system or method

[mick56]

On the best advice thread john advised "never turn a system into a method" for any one following a system this is very good advice.But what interested me was that the selection process i use is a combination of system and method.

I use comprehensive filters or system rules to decide which horses i do not want to back,then another set of rules to decide from the remaining entries if there is one that i can consider as a possible bet.

It is at this point that the system stops and the method begins,because no matter how complex a systems rules i feel it cannot be formulated to cover every circumstance,and it is necessary to use methodical analise and/or personal opinion to confirm or dismiss a final selection.

As always i would welcome your views on this, so that we might learn from each other.

[Win2Win]

But what interested me was that the selection process i use is a combination of system and method.
You can't use both, you are just using a method. :)

All method bets are systematic in a way, otherwise they'd be random, but if the final choice of bet or not is down to you then it is a method.

[mick56]

You can't use both, you are just using a method. :)

All method bets are systematic in a way, otherwise they'd be random, but if the final choice of bet or not is down to you then it is a method.

Thats fair comment :thumbs

[mick56]

I would like to do a bit more waffling on this thread as it is a topic which i find most interesting and seek the views of others.

I would like members to highlight one of thier system rules and comment on the reason they incorporate and use it

I will start with one of my own which may cause some controversy,I will not back a 3yo against older horses i do not exclude them from my analise but if this leads me to conclude that a 3yo is the potential winner then for me it becomes a no bet race.

My reasoning behind this is that even allowing for a generous WFA allowance my own view is that they are still at a disadvantage.

When as an 11yo i started at senior school even though i was as big as many of the guys in the next year up i still felt intimidated,probably because of thier extra experiance of the way things where done.

I expect that to some the above comparison will sound bonkers,but it is attempting to arrive at these type of conclusions where appropriate that have helped me profit from backing race horses .

[bryn]

Hi Mick
One of the method rules I use is to bet on the first couple of races of a meeting.I think I get better value on favourites because no one really knows the correct going for the course untill after the first couple of races.

[mick56]

Hi Mick
One of the method rules I use is to bet on the first couple of races of a meeting.I think I get better value on favourites because no one really knows the correct going for the course untill after the first couple of races.

Bryn this is exactly the type of response i was hoping for,because your rule is one that i had never considered before, but is certainly very worthy of futher thought and investigation. :thumbs

Although i would not let it effect my opinoe i have on several occasions read the advice to beware the fav in the last race on the card as this is often the getting out race for the bookies, i do not no if there is any stats to suppourt this or if it was just people talking through there pockets!.

[Street cry]

Mick i did a data trawl over the last 10 years and put the info in to excel and it showed that last race favs are a deal poorer value than any other favs on the card

[mick56]

Mick i did a data trawl over the last 10 years and put the info in to excel and it showed that last race favs are a deal poorer value than any other favs on the card

That's really interesting in that it proves that it was not just people talking through thier pockets,have there been any other racing sayings or adges that you have been able to prove/disprove by using your computer skills?.

[mathare]

Mick i did a data trawl over the last 10 years and put the info in to excel and it showed that last race favs are a deal poorer value than any other favs on the cardThat is interesting because many a racing punter has said the opposite. Last race favs are usually thought to offer better value as the "get out stakes" can only get many people out of a hole if they bet on longer priced runners; a win on the fav won't get back they money they did earlier.

[barrelmaniac]

you should also take into account that fairly often on race meetings the last race is a NHF which could be making the difference, I have no stats to back this up as it is only an idea from reading this thread

[Godspot]

Fujiyama Crest, that was it, I think - the last race winner of Frankie's Super 7 @ Ascot, available at 20/s before racing but by the time of the race & Frankie having ridden the previous 6 winners on the card, 2/1f, would that have been value?

I was thinking of a method I often adopt & talking of favourites & the last race, that just sprang to mind but

some years back, I can remember going down the bookies with what I thought were two solid win bets, it was an early flat season meet @ Newbury. Both my horses were beaten into 2nd by Paul Cole 20/1 shots, I was gutted but noticed he had two more runners on the card, I had my money back & more as both won, one at 8/s the other 10/s - it came over the radio that a women in Liverpool had done all four in a Yankee & was picking up £50,000...

Take like Pipey's 4 timer the other day - sometimes, when you wouldn't normally give the horse a shout but while all the stables runners are running above themselves, best just to GO WITH THE FLOW, until the odds shorten so as not to present value.

Think Godolphin colts first time out were a good case in point towards last backend.

[mick56]

godspot ri your above post there is something to be said for both sides of the story.for myself and i do not have figs to suppourt this but it is just a gut feeling i always get.

I dont like it when a trainer or jockey has achieved two or more winners on the card prior to my bet which is ridden or trained by the same,of course there is no real logic in this and i understand that many would view it as a positive but i dont like it.maybe i feel its going against the odds!

And there is also the chance that the running up money from multiple bets will effect your price as per your frankie goes to Ascot example.

[Street cry]

I'll try and find the document that has all the data in i ran it through RSB and excelled it sometime in 2009 if i find it i'll post it up

[mathare]

I wasn't calling you a liar by the way SC, just saying that it's interesting you have found evidence that the convetional wisdom is wrong

[Street cry]

Thanks Mat i didn't think you were i just thought it might help all if i could find it

[mathare]

Thanks Mat i didn't think you were i just thought it might help all if i could find itI'd like to see it if you can find it but no worries if not

[Street cry]

i'll find it Mat in between decorating my new house and managing a long position on cable ha ha ha ha ha ha

[mathare]

managing a long position on cableThat sounds like a euphemism for :flush :laugh

[Street cry]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

still looking for sheet i made it on 27/1/09 and make about 25 spread sheets a week so its atrawl tha basic stats on laying last race favs is a return of 18.4% poi to sp compared to 8.81 % laying all favs at sp thats NH by the way i will endeavour to get the full break down but i have 3 computers to search SC

[mick56]

A strange but i hope happy coincidence,all the talk on this thread yesterday regarding the pros and cons of the fav in the last race on the card,and to day my only bet fits that pattern (kemp Stanley rigby) it was a long time ago since this situation occurred previously for me.so the above can only be karma!!.

[Godspot]

Mick i did a data trawl over the last 10 years and put the info in to excel and it showed that last race favs are a deal poorer value than any other favs on the card

There's quite a detailed analysis here:

http://www.adrianmassey.com/fav/index.php

Which, think I only looked at the flat but tends to agree with SC...

If you scroll down to the left you can generate your own reports for different types of races & it goes back with 16 years of data...

Looks a bit handy if you got some spare time ? ?

[mick56]

A strange but i hope happy coincidence,all the talk on this thread yesterday regarding the pros and cons of the fav in the last race on the card,and to day my only bet fits that pattern (kemp Stanley rigby) it was a long time ago since this situation occurred previously for me.so the above can only be karma!!.

Defiantly an occasion where i now wish i had kept my mouth shut and my hands in my pockets!!!.When i back a horse that runs poorly i always blame my own judgement but having replyed the kemp 8.0 several times i am wondering what riding instructions the jockey was given and if he followed them.pity the stewards did not feel it necessary to ask the same.

[barrelmaniac]

There's quite a detailed analysis here:

http://www.adrianmassey.com/fav/index.php

Which, think I only looked at the flat but tends to agree with SC...

If you scroll down to the left you can generate your own reports for different types of races & it goes back with 16 years of data...

Looks a bit handy if you got some spare time ? ?


I have used that site in the past, its ok, but after going through a fair bit of data I found quite a few inaccuracies so I stopped using it.

[mick56]

I have used that site in the past, its ok, but after going through a fair bit of data I found quite a few inaccuracies so I stopped using it.

I wonder how often we fall foul of this, the above may be free but nearly every service or product you buy in racing retails at a premium price, and i wonder how often the valuable information or stats you are reciving come from input supplied by the tea boy.

I have found inaccuracies in the material published by leading racing company's, and yes we are all human ect but when you could be risking your cash based on the above it only has to occur more than once for you to start to lose confidence,

The other thing i have found is that when you notify them of one of these mistakes that dont appear to be partically concerned or grateful. perhaps those at the top of the tree feel they can weather any storm,if so i would call this a misguided attitude.

[mick56]

I thought there where some very good posts made on this thread,and would like to try and fire it up again,by mentioning something which ideally fits the thread,it comes from USA and is called Trip handicapping,where by the author has identified over 100 different cicumstances in a race which might highlight why a horses finishing position may have been better or worse than it should,it ranges from the basic examples IE a hold up horse not settling early on, to more elaborate reasons all shown via actual races on DVD set.

At first i was sceptical about this in my own way i already do this by replaying races of interest several times over,if you have the time or inclination it can sometimes be very revealing,partially if like myself you are not a multi tasker and concentrate on just one of the runners each time,so many of the examples given by the yank i was already doing except giving them British names instead of the terminoligy he used,and that would have been the end of the matter,except that when talking recently to a backer who's judgement i very much respect he mentioned trip handicapping as being his biggest edge.That certainly re invoked my interest.

So do any other members use these techniques and have any views to add concerning this.

[mick56]

Some more controversy? Although i do pay attention to the indications provided by some stats,to me they are just one of several useful tools which can be used in our attempts to predict the outcome of a race,if i have good reason i will bet against a statistical probability.
I have a search engine which enables past form to be interrogated in many different ways,and these days backers are almost spoilt for choice with the commercially available stats and trends.
But looking at past results based on these is never enough for me i have to be able to reason why.
As just one of many examples i could highlight Course jockeys,at least these days % are given not just the number of wins,but what is the real relevance of these stats for those who fig prominently is this telling you that they actually ride the course better than others,if so why should this be,could it be rather that on balance they have been on horses with a better chance in thier races on that course,if so this may not continue to be the case and rather invalidates the use of the stat.
I dont no the answer but the point i am trying to make is they should IMO always be treated with some caution.

[barrelmaniac]

Yes mick, thats the thing with using stats for systems, the whole thing is constantly evolving, so even when there is a good working system it needs to be constantly monitored to make sure its ''behaving normally'' I tend to try review this on a weekly or fortnightly basis, when things look like they are moving out of the expected long term dataranges its time to panic and act accordingly, or put measures in place to keep tight reigns on it or to put a bank barrier on it.

[mick56]

Hi BM your above sums up nicely my apprehensions concerning systems,because to be operated the rules must be rigidly followed,and if you change the rules because of poor results then in effect you are starting over with a new system.

The stats or systematic part of my approach revolves around what i would call fluid patterns.However we all have our own little ways of gaining an edge and without these differences of opinion there would not be a market.

I have no doubt that some members make it pay via systems and they have my admiration but for some of the reasons i have mentioned this approach is not for me.

[Win2Win]

I review all my systems 2-4 times a year depending on what they are doing, but I never change any rules unless I specifically know what the problem is.

A number of my system that involve handicaps had to be changed about 2 years ago as the Jockey Club/BHB/BHA/NOBEADS kept meddling with the handicap rules to help the bookies make more money (allegedly :wink, although you have to be a PM with a history degree not to see that).

Adjusting a rule is not starting a new system. If I run a system for 8 years with good results, but find in the last 2 years some slippage, and so adjust the F/C rule from Max 8/1 to Max 13/2, it's the same system and if the slippage had been in place on day 1, 8 years ago then the Max would have been set at 13/2 then. :thumbs

Racing evolves, but usually it takes 2-3 years for a new trend to appear, it doesn't happen overnight, so I don't agree with monitoring systems every few weeks.

[mick56]

.

A number of my system that involve handicaps had to be changed about 2 years ago as the Jockey Club/BHB/BHA/NOBEADS kept meddling with the handicap rules to help the bookies make more money (allegedly :wink, although you have to be a PM with a history degree not to see that).


Very interested your above could you expand your views on this.

[Win2Win]

About allegedly sleeping with the bookies? :D

They started fiddling in the mid-noughties (:doh), by compressing handicaps in a new type of race, raising the bottom weight, seriously fiddling with lower quality horses, and the one which caused the most shift for stats, changing the qualifying rules.

You would have had: 4yo+ Rated 0-75
Now you get: 4yo+ Rated 61-75