- This topic has 22 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
hi guys i been reading through some of the topics and read some quite interesting stuff….i’m sure out of all these systems we could imalgamate( not sure if thats the correct spelling lol )2 or 3 to come up with a bloody good reliable 1? any thoughts?
also i was wondering what peoples general thoughts on stop at a winner fav backing is…? i know Billion mentioned it in another topic but didn’t give his opinions of it.
i am thinking of starting a betting pot and as it is very rare that at least 1 favourite doesent win at a meeting ……….but it does happen!!!!
so would the answer to this be to back to place?
as this not happening has gotta be like hens teeth….although a larger betting pot is required!at the moment i’m tryna work out a way to do this system but to minimise my selections (in other words the risk)and would appreciate any thoughts..
P.S new to the site but like wot i see …keep up the gud wrk
Hi
DocSlog
,
I do not have an opinion on SAW simply because I have always felt it is the punters own comfort zone which matters most of all.
Punter A may say SAW is rubbish because you may miss an extra winner or two by not betting the next selection or two or three or four etc.
Punter B is happy to make a profit and walk away with money in his pocket.
Who is to say if Punter A or B is right?
Playing the roll of Punter B may have a couple of advantages for the Scatter Gun style of punter with a plethera of selections and cannot decide which if any or all to bet and by employing SAW can limit his betting if required.
Also with SAW with a small limited number of selections it can, although dangerous, allow the punter to enjoy small increments to the stakes, but should carry a WEALTH WARNING!
Paul66
pays us a visit now and again and could be worth your while sending him a pm regarding this subject which he claims to have employed for some while.
———————————————————
A meld (easier to spell) of systems could also be interesting, I was rummaging through the archives only yesterday and found something ideal to be lent to doing so, I will have another look if
Matron
will give me another Ward 7 pass and the archive door key and report back later.
Billy's Outback Shack
Hi
Below is a list of Favs or JFavs since 2000.
It does not matter how big of a "pot" you have.
Stop at a winner or loss recoveryDOES NOT WORK
if a system cannot make a profit at level stakes. Please don,t get drawing into that sucker punch.
Theres 2 big problems with backing Favs.
1 You don,t know the Fav until after the race.
2 Favs are the worst value to back.
Every forum you visit is full of systems for backing Favs but I’ve yet to see one thats in profit.
I’m not saying you can,t make money from backing Favs, but you have to be very selective and put in a lot of form study.
If your going to put in the time on form study I just think theres better value elsewhere.
FrankSequences of Consecutive Unsuccessful Win Selections
1 Loser 7043
2 Losers 4841
3 Losers 3298
4 Losers 2234
5 Losers 1477
6 Losers 1008
7 Losers 707
8 Losers 484
9 Losers 301
10 Losers 240
11 Losers 160
12 Losers 127
13 Losers 54
14 Losers 42
15 Losers 35
16 Losers 27
17 Losers 20
18 Losers 12
19 Losers 8
20 Losers 2
21 Losers 5
22 Losers 1
23 Losers 2
24 Losers 1
25 Losers 1
26 Losers 1
27 Losers 0
28 Losers 1
29 Losers 0
30+ Losers 2After a quick dip into the archive (blooming dark in there) I can suggest the following could be considered because they are very simple KISS systems.
Dave Jay
(Oct 2002) Mirror, SF rating + clear fav. + Spot and here is the interesting bit. Level stakes SAW.
burnie1984 (Feb 2003) Mirror, SF and 3rd in betting forecast. Something similar going on here at present!
Heading Systems for Favs.
Andy Dawes
(April 2003) Favs. at 3/1 +
Kosher
replied: – Wait for 3 losing favs then "pile in".
Darrell
(Sept 2005) Mirror BF – must have SF or F rating and split stake if two selections.
Matron
replied 2 or 3 LTO but miss the race if 2 selections.
Snowman
also said BF if out again within 7 days
Now it should not take a mastermind to meld something from that selection.
Billy's Outback Shack
- Total Posts 84
This type of approach is tried and tested. On average, it goes bust every 21 days.
b
bscim999
To which post or part of are making a refence?
———————————————————
There is nothing like a Stop At A Winner posting to draw differing opinions and what is interesting is those opposed refuse to allow any credit to those who wish to bet this way.
If I may ask readers indulgence just for a moment.
Punter C has an allowance of £10 per day for betting and stakes £2.50 on 4 horses and they all lose which results in empty pockets.
However if he writes on the slip SAW he may yield a profit depending upon prices and goes home happy.
What is wrong with this?
Billy's Outback Shack
Mmmmmmmmmmm….. think i may have mis understood the SAW system .
what i am talking about is choosing a meeting i.e kempton then back the fav in order to win pre selected winnings
example if you wanted to win 5points per day say then you stake enough to win the correct amount , now should the fav not win then next fav backed in order to win the 5 points plus amount staked originally and so on and so forth untill the 5 points have been achieved, then STOPshould a fav not win at that meet that day then this can be expensive so is why i considered back to place only, (more needed to stake to get the 5 points) hence the bigger pot needed.
if for example i did this today earliest race
curragh 1 15
1st race rose bonheur 11-8f 2nd 5points achieved could stop now that the days points achieved but lets seenext meet windsor 2 00
1st race jacobs son 15-8f 2nd 5 points achievednext meet salisbury 2 10
1st race songsmith 2-1f 2nd 5 points achievednext meet kempton
1st race fav –6th lost bet
2nd race water ice 9-4f 3rd 5 points achievedthus today (albeit this prob not a good example because everything seem to come together) but i would have been +20 points
if i did this same thing on Fav’s just to win which is the cheaper but more risky version then earliest race curragh
1 15 fav 11-8 2nd lost would have bet 4points(spprox)
1 45 fav 11-2 3rd lost would have bet 2points (approx need to win 9)
2 15 fav 13-8 won would have bet 7 points and 5points win achieved
if no fav won on next meeting then start from next race!christ i hope this makes sense lol…
As long as it makes sense to you
DocSlog
is all that matters.
Billy's Outback Shack
Just,
Look at how this all ended up in tears:-
https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r … 71513.html
Regards
Classic case there Matron
There are many more billion, read other forums there are many examples of where it has gone wrong over the years
TBH never used it but read much about it and its enough to put me off
- Total Posts 84
Hi Billion,
Strictly, I’m addressing the approach of betting on favourites until you’ve reached your target profit, which is, as far as I know,the main way that the "stop at a winner" approach is employed.
b
Well done guys if you read all 59 pages, I didn’t.
The answer is there on page 1,
Quadrilla
says it is common sense to implement a stop loss and suggests after 4 losers to be the time.
Good for
quadie
I say because no body is going to behave in such a manor as to go bust in such a huge way.
Although I do not use SAW or solely bet on favourites but if someone does and that is how they enjoy betting it is entirely for them to do so with dictates telling them they must not do so.
Billy's Outback Shack
- Total Posts 84
I wonder whether it might be possible to use SAW in a less mechanical way, so as to impart some skill to the process. In theory, it should be, I suppose.
b
The thing that upsets the vast majority (probably all) SAW systems is the inability of the staking plan to cope with the inevitable catastrophic losing run.
People generally underestimate both the size and frequency of losing runs. (The table produced earlier in this thread is a good example of the reality of how frequent and long these runs can be)
The idea of bailing out at a certain pre-determined point from SAW systems has some intuitive appeal but any work that I’ve done on that so far shows that the bail-out losses more than outweigh the previous profits. Could be that I haven’t found the correct point at which to bail out and/or the correct system to use such a strategy with.
SAW WILL work with certain result profiles so can look good when back-fitting (i.e. you can ‘find’ data sets/systems where it appears to work). However future profiles (based on a strike-rate/odds scenario) will be random, in terms of result profile, all of which makes SAW very dangerous.
The result profile needs to ‘drop right’ for you, in the other words, and, over time, you are certain to come across spells when it doesn’t.
The SAW method I am familiar with has been used simply on a day to day bassis with a limited number of bets.
Let’s say on any given day when SAW was to be implemented there are 4 selections and each and every one was a loser, the line is then drawn and the losses for that day are absorbed, written off or any such way as the individual wishes to play.
The next day, no stake increase but say 3 selections and the first is a winner, the sequence for that day ends and then onto the next day etc.
I do believe the origin was for the betting shop punter to complete his betting slip with stakes shown but SAW, he risks missing any further winners but is comforted by not having any additional losers.
Last Saturday’s D Mirror CHRIS FORWOOD writes an expected SR of 30% when backing favourites. Last month from 758 runners 231 clear favourites won with a losing run of 19 and many others of 10.
£1 doubled after each loser reaches £1000 with every losing sequence of 10.
No, I don’t think anyone implementing SAW would consider anything more than a day on day sequence consideration with a fixed number of bets.
But you may not agree . . . . . . .
Billy's Outback Shack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.