This is an interesting comment. I'm interested to know if you would recommend the same thing to someone playing roulette or any other game of pure chance.
Of course (and I'm assuming your answer to the last question would be a no) in a game of pure chance the next bets chances are completely unaffected by what went before.
If then, we have a longer than expected run of outs, when we stop our betting and wait for the next winner we should probably be asking ourselves, why are we having this long run of outs. Has the weather changed? Is something else affecting the form or our assessment of it?
Tell me Bhagwan, why do YOU recommend this course of action and on what basis do you recommend restarting betting after a potential run of outs more than twice as large as expected (30 vs 13).

KV

Dale wrote:

"I take offence to your statement that all systems have been discovered, tried, and discarded and then re-discovered, tried, and discarded......... again and again and again and again and again for well over 150 years.

That is akin to saying all possible cures for cancer have been exhausted so we might aswell give up"


That's the problem with problem gamblers; they have an inability to accurately listen....in other words they don't hear what was actually said, they only hear what they want to hear. Dale, I'm saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you have said above. You obviously haven't bothered to correctly read anything that I have written. I have advised people to "MAKE CHANGES" to their gambling habits in order to produce the results that a professional routinely achieves. That's not giving up.... but I suspect you don't understand that, and that's sad; and for some people it's also tragic because they spend their entire lives trying to beat the odds.


Dale wrote:

"stop telling punters like Wesmip to give up betting for life once he is in front"


Again, we have here the inability to listen , or in Dale's case to read. Wesmip has never been advised by me to "give up betting for life once he is in front". The advice I offered was to try his system for a given time of his choice, then accept the profit or loss results for that system and stop using that system for life. If he gets lucky he'll be in front, and that's his only chance to both make a profit from the system and spend some time having fun with his system. If he continues with such a method he's guaranteed to produce a small loss on turnover (provided he places his bets responsibly according to a basic plan, and not haphazardly). So my advice to Wesmip was to eventually cease operating his plan...... it was not "to give up betting for life".


Dale wrote:
"Bhagwan,nice post,you point out one of the many flaws in his logic"


My reply is to Bhagwan .... the reason for this type of statistic is simply it's an anomaly. Any anomaly, and I've seen thousands of them, can present itself over any period, short or long. Any anomaly can last 1 day or 1 week, seemingly disappear for a year then re-appear for 6 months, disappear for another year, re-appear for 2 years or 10 years or 1 week........ etc etc etc. It's impossible to predict an anomaly and if one is to secure long term success this must be fully understood and taken into account regarding one's activities. Wesmip's current researched POT on his 43% strike rate is an example of an extremely common anomaly ( happens time and time again) that hits one square in the face if one understands racing.


To Wesmip....... I think you should just have fun with your betting, bet small and keep it under control. You seem to understand that basic concept. Turning a true profit takes time and experience, and to do it one needs immense committment. It's no different from any other professional occupation be it an architect, lawyer, accountant etc. A hobbyist, who believes he has found the way to the pot of gold (I'm not referring to you), will always struggle. Just have fun and do it for entertainment. I'm happy to contact you privately if you wish, but believe me there's no easy, quick answer. Anyone operating simple, little mechanical systems needs virtually total re-education (if they wish to turn a permanent profit), and that takes years. When a hobby punter understands that, then progress has been made.

Guitar Jim,

Since I can't see your profile can you please email me at aussiestable@yahoo.com.au

I still have some questions on what you mean so anymore information, ie direction to web sites or information would be appreciated.

Thanks

Guitar Jim
you say there needs to be a re-education to learn how a professional punter matches the selection with the staking. You should explaining this point. At present you sound like my mother "why can't we do that?" "Because i said so" "why" "because". Stop preaching and start teaching. If you have a valid point spit it out.

Wesmip1,Not sure if it is still avaioable but the NSW TAb used to sell a CD with past results and prices that may be interesting for runing through your program . all the same , sincerely best of luck and happy punting . good on ya .



John

Hi KennyVictor,
The idea of stopping after say 13 outs with an expected run of outs of 12, was suggested if one felt there selection system had a strong chance of sustaining its current SR.

If for some crazy reason the wheels fall off the system , one may take some comfort that they had stopped at 13 outs saveing some of their punting bank instead of waiting untill all funds are totally exausted.

The down side is one could have 13 outs then one winner then another 13 outs ect. But so as long as the punter is made aware of the possabilities it allows him to create a "what if" plan ,if & when it occures.

It was just one idea , it might not appeal to all , I`m sure there are a million other ideas that may have more appeal.

Cheers.

Hi Guitar Jim,

I think we have both beat our chests long and hard enough,i dont want to continue this behavior.

I agree that almost all simple little mechanical systems are doomed to failure but really it all comes down to the system rules themselves,i'm not going to reveal my angle but it is simplistic it is mechanical and therefore is classed as a system but it is worlds apart from what i bet you are calling a system,here in lies our problem,you are painting all "systems" with the same brush,i prefer to look at them individualy and judge them on the logic and edge over the competition they have.

If a system is based on very sound principles,principles that arent some statistic anomaly that will change with time,i see no reason why it cant turn a profit in the future as long as ones staking approach is sound.

very sad
 

Originally Posted by Guitar Jim

"It's all about averages and the mathematics that apply to the subject."


hmm, if this isnt the greatest line of drivel ive ever read in this place then, well, i duno, im speachless, for f*** sake, with such a great handle jim, how could you possibly be so stupid?

knew a bureau of stats ******** a while back with the same attitude, last i heard he was still on wages, enough said?

Dale and all, just my 2cents worth, we all know there is some truth in what Giutar says as we have all had the system that works only to fall in a hole.

Conversly I feel that some so called system rules are PROVEN commonsense and NOT anomalies such as 30% of favs win (stats going back to the 1800's) of course that means that 70% don't. But also 70-80% of all handicaps are won by one of the top six. Horses racing within 21 days have a much better strike rate (straight out fitness, not an anomaly) Horses that have a win in the last four starts have a definite statistical S/R, horses with a place S/R of 50% or more seem to keep on doing it.

I won't go on but, etc etc, what I'm getting at is that you can narrow down the likely result by "form" and commonsense filters to gain an advantage. Technically it would be a system, but all the parameters based on commonsense, not anomalies.

In fact you could argue that the Handicapper himself is using a system to arrive at the final field in weight order.

heres another 1 cents worth,ive only been mug punting for ten yrs and since i stumbled across this marvelous forum i have seen many good systems i think,i use alot of them but my trouble is i start betting them 1st without waiting 2 see if its going 2 work,what i mean by that is systems dont work every time every day perhaps waiting for your system choice to win at least once to show that it will work that day then have a lash, hope that made sense.