Forum Replies Created
Kersly,<br>Thanks for the PM – appreciate the time and effort! Reply on way!
I a new member (to forums in general) but I am not new to racing – I have over 20 years experience of winning and losing and I run a profitable tipping service that has been in profit every year for the last four that I have done it.
Regardless of ‘new’ or ‘old’ member I would never insult anyone personally – nobody likes insults, least of all me!
I stand by my comments regarding this system, my comments are based on rational thinking and statistics.<br>Reason 4.<br>The system is based more on the psychology of losing than the mechanics of winning. Waiting for losers before betting – weve all done that – and is based upon the misconception that the end of a losing run is predictable – nonsense! Limiting the number of meetings is good practice to limit your exposure but if this system works on one set of 3 favourites it will work on any. Limiting the escalating stakes also good practice but this is still a doubling up system.
I wish you well on this thread. The strength of forums is in the expressed oppinion of supporters and opposers of views enabling a debate. I personally think there are far too many lurkers – reading and not contributing – and far too many people willing to accept ideas without thought – again, good luck!
kersly,<br>The pointers selections look great – did you post the selection method at any stage – I noted that (on the Novice Hurdles thread) someone asked for another copy of the selection method for pointers?<br>Look forward to your reply.
shame about Isio not making the grade coz that looks very solid and the class act in that field – you have the makings of a very solid approach here – good work!
congrats on a very good feb performance so far – the fav Isio today looks rock solid!
thanks for the update!
I wont beat about the bush – this system is a dud (before reacting too violently remember I said ‘this system’ and not you).
There are about a thousand reasons I could list to prove my point – here are three:
1. The Rationale<br>What you have said is wait for a card with three losing favs in the first three races and admitted that there will be few opportunities. Lets flip that round – what you have implied is that there are more meetings than not where there IS a winning fav in the first three – so why on earth dont you trust your staking system and bet on the first three races instead – lots more winning opportunities??!! The reason – because that idea has already been tried to death and fails. This is the same system but with a delay and a cap on the losing stake – better than the original ‘stop at a winner’ ‘double up’ system, but still flawed.
but ahhh you say…what about statistics….what about favs winning 33% of the time…..
2. Statistics<br>I understand why there is a common misconception that 33% favs winning means that if you have 3 losers on the bounce you MUST have a winner in the next three – rubbish. If you think about what you are saying – you are grouping favourites together in clumps of 6 arbitrarily thrown together because they occur in the same place on the same day (eg a meeting). Do you think the 6 favourite nags get together and bagsy which two are going to be the winners that day – of course not – the 4th fav has no more knowledge of the previous race than the 5th or 6th – they just go out there and run. You only have to look at the 100,000 or so races run to see that grouping 6 together on a card is arbitrary and without any sound rationale. Losing runs occur, some quite long others short, you dont know how or when or why but they just do – 33% is based on countless 000’s of races – not just 6. You must accept that coin tosses are a good analogy – toss a coin 10,000 times and you will get about 50% of each but you cant say just because you got a head last time you will get a tail the next.
If statistics were that predictable England cricket captains wouldnt lose the toss 9 times out of 10!
3. System Principles<br>There are none. The system is not based on any sound principle related to the event itself, namely horse racing. For a system to have even a chance of working it has to have a sound logic behind – this just doesnt.
I could go on but I think I have said enough. This system may appear to work on first inspection – but in the long run it will prove to be a dud. If you want to back unnamed favs pack up this thread and join Matrons first favourite system.
6 of the 9 in the 4.15 are handicap virgins in an ‘F’ grade maiden handicap 😮 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â !! this will be a challenge….the market could prove very interesting, particularly as the AW weather betting markets are twitchier than a woollen jock strap…not that I own a woollen jock strap you understand…
where do you get your graphics from…and are they a window on your state of mind for the day..:biggrin: ..??!!
another good result – well done Matron! it didnt look good with the slow early pace in the race but McCoy earnt his fee and pulled it round…not sure many other jocks would have spotted the need for a break early enough…?!
I wonder if you have ever used a computer form book or data bank to check out the stats? (like RSB or raceform etc)<br>With RSB you could look at favourites partnered by a top ten jockey/trainer for the course, that kind of thing – I would run it except my RSB is a) out of data and b) not working properly – maybe another viewer of this thread could run the stats?<br>MrE? carl? paul66?
Matron,<br>Thanx for the explanation of your approach – there are three things I like about it (and these are the three things I personally look for in any systematic approach):<br>- its simple to implement and minimises emotional input<br>- its based on sound logical thinking<br>- it works!<br>MrE was right, well done on the record thread length and glad to see your continuing.
Paul,<br>well done – good decision to continue the thread:)
Paul,<br>suggestion, present result data in this form:<br>days – runners – winners – outlay – return – profit<br>i find that format helpful to understand success and turnover more easily (and i am lazy ;))
You are right about the winning and losing runs. My favourite poem is IF (kipling) – and my favourite line is: <br>"IF you can meet with TRIUMPH and DISASTER and treat those two imposters just the same" – how many times have our thoughts/actions been swayed by winning and losing runs etc?! Regardless of what system we use – It is how we deal with these highs and lows that determines whether we are successful or not!
It would be good to have an idea of the overall performance of this system (wins from runs, turnover, returns, profit). Although i know how long it takes to keep records it pays in the end in helping us review our performance – well done on the success to date – long may it continue!