The basic maths involved in horse selection dictate that the higher the win % is , the lower the average dividend will be. This is totally unavoidable. It's impossible to overcome.... not one punter who has ever lived has found a way to achieve higher average dividends in conjunction with a higher win %. For example, and this is an extreme example just to make the point clearer, a permanent win strike rate of about 50% will NEVER deliver equal or higher average dividends, on a permanent basis, compared to the same punter utilising a method that delivers a permanent win strike rate of about 15%. It's mathematically impossible; the odds are so far against this happening on a permanent basis that it would make winning Lotto look easy.
****It's all about averages and the mathematics that apply to the subject.**** That's worth repeating a thousand times, every day of the week: the law of averages applies to all wins and all places and all dividends. When that's properly understood the punter then stops battering his head against a brick wall; he then realises his ONLY chance of a *permanent* profit is to work the percentages and aim for around that 1% or 2% POT based on thoroughly researched selections and betting techniques...... that's what a successful professional does and it gives one by FAR the best chance of all.
If one is a hobby punter, has his gambling well under control and bets very small and for entertainment, then all this doesn't really matter much to him. It's his hobby and he's entitled to do it any way he chooses, and I support that right.
The general rule of thumb is; the higher the win strike rate, the lower the average dividend (I'm talking long term here.... meaning year after year after year etc etc).
Also, keep in mind that there is no system that has not been invented. It's all been done before over the previous few hundred years; the data and methods are just re-arranged and re-arranged and re-arranged and re-arranged.... decade after decade after decade. Computer technology is totally incapable of picking more winners at better prices....... the ONLY use computers have is in the easy collection of data; computers make it soooooooo much easier it almost defies belief. BUT, computers won't turn you into a winner: They just make certain things easier.

I play a lap slide, hollowneck, Hawaiian acoustic guitar. Been playing nearly 40 years now.

I made the comments about the system printed because I know, from decades of experience, and thus just by looking at those results figures alone, that it will be guaranteed to produce a small percentage loss on turnover LONG TERM...... providing responsible betting techniques are used. If responsible, professional, betting techniques are not used then any method can, and usually will, end in disaster... long term.

Now this is where I disagree with you. If you said the empirical evidence suggests.... yadee yadee yada.. I would agree with you, but, and I'm going to use an extreme case here also:
What if Nev the Nobbler's method of selection is to give one horse in a meeting something to make it go faster. Unconventional I admit, but judging by the number of short priced favorites who come last in the first race in WA I suggest it's possible, he would defy the usual returns on his bets.
I agree with your basic argument but I don't think you can say that maths decree it. Too many people on this forum are too definite about what others can and can't do with their selections. It is possible to come up with something new.

KV

To be fair, I totally agree with you , on the above statement.
But I still reserve my judgement on the veracity of your argument re. dismissing other's ideas out of hand without knowing all the details on the grounds of statistics. How do you know that someone could not achieve the strikerate AND
POT he claimed? After all it would be just part of the overall statistic, an anomaly to be sure, but not necessarily impossible. What statisticians do, is to ignore the anomalies, because it is outside of the norm. Normaly it works OK but we are talking here about highly volatile "data" if you an call it that? It is no more or less an opinion in the final analisys.
Now, If you are talking about systems, concernig PP or starting prices, pools, etc that is a different matter alltogether .

Marcus, I'm not saying that he, or anyone else, has not or can't achieve the strike rate and POT mentioned (in the short term).

What I AM saying is that the combination of the said strike rate and POT is unsustainable in the *long term*.

For example, if a losing method is run for let's say 10 years, within that 10 year period there's bound to be periods (if these periods are considered separately, and not part of the whole 10 years) where a profit happens, where the strike rate will be sensational and be accompanied by unusually high dividends. If someone peruses one of those periods, in isolation to the full 10 year period, it can seem like a way has been found to beat the odds...... to get a great strike rate combined with big dividends. So....... the ONLY way, the only *accurate* way, to judge any method is to judge it's performance over incredibly lengthy periods and over many, many thousands of actual real world bets. When that is done, the overall law of averages then initially begins to assert it's dominance, and it's impossible to avoid this.
When the averages and percentages eventually show their hand in full , and a punter is STILL in front, then that punter is doing something right.

Statistically speaking, I have to agree with you, BUT there is always a BUT,
neither you or I know how many bets he, she is putting in, it maybe a small number with a high strikerate and return? I am not an argumentative man by nature so please do not construe this as a start of an argument, I am simply pointing out that in horseracing a lot of things can, and DO happen that fall outside of quantifyable parameters.
As I said, if we are talking about prices, pools, number of starters and the relationship of all of those, then we can put it into a statistical table and analyse the data.
I mentioned before in an other thread that I know someone who has no knowledge of computers, statistics etc. but he is WINNING, He has paid for his house, paid for his two daughter's university education out of punting. You can meet him at the Caulfield TAB every day, he is only doing it for fun now being over 70, sometimes he would not bet for days and suddenly $200 on the nose! He is still very cagey about how he does it, but he has (as far as I could gather) the same sort of approach as Punter57, that is, he is following trainers, and the placing of horses in the right races. And this is my point. How do you put all this info into statistical tables?
Cheers

KV I've only got a few years results but the first race in WA is coming up with 29% winning favs, this would be about normal wouldn't it?

Wesmip1,

I'm a little concerned that you have only tested over different time frames,why havent you tested day after day week after week,if i was you i would pick a start date and test continualy from there on in,testing random months days weeks will prove absolutely nothing.

Guitar Jim,

Please explain what it is you are doing in the SYSTEM forum iof you do not believe in systems,if you think you are providing a service and saving all us miserable gamblers from damnation dont bother,i dont need or want saving and i am sure i'm not alone.

You have a very good understanding of maths but unless you understand the important requiremnts each individual system asks of its selections there is absolutely no way you can say things like

"Firstly, a win strike rate of 43% never has, and never will, produce a *permanent* POT of 21%"

or

"There's another serious problem with your results..... it's the high place strike rate. A *genuine and permanent* 43% win strike rate should be accompanied by a lower place strike rate than your 82%"

The place % statement just reeks of a mathematican with no understanding of horses and how individual system rules can impact on the type of animal you end up betting on.

I also have my doubts about these %'s standing up long term but their chance of doing so is totaly dependent on THE SYSTEM RULES and not maths.

I repeat Jim,why do you post in this part of the forum?

Dale

Thats the best way to test a system unless you have an extensive data base that way you are not only testing the rules but you are also testing how it handles at different times of the year with different classes of horses and different weather patterns

I can't remember who first printed this so i can't provide credit.

System testing with no data base
1. First sample = 150 recent races (or bets) If this shows miserable results, forget it. If it gets near to break even or pays POT continue. This sample will include at least one period of three consequitive days.

2. Second sample = 100 races from the same season in previous years (not recent races) but with NO consequitive days. If its near to break even or in POT, continue.

3. Third sample = 100 random races from all seasons trying only one or two races per day from here and there. If its near to break even or in POT, continue. A system MUST pass this test. (If you only sample consequitive days you can hit distorting cycles and mini-cycles. You have to sample against this phenomenon.)

4. Fourth Sample = carefully tabulate results over the last week's races, going back over some days covered in sample 1 but writing it up on a spreadsheet to examine results more closely.

Divide the profit by the maximum win dividend and this will come up with a figure.

Divide this figure by the total number of winners and express as a percentage.

If the profit comes from less than 20% of the winners, then it probably is an anomaly

wesmp1.

Just what ive found,
I must have too much time but im always thinking of differant ideas to punt with,
An absolute classic.
I went through MONTHS of data on qtab(can i say that) and tested ON PAPER backing 1,2,3,4 same amount each way on dogs and trots.
It showed a healthy profit.
I deposited funds and gave it a go.
Results.
Time tested on paper, six months of qtab data.
Initial invest, 400 units,
Max bank reached, 3300 units, three weeks
Withdrew 2000 units,
Then !
I started again,....Results
Well, cause i was so good, i thought what the heck, lets tripple the initial bet and go from there,only a year of this and dingo will have six bikini clad blondes pouring my beer (the good stuff) whilst i lay back on my 100 meter cruiser in the Bahamas...yeh right,........lost it all.
What happened,..well,.....when i tested the system, it worked, i changed nothing in my selection process but i did up the bets, i kept really good records, every bet, average div, pot, units per bet out and per return, longest outs,.everything.
What i didnt learn until the boy went over it again was the pool size, because some bets were due to "safe" progression 500 units, i didnt realize that the pool BEFORE i put my funds in may have been 600, so when the selection that i ORIGINALLY had say 100 units on went into that pool it didnt effect the price that much, but with the big ones, i found that the returns instead of say 1.5 would be 1.04, which then called for even bigger bet next race, the bank went bye bye.
Dingo now spreads his outlay over more than one place !
What im saying is take note of every possible outcome that you can, my back testing DID NOT take in consideration this factor and look what happened.

Hope ive been some help.
Cheers
Dingoboy (still learning)

You're probably right PP. I was just bitter after hearing it happen again yesterday (turns out in spite of words like "stone motherless" from the caller it actually finished nearer half way). A month or two ago two days in a row very short priced favorites finished last, the first had heart palpitations and arhythmia or something according to the stewards report. The second one only had a much increased heart rate. I cynically thought to myself "Ah good, they've got the dose right at last".
It was just a (probably) unjustified swipe based on no more than sh*t in the liver. :-)

KV