I must admit to being somewhat baffled, Easy.

Doubtless I'm not alone.

Perhaps you could explain with some concrete examples for the upcoming Saturday city meetings. Just (say) three selections with your reasoning behind each of them.

Sorry TheEasyRun i cant agree with you on that one. Weight, barrier draw and sectionals have a direct influence on the race. For instance a noted leader running in a 1000m race at Ipswich that has drawn badly with speed everywhere inside it faces a huge task as opposed to the exact same field/barriers at a course like Warwick Farm. As for weight, well "weight can stop a train"!

IMO working out a speed map along with each runners potential final 600 would be one of the first things i would be looking at. Granted if the horse is not fit then its not going to win no matter what. But take Lonhro's last run against Grand Armee, Beasley walked the first 1400 and with Grand Armee capable of coming home in around 34, with Lonhro so far back he would have had to break 32 seconds for his last 600! Not possible.

Agreed!!!

I have to agree with MV2040 (and Crash alluded to it also) that even if a horse is in good condition and its last run suggested it might improve, if its running style doesn't suit the likely pattern of the race (i.e. leaders dawdling the first 600m or going like the clappers first 600m) it will struggle.

__________________
Ever get the feeling that the world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes?

Crikey, are we all so thin skinned that a bit of debate gets to this!

Possibly the best post for propogating opinion in ages.

But that does not mean I have to have my arm twisted to agree with him - surely.

To each their own, I am not criticising him, just his "advice".

I do not believe that it is something someone else should follow especially given the dollar figures.

The maths is flawed - blind freddy could see that.

Much of what he states is logical and good, but there is a lot that is just plain illogical.

By passing comment (not putting the boot in) I now am the subject of the same treatment.

It doesn't take a mathematician to see that it doesn't add up, and anyone following this path will lose their bank!

For the record I did not agree with the names, I agreed with this....

think the words "social conscience" fit in here somewhere.

There are several threads in here where posters refer to $2 bets.I applaud those people.They are enjoying the sport and clearly operating well within their budget.

Once again,,Encouraging people with low incomes to "invest" (ha ha) in the region of 20% of their annual earnings stinks.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 403,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Are you saying Class is Fitness, and Fitness is Class?? That doesnt make any sense to me, and taken by itself that statement is false. IMO, ""class"" is comprised of certain elements, of which Fitness isn't one. Its a completely different thing altogether.



So there's no need for conventional form analysis?

Track Conditions have no bearing ?? .. i dont understand this one ..
Barriers aswell ...i agree a fit , class horse can over come a bad barrier but barrier postions cant be ignored...a good horse can overcome a wide barrier depending on its barrier speed and the run into the first turn..,,

example : Rashini last weekend at Doomben...the horse is flying but from that outside barrier raced wide the whole way and was a certainty beaten..

I agree with just about everything else though..
especially staking and your thoughts on progressive stakings...

must admit i'm still confused on your selection method though...

Unless your on track and a good judge on horse flesh and even then fitness is hard to judge... Most trainers have a there own full size track with stable mates to run against...,,its hard to judge how much work they've done and especaily how much fast work.....
You can get a gauge a horses fitness sometimes by guessing there intended target race and how they've gone first up ...but its still not an exact science..

Great thread Easy..i hope you keep it going and explain to us novices exactly how you go about your selection process..

My two cents..

Back to the original thread and lets look at it for what it is....

The blokes assuming $6,000 can be turned into $50,000 in 1 year on
$7.00 selections. (I certainly hope he doesn't mean returning 700% each time on average.. that would have to be impossible.)

Let's assume his strike rate is 1 in 5.. and he makes $7.50 on average.
An extremely healthy 50% POT, hard to acheive these results but certainly not impossible if your selection processes are thrifty.

I ran a drawdown simulation 50 times on these excellent returns over 1000 bets, the average drawdown was 33.3 units. Now factoring in an unexpected bad run might occur the average of the highest 25 drawdown results is 41 units. Let's say we are prepared to bet on this very successful system aggressively and are happy in the knowledge that if a bad run might occur we are very confident we'll still be okay as our betting is geared towards this bad run happening.

So we'll bet 1.2% of our account (factoring in the 41 units drawdown might occur). That's saying if the bad run occurs in the near future we won't lose more that 50% of our account.

So the starting bet on $6,000 would be $72.00.

How many bets using this method to turn $6,000 into $50,000?

Assuming each time we bet our 1.2%.. and get back 1.8% on average.
It would take just over 350 bets to turn $6,000 into $50,000. (The power of compound interest!)
(The next year that $50,000 would be over $400,000)

That is 1 bet per day, starting at $72 bets. Certainly not impossible if one has the selections.

If you've been doing it long enough how hard would it be to find just 1 horse out of the 100 odd that race every day that is 50% or more over the odds.. just 1 horse.

So let's stop ridiculing the guy and hear what he has got to say.

I think a lot of you are barking up the wrong tree saying TheEasyrun has encouraged people to bet a large part of their income on the horses. I'm not the smartest of people but I reckon he was saying you've got to have an intimate knowledge of horses appearances, personalities, behaviour etc. in the mounting yard then you can pick plenty of winners. That rules out just about everone from betting on the horses. Im also sure those who know horses best like trainers also know that what TheEasyrun said does not work. Thats why so many stable plunges miss out. Also look at sportspeople. Good physical appearance doesn't mean they will win. Most look up to the task.
Asking TheEasyrun to give you some selections for tomorrow won't work either, because the horses arent in the mounting yard now.

On our interpretation the TheEasyRun is simply posting that from his perspective of what is a small starting bank, $4,000 can make about $30,000 profit in a year, and a starting bank of $6,000 can make about $50,000 profit in a year.

Maybe some forum members would feel more comfortable if TheEasyRun had posted that a small starting bank like $400 can make about $3000 in a year?

However, is there a difference? Anyone can extrapolate from a bank of $400 making about $3000 in a year that a bank of $4,000 can make $30,000 in a year!

Anyone can extrapolate from a profit made using $2 bets what the profit would have been using $10 bets, $20 bets, $100 bets, $200 bets and so on...

So even if TheEasyRun had posted that a small starting bank like $400 can make about $3000 in a year, the average person earning $30,000 would be able to work out that a bank of $4000 could make $30,000 in a year and a bank of $8,000 could make $60,000 in a year.

Whether or not a profit of $3,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $400 or a profit of $30,000 in a year can actually be made from a starting bank of $4000 has been substantiated by TheEasyRun is our opinion the main issue.

Moderator.