I’ll start this thread with the intention of playing devils advocate regarding systems and hopefully offering to some the opportunity to explore a different mindset in the way you approach your punting. Most of my “ephinanies” will come from, but not restricted to information gained from this site, and others, my punting experience, analysis of years and years worth of Herald Sun form guides, The Sportsman, as a “penciller” for “cough, cough, some 30 odd years ago, a hanger on with the trainer of a champion greyhound, a stats guy, and an all round mug.
As punting is an evolutionary pursuit, there’s no point bringing up any of my past posts, in or out of context, as this may stifle any conversation. I’m more than happy to run this myself without any contributors.
Let me begin by bagging 99.9% of system posted on here because they contain too many rules, have been backfitted for a short period of time to show a profit, they follow current trends, they rely on flawed and unsubstantiated data ….. and if this doesn’t get me booted off, WITHOUT DOUBT there will be some here who will try to make a short term profit by “convincing the unwashed” there’s money to be made by following “this system”.

Best advice ever is ….. DYOR !!!!!

I’ll start slowly and add bits as I see fit …..

The more rules you put into a system, the likelihood (subconsciousor not) it’s more likely to be backfitted. The more rules the less likely it is to besuccessful. Ask yourself, if it’s toogood to be true the more it likely is. This is no different to “stock market tips”, “Nigerian **********” and other money fleecing agents ….. IF there was a “Holy Grail” then it would be found, punted, the odds slowly diminished to the point where the S/R continued but the POTturned to a LOT, and very quickly.

The more precise and scientific you become in pursuit of the prefect system, the more imponderables crop up (Oz Sports Forum) ….. my examples include; (1) say one of your rules is a certain jockey ….. you had better take into account; Is the jockey fit?, has the jockey had an argument with his missus?, has he had a punch up / feud with a fellow jockey and is looking for revenge?, does he have depression (YES at least 10% would have), Will he get his mount hemmed in for financial gain? ….. you could probably add 10 more !!!, (2) Barriers, now that’s a neasy one isn’t it ????, Is it the first time the horse has drawn a decent barrier?, are the horses both outside and inside conducive to your selection being able to take advantage of it’s normal pattern of racing in the first 20 or so metres, is the barrier attendant competent ??????, Do the odds represent the advantage / disadvantage of the barrier ???? (that’s a biggie), Stood flatfooted and missed the start, the horse that was supposed to lead missed the jump and the barrier advantage was lost ….. How many rules MULTIPLIED by TEN (impodnerables)???? do you need ????? The opponents to this will say, these apply to all the horses in the race, that’s correct too, but all you’ve done is multiply the ORIGINAL RULES times the IMPONDERABLES times the NUMBER of HORSES in the race. How do you line up a 3rd in a Moe Maiden, first up by a gelding who has had blinkers on first time, is a gelding and has had 5 lifetime starts ….. with a 10th at Moonee Valley by a filly who has had 25 lifetime starts, fourth up, now back 200 mtrs in distance, but at a track where’she’s won before ….. with an import ….. not to mention previous campaigns, not to mention the other 13 horses ???? Gimme a break.

The more rules the less chance of repetition.

Low content one sentence post. Flaming other members is not permitted here. Thank you. Moderator 3.

domenic, you don't have to read it. Years ago there was really good discussion regarding all sorts of things, from left filed to blood counts and so on ..... Does this not suit you, or what you do?

Makes sense.

So based on this the only systems to follow are either:
1) none
2) those that have 1 or 2 rules.

So what do you analyse instead as no matter what you do its a system. Even if its look at the the formguide and do your own handicapping. Your taking into account different things and your mind is using a system of sorts.

What you're doing UselessBettor suggests you really have got a handle on things are know exactly where you're going????

"I just had a look at my number of bets on betfair today and I have to say I was a little shocked. I am testing quite a few things with 10c bets. I have had this month already 2516 bets.

Luckily for me I am actually up a good amount $17.12 which is approx 171 units. Does anyone else do this amount of bets a month ? How do you handle it when you start to increase the bet size ?"

Unbelievable? LOL

If one is honest one has to agree that barny has a fair point to make. I had a good system from 1992 to 2002. It was back the two longest priced horses from the top three ranked place percent horses in a race. That was my only rule except that I omitted 2yo and 3yo races for there were not enough results for place percent to be practical. After 2002 the strike rate was maintained but the value became eroded. I can only assume that many punters now consider place percent. before that I had used the DS approach but scrapped that when I found that my consistency factor based on place percent was better by itself.

gunny

Mmmmm,............. A Parable, I had a neighbour in the UK many years ago who whilst being a decent bloke was sadly lacking in the grey matter dept. (no offence just the truth) now he goes and mortgages his house and buys a fencing business that was obviously going down hill fast, i.e. he was the mug that the vendors had been waiting for, he was so useless that he had to come to me and ask me to go along to more than the first few quotes that he had; to show him how to measure up etc. It was a disaster............doomed for failure....... then, out of the blue the Local Shire decides to block off several roads to form a one way system etc etc. and what d'yer know; direct ALL traffic right past "lucky Eddie's fencing business"

He went on in oblivion to make a fortune and eventually pass on the business to his Sons who STILL operate the business to this day.

What's this got to do with Horse Racings Systems ....you're screaming?

Well, sometimes that little ol' 4 letter word really does show it's head...... "LUCK"

Barny is CORRECT in many things, but by default! just like my mate Eddie


K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

dont come any easier than this little gem
ill post just 1 race and lets see who can guess what the simple system is
ar 3 no.5

I'll take a stab at it.

In races with 8 runners favourite must be less than $2.40 or more than $3.30. Look at runners paying $10 or more, especially if last start winners. If more than one take the one with the highest Unitab rating. Back for a win..OR ..if prices permit back both to place so you make a profit if one or both run a place ?????

That's just after looking at the Unitab website without any other form considerations thrown in.

partypooper, you're one of those who's posts I've read and taken on board. What is it that you mean "by default", and a little proof too so that I can understand where you're coming from.

By default means to me, an opportunity that fell into my lap when I wasn't lookingh that way. If that's the essence of your post then you are 100% correct.

I guess the more work you do, and the more open minded to anything you are ..... the luckier you get. I'm not suggesting throwing a dart here, or using just one rule. I think fitness is paramount, understanding the uniqueness of each horse, of each race, and dismissing all those things that others take as gospel, 'coz they have to be overbet and under the odds. Some of the comments of the "experts" in the papers are so underwhelming on some runners throughout the day, uyou'd swear they were trying to put people off. eg; this horse has failed over this distance before ..... simple throw away line BUT.

1) fitness ..... add too many more rules to this and you'll end up with what everyone else ends up with.