Crash wrote in another thread...


Hi Crash,

sounds like we need to crank up the old "mechanical systems" debate once again.

I am a systems man through and through, and before we get stuck into this debate we really should have an idea what we mean by "mechanical system". To me, a "mechanical system" is one which does not rely on ratings. It's the "horse must have 2121 in it's formline and started within the last 28 days" type rules. "Ratings based systems" are those that are based on ratings. They are most likely "mechanical" in every other sense of the word, except that they also include a ranked ratings selection.

I have made a profit each year for the past 3 financial years based upon systems, both mechanical and ratings based (my first year was only a few months so not a full year). I have doubled my turnover each year as well, again based purely on systems. I couldn't support the level of turnover that I currently have without being even a little bit profitable.

At last count I have some 50 systems currently in work, with about another 10 in the sidelines waiting to prove themselves. Of these 50 systems, about 10 of them are purely mechanical, 10 were purely mechanical but have been "tightened up" a little with ratings, and the rest are ratings based - sensible filters applied to a ratings "top rater" which produces a profit.

Of these 50 systems, only about 20 of them were actually being bet 12 months ago, and only about 5 of them were being bet 24 months ago. I monitor each of my systems (I prefer the word strategy but will stick with system for this thread) very closely, and at the first sign of trouble chuck them.

It's interesting that Nick Mordin in his book "winning without thinking" concluded that mechanical systems *DO* work, it's just that most of them have a use-by date. I have found that 99% of systems support this theory (with many of the use-by dates predating their release).

I note with interest that Davez also said in another thread


I find doing the form tedious - but I can sit up till all hours designing a new system, pulling it to bits and finding out how it works and trying to predict how it will go into the future. Seeing all that hard work come to fruition and picking some good winners is just as enjoyable to me as backing the winner based on form study.

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion

I have a strike rate of about 50%.

50% of the time I know the horses name that I have money on, 50% of the time I don't.
Mechanical is the only way for me. I don't have the patience for doing form of any kind on a consistant basis.
I am going alright at the moment, but will never be 100% confident in what I am doing. There are just too many things that can change. But I believe that is the case with anything involving money. Very few people have a 100% guarantee of consistant wages, whether employed or seeking other financial ventures.
I am happy to ride the wave while it lasts, and realise that I will have to monitor and adapt. I don't believe in throwing away a once profitable system and starting again. Things change, we need to adapt.

Slow night Stebbo ? Me too.

Firstly, so my position on this subject cannot be misconstrued by anyone: I have never said anywhere, no mechanical [or rating based] system cannot make a profit [that would be an absurd and unprovable axiom]. My thrust is that mechanical or even rating based systems are inferior to handicapping.

You wrote:

"I find doing the form tedious - but I can sit up till all hours designing a new system, pulling it to bits and finding out how it works and trying to predict how it will go into the future. Seeing all that hard work come to fruition and picking some good winners is just as enjoyable to me as backing the winner based on form study".

Lets get that one out of the way. I agree, horses for courses.
I too enjoy messing with systems. Mainly because I do serious form study for about 4/6 races a week [mostly starting very early Fri. for Sat. Races]. My tennis is crap, the fishing here is stuffed and I'm not too big on gardening. Messing with systems and speed handicapping [10min.for a race], gives me something to do here in God's waiting room.

Now to deal with a bit off possible smoke and mirrors[?] in your post. you stated:

"I have made a profit each year for the past 3 financial years based upon systems, both mechanical and ratings based (my first year was only a few months so not a full year). I have doubled my turnover each year as well, again based purely on systems. I couldn't support the level of turnover that I currently have without being even a little bit profitable".

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately ambiguous or not here. You say you have 'doubled' your turnover' every year for 3 yrs.. Turnover does not necessarily come from profit. Are you saying you have double it from profit? 100% profit each year for 3 yrs? Even I couldn't achieve that feat and I'm a decent lier. If that is not what you meant, you have not mentioned any profit/outlay ratio [units please not $$$] for any of your methods/systems.

Lets clear up those little points before we move on.

Hi Crash,

no ambiguity intended - I meant what I said. It's easy to double your turnover. Two simple ways are to 1. double your bet size, or 2. double the number of bets. Mine is a combination of both. For example

03/04 I made 4839 bets average bet size was $15
04/05 I made 6383 bets average bet size was $23

Are you saying you have double it from profit?

In a way yes. The only reason I can increase the number of bets and the bet size I've made is by being profitable. I do not claim to have made 100% profit each year though... Far from it.

As for figures for individual systems, I'll give you my current "gem".

This system has had 638 bets since 19/02/2004. Original starting bank was $500 and $10 unit. S/R has been 29.5% and POT has been 30.4%.

Actual profit for this system is 72.38 units at current bet size of 16 units. If I had remained true to my staking regime (2.5% of highest bank non reducing) the actual profit would easily be triple that. However, I'm a "profit taker" and have been siphoning profits from this one for quite some time.

I have had two others like this over the past 3 years, but alas the other two fell over badly and I don't bet them anymore.

Cheers,
Chris.

PS I see the thought police have removed that other thread. Did something happen at the end that I didn't get a chance to see?

__________________
Permanence is an illusion

looks like you have a good system there stebbo,and thats full mechanical is it?.

not sure what went on with the thought police(thats very funny)i was the last to post and when i came back it was gone but i think you might find that your mate might be in the naughty room....cheers gazman..

Morning Stebbo,

I don't think there was anything untoward in that thread. I added no more, but perhaps JFC added something 'colourful'[?], or management misinterpreted some of the posts in it being something other than friendly tongue in cheek banter. I suspect the latter.

You wrote,
"The only reason I can increase the number of bets and the bet size I've made is by being profitable. I do not claim to have made 100% profit each year though... Far from it".

For about 95% of punter's, turnover comes from capital [any capital], not just betting banks which can and often are just topped up from capital. I take your point as meaning what it says for your situation.

With regard to the main subject and to gain a better perspective of it [unlike JFC, I'm easily dazzled by too much maths.] from your point of view, lets talk totals, as you use lots of systems and I'd rather not get lost in cherry picking exercises.

Your total outlay and total return % [all systems combined] displays a more meaningful figure. I think you stated elsewhere your overall SR was 20 point something % ? Average price returned ? 2nd. year, 3rd. year [forget 1st as it was a part year, getting it together period say]. Keeps everything clear and simple rather than opaque.

One advantage of handicapping we can agree on. Handicapping doesn't "fall over" [I don't mean runs of outs that both handicapping and systems have]. That is something of a major concern with systems and we should call that 'Disadvantage [I] to Systems, Advantage [I] to Handicapping so far [Score 0-1]. Handicapping [should] improves with age, systems sour.

It is generally impossible to determine if/when a system has gone pear shaped, or is having a run of outs. All profit [and more] can be wiped out in those situations before the offending system is dumped.. That point could be debated re. money management practice, max. draw-down calculations etc., but a possible [Score 0-2] there.

Your serve.
Regards, Crash.

Obviously you have developed your OWN system as I have over 300 of the ************s from your friendly system sellers and I can tell you that 99 % of them would NOT be worth the paper they are printed on .
The few that DO work are RATING based .

Mind you their advertising blurbs are great for a laugh though as in the latest offering - 72 % WIN strike rate at average odds of $6.35.

Cheers.
darky.

You've bought 300 systems Darky? I can't believe your were so gullible.

Tell you what, I can get all that money back for you. I inherited this bridge that makes a packet in tolls. The only reason I'm selling it is because I'm sick of painting the damb thing. All it needs is one coat a year. Easy money and a lick of paint the only effort. Special price for you only, just to help you out [How much money do you have left?].

You wrote
"For about 95% of punter's, turnover comes from capital [any capital], not just betting banks which can and often are just topped up from capital. I take your point as meaning what it says for your situation.

Absolutely, I have never topped up my original punting bank since day 1. If it ever runs out I pack up my bags and give punting away.

You wrote
"Your total outlay and total return % [all systems combined] displays a more meaningful figure. I think you stated elsewhere your overall SR was 20 point something % ? Average price returned ?"

The average price is a little meaningless here, because of different sized stakes etc, but I can tell you that the first full year I made 6% POT, and the second I made just on 2% POT from horse racing. This year the horse racing POT is around 5%.



Sorry, I can't agree. I think handicappers can easily fall over, and that's just as bad. People become stale and set in their ways. Racing changes, and if handicappers don't keep up with the changes then they fall behind. [Score 0-0] :-)



Again, totally disagree. There are a number of statistical calculations that can be made to determine if a system is going through an expected run of outs or has gone pear shaped. Particularly if you have long term stats on the system, you can determine whether the current trend is expected or not expected. Chi-Squared testing and rolling bet sequences are two of my favorite statistical tests. [Score remains 0-0].

Furthermore, I don't believe you can do this with handicapping. There is no way to tell if a current run of outs is due to luck, or due to your handicapping method falling over. I know of two excellent "handicappers" (by your definition) that have had horrible runs recently, and I suspect that this is because what they were doing is no longer relevant to current racing trends. It will be far more difficult for them to rethink their ways than for me to determine the system has crapped out and chuck it [Score 1-0].

Lastly, the emotional thing is a very powerful factor in punting. It is easy for me to remain unemotional about my systems. A handicapper has the added problem of poring over the form for ages, and then having all of his work thrown in his face by his/her horse not winning. If this happens long enough then the vast majority of handicappers will most likely change something about the way they are going about their selections. In many cases, they may change their ways purely due to a statistically likely bad run when there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. Ouch! (score 2-0)

serve returned and driven long to the baseline

:-)

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion

Hi Darky,

yes, most of the systems I'm currently running are my own creations or have been given to me by friends.

However, one of the two "gems" I mentioned above was compliments of your friendly systems sellers. It also happened to be one of their freebies, and went great guns for about 16 months, then went pear shaped. I baled out when it's "downtime" (time since it's previous bank high) extended past 4 times as long as any previous downtime.

I still ended up with a great profit for the system... 417 bets for 34% S/R and a 21.1% POT. I still keep track of that one and hope that it may one day bounce back, as it was a license to print money when it was running hot.

However, I'm not holding my breath. Knowing the rules for the system, I feel fairly certain that the nature of racing has changed whereby many of the horses that this system used to select will no longer be candidates, and there goes the profits. (The S/R is still a healthy 30%, but there's no value in the horses being selected).

And for the record, this one was purely mechanical.

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion