Here's a simple plan that's showing strong POT

RULES
Target races with 6 runners exactly.

Must be live market 3rd fav.

Bet 1/75th of bank.
Level stakes.

RESULT
19%SR
23% POT

There were 442 selections for the System
There were 430 races for the System
There were 86 Winners for the System for a strike rate of 19.46%
There were $543.81 returned for WIN (after 5% commission) which means a Profit or loss of $101.81 or a percentage profit/loss of 23.03%

The Rules used were : priceRank < 90 and priceRank = 3 and runners = 6

__________________
Cheers.

I see no reason to restrict selctions to races with exactly 6 starters, the reasoning can only be because backfitting through UB's site proved this most profitable.

Id have a hard time having faith in this system.

I know what you mean.
You would think 7 would work , as would 5.

But best if you don't agree with a members posts you just let it be.
I have been banned on many occasions trying to point out similar.
What happens is the member gets offended or gets his/her feelings hurt and dobs you in for being nasty.

And I enjoy reading your Posts Dale and would like you to stay.
Not many posts from you , but less is more where quality is concerned.

I agree Dale. A classic case of backfitting which has as much logic as picking a horse with the letter R in its name. Very confusing for any newbie that is looking for advise. I'm amazed that ideas or 'systems' like that get printed.

Or......

Perhaps the first two fav's in small fields are overbet?

The Schmile

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

Like any ideas put forward , that one disagrees with the findings , then put forward your own findings that you find more agreeable.

There are only 2 rules ,so the chances of repeating itself would be very high.

3rd Favs stat is 15% across all field sizes.
So 19% would not be unreasonable with just 6 runners.
What's illogical about that?

How many times has one seen the rank outsider get up in 5 horse races?
Does one wish to argue that that is not logical because they should fall over at the same rate as a 15 horse field?


Past results were used because future results are impossible.
If we presented an idea that has shown to fail in the past data , then why on earth would any one be even half interested , every one uses back data to check ideas , even the current form student looks at the past for what it can possible do in the future.

"Very confusing for any newbie that is looking for advise. I'm amazed that ideas or 'systems' like that get printed."

Please say your joking.

I am amazed anyone would say that on a Punting Forum where findings are to be encouraged , otherwise you wont have a Forum, not stifled by comments like that
As if you are paying money or something.
Here is a system presented, FREE, based on past data
Give us a system that works then, that has proven to fail on past data.

Can I ask why some are so concerned about adult Newbies of voting age & their punting antics..

May as well have a go at all the free tipsters out there, that select heaps of losers with a track record of a level stakes loss, year after year.
At the same time, go around to all the TABs & rip down the tipping sheets.
Grab guys by their arm as they are going into the TAB so as to protect them from the dangers of taking poor value .
Make sure you duck in the process.



Sorry...But only a fool would start betting serious money on anything, without doing their own due diligence checks first, based on back data , then giving it a dry run after that.


Please!
We have shared a finding for others to follow up on, because it is a Punting Forum , that's what Forums do
Stats courtesy of the brilliant System Checker of UB , which is, by the way, also free.

Its up to the individual to see if its their speed or not.
Some of the prices of these 3rd favs are incredible
e.g. $10.00+
Because the 2 Favs are often over bet & if they both fall over , which frequently do , then that leaves the 3rd fav a chance at good odds to do something , which they have shown to do, 19% of the time, at juicy prices.

__________________
Cheers.

You are avoiding the issue that the good Member Dale has raised.
Why 6 runners?
Why not 7 runners as well?
And 5 Runners?
Both 5 and 7 are small Fields , maybe not so much 7.
But why not 5?

In your long reply you argue that "How many times has one seen the rank outsider get up in 5 horse races?"
Perhaps this might be worth testing in UB's System Builder.

2 Rules
Rankest animal
5 horse Field

Hi Moeee,

I checked UB's tester with the 3rd fav in 5 horse fields and that also made a profit. In 7 horse fields there was a slight loss.

The Schmile

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

Exactly!

Its back fitting, even if its only you and I that see it Moeee.

3rd Fav, NSW TAB, January 2011 - April 2012.

Bets: 19807
Wins: 2674
S/R: 13.50%
Return: $16356.60
Ave Win Div: $6.12
Loss: $3450.40 (17.40%)

Field Size:
3. +$1.90 +19%
4. -$17.80 -17%
5. -$64.00 -20%
6. -$94.20 -11%
7. -$355.10 -25%
8. -$393.00 -20%
9. -$405.60 -17%
10. -$435.10 -15%
11. -$518.20 -20%
12. -$607.20 -21%
13. -$218.80 -13%
14. -$285.50 -16%
15. +$21.60 +16%
16. -$75.80 -18%
17. +$4.30 +23%
18. -$5.90 -31%

The 3rd Fav will vary between different betting agencies. Individuals can draw their own conclusions.