Gday all.

The idea of betting to win $50 with a $3000 bank is hypothetical reasonable values that I chose. Its no use trying to worry about not having enough money on the big one Shaun. The idea is slow and steady, building it up $50 at a time. Can I put this one to you. I agree that it is possible for a freakish run of outs to happen, but highly unlikely with these numbers. You could always set a minimum odds for abet if it was too short. This is probably a really good idea. The risk might far outweigh the chances of say Lonhro or Special Harmony getting up if they were say number one in question.Wouldnt it be feasible to suggest that with 1,2,3 running in the system winning at a mininmum combined 40% of the time, wouldnt the bank be sufficient to handle this long run of outs.What do you think the chances are of any of these three numbers not winning for say even five or six race meetings.What also would be the chances of say 4,5 or even 6 odds on favourites,all say number one,all getting beaten and all this occurring at a time when the number one was experiencing a long run of outs? This is pretty slim stuff. Many of the contributing losers to a sequence lose because of their lower ability reflected in their higher odds. What are you thoughts guys. This system, with the results I have gathered so far would work equally well, if not better in Sydney. I suppose the system could be applied to just Saturday or Wedneday metro meetings, because Id reckon the handicappers grade the horses more accurately, and hence horses of greater experience and ability can and do quite often wear the number one two or three.Oh well I've left you much to comment on dudes so I think I'm off to bed.

Goodnight megamoos

Hi Meg
I hear what you say that with your stats on theses numbers it might be highly unlikley to have a freak run of outs but it will happen, man trust me.
What i reckon is the time to play with real money and see how you go because doing it just on paper is and never will be the same as seeing your bank dwindle away at a fast rate especialy after eight losses or more in a row.
Mate im just trying to warn you and other punters unless you have a endless bank be warned, you are going into very dangerous waters if you cant swim against the current you WILL drown.
Play with real money, see how it goes. That is the only way..

GD4TH

[ This Message was edited by: good 4th on 2004-04-06 08:17 ]

If what you say is true.....avoid WFA races and set weights races because the handicapper has nothing to do with it.....

Thanks for all that good 4th, but you didnt answer any of those questions I suggested. What would be the chances?

Cheers megamoos

Megamoos,

I gave this system a crack 'realtime' with cash today and it worked as follows -

23 races (Geelong, Port Macquarie, Mackay)

#1 G4 M4 PM8
#2 G2 G8
#3 G1 M1 G4 PM6

The questions it raised were as follows (you haven't made it transparently clear how you would bet these beyond the paper trade) -

1. Do we only bet on races with at least 8 starters? What if there is 7 because 1,2 or 3 were scratched?

2. What if 1,2 or 3 are scratched? Do we just pass over it and try to win (using your example) $50 on the following race?

3. At the end of the day you have an open debt on at least 2 of the saddleclothes..... Do you start from scratch the following day or continue from where you left-off? (assuming the bank hasn't been hammered during the day).

4. Do we bet in sequence going from race-to-race at each of the venues on a given day (race 1 Geelong followed by Macquarie Race 1 for example), or do we just concentrate on the one track?

The other point I wanted to make is that with the time being so tight between some of the races due to those unpredictable problems that can occur on-track (resulting in race times being re-jigged), working out what to bet on 1,2 and 3 and placing the bet gets pretty stressful.

Should we pick 2 race venues such that there is enough time to do the maths and get the bets on (and to cover any potential problems on track)?

Saddlecloth #2 went 18 races before it delivered its second win today (it won in the last race in Geelong.... I thought I had balls for sticking it out). One thing that blew its value out (the size of the bets got a bit scary) was 1 or 2 races where it was favourite or second favourite but didn't win.... I haven't analysed what this might mean to the system but we need to sort it out..... What happens if you hit a race where the amount you need to cover losses and win $50 (for example) reaches a significant amount (30-40% of you bank for example) but because it is the favourite, the win odds on it are only around 2.4-3.0? I had such an experience today and it was only luck that covered me today....

What are your thoughts on this?

- Costanza

[ This Message was edited by: costanza on 2004-04-06 23:58 ]

hi costanza
the bets you had put on would following a price guide help this system at all eg horses $5 to $15 range ?????
cya

hmmm..... nope, I don't think that'd work. We rely on probability to produce 1,2 or 3 within certain intervals and removing a race based on the odds offered would definitely impact the probability of your number coming up.

I know that Megamoos has said previously that he wouldn't disguard a horse in saddlecloth 1,2 or 3 even if its odds indicated that it was the dog of the field, but I did do this on at least two races yesterday where the odds obviously articulated that the horse wasn't nearly close to the quality of the rest of the field (both subsequently came towards the end of their respects field).

- Costanza

[ This Message was edited by: costanza on 2004-04-07 08:39 ]

Not wanting to sound negative, but ......
this will send you straight to the poor house, or nut house. Any LOSS CHASING method that follows certain numbers, weights, barriers, jockeys, trainers, colours, position in betting, letters in name, words in name, last start finish, number of days since last start, or any grouping of any of the above etc ad infinitum, will not work. Unless you have a bottomless bank & a bookie who will take you on.

Hi guys. I've been thinking about things a bit and i have to agree. To be realistic I reckon that betting on the short priced horses when the bank owing is low would be okay,because the chances of the $50 would be pretty good. If say I have allocated $1000 bank for each number, then if the bank owing reaches say $500, then a limit should be put into place as a security. Maybe something like 4to1, until the saddlecloth salutes. You can also factor in how well the other two numbers are supporting the system. When I have been testing this system, I have made a healthy bank, so far its like $4500 in profit on paper. The run of outs I checked over where I have had a sequence of 19,23,24 consecutive losses, the odds of the horses I bet on were not that short either,probably 4 in the sequence. I know all of these systems that you can come up with you could do with an endless bank but having looked over a lot of race results I can see one thing. With the spread of the winners,it appears that 1 to 7 win about 75% of races. Saddlecloth numbers 1 to 3 appear to win at least 40% of races. I've been noting down sydney results too and they are very similar. To really convince myself and probably you guys too is to dig up the old tables of winning saddlecloths for the season that were in the newspaper. about the last 10 years should do the trick. These tables used to have the longest losing sequence as well. In here lies the secret
I dont think its good to bet all over the paplace. The system is being based on melbourne races or sydney races say and to have a separate bank with sydney would be the only way to go really.

hey costanza. I need to stress that I dont think this system would support just betting from race to race or venue to venue.I'm just applying one bank to Victorian races. If any of the numbers are scratched thats cool.That number is just frozen til the next race and you bet on the other two.The system runs constantly hopefully, so the bank chasing at the end of the day continues over

ooroo