most of us will have tried a system, and then dumped it - for a variety of reasons.
Often, with a bit of tweaking, or just by looking at it through different eyes, the system may be made to work better and could actually be successful.

I'd like to propose we create a little "systems" bank with forum members donating "dead" or discarded systems they have used for the rest of the group to toy with and research.

All results should be published to the group and if we find something can be made useful we can all put a few razoos on it and enjoy.

So, I shall donate a few that I have played around with in the past and any thoughts on those systems are welcome. And if anyone can make one work, even better.

System 1...
greyhound trifecta system

after looking at the random nature of many greyhound results and the regularity of outsiders winning I decided (last year) to research a trifecta system whereby I selected the outsider for first, the favourite for second and the field for third.

It paid some ripper dividends, my best being about $2000 if my memory serves correctly.

But...(there is always a but !)
I didnt know how to reduce the number of races I was betting on. I was sitting here betting on every greyhound race every day except those races where there were less than 8 runners.
For a few months I made money, averaging a profit of around 50% overall but it was physical hell and I couldnt stay up for the very last races so often I had to bet in advance if I was still going.

I used to stop the moment I had my one good divvie for the day and I would use the prices as shown a minute or two before the race.
On most days I would get my money back but it was too much like hard work and the moment I went into a short downturn I bailed out to preserve my moolah.

In my opinion the problem with this system was not being able to figure out which races to leave out.

if someone can make such a system work, go for it.

After reading another post today, I also believe this kind of system would work at the trots but, again, it needs research.

System no. 2
maiden races
I always tend to go where the mainstream views say not to - I sense there is more value there.
A while ago I noticed a trend with maiden races that I worked on and used for a while.
I noticed that often the person in the paper making their selections would pick the winner amongst his three picks when that runner had no previous form. And often that horse would pay a very healthy price since the public had nothing to go on.
I picked up a few $30 horses in this way and the wins came pretty regularly.
Again, a momentary slump saw me head off in another direction so I never looked into this beyond a few months. But I suspect there is food for thought here.
This system did not seem to work well in NSW.

System 3.

DFS ratings
for those of you who use the NSW TAB you will be aware of the free DFS ratings we get.
I noticed that picking those horses that ranked top in time and class seemed to produce good results but because I dont understand classes in racing too well I felt that there would have been races I should have left out.

This method also seemed to work better in country races than in the city and should have more legs in it if one puts the time into it.


ok, there you go...

three disused systems that are aching for new life from someone with another way of looking at things.

I might finally add that I do feel that whilst most of us use time and class and form to base our selections, that there is room for purely mathematical systems that dont care less about form and I would strongly encourage any one with ideas in this area to throw them around to see what we can come up with .
Even the idea that the fav comes first the most often etc... should open the gate to logical conclusions that allow for profitable betting. I just have to get my head around it a little more... :smile:

all thoughts welcome

see ya
Every Topic


[ This Message was edited by: Every Topic on 2002-12-12 17:49 ]

Great topic - Every Topic (forgive the pun).

The downfall of many a system is, as you say, not finding the winners, but eliminating the losers and the races which are not good betting.

Often with a very firm, even odds on favourite in a field, the price of the "outsiders" is way over what it should be.
One thing I have done in the past is to do the form without the odds on pop included to see just how far over the odds your choice would have been if the hotpot wasn't there.

Now, the problem here is that the odds on pop is often odds on for a reason, but from a value angle, your outsider might be a better bet.

The actual result has to be seen not from the one race but in longterm view.

So I would include the outsider in odds on fields or small fields, as sometimes there is great value, as the horse is not a "bolter" but actually has a realistic chance of winning.

Never overlook the fact that the horse, dog, trotter or fly with the best form and class doesn't always win. Bad luck in running should never be underestimated.

In other words, "If the odds on pop gets a bump, a check, gets trapped wide, is my outsider hopeless or has it a real chance?"

I'll have some systems to provide to this topic later.

Every topic........good idea mate!Just had to throw my hat in the ring here!Here is an old "dead"purely mechanical system that I played around with some years ago with some degree of success.Scan each race on any program,any day of the week.Look for any horse that has identical placings at it's last three starts,i.e.222/333/444/555/666/777.I used to cut it off at 777,and never bet on 111.Another "golden oldie".In open handicaps and Welters,add the prepost odds to the weight to be carried.Lowest total is the selection,backed on an each way basis,prices permitting.Do not take apprentice allowance into account,Another one...In handicaps with 15 or more runners,concentrate on the top 6 in the weights.In handicaps with 12,13,14 runners concentrate on the top 5 in the weights.In races with 10 or 11 runners concentrate on the top 4.To qualify further,the horse must have finished 1st,2nd,3rd or 4th in at least TWO of it's last 4 starts.Any contender must have had it's last run within the last 21 days.For any contenders remaining,add up the form figures of it's last 4 starts.the horse with the lowest total is the selection.Good luck!!

with the d.f.s.ratings why not go to the better class races.same criteria but field strength figures of -20 to +1.5.races class 6 0r better.

Here's one that I used with some sucess for a while but then went off on a tangent.
Sydney and Melbourne only Sat only. Staring at race one,(then race 2 if no selection etc) and working down the TAB numbers (from no 1) the selection is the first horse that won both it's last two races. So a maximum of 100 bets per year. Just for fun todays bets are SR3-3 and MR1-2
NB The selection is the first horse that won its last 2 RACES (not 3 more)

another 2 winners Saturday with the above, although one a bit skinny

Something I've been looking at recently is backing a number of horses in races where a lot of horses are resuming (i.e 1st or 2nd up). My rationale is that these races are unpredictable and hence throw up many long priced winners. For the purposes of my research I looked at fields of 13+ with 5+ horses first/2nd up. In the short time that I've looked at this it has thrown up some remarkable winners in my top 6.
Most recent good results have been Umanoolla ($71 NSW) and French Revolution ($58) both on the same day at Adelaide (not a bad double return for a $36 outlay). Other good winners in the last 12 months have included Crystal Finale ($38), Fighting Harada ($70 +). THere have been many races where the stake was returned (i.e. a small amount + or -) Needless to say all of this is in retrospect and I didn't have the money on.
For anyone interested there is one bettable race today, Adelaide race 7 which I have rated 12, 14, 2, 3, 9, 16.

Thanks for tge tips, Percentum. Decided to back each of your selections for a few dollars --- and Shocks came home at $25.10 in NSW!!!

Glad you did Merriguy. Has a good strike rate (naturally backing 6 runners).
Must do more research on it though.
Have Wizards back to 1992 so it's a matter of finding the time.

Had a chance to do a bit more research on this. Randomly grabbed my 1994 pile of Wizards. Flat backing of top 6 resulted in an approx. 12% loss. There were, however, many good winners and to back 6 and get this result reveals, I believe, that there is some merit in concentrating on the events that fall into this category.
I think that if one were to consider the top 6 in my ratings but only back those showing $25 + that a good profit could be made.
Due to time pressures many people fall into the 'put on in the morning and forget about category' (myself included unfortunately).
Clearly these results show that the method will not return an overall profit if handled in this way. Nevertheless, as it only usually involves one or two races a day this does not mean a full Saturday of screen watching,
rather about 10 - 20 minutes. My sample year had none of the huge results of 2002 as listed in my earlier posting. I'll keep posting these in bettable races if anyone is interested. Basically what this is doing is lessening the outlay (i.e. number of horses backed - remember, anything under $25 doesn't get backed) but still retaining those lovely long priced winners.
Essentially what I'm doing is a form of punting 'big game hunting'i.e. trying to find races which throw up big dividends.
There are about a dozen races a year (group & listed with 15+ starters) which have shown 100 % + profits every year except 1992 and 2002 backing my top 9 to win and standing out the top 6 with the field in quinellas.
Even better results with trifectas surrounding the top 2 with the top 16 (outlay $1260). Trouble is the outlay and the impact of flexibetting on NSW dividends
(see my much earlier postings if they still exist). I think that the Vic Tab would be the way to go here. Anyone interested in forming a syndicate to have a go at these?

Hey Every Topic,

You have to be careful about assumptions. Favourites do not come in more often than the rest of the field. And even that depends on the class, type, etc. of the race. It can vary from 14% to 51%! On average it's about 33% (http://www.adrianmassey.co.uk).

On the opposite end of that scale, 74% of horses at 1/2 or less come in. So how about a mathematical approach?

In races where the horse is not odds on (around evens or better) and the tipsters can't seem to agree on who is the best you have some tasty uncertainty. Dutch all but the favourite and the long shot with an expected return of 5% of your bank.

Either that or leave the racing form in front of you while drinking coffee. If there are any drips, take that horse. Someone else tried giving his 2-year-old a pen and leaving the paper in front of him. Week 1 = 27% return. Week 2 = 100% loss. Some variability in that approach that is hard to live with. :lol:

-Duck

The coffee method sounds promising. Would it work as well with decaffeinated?
Thgis is a bit like a system I meant to follow up several years ago but Sportsman and the Wizard couldn't supply the hard data required to research it comprehensively.
I revolved around backing the horses of certain strappers when they (the strappers) were first up from a spell (i.e. returning from their annual leave). Nowadays this could probably be refined and one could concentrate only on those strappers resuming from stress leave on heavy tracks.

Dear Mr Duck,

what I actually wrote was...
"Even the idea that the fav comes first the most often etc... should open the gate to logical conclusions that allow for profitable betting. I just have to get my head around it a little more"
(the etc in the above should not be glossed over)

this is not the same as your assertion that I said the fav comes in more often than the rest of the field.

I am not interested in the rest of the field.
I am interested in being correct more often than is necessary to make a profit.

At the time I wrote the original post I had played around with a few mathematical options - when I say mathematical I dont mean picking the field or many runners, but picking one runner in a race with no regard to form whatsoever - because in my ever so humble opinion I am now convinced that the mass of punting money is the truest indication of form, generally, and I see no point in arguing with it or fighting against it.

Finally after trying to come to grips with this in many ways I am now confident that I can do it. If you see me driving around in a new Porsche and living in a palace next Christmas you will know I succeeded :smile:

Last week someone posted their guarantee to winning every bet -interestingly my method is similar to that, but more modified, and I was amazed at how many thought the post was a joke !

Sometimes it pays to have an open mind...

before someone jumps up and down and says " tell me about it!!!", allow me to reply by saying it took me a lot of ************ing around to figure this out. Anyone with an open mind and prepared to throw a few ideas around will also find mathematical non form based systems of their own.

A good starting point would be to read the thread of last week, and read it carefully and with an open mind. Dont copy it, look at it from all angles and apply logic to the suggestions made.
There is great profit in that post!

in fact, my version of it is running at a smidgen over 50% POT and most of the time I have made my dough on the first race.

If I never have to look another form guide in the face again I will be a happy man.

see ya
Every Topic

Ok - let me take an educated guess at your system:

1. Selection is tote favourite just before jump time.
2. Staking system is a loss chasing system aiming to recover any losses and make a profit with next selection.
3. Either stop after first win for the day or revert back to base bet and keep going (in this case carry forward any losses at end of day to first bet on next day).

There are probably a few additional rules to deal with equal favourites or if favourite is shorter than a cut-off price.

System will always give a profit unless bet size gets out of control before a favourite wins for the day.

If this is roughly correct then the thing you need to work out is how many losing bets can you have before the bet size exceeds your limit and how likely is this to occur. Using a loss-chasing progression on favourites can increase bet size VERY quickly, particularly if you include odds-on favourites (your bet size can more than double with each loser) - from a base bet of $10 you could easily be betting $1000 after a dozen losers. When I did some research on favourites last year I managed to find one day when no favourites won at the 3 TAB meetings run (24 races) - could you withstand a 24 race losing streak?

Every Topic
I too use a mathematical non form based 'system', that has won every year since I first used it on 19/11/88, even though many have told me it's impossible & can't work!!
Go for it, think outside the punting square.

:smile:

thanks Mark, yes there is more than 1 way to slay the beast :smile:

Becareful...
not playing favourites although I suppose a few of them are the favourite.
And yes there are price cutoffs.
Of course if one is chasing the winner then it might involve longer losing streaks, but if one is chasing placegetters then the losing streaks become a lot shorter, dont they!

there is nothing wrong with loss chasing mechanisms if applied to the correct data and when also adding a stop.

of course, each to their own. One should use whatever suits their personality.

see ya
Every Topic

Hey, Every Topic, didn't mean to offend if it seemed that way. I'm all for any approach you suggest and willing to help any way I can. I was serious about the dutching thing. I really don't think I'm too far off with it. Ask around here and folks will tell you I'll put together spreadsheets, databases, calculations, whatever. I certainly do have an open mind, no worries there.

As for mathematical methods, that's what I'm looking for. Actually, I blame Mark for getting me started on this! I've been working with folks on the UK site. There's some great resources and databases for UK.

And if all this doesn't work I'll have to go begging back to Mark. :grin: I'll figure this out yet!

Duck, let me give you an example of what I refer to as mathematical systems...
I use one for thoroughbreds and trots and I'm sure you could also do it for greyhounds.

Last night using the trots method, 11 races 9 winning placegetters - minimum price $1.40, best price $2.50 and double on the two losing bets.

I'll take it , thanks. No form, no research - just logic.
Very simple, very effective.


non racing example - NBA
after the first month I look at the spread records of the top half a dozen teams. Any suspect teams I ditch and from then on I bet the spread for each of those teams every day they play.
I dont care who they play or where, I bet them. I dont care if they win or lose.

If they win, I bet the same unit the next time they play.
If they lose I triple the bet for the next game, this guarantess that I win every bet regardless of whether the team makes the spread or not.
Unlike dice throwing, spreads are manipulated to prevent streaks so it works in your favour.
Longest losing streak - 3.

this is not rocket science, but I suspect it offends some people who would like to see themselves as experts in selecting winners.
I , personally, just want to make the money :smile:

see ya
Every Topic

i will give you my old mums system but will make no comment on it as i reckon its b.s but she loved it as well as arguing the toss about it.bet the grey horse if its priced between 2/1 and 11/2.

Darkydog - I don't think my mother ever placed a bet except for the Melbourne Cup each year but she used the same system - bet on the grey one! :smile:

BeCareful... I phoned the ACTTAB and they sent me a copy of the system I was telling you about. If you would like a copy please let me know and I'll work out the best way to get it to you..

After reading Every Topic's post, I made this hypothesis. urh idea.

Instead of paper, use the race callers ( Radio 2ky site selections). Take the top two selections, and qualify them if the last start of any of the two selections raced 6th or WORSE last start.

This shows evidence of no form yet it has been vouched.

Result for this weekend using Unitab site was 5 winners from 18 selections (including Ascot and excluding NZ) for a healthy $23.30 sum. No progressions done.

Any thoughts or afterthoughts on this is very welcome.

Every Topic, you hit it on the head there. I don't want to be remembered as the guy who knew his horses. I want to be remembered as the guy who knew his bank manager!

Unlike my father-in-law who wants to be known as the guy who lived to be 100 and was shot by a jealous husband.

The Duck wrote...
"Unlike my father-in-law who wants to be known as the guy who lived to be 100 and was shot by a jealous husband."

sounds like you've got a little story there, Duck, that you want to tell us all about :smile:

go for it...

see ya
Every TOpic