[shakeshuck]

Thanks Rob, your explanations make perfect sense.

The method I am working on relies on getting early prices (as you can probably guess from my first query), but the problem I am having is that the bookie I currently use lists all open bets at the price taken before any withdrawals. There seems to be no way I can calculate what price I am actually going to receive once the bet is placed, but before the race starts. To make matters worse, this particular bookie doesn’t alter the price shown in the bet history after the race either, which is very confusing.

I don’t know if other bookies follow the same process, or if they are more forthcoming with the correct information?

Graham.

[shakeshuck]

I haven’t found any data yet, but I’d like to ask a related question:

Is there a way for me to see what Rule 4 reductions are going to be applied to a race before the race starts? Once a horse is withdrawn, the price of the horse at the time of withdrawal is no longer displayed (at least, as far as I can find). I guess it’s complicated as most bookies will re-calculate their odds before the race starts, but if you’ve already placed your bet, how can you work out what actual odds will be returned?

[shakeshuck]

My qualms were with the bets as reported.

You are posting here for proofing purposes, after all.

Keep up the good work with the selections…

[shakeshuck]

Results for 11 Dec
as at today there are 24 straight winning bets

No there isn’t. You’re not paying attention.

You’re claiming a 10 unit bet @ 570 (i.e. a risk of 5700 units) when you’ve only got a 1000 unit bank.

Bear in mind

you only need 1 win

to double your money ( minus 5% fees imposed by BF)

What you mean (with some of the prices you’re claiming as wins) is you only need

one loss to lose all your money

!

You’re doing a good job with the picks so far, let’s not ruin it by claiming wins that aren’t due (they are still wins, just not at the stake you’re quoting, as I mentioned previously).

[shakeshuck]

11th Dec

I was paying a bit more attention today

View of Milan: lowest price matched was 290.

Western Kate: I didn’t check early enough but SP (not BFSP) was 125/1 so realistically a sensible match was unlikely.

Commerce: there was £25 matched below 100.

Niamh Machine: £14 matched @ 100 exactly (lowest price).

In other words, you might have got the bet on on Commerce and N.M. if you wanted, but they would both potentially have been risking all the bank.
Gives another meaning to 100% lays

I think you need to add a rule to include a max price (or maybe not, it could be left to the punter), or make the stakes smaller for larger prices?

Otherwise, well done – another 100% day.

Cheers,

Shakes.

[shakeshuck]

Well done for the 10th – good results!

I didn’t get all the prices, but unfortunately you can’t count Mystic Rhythm as the lowest price matched was 570!

Good Luck today…

[shakeshuck]

Good luck with the selections for tomorrow

[shakeshuck]

Hi TJ,

The only experience I have had of MarketFeeder Pro was just after they started out, many moons ago; I had a trial of their software.

As a vendor, I thought they were very good. They were extremely helpful and requests for additional rules were done quickly. Unfortunately in the end it didn’t quite work as I wanted it to – although that was possibly due to the odd system I was trying to put into place, and more a problem with price movement on BetFair than the software.

As for Auto-BF, or profit-maker, sorry, I haven’t a clue.

If you decide to give it a go: Good Luck, and keep us posted!

[shakeshuck]

Selection for tuesday 22nd nov 2011.

3 Points win 1.10 southwell, MOTLEY CREWE.

Regards.
Daz.

Nice one, Darrell

[shakeshuck]

Thanks for the clarification, I somehow thought you meant the system was performing better after the races – hence my confusion – my bad.

I’ve not had chance to look through all the systems on show here, I chose a few to look at and have been following them. Possibly one of the reasons I only just started looking at this one is the amount of choices you give in each posting; it’s obviously easier to follow along several systems when there isn’t as much information to process.
It may be that these recommendations are of a higher quality than other systems on the board, I’m sorry to say so far I haven’t taken the time to check them all out.

I do understand the time issue, I never seem to be able to look at all the angles I would like. Although I’d like to spend some time looking at the recommendations you make, I wouldn’t want you to spend hours creating these posts just for me!

[shakeshuck]

it seems to have more HITS after the races than before

Sorry % MAN, I don’t understand this statement. Can you please elucidate?

[shakeshuck]

Looks like I was wrong about the non-official Majestic Favs doing well.

Situation normal!

[shakeshuck]

I hadn’t noticed Adrian Massey had finished on his site. Shame.

http://www.patternform.co.uk is still going, if that helps any?

[shakeshuck]

Just for clarification, can you please tell me why Hartforth in the 2.20 at Leicester yesterday didn’t qualify?

It was very close at the off as to whether it would be the favourite or not, but looked OK to me

[shakeshuck]

Hi Billion,

Do you like favourites?

darrell

‘s selections start with 1.2.3 in the forecast and so a lot of winners will be the favourite.

I’m neither partial nor impartial to favourites, but I do like winners

I can’t find reference to the 1,2,3 in the forecast you mention – is this something that has evolved with the system? Darrell’s notes in a recent post just mention 1,2,3 LTO?

Confused!

[shakeshuck]

I’m new here and haven’t looked through all the old postings but I’ve noticed for the last few days the Majestic winners seem to have been favourites.

Does anyone know if this is the case historically, or just a recent coincidence?

*edit*
Sorry, I should clarify that I mean the non-official selections.

[shakeshuck]

Hi Guys,

In my experience what you have observed is the norm.

A system can do no wrong for a period of time, (days, weeks or even months), then without warning can go completely the opposite way.

The reverse can happen but is not seen as often, as most people give up if the system consistently produces bad runs, so never get to see the turn around.

I know what you mean, the turning point is usually just when you get some faith in the system and start putting money on it.

I’ve never seen such a sharp and clean turning point as this before, though; hence my concern and motivation to find a reason.

The point you make about system studiers not following a losing run is also interesting. It makes me wonder if there are systems that swing back and forth with any regularity that can be taken advantage of. For folks that just number crunch and don’t read graphs, these would just appear as break-even systems, and a possible swing approach would go unnoticed.

A very interesting observation from

shakeshuck

and I will say the graph loosely fits my own experience having had a trying couple of weeks that has turned round quite nicely this week.

I have put it down to the change from Flat to NH with trainers getting the last out of the flat and the new form over the jumps.

Maybe – maybe not

I did think about the possibility of the start of the NH season, but I couldn’t pinpoint a changeover date: as you say, the end of one seems to blend with the start of the other.

Unfortunately the program I wrote to capture data turned out to be buggy (surprise! ) and the data I have from a couple of months ago isn’t reliable. Because of this I can’t check to see if there was a similar direction change for the test system when the whip rules were implemented.

That week was a freak of nature, it had to be as grotbags66 and Billion topped bobs comp and Billion even had a few winners in his systems.

Nice to see the guys on this forum get on well!

[Author]

Posts