Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I agree Matron. A system should be a logical process which always produces the same selection.
Of course it is OK to adjust a system with gut-feel, but then, as Rocco states this is then a "method" or an "approach" because there is some unquantifiable component.
The advantage of a 100% system is that you can easily work out historical performance (provided you have software and a database…) whereas to apply gut feel, each race needs to be considered seperately.
I guess gut-feel may be an observation (e.g. this system never seems to work well in maidens) which may, in the fullness of time, with enough data, be proved to be an extra part of the system itself.
Steve
Mr E – thanks for the reply – no hard feelings – I guess I’d had a bad day – no luck on the horses and then my footy team, who need points desperately, go and let in a last minute equaliser against 9-men (Leicester if you’re interested!).
This is a really interesting thread and shows real promise for systems which is very pleasing.
Seagull’s post was very interesting. I’ve run through my data and sure enough Mr Pipe makes a healthy profit on anything non-handicap at Plumpton. 22 points over the last 2 years which doesn’t sound much but over only 47 runners it’s about a 47% profit on turnover.
Even better is Ascot where he’s made 18 points from 36 rides which is over 50% p.o.t. He’s also made a profit on handicap races at Ascot of 44 points over 63 runners – a 70% p.o.t.
Only downside is that my database is only 2 years which means the samples are a bit small – I’d like to have at least 150 runners if not 200 to be more certain which means 7-8 years of data. Seagull mentions that he has many years of data and things are consistent so that gives more confidence to the results.
My question is why this happens? Is it that certain training methods suit particular courses?
Manny’s ideas were also interesting. A quick look at the system where the horse closest to 10/1 is chosen from any 8-runner, handicap looks to have broken about even over the last 2 years (without some work I could only pick horses at exactly 10/1 in 8-runner handicaps – there may be races where no horses are 10/1, or occasions where more than one horse was 10/1, but it gives an idea. Interestingly if you added the rule that the horse must NOT have won at that course or distance before then the system was about 50 points up since Jan 2000…….).
I also agree with Seagull’s point about money management. Losing runs are unavoidable and even a system with a 30% strike rate will get a lot of losing runs of 10 and over. The key is to have the confidence<br>a) to keep following the system otherwise you will miss the next winner<br>b) not to start changing the rules and betting on things that just don’t quite make it into the system.
As ever, records and self-control! It’s the latter I find most difficult!
In this respect having a mixture of profitable systems on the go would seem the ideal solution.
Anyway, I’m going to try out Daylight’s instructions for posting up graphs – wish me luck…
Steve
Mr Killjoy here (see earlier post from MrE)!<br>Thanks Keith the Teeth for the support! You hit the nail on the head – despite what MrE seems to think I am a systems person through and through. I believe it is possible to make money from systems.<br>I’ve spent a lot of time (about 4 years now) collecting data that will enable me to find them and I do have some interesting possibilities which I will share when I’m happy with them.
However I’ve also seen a lot of systems that have worked for 6 months, a year or even longer, and then just collapsed, so I was trying to make the point that you must keep records and monitor things in order to keep in profit.
Darrell’s majestic system is a case in point. He’s had a wonderful few months since he started in the autumn and even won the tipping competition as a result, but running the same system back to the beginning of 2000 shows it to be a long term loser. I reckon since Sept, the system has made over 50pts to level stakes. To the middle of November it was about 80pts, but there was a poor run into December which has now levelled out. However, from Jan 1st 2000 to Sep 2001 I reckon it was down about 350pts!
(Matron/Daylight – is there any way you can put graphs up on the forum – a .bmp or .gif? It would be most revealing to show people what I mean – much easier than describing in words…)
There is a lot of positive comment on Darrell’s thread and I think it’s important to sound a warning note. By all means follow it while it’s working but be prepared to bail out when a losing run starts…
MrE makes some interesting points. This isn’t one of them, I quote (see first favourite thread):
"we gotta few doubters on board and I’d love to sink my hoof up their botty’s, at least up to the fetlock"
…not the best way to encourage debate.
However the fact that MrE has been using a similar system to Matron’s First favourite successfully for 9 years is excellent news and gives us all confidence that it is worth searching for profitable systems.
I just believe you need a lot of data before you can be certain of finding a winning formula.
I have one other point: reading the First Favourite thread it became clear that it is a very subjective system which requires quite a knowledge and experience about horse-racing, based around a simple system rule. The subjectivity is clear in the way Matron and MrE, applying the same system (i.e. first favourite), seem to disagree as much as they agree (when they incorporate their own gut feelings onto the system rule). Can it really be called a system when it’s so subjective?<br>Surely a system is a formula which anyone with any knowledge can apply and always get the same selection(s)?
(Edited by Steve SB at 10:37 pm on Dec. 29, 2001)
Hi Jake,
I believe that the only way to assess a system is lots of data (2 years minimum). I’ve assessed many systems over this period including some of those posted on this (great) site, and it is clear that the norm is for ups and downs. i.e. a system can win for 2, 3 or 4 months, then will lose for 2, 3 or 4 months.
However, it has to be said, in my opinion and experience, that over longer periods, the majority of systems are losers (just like the majority of tipsters are losers – including professionals). If you look at the tipping competition on this site only 4 out of 22 made a profit (18%). If you look at proofing services it’s much the same.
Staking is important. Different plans can make unprofitable systems profitable; but the reverse is also true – so again a good run of historical data will help pick the best staking plan for a particular system. In general a system that picks a high percentage of lower priced winners will benefit from plans that incorporate doubles or some sort of increasing stakes on losers; systems that pick a low percentage of winners but with possibly high prices benefit from level stakes etc. etc.
However, if systems do go through winning and losing streaks then it might still be possible to follow one which is a long-term loser if the winning streaks are long enough to spot and then keep going after you start following them!
This is easier said than done because you have to make enough money during the winning streak to cover the start of the next losing streak (which you will have to bet on before you realise it has started – if you see what I mean).
Anyway, what this all means, in my opinion, is that while a "system" seems to suggest:
"a formula that you can apply in 5 minutes every day then sit back and wait for the money to roll in"
what it actually means is hard work, continuous monitoring, detailed records and intelligent reaction to changing situations.
As ever nothing is ever free!<br>
