 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1
19th July 2013, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The Useless Cave is The Chicken's Demise
Hi All,
I have tried everything in the last month to continue my system's winning start. But voodoo, animal sacrifice and re-enacting the big fella's Easter weekend has failed to resurrect the once heady heights of the systems beginning. So it has made me think (as has Darky's continued challenging of all I have ever believed in when it comes to racing - past results are the promised land). When is a system not a system when it is a system while not being one???....... Now I know this reads confused (which by the way I am) but what I mean by this is............. why is it that System players and Ratings gurus are always at each others throats....... Aren't systems just a very basic form of ratings anyway? I mean if you take a basic system, for example, a 4YO horse who has a 30%+ win S/R and placed it last start, aren't you rating the field. So if a horse meets these criteria it is our 100 rater and is our bet. More importantly, are people who are rating horses, just assigning a numerical value to factors they perceive as important, exactly the same as a systems player, except for the fact that they have many more factors and do not exclude selections based on criteria that return a 0 value.........unless you add filters...... So we are back to my confused self.............When is a system not a system when it is a system while not being one??? And if the 'Brains-trust' on here can not help me, it could be time to play the stock market.............. Cheers Brett
__________________
“Money, horse racing and women, three things the boys just can't figure out.” 
|
|
#2
19th July 2013, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Your problem is not understanding variance for your system.
You didn't understand the system from a probability and mathematical perspective. Also Ratings guys understand probability much better then system guys. Last edited by UselessBettor : 19th July 2013 at 10:32 PM.
|
|
#3
19th July 2013, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A basic system is rigid, set in stone so to say, like your example. "a 4YO horse who has a 30%+ win S/R and placed it last start" For a systemateer it makes no difference where the horse ran last time what weight it carried what distance, what class of race or the quality of other horses taking part in the race and many other variables. This is a system of the worst kind. You can modify it by taking other variables into account according to the up-coming race in question and then you have both, a system and rating, they'll be the same under different names.
|
|
#5
20th July 2013, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The difference is that you don't get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc rated selection with a system and for those of us that develop ratings and bet on our selections based on the level of value, this is often where the profits come from. Backing just a 100 rater is a quick way to the poor house unless you are an absolute genius, many times my 2nd or 3rd rated horse has won paying more than double my rated price.
|
|
#6
20th July 2013, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Well put.
How I read the original post is that what your doing is looking at a horse that fits your criteria in a race but ignoring the form of other runners. Hope I,m wrong there.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
