Without wanting to offend this is what 95% of punters do and is why they lose. You let the fear take hold. The problem here might be that you didn't plan properly. Assume you have $1000 in your account on betfair. How much are you willing to lose ? Whats your expected drawdown, Whats the expected losing streak ? How will your bank handle this ? What is a safe size to be betting ? etc, etc, etc.

For a $1000 account (from what I have seen posted here already) I would not lay to lose more then $2 a lay (as there is not enough history posted to compute the drawdown and expected losing streak). On a $100 account the liability would not want to be more then 20c.

If your going to bet a system you need to stick with it for a while and need to have the bank to handle these losses.

Most punters can not handle laying as it goes against their usual mindset. Big losses with small wins as opposed to Big wins and small losses.


Again not intending to offend, just trying to point out what I see. I was like this too ... This biggest advice I can give is commit to a method till you lose the amount you set to it. Setup a bank of $100 and lay $0.50 liabilities. Stick with whatever method you are using till you lose $50. It will take a while. While that is happening just keep looking for other methods to try. At worst you lose $50. If it works then you can start to up the stakes. Only test 1-2 methods at a time.

I wished someone told me this advice years go and I had listened.

Hi wesmip1. No offence taken. I know I can be impatient and undisciplined when it comes to my betting. I think this stems from wanting INSTANT returns on my money. You know 100-200-1000% on my bets NOW...lol. Although it is no laughing matter.

It also seems that whenever I trial a system for a while with very small stakes or in simulation mode with my bot everything goes great but then when it comes time to bet it in real life it's like I'm cursed and I give the system the kiss of death or something. Every time.

I will try to heed your advice which anyone who is in a similar predicament like me should also heed.

Thanks.

I've noticed that if I had omitted nos. 1 to 4 from the system, the results would have been much different - I've got too much time on my hands because of my back.

From the four days of listing the selections here there's been 11 accidents from the 77 selections. Surprisingly 10 of the accidents have been from TAB nos. 1 to 4. Even though the method is $90.08 in profit, if I had omitted nos. 1 to 4 then the profit would be approx a further $115 which is about $200 in front. However, it might just be one of those strange and temporary occurrences, and could mean nothing in the long run.

The Ocho, I wonder if its worth looking at nos. 1 to 4 in your system.

However, from today I am omitting these numbers from my betting (hope this isn't a mistake) even though I'll list all the selections below.

Cranbourne
1/10
2/7
3/10
4/1
7/2
8/6

Devenport
3/2
5/9
9/9

Grafton
3/4
6/4
7/2

Parkes
3/7
5/1
7/1

Port Lincoln
6/8
7/5
8/7

Sun Coast
1/8
3/1
6/4

Wodonga
2/3
4/7
8/1

When the scratchings for Pinjarra are known I'll list the selections.

Hi michaelg. Regarding TAB nos 1-4, do your figures also include the winning lays you had with those numbers?

Yes, the figures include the winning lays.

The daily results when deducting winning from losing lays for nos. 1 to 4 are:

Wed - $17 better off.
Thurs - $19 better off.
Fri - $31 better off.
Sat - $51 better off.

Today's Pinjarra selections are:

7/2
8/12
9/12

Been here so many times Ocho,its not hard to take it personaly.you do feel cursed.


Looking back with hindsight though i can see that my expectations and expected low bank were just not realistic.

Getting the timing right for when you start to bet seriously is very important too,ive lost many banks simply because filters were applied too early,i had noticed a pattern and as we do naturaly assume it will stay that way,trouble is its often a very temporary pattern and once things correct themselves there goes your bank (im hoping Michaelg hasnt made the same mistake with numbers 1 to 4).

Good luck with it.

Trialing a ratings method at the moment and made one of those mistakes yesterday.

I had been playing around with betting the top two in quinellas at the start of the week,gave up on it after a couple of quiet days and had it pegged as something to apply to races with 10 starters or more,then,you guessed it along comes the big result.

Ascot 4 my 2nd top rater wins at $18.90,my top rater comes in 2nd and the quinella pays $195.40 ffs

Ended up with the tri as the 3rd top rater chimed in for third -$3009 for a $6 outlay.

9 starters,i had gone off too early again.

Dale, your ratings method sounds promising. I presume you are keeping accurate records and intend to persevere with it.

Today was not a bad day for the Lay system.

Nos 1 to 4.
There were 2 accidents from 11 selections for a profit of $32.53. Unfortunately I did not lay them. I'm recording the results separately to see how they fare.

No. 5 and higher.
There was one accident from 13 selections for a profit of $55.71.

Tomorrow I'm leaving the system alone because Betfair will be down.

Hi Dale,

If I may ask, what's your rationale behind the number of runners in a race for the Quinella, or at all, for that matter?

I can sort of understand not betting for the place when there are less than 8 runners, although the usually higher place divies, more than compensate for the lack of a third dividend, but for the other kinds of wager..?

When we talk about 18 to 24 horses in a race it seems on the face of it, that the chances of finding a winner is harder.

But it's only true if you look at the race purely mathematically, the class horses are still winning their true share of the races, and the interference that sometimes caused by the high number of runners, is again compensated for by the higher prices.

Liked to know why you think 10 is better than 11 or 9?

Cheers

Thanks for that Dale. I will try and take wesmip1's advice and set a betting bank for a method I'm trying and keep sticking at it.

michaelg, It was a good day for the system. I layed nos 5+ manually only using $2 liability and won a little. The only loser was one I had also backed using my other system so I halved my bet on that one and only lost half the amount...lol. :)

I decided to comprehensively analyze the two sections of the system - those that are numbers 1 to 4, and those that are number 5 and higher.

Numbers 1 to 4.
There have been 12 accidents from 47 selections for a loss of $47.16.

Numbers 5 and over.
There have been 2 accidents from 53 selections for a profit of $260.62. From the five days of listing the selections here there has not yet been a losing day.

As previously stated, this might just be one of those anomalies and may right itself sooner or later.

Today's selections are:

Nos 1 to 4

Canberra
6/4
7/2

Port mac
1/2

W'bool
5/3
8/2


Nos 5 and higher

Port Mac
3/6
5/9
6/5

Mackay
3/5
5/6
6/5

Canberra
5/8

W'bool
3/6
6/5

Correction - Mackay R5 is a no-bet race because there is a scratching reducing the field to 9 runners. Canberra R5 is also a no-bet race for the same reason.

Thanks again, Michael --- and Good Luck today. As I calculated things the three possibles for yesterday (if there had been a Betfair available) all saluted for your system too.

Couple of questions: the late scratches? Do you tend to just dismiss them? If you don't it negates the ease of working things out early and then "forgetting" about the choices; and

have you any idea of the average return? Realise it depends on the outlay but
let's say using the $30.00 liability you have given as an example?

Regarding the last mentioned, there is a very successful laying site in England where the POT is just over 5% based on BSP. I know it is early days; but does that seem to you realistic? (Actually, according to my calcs you are doing better than that --- 6-7%???

Hi, Merriguy.

Thanks for yesterday's results, I hadn't checked them.

I ignore late scratchings if they are not shown on the TAB when I identify the selections, which is generally between 11 a. m. and 12. I then lay them on S.P. and hope for the best.

I don't know what the average profit per race is, but probably most of them have a S.P. price in single figures. My nett biggest profit was $33.72 on Sat when the selection was odds-on and got beaten.

I don't see why a 5% POT would be unrealistic, particularly if the selection method is sound.

My number 5 and higher method is currently showing a 16% POT.

Not a bad day today.

Nos.1 to 4.

There were 2 accidents for a loss of $40.31. Fortunately I didn't lay them, and from tomorrow I'll no longer look at them. I don't think they would show a profit if bet from the start, instead of laying because the accidents have been at small prices.

Nos.5 and higher.

Today there were 7 selections for 7 smiles for a profit of $43.15.

Today's selections are:

Eagle Farm
7/6

Sandown
3/7

Strathalbyn
1/8
4/5

Warwick Farm
6/7
7/10

When Ascot is available I'll list the selections.

Only one selection at Ascot today:

8/5

Thanks again Michael --- though I think Warwick Farm should be Race 6 No. 5.

Was doing these last night and could not help thinking that there must be some other candidates to be found. There are only 7 (if the one from Ascot qualifies) out of about 250 starters this afternoon!

I realise that this can be a good thing, and that many sites might only give one or two selections a day; but.....

Perhaps we have to extend our boundaries a little (somehow). THe one thing I often think about is the remarks of Maria --- yes, that Maria, --- indicationg that her father and some other of his friends (apparently knowledgable punters) maintained that she was not realising her full potential as a layer because she did not go out beyond $11.00.

Hi, Merriguy. Warwick R6 no. 5 is a scratching. No.7 is the next highest and is under 200 points, so it becomes the selection.

About extending our boundaries:- how about we relax the 199.50 points rule and have no limit on the total points (for test purposes only), but only with TAB numbers 5 and higher?

Today, these selections would be:

Ascot
5/8 (223 points)

Eagle Farm
1/9 (231)
3/11 (304 - this is a very high total)

Strathalbyn
9/7 (216)

We'll see how they go.

I won't check previous results because they can become quite skewered after the races.

Thanks for the explanation about the scratching. Missed that.

Will be interesting to see how that new twist pans out (that's a mixed metaphor for you!). The Strathalbyn selection was a good start to the day.

Yes, Merriguy, the first selection was a good start to the day.

Now E. Farm 3/11 is also an accident. Its S.P. price was $1.66 which gives a profit of $43.18, this includes Betfair's 5% commission - not bad!!!

Hopefully the success will continue, even though there's still no logical reason.

Correction - should read: "now E. Farm 3/11 is also a non-accident" (or smile). That's a huge difference to what I said. I'll again blame it on the pain killers for my bad back.

Today there were 6 smiles from 7 selections for a profit of $9.68.

From the test method of 200 points-plus there were 2 smiles from 4 selections for a loss of $9.82.

Have to study things a bit more closely in spreading the boundaries it seems. Actually the system has thrown up quite a few close shaves. Still thats O.K.. However I must admit I get annoyed when one of the picks wins; but only pays 50 or 60 cents!! Seems a lot of risk/effort for nothing.

I'm persevering with the 200-plus points. Its too early to tell if it's got merit or should be sent to the scrapheap. And I suppose its somewhat heartening that yesterday's loss was not too damaging in spite of a high 50% accident rate.

Yes, sometimes the profit on a race can be very small. Since Monday there have been 16 smiles but only two of them have produced a profit of under $1.00, whilst nine of them with a profit of over $5.00. Seeing that most of the selections are high in the market, some even start fave, that its not surprising there have been close shaves. But what I find surprising is that there have been only three accidents from 67 selections. Of course that could easily change from today especially as there is no real logic to it.

Fingers crossed.

Today's selections are:

Hawkesbury
8/5

Ballarat
6/5
8/5


200 Pointers

Hawkesbury
2/11
5/5

Ballarat
5/8


When the scratchings for Bunbury are known I'll list the selections.

Bunbury selections:
8/8


200 Pointers
1/7 (456 points)
2/14
3/9

Still doing remarkably well, Michael --- great to see.

I have been trying to work out a way of getting a better return on outlay. Again today, while great wins small (relative) returns. I wonder if we can't modify Maria's staking plan and its "bands" to apply them to your successful idea.

With the BSP you have no idea what the return on any outlay may be --- though I feel we are averaging about $5.00 per bet, which means that any accident will cost about six wins to offset.

What if we took the pre-post in the Telegraph and used that as our band indicator? In other words using that to indicate our choices. We don't know how she chose her picks; but it does seem that your idea is giving a great percentage return and it would be a pity not to profit by it.

I realize that there are plenty of "What ifs" in what I have said, but....

I'm not sure how to maximize the profit, if possible. I've for quite sometime now looked at the Telegraph pre-post market for different systems but their prices are generally very inconsistent, even in small fields.

For the time being I expect to leave the method as it is, unless you or someone comes up with an idea. I'm more concerned about the results continuing, and at the same time amazed that it is continuing to be successful.


Today there were four smiles from the four selections for a profit of $16.40.

And for the 199.50-plus method there were six smiles from the six selections for a profit of $25.45. Compensates for yesterday's loss and puts the method in profit.

P.S. - the only idea I've got about your suggestion is to somehow apply the neural price to the selection. I might have to think about it.

I guess one can be too greedy!! One can always up the liability if things keep going so well --- and keep on being successful, of course. I have been writing down the neurals for each selection; but haven't analysed them yet.

Anyway more than enough to do today with NINE meetings. Good luck.

Merriguy, here's an idea that has been running in my mind concerning the method.

Seeing that the top horse in the neural rating has been performing so badly one would expect this might also apply to the more-fancied horses in the ratings.

I'm considering laying every horse in the qualifying races, and the liability will be on a sliding scale, say, of $5.

The concept is that the biggest outsider in the neural market will have the minimum S.P. liability of $30, then the next biggest outsider will have $35, and so on until the fave in the neural market has the highest liability.

So, if there are 12 horses in the race, the liability will be $85. Of course the winner/accident will obviously be struck, but there'll also be 11 horses that each will provide a profit. The worst return will be if the neural fave wins because it will have the highest liability, but the method so far shows the neural fave does not have a good record of winning.

I'm hoping the inaccuracy of the neurals will provide a nett profit using this rough version of dutch-laying.

I don't know if I will pursue the above method, but at the moment I'm considering it.

Today's selections are:

Tamworth
7/7

Pakenham
1/7
2/9
5/13
7/6
9/10

Ipswich
3/11
5/10

Sun Coast
4/9

Canterbury
5/6


200 POINTS

Tamworth
2/7
6/5

Sun Coast
3/6

Albury
1/16
2/9
3/9

Canterbury
4/6


When Geraldton scratchings are known I'll list the selections.

Couple of disagreements, Michael;

Pak should be 1/12, not 1/7 I think.

And Ipswich 4/12 and 7/8 qualify don't they?

As do Moonee Valley 4/8 and 8/9; and Cant 2/13 and 7/14???

Just did the evening meetings in a hurry to match with yours (was going to do them at my leisure this afternoon!!). So could have made a mistake or two.

Hi, merriguy.

Pakenham 1/12 - I had correctly written the selection as no.12 on my sheet that I identify the selections. Don't know what went wrong. I layed no.12 and made a profit of $10.18

Ipswich 4/12 - the scratchings make it a no-race.

Ipswich 7/8 - yes, it is a selection for the 200 Points method.

M.Valley 4/8 - the scratchings make it a no race.

M.Valley 8/9 - yes it is a selection for the 200 points method.

Canterbury 2/13 - I decided not be bet on the race because all the horses are having their first race start. If this happens again I will say so when listing the selections.

Canterbury 7/14 - its scratched, and the next highest ranked horse was no.1.

As a matter of interest with the neurals, not all venues are loaded with the scratchings - I don't know why.

Geraldton
5/8
7/5

200 POINTS
8/8

Thanks, Michael. Sooner or later I'll remember the full consequence of scratchings!

Good start to the day.

And sooner or later I'll remember to double-check the selections, with or without my bad back.

The system has finally lost. There were 2 accidents from 7 selections for a loss of $37.28.


200 POINTS.

A good result today. There was 1 accident from 11 selections for a profit of $85.14. Fortunately I layed them, so I had a winning day.

Today's selections are:

Dombeen
7/6

Morphetville
5/5

Newcastle
7/12

Grafton
4/8

Hobart
1/5
4/9

Gold Coast
1/11
2/6
7/11
8/9


200 POINTS

Grafton
1/11 - already run- it was an accident. Not a good way to start the day!!!

Dombeen
3/7
6/16

Hobart
5/9

Gold Coast
3/6 (429 points).

Ascot to follow.