- This topic has 166 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
They certainly are Dave Jay, My system which is a " no brainer" covers one page of A4 paper, and takes 10 minutes to work out a race, is beating all of them.<br>:biggrin:
It’s like everything in this country the bulls**t
and appearance of so called experts takes precedence over quality. No wonder that like a slowly sinking ship we are slowly working our way downwards to third world status.Jar<br>not sure about massey ,but i know for sure clive holt (fineform) is the real mc coy as far as makiing his living from punting is concerned , as he worked in my industry and i know his history , a large part of his living is made from tipping/products , but for sure he has and is doing it for sure , unlike some that would like to think they are<br> <br>
I agree lineform, Clive Holt is the real thing, Pro Gambler that is.  Considering how simple his fineform formulae is, suprisingly, it does pick horses on a par with some expert tipsters.
But I would imagine that Clive does more than just use this formulae when picking horses. Every time I’ve used the bare formulae on a series of bets I have either made a loss or just broken even.
Although my System is doing well at the moment, I really expect all four methods to converge over the long run and give more or less the same results, perhaps with the newspaper expert slightly ahead when form settles down.  And I will be surpised if that is not to just break even.
Form study is needed really. For example on Friday 13th there was a horse in the Newbury race at 2.40 called Rakti with race placings 185107 against horses such as Tarfah with race placings of 112111 and Grand Emporium with placings of 171421. yet Rakti was the strong favourite.  I think the fineform formulae selected Le Vie Dei Colori with placings of 143831 using my newspaper.   Rakti won at 7/4.  The only thing I can do with races such as these is to leave them alone.:)
The trouble is more and more races seem to be like the above or else to contain dark horses with unknown or unquantifiable form or if the race is straighfoward the horse is at unbackable extremely short odds. For this reason alone formulae should do worse and a newspaper expert who studies form should do better.
When I refer to the Bull sh*t of so called experts, I do not include the genuine ones. The problem for the ordinary punter is that the genuine experts are hidden in a forest of fake experts. Also to compound this, most genuine experts are unlikely to give all their secrets away while fake experts are selling their tips like they are going out of fashion.
(Edited by JAR at 5:42 pm on May 14, 2005)
Update at 367 bets.
A. Massey £639 loss<br>Fineform £734 loss<br>My System £332 loss<br>Newspaper Expert £960 loss
Mine is still ahead :biggrin:
Update at 396 wagers
A. Massey £721 loss<br>Fineform £735 loss<br>My System £368 loss<br>Newspaper tipster £971 loss
Update at 458 wagers
A.Massey         £736 Loss<br>Fineform         £844 Loss<br>My System        £303 Loss<br>Newspaper tipster £958  Loss
(Edited by JAR at 8:25 pm on July 8, 2005)
Final Update after 500 wagers, chosen at random from races where A Massey gives a selection.
A Massey loss = £835<br> Fineform loss = £831 <br> Expert Tipster loss = £840<br> My System loss = £398
All methods made a loss. A.Massey, Fineform and the<br>Newspaper Expert achieved almost the same loss level.<br>My system still made a loss although it performed much<br>better than the others.
The system was not entirely random as A. Massey does not provide details of his selections for some tracks. Since he provides selections for most tracks I do not think this made much difference to the results.
I am convinced now that in recent years horse racing has become more competitive so that in order for any system to make even a small profit, race selection is important. <br>I was amused to see the newspaper tipster bragging about his selections across the newspaper when he achieved a few winners while his selections in the main performed no better than Fineform selections.
Hi Jar
An interesting exercise. You lost about 8 per cent on stakes which is probably about the average for professional newspaper tipsters trying to find the winner of every race. Your system isn’t too bad and perhaps with a bit of refining could just about break even, but you will have to be more selective.
My advice would be to limit yourself to class4 and above on the flat and grade D and above over the jumps. There is an awful lot of racing below this level where results are real ‘head – scratchers’. At least when you get a turn up in a decent class race, you can usually find a logical reason for it if you delve back into the horse’s form. Lower class races are also usually more over-round as far as the betting market goes, which means the relentless margins working against you day in, day out, are even more insurmountable.
Best of luck.
Hi Artemis<br>I’ve just looked over my records and results indicate my system does improve a little when race prize money is approximately the price of a mid-range new car.<br>At extremes of prize money such as banded and group races it does not do so well.
Anyway I will leave this system for now. At the moment I have just started a new system, that really goes against the crowd, to see if it can find any value.<br>The method looks really daft!<br>I won’t post results just yet as it may turn out to be complete rubbish. I expect it will have long losing runs.
For some sort of comparison I will compare it with the Fineform formulae as this is quick to calculate and quite a good yardstick for comparison purposes.
The new system was rubbish.<br>Ho hum, :) back to the drawing board.<br>I will have to think of something new:biggrin: <br>
Good luck in your quest for the holy grail, JAR, but (if you will excuse my mixing metaphors), do not try and re-invent the wheel.
There are some system developers who begin from the scientific starting point that there is some hidden yet undiscovered truth about winning at horse racing, and that this truth can be formulated in the same way as a true scientific ‘law’. This is not the case. What works this week/month may not do the same next week/month. There is usually a perfectly feasible explanation for most winning methods and logical reasons why they eventually fail. I think Nick Mordin, who has written a few good books explains this very well.
If your system is logical and will stand up to fairly close scrutiny, it will already be ahead of 90 per cent of systems I have ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot. So go carefully and resist the temptation to take a flying leap at a hunch, but work away with tried and tested ‘truths’.
Hi Artemis<br>I’ve read Betting for a Living by Nick Mordin.<br>Nice book but betting for a hobby is hard enough, don’t think I’d dare try to live off it.<br>:) <br>I have one system that makes a very small profit.<br>Massive stakes and high risk for a small profit, my nerves wouldn’t stand it.
I’ve not posted for a while so here goes.
One problem for punters who bet from home is that they do not know the condition of horses just before a race.<br>There are several "services" for punters on the net that aid betting but as far as I know none show the horses in the paddock before the race.
With the Internet and Digital Cameras widely available.<br>Would it not be a good idea if pictures were taken of horses in the paddock on the day of the races. These could easily be uploaded onto an internet site available for punters to see.
Perhaps a forum site could accept pictures available from members at a race meeting.:)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.