Saturdays courses to follow :

35% Course favs or Higher

• Ascot (42%)
• Morphettville (39%)
• Mooney Valley (40%)
• Newcastle (39%)
• Rosehill (40%)
• Toowoomba (38%)
• Werribee(35%)

40% Course Favs or Higher

• Ascot (42%)
• Mooney Valley (40%)
• Rosehill (40%)

Good Luck.

HI all!

Some time ago, I mentioned that my rating works on a large number of tracks almost embarrasingly well, yet it fails miserably on others.
I just learned to live with that, but now I have a question, why is it that the favs are winnig on one track in a disproportional manner, but fail on others.

Following on from Wesmip's idea I ran a programme to find what happens to the favs on different tracks under different track conditions.
(from 2000 to 2006)

Here are two glaring examples of what happens.

Gilgandra:

Track........Races ..Winners..StrikeR%.....Ret.........ROI.....Track_ cond
Gilgandra.....8...........4.........50.00%.....$.. 8.60.....7.50%.......fast
Gilgandra....70.........35.........50.00%.....$93. 20...33.14%......good
Gilgandra....32.........16.........50.00%.....$41. 40...29.38%......dead
Gilgandra.....4...........1..........25.00%....$.. 2.40..-40.00%.....heavy
--------------------------------------------------------------
While a similar class of track, Kempsey, produced this

Track......Races.. Winners....StrikeR%.....Ret...........ROI......Tra ck_cond
Kempsey....68.........17..........25.00%....$39.40 .....-42.06%.....good
Kempsey....39..........8...........20.51%....$21.6 0.....-44.62%.....dead
Kempsey.....8...........1..........12.50%....$..2. 20.....-72.50%....heavy

(there were no records under some track conditions)

There are quite a number of tracks, where under, fast or good conditions the loss is minimal or actually there is a slight win despite the TAB take.
All returns are Supertab VIC.
Since this covers more than 6 years and there is very little variation from year to year, it's a fairly reliable indicator of the track behavior, BUT WHY?, after all, a race is a race and the same horses are running around.
It would suggest that there is some hope, in following the favs, given some judicious thought as to where?.
Anyway, if anyone has an idea why this is so? you are most welcome, I'm sure.
Cheers

The answer would have to be in what is under the horse's hoofs.

If you can, check out sand tracks on an international level. Bit hard to do but.

__________________
pipped at the post

Hmmm. The meetings as a bet? It's not the meetings that are getting progressive bets, but the bets within the meetings. For a 40% fav. SR meeting there is a possible run of outs of about 15 bets. [10 for 50%]. Easily a whole card anyway. In fact it means it's 'probable'.
Each meeting is separate so it's not beyond chance or probability for several meeting to be a wipe out on the same day. The more meetings covered in a negative expectation game the greater the potential of that happening.

"I would think on Level Stakes it is down"

If the system is sound [odds wise profitable for flat stakes at say 40% Fav. SR within all the meetings], flat stakes will make a profit without any progression.

If not as thought [above quote], long term loss will kick in eventually. Mathematically due to the laws of probability it must. 'Chance' can avoid it for a time but 'probability' says it must happen because the bets are continually against the odds at even 40% fav. SR. meetings. The 'house' has 60% against you if flat stakes can't make a profit long term for a meeting. Has any calculating been done to see if flat stakes have been profitable for the 40% meetings at least at the average odds for a fav.? Maybe they are.

If not, chance can go your way for some time at 40% SR but eventually the progression betting will turn into a nasty double-edged sword. It will start swiping at you with it's sharp side.

Hope that was all nice and clear to everyone :-) [?]

This is true if you are playing every race at every track. The thing is we are not trying to beat statistics as a whole (well I'm not anyway) we only want to find a window somewhere where a profit can be dug out. Yes, if you are playing continuously then probability will win without a doubt. This even applies to a system that wins on flat stakes.

Cheers
Brownie

Brownie, no offense meant, but what you have described is not what is happening with this system at all ['looking for a window' means exactly what in betting terms?].

This is progressive staking on every race until a winning fav. is struck. See back in this thread where a whole card was followed without a Fav. getting up.

The best idea would be to go back and see if the system is winning flat stakes. That can only be worked out if an average Fav. price is known for a meeting. Then the maths tell you if it's a long term winner or a loser. Simple. I do not have the data-bank to do that. I'm sure someone here has. If not we are p...... into the wind.

My guess is the higher the meeting Fav. SR, the lower the Fav. average price....... 'TILT', Back to square one long term. My guess might be wrong, but a few weeks results [until the author gets bored], tells us nothing about the system's real profit or loss potential long term. Like I said, at high Fav. strikes rates, chance can make things look better than they will eventually turn out to be for some time, but not long term.

Critically, what is not being included in the track Fav. SR % data is the average winning Fav. SP. That is the crux of the matter.

Everyone needs to stop arguing and start looking for different angles if they are going to make some profit from this field. There are heaps of different ways to look at data and it doesn't need to be based on level stakes. There are always ways around that, they aren't always safe such as progressive betting, but there are ways that work.

For instance ...

Taking this exact system and STOP after you are up 1 unit. If you did this you would be up 8.5 units in 8 days.

Another way would be to go from race to race between the meetings. Most days the winners have come within the first 2 races of the meeting. Stop at the first winner ( Aim to make a unit a day again ).

And I am not even going to give away the easiest way to make this work cause if you can't work it out then that leaves less competition dragging down the odds.

I used my own method today along these lines for the first time and made $600. Not bad for a day.

Anyway here are the results:



35% Course favs or Higher
Ascot - WIN $2.10 first race = $11 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Morphettville - LOST NO WINNERS = -$370 (Largest bet $110 total = $370)
Mooney Valley - WIN $1.90 fifth race = $13 ( Largest bet $70 total = $120)
Newcastle - WIN $1.50 second race = $10 ( Largest bet $20 total = $30)
Rosehill - WIN $2.40 second race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)
Toowoomba - WIN $2.60 second race = $6 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)
Werribee - WIN $2.90 second race = $9 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)

40% Course favs or Higher
Ascot - WIN $2.10 first race = $11 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Mooney Valley - WIN $1.90 fifth race = $13 ( Largest bet $70 total = $120)
Rosehill - WIN $2.40 second race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $20)

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 38
Profitable Meetings : 36
Unprofitable Meetings: 2
LOSS : $145
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 10
Profitable Meetings : 10
Profit : $84
Highest Bet : $70
Good Luck.

Ascot sat meeyings favourites this year

1.60 - - 2.60 - 3.10 - - - - 2.60 - - 2.80 - - 2.40 2.80 - - - 2.50 - 4.10 1.60 - 3.70 - 2.70 4.80 - 3.40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.40 2.30 - - 2.30 2.90 2.80 - 2.40 - 1.60 3.20 - 3.00 2.80 -- 2.40 2.00 - 2.00 1.80 1.80 2.40 - - - - 2.60 - 1.90 1.70 - - - - - 1.60 1.60 - 2.10 2.30 - - 2.60 - - -


97 dollars invested Return 95.2 38 winners. Strike rate of 39% ave dividend of $2.50

If you happened to do level stakes of $1 but double your bet to $2 after each win (then hold until the next loss if iy wins) you make a profit of 14.6 for the year so far.

The logic is the most common amount of outs after a win is zero. And the least likely amount of outs after after a win is infinity.

If you are close at level stakes, worth a thought. Could be 12 .3 profit actually.

__________________
pipped at the post

Not quite sure what your doing with the bets there manygeese. Perhaps you could show how much you would bet on the first 20 races starting at the start of your sequence of favorites there.
KV

[QUOTE=wesmip1]Everyone needs to stop arguing and start looking for different angles

For instance ...
Taking this exact system and STOP after you are up 1 unit. If you did this you would be up 8.5 units in 8 days. End QUOTE]


We are not arguing here. We ARE looking at different angles. My Maths logic being only one of them. A valid angle I think when it comes to risking money [?].

Stopping after 1 unit ahead is a 'sounds good' angle. Problem is you can spend a hell of a lot of $ trying to get ahead 1 unit in 48 meetings over many weeks let alone 8.5 units ahead in 8 days! Maths reality says 61 units behind after all those meetings and a very large amount of turn -over [risk capital] to get there.

"[Morphettville - LOST NO WINNERS = -$370 (Largest bet $110 total = $370)" No 1 unit ahead anywhere here to stop at. Due to the progression factor, Morphetville at $10 a race became a $370 loss instead of an $80 flat stakes loss.

Overall due to progressions, you have turned over a large amount of money on 48 meetings and you are still not 1 unit ahead, but 61 units behind. Flat stakes you would still be losing too [less than 61 units because progressions magnify loses too, not just profit], but the amount of money involved and risked for turn-over would have been a hell of a lot less.

The only sensible progression I would ever recommend to anyone is after a win, not a loss. Then the progression is from profit [the Bookies money not your own]. If it wins progress bet again. If not, go back to the original flat stake.

Manygeese has yet another idea. doubling up after each bet until a winner is stuck[?] ....well I think is at this point I am going to bail out of this thread. As JFC has already said, 'life is too short' to try and replace belief systems of winning money with the basic maths that are actually involved instead. Bookies love belief systems and every punter is entitled too them.

Sincerely, good luck with it.