical because the losses can be huge, and the largest bet to recover, be over $16000.
It would ruin the odds, even on a Saturday, and placing it with other than the TAB well nigh impossible.

So there you go folks, if you are game enough and want to have a go at the favs. and have plenty of money to tie you over, keep in mind that magic "1.6" multiplier.
It's a fine line between trying to win more and able to finance it.
I personally can't recommend it, the risks are just too great.

Anyone silly enough to bet $751 to try and win a tiny profit deserves to lose for sure.

Before anyone gets carried away by "win", I meant: from time to time you will be way ahead (in the +) but so will you be behind from time to time (in the -).
But in the end you will lose!!! How you manage to stop in time and start again may actually give you an advantage for a long time, but if you make a mistake it can also ruin you.
I am sure it is all just theory, because no sane person would risk the amount of money required, nor would anyone around here have the bank to do so!
If I'm mistaken and you have the bank, and take the risk, then it's upon your head!
DON'T blame me!!! I warned you!!