From 26 May to 27 June there have been 199 races in my neural system that I have been testing with real bets of $1.00 Win and $0.50 Place. The results are;

Top selection to place:
96 placegetters for a strike rate of 48% and a POT of 19%

Top selection to win:
37 winners for strike rate of 18.5% and a POT of 65%

Second selection to win:
34 winners for a strike rate of 17% and a POT of 47%

Third selection to win:
A LOT of 21%

Fourth selection to win:
A LOT of 19%.

Fifth selection to win:
a LOT of 34%.

Backing the top four selections which I have done has produced a POT of 18% with NSW TAB. As a matter of interest, backing all five selections from 9 June to yesterday, Sunday 27 June, there have been 67 races (an outlay of $335) for a profit of $60.50 with NSW TAB, but with Maxi Divi the profit has been $165.06 which is brilliant when compared to the TAB.

It is pleasing that the first and second selections have produced worthwhile profits - a combined POT of 56% with the TAB, even the Place Bet on the top selection is most acceptable. However it is disturbing that there is a huge gap in profit/loss between the second and third selections. I feel that this anomaly might be due to luck (hopefully I'm wrong), but I will continue to test the system before listing the selections here, as the top two selections might crash while the third and fourth, maybe even the fifth, improves.

Hi Michaelg,
I guess its a question of moving sands .
I`m very impressed with your figures.
One has to keep pushing to see if the wheels fall off after 250-300 bets.
The average price seems to be uo there.
You must be picking your type of races wisely.

As we all know ,it`s the Fav that gets up when we dont won`t it to, that kills our true ptential .

__________________
Cheers.

Hi, Bhagwan.

The only races I look at are those with 11 and 12 runners. I've found that more than 12 runners can be a lottery, and under 11 the divvies are generally not worthwhile. Maybe someone will disagree with me. Yesterday again won with the top 4 selections, and Place betting had a very good result.

An idea you might like to check out is to see if a greater profit is made by just looking at 11 starters only .

Then see if more profit is made targeting runners with a 1-50Plc%
Then Runners with a 50-100Plc%

__________________
Cheers.

Hi, Bhagwan.

For about the first three weeks I tested races where there were 8 to 14 runners. It became obvious that 11 and 12 starters were the only way to go with Win, Place, Quinella and Trifecta betting. Overall, there was little difference between 11 and 12 starters.

I also originally looked at win and place strike rates. I discovered strike rates were very inconsistent with "lower class" racing. Last Saturday was the first Sat I applied the system - it had a small loss with Win but an acceptable profit for Place betting. I am monitoring Sat racing separately and will now also look at strike rates.

hi michaelg, just wondering how your neurals selection is going?

Me too!

Try putting all of the options on zero.Then place the $$ option on 5.Look in any reliable source at the prizemoney earned.Compare the results with those that the neurals throw up.Whether its "total" or "average" prizemoney the true results are frequently entirely different from the neural offering.

Conclusion is,,either the neurals are hopelessly out of date,,or,,there are a lot of programming errors in there.

Having performed that simple,and easily checked test,you have to wonder about the rest of the program.

I often get the #1 selection up to a 100 points ahead of the #2 selection.Yet it will open at 33/1 in the market and never be a viable bet.

Having said that,at Warnambool yesterday the top three selections in every race produced 5 winners and 2 second places.Yet last Saturday for 24 races at three meetings it managed to scrape up three winners.

I dunno..............

Hi.

The system has gone backwards.

However, I am currently testing another system which has evolved from the original, and seems to be quite promising. It has performed well "on paper" and I am from today going to bet it with Maxi Divi as it has won almost every day with M.D.

I will post the results/selections if the method is successful after a few hundred races.

Syllabus23, you're right about the $ category - sometimes the points allocated seem illogical. Also as it does not usually agree with CP, which you would expect it to, it makes you believe $ might be based on the horse's last few runs, or some other criteria, and not related in any way to its Career Performance?

Hi michaelg.You may well be right mate,it's possible that there is some calculation known only to the programmer.

I dont mind backing losers,I've had a lifetimes experience in that department and I'm immune to the pain.

Its just that when a so-called logical calculation frequently throws out oddball selections it needs to be questioned.

When I found the site and the neurals I fell on it like a starving afghan,but hmmm after donating a few more of my oxford scholars to the bookies bag I'm having serious misgivings.

Lolol Thank god I didn't pay for it....