Crash wrote in another thread...


Hi Crash,

sounds like we need to crank up the old "mechanical systems" debate once again.

I am a systems man through and through, and before we get stuck into this debate we really should have an idea what we mean by "mechanical system". To me, a "mechanical system" is one which does not rely on ratings. It's the "horse must have 2121 in it's formline and started within the last 28 days" type rules. "Ratings based systems" are those that are based on ratings. They are most likely "mechanical" in every other sense of the word, except that they also include a ranked ratings selection.

I have made a profit each year for the past 3 financial years based upon systems, both mechanical and ratings based (my first year was only a few months so not a full year). I have doubled my turnover each year as well, again based purely on systems. I couldn't support the level of turnover that I currently have without being even a little bit profitable.

At last count I have some 50 systems currently in work, with about another 10 in the sidelines waiting to prove themselves. Of these 50 systems, about 10 of them are purely mechanical, 10 were purely mechanical but have been "tightened up" a little with ratings, and the rest are ratings based - sensible filters applied to a ratings "top rater" which produces a profit.

Of these 50 systems, only about 20 of them were actually being bet 12 months ago, and only about 5 of them were being bet 24 months ago. I monitor each of my systems (I prefer the word strategy but will stick with system for this thread) very closely, and at the first sign of trouble chuck them.

It's interesting that Nick Mordin in his book "winning without thinking" concluded that mechanical systems *DO* work, it's just that most of them have a use-by date. I have found that 99% of systems support this theory (with many of the use-by dates predating their release).

I note with interest that Davez also said in another thread


I find doing the form tedious - but I can sit up till all hours designing a new system, pulling it to bits and finding out how it works and trying to predict how it will go into the future. Seeing all that hard work come to fruition and picking some good winners is just as enjoyable to me as backing the winner based on form study.

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion

I have a strike rate of about 50%.

50% of the time I know the horses name that I have money on, 50% of the time I don't.
Mechanical is the only way for me. I don't have the patience for doing form of any kind on a consistant basis.
I am going alright at the moment, but will never be 100% confident in what I am doing. There are just too many things that can change. But I believe that is the case with anything involving money. Very few people have a 100% guarantee of consistant wages, whether employed or seeking other financial ventures.
I am happy to ride the wave while it lasts, and realise that I will have to monitor and adapt. I don't believe in throwing away a once profitable system and starting again. Things change, we need to adapt.

Slow night Stebbo ? Me too.

Firstly, so my position on this subject cannot be misconstrued by anyone: I have never said anywhere, no mechanical [or rating based] system cannot make a profit [that would be an absurd and unprovable axiom]. My thrust is that mechanical or even rating based systems are inferior to handicapping.

You wrote:

"I find doing the form tedious - but I can sit up till all hours designing a new system, pulling it to bits and finding out how it works and trying to predict how it will go into the future. Seeing all that hard work come to fruition and picking some good winners is just as enjoyable to me as backing the winner based on form study".

Lets get that one out of the way. I agree, horses for courses.
I too enjoy messing with systems. Mainly because I do serious form study for about 4/6 races a week [mostly starting very early Fri. for Sat. Races]. My tennis is crap, the fishing here is stuffed and I'm not too big on gardening. Messing with systems and speed handicapping [10min.for a race], gives me something to do here in God's waiting room.

Now to deal with a bit off possible smoke and mirrors[?] in your post. you stated:

"I have made a profit each year for the past 3 financial years based upon systems, both mechanical and ratings based (my first year was only a few months so not a full year). I have doubled my turnover each year as well, again based purely on systems. I couldn't support the level of turnover that I currently have without being even a little bit profitable".

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately ambiguous or not here. You say you have 'doubled' your turnover' every year for 3 yrs.. Turnover does not necessarily come from profit. Are you saying you have double it from profit? 100% profit each year for 3 yrs? Even I couldn't achieve that feat and I'm a decent lier. If that is not what you meant, you have not mentioned any profit/outlay ratio [units please not $$$] for any of your methods/systems.

Lets clear up those little points before we move on.

Hi Crash,

no ambiguity intended - I meant what I said. It's easy to double your turnover. Two simple ways are to 1. double your bet size, or 2. double the number of bets. Mine is a combination of both. For example

03/04 I made 4839 bets average bet size was $15
04/05 I made 6383 bets average bet size was $23

Are you saying you have double it from profit?

In a way yes. The only reason I can increase the number of bets and the bet size I've made is by being profitable. I do not claim to have made 100% profit each year though... Far from it.

As for figures for individual systems, I'll give you my current "gem".

This system has had 638 bets since 19/02/2004. Original starting bank was $500 and $10 unit. S/R has been 29.5% and POT has been 30.4%.

Actual profit for this system is 72.38 units at current bet size of 16 units. If I had remained true to my staking regime (2.5% of highest bank non reducing) the actual profit would easily be triple that. However, I'm a "profit taker" and have been siphoning profits from this one for quite some time.

I have had two others like this over the past 3 years, but alas the other two fell over badly and I don't bet them anymore.

Cheers,
Chris.

PS I see the thought police have removed that other thread. Did something happen at the end that I didn't get a chance to see?

__________________
Permanence is an illusion

looks like you have a good system there stebbo,and thats full mechanical is it?.

not sure what went on with the thought police(thats very funny)i was the last to post and when i came back it was gone but i think you might find that your mate might be in the naughty room....cheers gazman..

Morning Stebbo,

I don't think there was anything untoward in that thread. I added no more, but perhaps JFC added something 'colourful'[?], or management misinterpreted some of the posts in it being something other than friendly tongue in cheek banter. I suspect the latter.

You wrote,
"The only reason I can increase the number of bets and the bet size I've made is by being profitable. I do not claim to have made 100% profit each year though... Far from it".

For about 95% of punter's, turnover comes from capital [any capital], not just betting banks which can and often are just topped up from capital. I take your point as meaning what it says for your situation.

With regard to the main subject and to gain a better perspective of it [unlike JFC, I'm easily dazzled by too much maths.] from your point of view, lets talk totals, as you use lots of systems and I'd rather not get lost in cherry picking exercises.

Your total outlay and total return % [all systems combined] displays a more meaningful figure. I think you stated elsewhere your overall SR was 20 point something % ? Average price returned ? 2nd. year, 3rd. year [forget 1st as it was a part year, getting it together period say]. Keeps everything clear and simple rather than opaque.

One advantage of handicapping we can agree on. Handicapping doesn't "fall over" [I don't mean runs of outs that both handicapping and systems have]. That is something of a major concern with systems and we should call that 'Disadvantage [I] to Systems, Advantage [I] to Handicapping so far [Score 0-1]. Handicapping [should] improves with age, systems sour.

It is generally impossible to determine if/when a system has gone pear shaped, or is having a run of outs. All profit [and more] can be wiped out in those situations before the offending system is dumped.. That point could be debated re. money management practice, max. draw-down calculations etc., but a possible [Score 0-2] there.

Your serve.
Regards, Crash.

Obviously you have developed your OWN system as I have over 300 of the ************s from your friendly system sellers and I can tell you that 99 % of them would NOT be worth the paper they are printed on .
The few that DO work are RATING based .

Mind you their advertising blurbs are great for a laugh though as in the latest offering - 72 % WIN strike rate at average odds of $6.35.

Cheers.
darky.

You've bought 300 systems Darky? I can't believe your were so gullible.

Tell you what, I can get all that money back for you. I inherited this bridge that makes a packet in tolls. The only reason I'm selling it is because I'm sick of painting the damb thing. All it needs is one coat a year. Easy money and a lick of paint the only effort. Special price for you only, just to help you out [How much money do you have left?].

Criteria for a winning mechanical system....

1. Must be tested over thousands of bets

2. Must have very few rules

3. The profit must come from more than a couple of longshots

Get all three points and you have a winning mechanical system.

The problems with most mechanical systems are that they are tested over very few relative bets.

Some have ridiculous illogical rules, like "must be barrier 1 to 5, between 55 and 60kg in weight, between 4 and 6 years old, between 1000m and 1400m."
This is retrofitting.

Gather up 90% of commercial systems and take out the four longest priced winners and you have a dud.
The odds of a system continuing to be profitable based on 4 longshots is 1000/1, yet people put money on these things!

Mechanical systems can and do work, providing they have the required ingredients to be profitable in the first place.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 399,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/03/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

I am a little confused at your confusion in this post Crash.
Are you saying that in 12 months of punting, you could not double your initial bank? For anybody that lives off the punt, I find that very difficult to believe.
Remember profit, and profit on turnover are 2 completely different things.