Do these results sound okay?

No filters applied to system I reviewed this morning so surely this one won't crash and burn like all the others did!!

Over 40 weeks:
Selections 195
Return $299 (best final odds of IASF or NSWTab, top fluc would be + $40)
Winners 44
Other places 46 (26 2nds, 20 3rds)
No places 105
Strike Rate 22.56%
APW $6.80
Top 3 Collects $13.60, $11.60, $11.30
Top 3 Other Places $12.00, $12.00, $11.00

Does not involve betting moves or after the fact selections, I have my selection in the morning after scratchings.

Would anyone put there hardearned on this? Or wait a little while longer?
Am a little worried about the winners to places ratio..

Thoughts much appreciated.

sahasastar, looks pretty good to me, nearly 200 selections is a fairly good trial. My only thought is as long as some part of the selection process doesn't involve something that can change, e.g. Must be in some tipsters top 3 , or ridden by a particular Jockey etc. I mean the tipster might have gone through a purple patch, same with the Jockey etc. Otherwise I say go for with a limited bank and have some fun.

They are very impressive results.

As for the "relatively" small sample of selections and short period of testing:- a very well known horse racing publication often tests their for-sale systems over a period of approximately two years in which there are several hundred selections. Then when sold, the system performs poorly. I have read more than once that when the rules are tested by a buyer with a large data base the results thrown up by the data base disagree markedly and unfavourably with those listed in the publication's sales blurb.

So I would say the system certainly has potential, and I would not be worried by the number of selections, 195 is more than enough for me, unless of course there are factors in the rules that Partypooper has described.

Correct Michael.

Also the systems are often based on "hazard results", one or two bolters, which is the reason they will always fail!

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 400,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/04/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

If you have a system where the selections appear from a formula, if the formula is any good, the only thing that makes sense is win only.

Plausibly such a system doesn't exist.

Crash, whoever you is, you say it right about ratios keeping you stable when using race day judgement. I used 1 to 5 today (one bet it came second) but could not work out what differentiation you were making between 1 - 5 and 1 - 6.



1 to 5 is 1.20 the place to break even. 1 to 6 is 1.16. When you get down to that level, you aren't talking value and probably aren't betting.

What you are trying to do with ratio betting is keeping your self happy when they run second or third. The higher the ratio though, (if you are betting a percenatge of a bank) the more you cut into your profit when you jag a winner.

__________________
pipped at the post

I think that the ratio Crash is referring to is 1 unit the win & 5 or 6 units the place - it has little to do with taking $1.16 or $1.20 the place.

There are many place bettors, ones you never hear of, that make a nice little earner out of what they do & that's why it is still the second most popular way of betting.

Sahasta,have you tried 1x4,win and place? Cheers.

i think you should share it will the forum and get all of our opinions! hehehe

__________________
LOve all sports.

Captain Charger, somewhere amongst my many posts you will find me knocking the idea of 1x4 (or 1x anything) my thinking at the time was that you would still have to show a profit at levels AND a profit at levels for the place.
However since then I've looked at it closer and can see a real advantage when encountering losing runs, i.e. say your using a % of the bank, just for arguments sake 2%, so you would divide that $figure by 5 and place 1x4, never decreasing, the advantage comes in because although you may have long losining runs for the win, the place component can carry you through to the next run of successes (wins)
so I think I am converted! though I'm doing more research to see the optium mix, i.e. 1x1, 1x2, 1x3, etc etc

Anyone else with thoughts on this one?

Party,

Somewhere -- a long way back, perhaps two or three years ago -- there was an indication by someone (if I remember rightly) claiming that 1:5 was the best ratio.

I have often thought of that when various people indicate 1:4 is the way to go. I'm almost certain that figures were given to back up the claim. I have made some effort to find the thread through the good 'search' facility on the forum; but it is hard to narrow things down. 'Ratio for a place' or the like just returns too many possibilities.

I'm pretty sure that the figures showed that straight up returned the best of all, as you would expect; but, besides the thoughts that you gave above, there is the very real 'psychological benefit' (for want of another term) in receiving a return on a regular basis --- for myself anyway.