Sorry Barny,
My previous post credited this thread to Star. I was diverted by Darky's post. My most humble apologies.
Ron

So you have 2 horses with equal chances and another 4 with some sort of Chance.
Then you have the possible Unknowns.
I would have your 4 possible upsets at $12
The 2 Main Chances at $3.30

Agree totally Barny. I also eliminate all first uppers for the same reason. It's just a question of fitness. When it comes to systems, my personal preference is for between 2 and 5 runs from a spell.

Not saying I never back a horse first up or 2nd up, but for my systems, I utilize the 2-5 runs from spell rule.

Heres a very simple elimination rule: 4yo or 5yo's only.
I'd be surprised if that doesn't improve any system.

Here is my problem, note, I said mine. On my past history their is no way I can accurately rate a horses winning chance based on what I think others do. I have as much confidence with a $7 or bigger then I do with a $3 to $4 shot.

Obviously, I rate horses differently to everybody else, if rate is the correct word, which I think in my case it is not.

What I think id the correct pricing does not really matter, what matters is that the price I get pays for the losses along the way plus a bit left over to pay the bills.

Picking winners is not my major Number One issue, getting an insufficient return for my strike rate is. The shorter the price the more winners I need, and I cannot see, on my past form, how I can achieve that.

But that is just me and at the moment I am speaking from my high horse, but realise I can get thrown at any time, but providing I can get a strike rate of 5% I do not need a zillion winners, Just one in twenty.

Pete

When I was attending meetings I'd often have someone come up to me and say " The owner of Peter Pan says his horse is a certainty today ". My question would always be "What do the owners of the other 11 horses say about theirs?"

If I was to go without a Winner for 20 races , I would simply inflammate myself ( that thing where you poor petrol over yourself then ignite it)

But what you say is true Star - just doesn't suit me.

Or what did the trainers say about their horse or the others?

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

[QUOTE=moeee]If I was to go without a Winner for 20 races , I would simply inflammate myself ( that thing where you poor petrol over yourself then ignite it)

But what you say is true Star - just doesn't suit me.[/QUOTE]

I agree moeee.

But then, you would not be on the $44 winner at Warwick Farm which was my 18th loss in a row, but with $8 dollars bet it recovered my $39 loss from previous bets and it gave me a return of $352.80 leaving a profit for the series of $305.80.

I remember you saying in a previous reply to one of my threads that if I am not comfortable doing what has been suggested then that idea is probably not for me. Ain't that the truth.

I am only a small punter now, I bet just for an interest, so it is more important for me to have a small dabble, control the worst case senario and see if I can have some fun.

I used to have good success with the Treble years ago betting multiple horses. Today, the returns are just not there for me and I was burning money.

Pete

You mean your money became inflamed?

__________________
Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish it. The time will pass anyway.”

― Earl Nightingale

[QUOTE=The Ocho]You mean your money became inflamed? [/QUOTE

It is good to see that this site still has some humour in it. I was getting a bit worried for awhile. We can get a bit inflammated here, cant't we?

That might be our new word for the week. Thanks moeee.

Pete