To the regular contributors!!!!! You know who you are. I need your opinion. I reckon I've read all the posts (not possible, but it seems like it!) and I'm starting to doubt my philosophy that "There is no such thing as a system that works". I am grateful for the stats provided and I am starting to "come around" that there may be a system that one can punt and profit from, provided that the odds are there.

My question to the regular posters is: Why do the "successful" systems, the ones that have a successful win S/R, pay badly on the TAB compared with the bookies S/P?

It seems to me that there are plenty of punters on systems that have a good S/R, but the payout on the TAB is below par. Comments?


Hence, this is why I continue to try to get "over the odds" ..... if there is such a thing. I may be on the wrong track and looking a gift horse right up the clacker.

Butternut,maybe the systems which you are talking about sticks out like dog's balls and everybody knows about them ,cheers.

beat me to it captain!

perhaps a way around this problem is to only back the drifters?

First thing to do is ditch the TAB's.

I know what you mean ,it can be very frustrating.

I have a number of systems which produce a good SR & profit over 3.5 years then over the past 6 mounths the SR is the same but the average div dropped dramaticly. Weard!

I`m talking about 50 of my 105 systems.
The other 55 systems performed as usual.

It dont add up ,maybe it`s the old shifting sand thing & the value comes back over the next 6 mounths.

One rule I like to follow, is to try not bet on Mules paying less than $3.20 before jump time.

The down side to this is you might not want to hang around all day to do this.

There are bookies out there who will fix the minimum value for you so one can place all the bets at once & you can do other things.

There is still value out there, have a look at the 3 tips in any tipsters selections & you will see some good value Mules that they have chosen out of their 3.
The trick is to narrow it down to one selection out of their 3.

I have also found that it`s a good idea to ignore any races where the whole field has not had at least 2 career starts.

Anything seems to happen in those events ,usally it`s won by some short assed Fav. with questionable form or an outsider that you would not have picked in a million years.

__________________
Cheers.

Hi Butternut,
I am not one of the “Regular” contributors, being only relatively new to this forum, however I am one that has been involved in the punting game for quite a few years – at first as an observer, and now as an active and successful participant. One problem I have always had is with the term “System” – as I feel to be successful in almost everything you have to have a “system” or a more correct term may be a “methodology” of doing things – but in the horse racing circles it appears to have a different connotation.

So in reference to punting or horse selection. After years of observation and participation with the “real folding stuff”, I believe that as a start, systems must be “race course” based rather than generically based (ie (very simplified!!) Back all horses who have won at their last 3 starts – irrespective of the course).

In every city – courses are like chalk and cheese. As a guide:
Brisbane: Eagle Farm – I consider to be a very fair course to all, however Doomben is a specialist track because of its tight turns, which makes widely drawn horses and off the pace runners hard to win – it favours inside barriers and front runners and on pace runners. Yet these courses are less than a “5” iron (in golf terms) apart! (and YES, I am also a golfer (in a loose sense of the term!!))
Melbourne: You have Mooney Valley which I consider to be a very specialist course with its tiny straight (I believe the shortest in Oz???) which gives a huge advantage to the pace and front runners when they enter the straight.

And so it goes on from course to course; from state to state.

So where am I coming from? Well I think if systems are race course based rather than generically based, you are going down the right track! (Pardon the pun!) – Since I have adopted this approach, my results (and profitability!) have become much more consistent.

So after all that I am not sure if this helps, hinders, confuses or is totally irrelevant!!

Sooo Cheers; Enjoy; and good luck with the punt!!

Great post Doomben..agree with everything you just said..
It was all proven when Defier at his age and form at a distance and track surface that doesnt suit wins the Doomben Cup...run that race at Eagle farm and they would of ran over him and Pentastic would of given me my double and $10,000 ..

G'day Butternut,

As a novice to the Aussie racing scene and since upgrading to Yardleys Gold v2 whereby I can anaylise my systems thru the individual track segment of this program I have found the profitability of the systems differ greatly from track to track at the same metro city, and this applies to all 5 states....needless to say all systems are put thru this segment before investing....keep ya eye on those ************ tracks mate.

Have a good day.

I have recently been on a UK forum. One thread is a draw for course system. They have the bias of each course and this bias is quite large. Ie 45% of winners from low draw or 50% from the highest draw on another. One course is so biased that it would pay the trainer not to send the horse to the track.

The group doing this has been at it for some time with really good results from dutching the three or four horses in the respective draw.

Thanks for the input all you forumers

Doomben Funny you should mention the simple system of "Back all horses who have won at their last 3 starts – irrespective of the course".
I've been playing around with this on midweek selections as a potential laying system. While I don't have alot of midweek data yet to play with it certainly seems horses that have won their last 3 are undervalued.
Bhagwan, would you be able to run this if you have the time?