The biggest impediments to creating successful systems are;

1) Accuracy of databeing used. In many cases the data issimply flawed ….. incorrect.

2) A lot of accuratedata needs to be correctly interpreted, ie; (one of many !!!) barrier draw datais skewed because of filed sizes.

3) Here’s a snippetof a post that went unquestioned ?? “I run approximately 100 plans all at once, which is worked out in just 2 seconds after downloading the data for theday. I have about 400 bets a month, withan average S/R of 26% with a POT between 10-36% each month.” Why would someone post that without providingany clue as to the elements of the system ?? Whether it’s **** is up to you to decide.

4) Why post systemsthat just don’t work ??

This site has changed fairly dramatically over theyears. It used to provide an avenue formany interesting discussions but it seems to have become fairly narrow in what isdiscussed.

Almost all of the systems on here end up with the selectionbeing in the top 4 of betting with an emphasis on tweaking rules to within aninch of it’s life in a futile attempt to run with the sheep and win. That will never happen. One of the main starting points areratings. Why ?? You may as well follow one tipster in yourdaily paper because there are a myriad of more important features than ratings# 1 being fitness. Ratings ….. you’rethen doing what almost everyone else is doing and you’ll dutifully donate theTAB takeout or equivalent depending where you bet, or ….. you may be playinginto the hands of the bookies and hose who lay bets.

Statistically, if you back any of the first four favouritesyou lose !

We’re told, for instance, the topweight is always unders …..Why do we assume that ??

Barny, hope you haven't been holding your breath on that one since 2003

__________________
Pixie

"It's worth remembering that profit isn't profit until it's spent off the racecourse." -- Crash

Makes you wonder just how many "facts" about strike rates and POT are wildly innacurate. There have been many systems posted on here claiming substantial POT.

DYOR and as the old saying goes, "If it looks too good to be true it probably is".

I know this old chestnut has been discussed (and ridiculed) before, but........
From where I sit in my little space to me it is an obvious and unavoidable function of the betting market to correct any known profit situation into an evens minus takeout position.

Surely there can't exist for long a system that is widely known and profitable.

I make my living from punting Barny and as I've said before, although it makes me appear like a tight "are soul" there is no way I would share my concepts.

That said, it doesn't necessarily mean forums such as this are of no use. Although the individuals who gave me my ideas have now moved on, I still believe that the ever magnanimous souls such as michaelg and bhags etc will spark an idea in one or two brains that will go on to prosper.

If you're a winning punter, you will know how flipping hard it is to finally get to a stage of serious income and how important it is to protect your edge. So just be patient and let everyone here grow into this very difficult game.

__________________
"Not winning on a horse that came first is one thing.....Losing on a horse that didn't come first is something else entirely!!!"

Hi Barny it's The Schmile here,

I fear from this post that you might be taking a cynical approach to your handicapping, with comments such as 'That will never happen', when referring to making money on the first four horses in the market. The fact is that professional punters make a profit in backing the shorter commodities, it's a matter of how they bet and they type of horses they invest on.

The thing that makes horse racing so intriguing for me and I'm sure many others, is that handicapping is almost never an exact science. For instance, two horses can meet each other multiple times over their careers and each time their relative chances will be different, depending on track, distance, stage of preparation etc.

Favourites win around one-third of all races, meaning that they also LOSE the other two-thirds, resulting in many opportunities for a profit to be made. The official handicapper makes mistakes, as do the bookmakers themselves and it's our job as punters to find these opportunities.

If you can find a system that can make a profit with little to no effort then all power to you. I do think you're on the right track trying to go against the pack in your thinking and it's how well you apply your ideas from this point, that will determine your success.

A word of advice:
Don't write off ratings, as there are some superb ratings out there. They aren't as effective in certain types of races, 2/3yo races for example, as there is often not enough exposed form out there to truly gage each horses chance. Also, these horses can improve dramatically run to run and in the instance of weak 2yo provincial/country races, they are often inconsistent as the horses themselves are usually inconsistent. The ratings world is not confined to just Unitab and racingandsports, dig deeper.

Finally, I'm not sure where you found this comment, 'We’re told, for instance, the topweight is always unders …..Why do we assume that ??' as it is simply not true. In theory, every horse starts unders because the market is set above 100%, topweights are not different.

I hope this is of some assistance, probably not, but I feel better! ha ha

Just kidding Barney, I felt you were yearning for some stimulating input and while this is info you've probably heard already, it helps to go over any angle that may give you an edge, whether new or not.

Cheers,

The Schmile

) Here’s a snippetof a post that went unquestioned ?? “I run approximately 100 plans all at once, which is worked out in just 2 seconds after downloading the data for the day. I have about 400 bets a month, with an average S/R of 26% with a POT between 10-36% each month.
” Why would someone post that without providingany clue as to the elements of the system ?? Whether it’s **** is up to you to decide.




Hey! That's what I wrote back in 2003
That was referring to using a data base to make selections using a program called GTX which cost $5000 with all the data downloads past 4.5 years & downloads for the future 12 months, running 100 different systems that where back tested, which averaged about 5 bets a month each.

What would the point be of posting 100's of different elements, like sectional times for each track & bore everyone to death.

The discussion of the posting was the use of data bases in punting not system selection criteria.

No one would want to use any of the highly selective systems manually, with all its complicated rules , it would send a sane man crazy, after doing all the work to find selections each day, only to find that there are no selections for that day, then keep doing the same thing every day of the week x 100 systems so that one does not miss any winning bets.
You would never get a bet on in time.

Sounds like you are a bit cheesed off that a salesman didn't try to sell you

If you want all the work done for you , just fork out the $5000, write up 100 systems , using the data base & away you go , easy.

But here's a tip that's free & all .
Once you get the program.
Don't double up on selections mentioned several times by several different systems.
Just because they are mentioned twice , does not mean they have twice the chance of winning.

__________________
Cheers.

Started a reply myself yesterday --- and then hit something wrong on my laptop.

Wasn't going to type it all again, and then thought why bother as I am sure Bhagwan will undoubtedly be capable of doing so better! (Quite a few of us oldies on the forum would have recognised Bhagwan as the author quoted) I was right!!

In particular I was going to say that you, Bhagwan, did not say it was a system; but Barny refers to it as the system. Even on the figures you gave, Bhagwan, only four or five bets a day would cover your outlay. Furthermore, time and time again you have given hints, ideas, systems, that we all have benefited from --- for which many thanks.

Thanks for the kind words Merriguy.

__________________
Cheers.

bhagwan, I didn't realise that this could be searched?!

I apologise for embarassing you. It wasn't meant like that at all and I won't bother trying to justify what point I wanted to get across.

I'm sorry bhagwan.