- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
ever the pesimist …but has there ever been a system that has actually worked long term posted on here ?? answer is probably no..ive been in this game for a while but only for fun really
and over all those years and systems .lol the only things i think areworthwhile knowing when to stop…………. ibelive it should be at your first win
but that stuffs the rest of the day up dosent it .if..it happens to be your first betIf memory serves me correctly the 5/4 system was followed on here religiously for quite a while and showed consistent level stake profits and, unless i’ve got mixed up with something else, the author of that was then employed by a horse racing systems web site.
Seagull also showed consistent long term level stake profit, on his Trainers for Courses system, which he shared with us for a season on here and that was by no means a flash in the pan, as this showed consistent yearly LSP.
These are both backing systems of course which I presume is what you’re referring to.
Its true that the more exposure a winning system gets, the more people will follow it and ultimately the layers will either get wise to it, or so many people will be backing a selection, that the price lowers below a viable level for LSP.
I know that the T4C Flat method is currently in a losing situation and it may not look that good at present.
However it has made a level stake profit for many seasons both on the flat and also with the N.H.
This flat season so far I have posted just 8 horses and out of those just 1 has won. There have been 3 seconds and 1 third @50/1.
So whilst they are not winning it’s clear to see that they are ‘hitting the post’.On my current Nat Hunt season the level stake profit to S.P. is 156.75.
To a £100.00 win only stake that is £15,675.00.Check out someone such as Brendan Powell in hurdle races at Fontwell for a good winning example. A losing example is John Dunlops record on the Lingfield AW track.
Snowman is correct that nothing ever stays the same and if we take Pricewise as an example it is clear to say that as it has done well in the past many will folow blindly and it is obvious that bookmakers will in the end take evasive action. The only evasive action they can take is to reduce odds.
When Mark Winstanley wrote his ‘Beat The Book’ the forerunner to Pricewise that also did well overall.
I know Lydia Hislop dismissed trends and stats last week on her Cheltenham coverage but ‘following trends’ has become much more prominent with pages of stats such as the ‘Signposts’ and ‘The Stats that matter’ also in the Racing post.
Twenty years ago when home P.C.s were useless compared to something anyone can but today it must have been difficult to compile stats without resorting to spending hours with a calculator and pen and paper.
When I run a tipping line based on Trainers4Courses books one of the main things I noticed were customers phoning in after a big priced winner but many found they were betting outside a comfort zone so they reduced the stakes or bet each way instead of the recommended win only.
The Doctor of Mathematics I know makes substancial sums from those E.W. doubles posted on here. Keep doing that say at £100.00 a race and you will definately end up being banned from betting shops as he is.
A £100 bet on just the ones I have listed so far would have won you enough to buy a new car.
The 5/4 method did make an overall profit so does some employed by the other Mr Winstanley who owns ‘Flatstats’.
So while I hear many that say no system will win overall. I beg to differ.
P.S.
Cobbo what is wrong stopping just after 1 best if you are winning?
Bookmakers love those that carry on as there is normally only one result at the end of the day.
There are systems that work consistently but the problem with systems is that the margin is small, so in order to make life changing sums of money you need to use big stakes and have enough in the bank to see you through the losing runs.
Seagull, I followed the Trainer Trends for a season and it is fair to say that it is a profitable approach, but it also has massive losing runs and is therefore not workable by the vast majority of punters. I know this has been discussed elsewhere and I’m not knocking it, but it would be hard to follow.
I agree in general with what Seagull says, but just like to point out that Flatstats is owned by S Mainwaring.
Systems are probably best for folk who have plenty of money, eg. the doctor. Getting bets on will be the next problem.
Yes, it is vital to keep going with the adequate stakes. Losses can mount up to frightening proportions. That’s what beats many of us.
Probably most people who try a system pack up too early when things are tough. If they kept going, they’d do better.Easier said than done, I know.
Sean Rua
yes sorry I was thinking of the winning line guy.There is nothing wrong in starting or indeed keeping to small stakes.
So therefore anyone with a small disposable sum could follow any system they desired.Dave Jay,
Yes I agree with you there are long losing runs but normally comes out in front.
Therefore that answers the original question.When Mr Midgley was doing this trainers method he also made money but that was in the days of The Sporting Life and the subject of stats was not nearly so prominent then. His method was difficult to follow in reality as the selections had to be a certain number of points different from the next horse in the betting market.
as an aside…like i said ive been in the game for a number of years
systems ..lol
how many of those have i tried
it seems to me that patterns develop …ie there are a plethora of systems out there,and isnt that how systems are born
so that said it seems to me the only winning system is the one that becomes apparent after race 1
and by that it could mean race 1 at whereever or race 1 at cheltnem
if you look it will become clearer
hopefully this makes sense to somebodyI don’t believe there are any winning systems that prescribe a set of rules leading to a selection. I use such systems myself, not to make money out of following them blindly, but as a way of testing ideas. The more you learn about why horses win races, the better at finding winners your own methods will be.
I believe the only people who can reasonably expect to make an income out of this game are those who are prepared to study very hard and have a sound grasp of the game from all angles, or perhaps those who can afford to pay others to do this for them. Or indeed bookmakers provided they can keep their overheads under control.
Even then, as is often ponted out here, you need to be betting in relatively large sums very regularly because the profit margins are so tight.
In short, a systematic approach is required, but a rigid system, I don’t think so.
Overall bookmakers will expect to win as they have a built in overound.
They will not expect to win every day but in the end the built in margin will come to their rescue.The easiest example is the Betfair game Hi/Lo.
Here one has to decide (guess) whether the next card drawn by a computer sysytem will be higher or lower than the last.However if the next card to be drawn has 3 higher cards and 3 lower cards the true odds must be evens.
The ‘bots’ running on betfair will only give 1.99 to back the next card be higher or lower and 2.01 to lay.
So over any reasonable ammount of time this will be a winning system for those running the robots as the odds they offer and always lower than the true odds.On course bookmakers will never lay you bet each way in an 8 runner race.
Yet you can off course in the shops or on account.They are only concerned about one horse that may win. So in the main it is of no real concern what horse gets placed.
Of course the Betfair placed market on 8 runner races is no good as they are not concerned what horse may win just those that get placed and the odds on offer will reflect that.I am taking no credit for this but it has been a winning sytem for many years but there are some rules to follow.
(1) Open around 10 accounts with diffrerent bookmakers.
This is a must!
(2) Find a 8 runner race with no joint or co favs and no joint or co second favs.
(3) Use bookmaker A have a bet on the second fav ew (win and placed)
(4) If the 1st selection wins or gets placed use bookmaker B stake the winnings and the original stake with them on the next second fav ew.
(5) If that wins stake the winnings and the original stake with bookmaker C
(6) On the next day you find selections start with Bookmaker BIf one is lazy and sticks to one bookmaker the chances are you will get banned as overall it is one of the simplest winning systems. trouble is bookmakers also know it.
It is on this system forum here as EW Doubles.
Does anyone care to comment on how this cannot win overall?[/b]
Hi Seagull,
Dont know if you used un-named 2nd favs with this, but I remember someone telling me that they always bet un-named 2nd fav because
a) If there was a clear 2nd fav they were on that selection
b) if there were jt favs they were on both of those (albeit for reduced stakes)
c) if there were jt 2nd favs they were on both of these
Recently however I seem to see fewer J2f returned. Unless I’ve just not been looking!
Admittedly he was betting win only, whereas you are advocating EW
Seagull,
I’ll accept that the old each way thievery is viable providing you can find bookmakers to accept these bets. The trouble here is that the only bets you are having with the ten bookmakers A.to.I are each way singles on races where the place market slightly favours the punter. I don’t think you would be able to get the bets on particularly since stakes would have to be substantial to make it woth the effort.
But, you are correct. It works in theory.
Without wishing to open the old value debate.
The reason I feel most, if not all systems fall down is they do not account for value.
If a system says a horse should be backed, yet it is obviously poor value it should not be backed. Without value it is impossible to make a profit. Yet a horse in the same race which is not in the system, but is obviously value, should be backed.When I finish studying a race I do not know who I will back, until I see the odds available.
If a system is to work it must either account for value, or find something that few others take in to account which leads to value being found without actively searching for it. I know of one such system (on another site) that looks at winners running again quickly. On the grounds that a horse can only be at the top of its game for a short time. It seems to work because some punters will not be aware of its recent form, so miss it. Some might wonder if the race will come too soon, so back against it.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingGingertipster
As far as the notion of value in horse race betting is concerned, you are largely preaching to the converted on the forum. It’s just that ‘value’ is a slippery customer, being a matter of opinion. It has often been stated, quite correctly, that value can only be claimed retrospectively using profit and loss as supporting evidence. I think what people mean when they say that a horse is value is that;
In my opinion, this horse is a longer price than I think it should be.
Therfore, value is an abstract quality in this field of betting. True odds are unknown, unlike roulette or card games. So, if you build your system around the concept of value(which everyone should do), and it fails, you are not getting value. A bit obvious, perhaps, but unrefutable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.