Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brilliant Mr E, what a cracking plan for getting the most out of short priced selections.
Many thanks!<br>Steve
Thanks for the clarifications, bare with me – is this correct then?
Each and every bet has 1pt staked on it, set aside for it if you like, so a series of 10 bets will always cost only 10pts max.
So suppose the first bet wins at 2/1.
The second bet will then comprise of your  returned stake from bet 1 plus winnings (3pts total) which are then staked on the second bet, PLUS another 1pt which would have been staked anyway, whether bet 1 won or lost, making the entire stake for bet 2 4pts. Is this correct, or do I need to go get the hat with the big D on the front?
Thanks!<br>Steve
Mr E’s plan seems a great method, but isn’t his maths  a little bit out? Surely the profit in that sequence is 3.75pts, not 4.75pts, and where does the 3pts stake come from? After the 2/1 winner isn’t the double then completed and the following stake be another 1pt bet?
Is Mr E’s sums a bit out, or is it my post-lager frenzy brain fade?
Thanks!<br>Steve
germanguy, congratulations on your system.
You must be able to bet on these (unless you are under age), Del Burgess whose excellent 5/4 system is on here lives in Germany and he bets.
Try this, most of the people here use this site to bet online:
Don’t know if it is of any use to you, but I have been keeping a record of postdata box for my system selections since january.
They are mostly odds on, with an average price of 0.9/1 and non-handicap (to be specific maiden, novice, beginner and intermediate chases and hurdles, and maiden, novice, classified and condtitions ‘c’ stakes).
I recorded all X? etc, but when there were none, ie all ticks however many, I just gave a comment ‘none’, meaning nothing negative in my database.
Out of 53 ‘none’ selections (min 4 runners, max 10) 30 won, giving a £73 loss to £100 stakes.
Having looked at this postdata stuff for about 7 months now, I have noticed that a tick often means very little. For instance you often find a tick in the Distance box, but on further investigation into the form I find the horse may well have run at the distance, but done nothing to inspire any confidence in it at that distance. Sometimes it is just plainly innacurate.
Anyway, your system seems to throw up few selections, so it may well be worth manually checking the ‘ticks’ to see if they match up with what your common sense tells you when you read the form.
Just to encourage discussion then, has anybody looked at the results for this system for handicaps alone? As far as I am aware hcaps are not excluded, and everyone loves a 4/1 winner, but overall are they worth it for the 5/4?
Learning to use simple spreadsheet and database software has made a big difference to me, it’s easy to see where strengths and weaknesses lay in any system in real time by keeping quite simple records. I can’t see why using these types of software and data from the racing post etc that you cant do something similar to RSB yourself. It’s quite surpising when you discover that a certain filter or filters you thought were doing you good is in actual fact reducing profit. Not so easy to spot that when you are using pen and paper.
I notice that on Adrian Massey’s excellent site he has a table for favs on each type of race, age, sp etc that gives the number of consecutive winners and losers over a  12 year period. For instance, in flat maidens 9 losers in a row has occured 22 times in 12 years. So you can expect a losing run of 9 twice a year roughly. But  10 losers in a row and beyond for this type of race is very rare (10 losers 6 times, 11 losers twice, although there was 16 once).
This could be invaluable data for anyone thinking of a fav system and using some kind of staking other than levels to assess the worst case senario losing run.
Thanks for the welcome and the reply.
I guess it doesn’t make much sense to reduce stakes in the rolling bank tradition, I have started a little (£24) bank to experiment with 20% stakes just to see how far i get, if i don’t reduce stakes at that percentage then i think it would go pretty quickly, but with a normal larger bank and more sensible percentage there is not much reason as say you in reducing stakes.
The backfitting question just bothered me because we are always being told to beware, as you say you could backfit a third letter R type system and flog it. Clearly there is positive and negative back fitting.
I was hoping someone who is up on chi/archie tests would express an opinion. My math/logic skills are not up to much and really i just want to know if the chi test is trully usefull to horse racing punters or just a bit of a red herring.
<br>Thanks again snowman:) <br>
I would love to receive any comments from anyone,either good or bad.
William Winalot.
<br>
<br>I just looked at January 2003, without all weather racing this makes a 4.25 points loss, with all weather racing a 5.63 points loss.
If my calculations are correct, there were 12 qualifying meetings in January with 4 losing meetings dropping 28 points (including the all weather meets).
I assume that with unnamed favs, the sp is divided by 2  or 3 if joint or co favs win?
There seems to be a sound logic to this system, wonder if jan was just a fluke bad month what with the number of cancelled meetings plus bad weather. Do favs tend to win less than the accepted 33% rate at all weather tracks?
Dave,
Thanks for taking the trouble to clarifying things.
It seems a little complex at first, but now I see better. It is the kind of plan I have been trying to figure out and use for myself but getting nowhere.
Thanks for the welcome too, it seems a friendly board
Steve
Hi there,
Hmmm maths not my best subject!
Can you explain what the purpose of the ‘Target’ figure is? The first bet needs 6/1 for that, is that what the actual bet would have been? Do you aim to achieve that (600 say) before you cream off the profit as it were and begin again?
Also, how does the bet go from 100 to 115?
I am sure I am just being totally thick and missing something blindingly obvious.
Thanks!<br>Steve
