- This topic has 66 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Carlisle
I do buy into your mission statement. My own approach is almost exactly along those lines, but then so is most other thinking people’s approach.
My point is that the statement is a truism, typical of politicians, and says nothing new. What we need is new ideas, lateral thinking, fresher minds than ours. I cannot speak for you, but I think I’ve been at this game for too long without cracking it. I have become skeptical about finding any decent system that is feasible to operate on modest stakes.
If you are going to invest a lot of time in serious form study, Which is the only alternative to a system, you must be prepared to back your judgements with serious money. Otherwise it makes no sense economically. No point in analysing a race for a few hours and then having a £20 bet.
Let us hope someone throws a few new ideas into the pot, otherwise the embryonic system will never be born.
Artemis,
I’m with you, it’s not a mantra we need it’s a system
On scepticism, one of my favourite apochryphal newspaper ads that I heard of, read ‘Sceptic Tanks Emptied’.I doubt whether a simple system will do as there will be no ‘edge’ to produce a return. It needs to be complex, covering not just the selection process but encompassing odds and staking too.
IMHO the Punters Price Guide posted by yours truly on the Daily Lays and Plays meets the requirements if you are au faite with the odds and staking part of the process, but who am I too judge
Hi Carlisle so its back to the drawing board eh??
Since our last postings together I’ve been striving to find a workable system that can keep me ticking over without breaking the bank.
Now I’m not as experienced as some of the guys on here but in my short time following horse racing I’ve found that in the main the best horses win the most races. I calculate this using the winning vs races a formula that will be familiar to many. This however can be a very time consuming exercise and I starting to think that a system need to be quick and easy to do.
If thats the case then what about using data available on a card? Days since last race, top weights, tipsters?!?
I’m probably well off the mark on the above but I’m definately interested in getting involved in this thread
Hi onefurlongout & everyone
the last few replies have been great…… i consider them to offer real progress. We are starting to get to the nitty gritty. Well, we will learn more from a rocky road! (for sure)
I have got loads to say on this subject……… simply bursting with energy, but i need to think things through steadily tho.
Getting back to you soon.
byefrom
carlisleHi Artemis,
You mentioned a possible starting point as a horse’s 1st win.
Would be great if we could find a way of recognising a few signposts just before that and actually be on that 1st win, because after that the price is necessarily depressed.
Carlisle I fear that if we can recognise ‘ value ‘ then so can plenty of others.
Still interested
Carlisle,
I have been cogitating about your proposal ( and as you may be aware I am an old codger) and have come to a conclusion about the outcome. If, perchance, a successful system was devised in open forum it would probably be destroyed by the freeloaders that would flock in like flies to a jam pot, imploding quite quickly. However, as I am all for discussion and debate I will stay with you for now. Re. my earlier posts on this thread about system requirements:The SSOSS (The Salient Selection, Odds and Staking System
)Selection. IMO this has to be underpinned by performance on the track plus une petite peu, giving something extra i.e., trainers in form.
Odds. IMO it would be wise to mainly stay within the range of 6/4 to 7/1.
Staking. IMO for any period of paper-trading level stakes must be the order of the day and if successful move on to something like half Kelly criteria staking.Hi Artemis
i don’t think new ideas are required, horse race betting is a logistical and psychological minefield. Therefore we require better logic and excellent/efficient organisation. 99% of punters lose cus they are found wanting.
Winning must become boring and routine. If its a stressful struggle then the process is flawed.
byefrom
carlisleHi Formath
as for my MANTRA, i might come across as a plonker.. but really iam just a harmless tosser.
My real point is that a good system should start with a definition of what it is trying to achieve.
Then the various sequences, branches and loops of the method can be developed. A strong/ruthless sense of logic and purpose must always be maintained.
If we cannot agree on a definition then we will not get too far…… the logic will suffer
byefrom
carlisleHi Formath
if a good system is created it will be quickly pinched, but at this stage its just a joke. (I bet there are alot of wet pants out there)
The final system will be complex and involved so it will not be easy for the unpracticed to use. Yes if things start to look promising we will have to go private.
byefrom
carlisleHi again,
For me the most important part of selection is narrowing the field in any race there are only 3/4 animals that can surely win.
Might be well off the beaten track but its a start?
The System will have a better chance of success if it were played on a level and fair basis.
What do you take out :-
Maidens, Claimers, races with over 8 runners, Jumps, races where runners don’t race very often and dislike matches until The Festival, races that run at incorrect distances, races that are run on faster than Firm and slower than Soft.
What do you keep in :-
Races where the runners run frequently, races run in conditions from Firm to Soft, races that run at the correct distance and correct declared official going.
Just a start, I’m sure that you can think of a few others.
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
Hi onefurlongout
narrowing down is the job of the system…… for me the global issues of
Proven Ability
Race conditions
Market/Trainer vibes
Value for moneyshould form the foundations of the system. From which a system could grow.
byefrom
carlisle"Rome wasn’t built before lunch……."
First, we are looking for the race. Then we are looking at, the runners.
We consider :-
Proven Ability
Race conditionsWe ignore :-
Market/Trainer vibes
Value for moneyIt’s winners’ we are looking for. A win, is a win, is a win.
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
Hi Martin
This system is most likely to highlight horses trying to follow up a win before the handicapper exacts his revenge. As such, you are unlikely to receive generous odds from the layers.
It will also pick up improving younger horses whose ability may have been underestimated by the official handicapper (or indeed overestimated by the RP handicappers). Again, such horses are unlikely to be backable at generous prices.
Older horses coming back to their best form are usually very heavily penalised if they win or run very well and need to be caught before they are elevated in the handicap.
That said, your approach has the beginnings of a decent method which I’m sure you will expand upon as your knowledge increases. I hope that doesn’t sound patronising, but this road is well trodden and I think you probably need to experience the learning curve for yourself.
snowman,
A quick reply.
I was thinking of horses that are what I would call ‘profitable’ horses – ie they have made a level stake profit on all bets on them over their careers to date. Such horses pop up every so often at a decent price.
An example is Jools, owned and trained at present by DK Ivory.
106 races, 16 wins, +37.99.Obviously, they cannot be backed every time they run, but there is a system in there somewhere.
Hi Martin
thanks for your detailed reply, and i know that you are my type of person. However, its difficult to walk around with someone elses clothes on.
The idea iam interested in is to get two or three people working as a team on a system that they have jointly produced and feel a sense of ownership with.
Your intelligent observations are great, but i want to go back to basics first and thrashout the LOGIC.
cheers from
carlisleps OUR SYSTEM……..i tend to favour detachment over discretion
Martin your point concerning improving horse is a good one and something I have been looking at mainly from a form guide perspective.
For instance the following show the form of a horse
343212
I add the first 3 scores together to give 5(2+1+2), then the next three (1+2+3) = 6 and then the next three (2+3+4)= 9, To give figures of 5,6,9. This is a very crude way (I think) of showing an improving horse.
Some interesting comments on here so far
)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.