Isnt it called the BetFair Roundabout.

Round and round and round it goes,
When it stops the noob will lose!

Feeling sensitive BTO? I'm sorry.... There's nothing sarcastic about my post though. Cynical - well yes, but then I'm sure you'd have to admit that the teddy bears have been round this particular garden several times before.

These are the graphs of daily bank balance I built using data from 2008. The only part that looks profitable is Irish races since 2010, and that was after a pretty painful losing streak.

Thanks. Lay all up to a BSP of 10.

I was going to paste the VBA into the forum but it's a bit big - if anyone wants it send me a message.

I don't think that's what graph shows at all.
It shows the effect of paying the full 5% commission has on the profits.
Love to see a graph on all runners, because so much less commission is paid on winnings.

Also doesn't it ring alarm bells that UK is so bad, yet IRE is so good?
It's obvious by the graphs that one should dutch back all those under 10 in the UK, and dutch lay all those under 10, in IRE.

However, I won't be doing that anytime soon.......for obvious reasons.

These graphs look exactly as you would expect them to look if the bets showed no value at all.

Completely disagree, because of commission, if the bets showed no value at all, they would both trend down.
The number of meetings is irrelevant over years of data in my opinion.

I don't really like systems. I understand that they can work but they are just not for me. I think in a way they are just an excuse not to look at each race and each horse on its individual case, perhaps because of laziness.

Also systems break down or don't work over time, because circumstances change. take nick mordin's system on the st leger for example. a few years ago he kept going on about how horses that had run at further than a mile and a half before the doncaster race had no chance in the classic itself. then mastery comes along and busts that theory, and master minded did yesterday.

that theory had some logic while the st leger was still a prestigious race, because top class animals were still being aimed at it. they weren't campaigned at further than a mile and half before that race because it would harm their stud value. but it's become more and more unfashionable as a race to the point where high class racehorses just won't run in the race anymore. so the horse's that have been kept at shorter trips just aren't good enough that you can trust them to beat the proven stayers.

Position in Betting Change
It has ruined a system that is based on backing the 4th+ in the betting at SP system. If a system was researched from analysing 4th+ in the betting, but the punter then backs the wrong horses then the rules of the system are wrong.

I agree that in some cases where there is a price filter you do not need to be so rigid, such as back A Trainer when price is in single figures and you back it at 9 - it drifts to 11. But for the 4th+ in the betting system, or the OPs system then you have to use the same rules when making the selection as used for the analysis. So it's not so much that you have ruined the system, but rather you are now following a totally different system.

Systems
Every betting method is a system. If you pick a horse because it is 5lb better off with the fav then this is a system. If you pick a horse because it had the fastest fractions and is running in a lower class today then this is a system. Every bet ever placed is a system.

What you probably don't like are the rules that make up most systems. Some people don't like this because it causes uncertainty and conflicts when making decisions.

Mordins 3 Year Rule
Mordin said that systems only ever last 3 years. I don't agree with that. A system (that works) will always work until there is a significant influence to the operation of the system. Usually this will be things like changes to the rules and regulations of racing. It can also be when a trainer changes his mode of operation, winds down to retirement, falls out with a major owner etc. But no system should ever fail just because Lady Luck says three years is the lifespan of a system.

I have systems that were created in 2000 and are still profitable. Back then on certain messageboards some said: 'come back next year and post up the results'. I did for about 5 years after that and proved the naysayers wrong. Some of those early systems are still profitable today - 10 years later.

Biggest Punter Fallacy Ever
The biggest punter fallacy is that 'if you say the rules of a system everyone will bet it and it will fail.' This is complete nonsense.

* 9x% of the price of a horse is made up because of the recent form - especially the LTO run. There is no bigger influence on a horses price than recent form.

* Bookies set prices not systems. Bookies are not interested in systems. They are interested in the main telephone tipping lines and Pricewise types and will only adjust prices to account for the expected trade.

* Even if a system is proven to be successful punters will NOT follow it. The vast majority of gamblers have a poverty conciousness - they are addicted to losing money. The same majority have no clue about value. If you show them a winning formula many would not believe it, others would use it for a while and then give up, the remainder would use but not understand value and thus blow all their bank in a few short bets.

* Apart from Beyer ratings no system or method ever in the history of racing has caused a sea-change in betting. No RSB, no golden goose, no cash-master, no equinex, no Mozan racing numerology or any system ever has caused prices to shorten such that the system became a victim of it's own success. Some people say RSB got overbet, some say Massey got overbet. I don't believe that. It's just the case that their methods failed overtime because they were not adaptive.

If systems did have a big influence in prices what do you think will happen when 2 or 3 system bets are in the same race?

Lucky Jim 2/1
Green Tree 5/1
Old Dog 7/1
Blue Sky 10/1
Black Shoes 20/1

Now what if Green Tree was a Massey 5* bet, Old Dog was an RSB max value bet, Old Dog an Uncle Ernie spectacular, Black Shoes a Cash-Master Top bet? Are they all going to Evens co-fav of 4?

Of course not. It hasn't happened and it never will because the prices of horses is mostly dictated by the recent form figures and nothing else.

Why Systems Fail
Systems fail not because they have a short 3 year shelf life, not because if the rules are released the system becomes overbet. Systems fail if the core rules are wrong to start with, or if the system operator does not know how to stake effectively.

brilliant post PP

excellent points phil! given that you consider that 90 percent of the horses price is dictated by recent form, which I'd agree with (bar possibly maiden stakes where much of the prices are driven by racecourse rumour)


do you think a system could be designed to say, lay the horses that won last time out or something along those lines?

Given enough time all things change.

Why w0uld you lay a horse because it hasn't ran for 90 days ?
Supposing it had ran 89 days ago ?
Supposing instead of winning last time, it had been beaten a
short head ?

Good comment slicer, kenilworth the reason why I say 90 days is because thats the margin, i can see you like graying the borderlines, 89 days and 2nd short-head, but I didn't filter for that so I cant vouch for any deviation.

That particular system works on the basis that so much emphasis is placed on LTO that if say in
a race stuck up the the racing post on the wall of the average bookmaker is a race full of hopeful runners and theres only 1 or 2 that have won there last race then this is where most of the money is bet and bookmakers love shorting the flames on the card to burn punters fingers, well if that runner hasn't run for over 90 days chances are that last win doesn't mean sweet FA so lay it and your getting great value.

Test it on Adrian Massey site if you don't believe me and while your there check out the reverse to the system, runners that have pulled up last 2 races that haven't run for 90 days or more and now are 16/1 plus and back them, test the 2 systems out, check the results and then reread this post to understand how a perceived edge works not only in theory but also in practice

*you can do this in reverse

An example of a theorectical edge creation can go like this

chance of winning = (ability X speed )against; difficulty of conditions or/and track and/or race type.

Now to get and edge find any mechanism within the formula that you perceive to be the chance and
look for negative and positive factors that will be beyond the average range of the odds compliers
perspective.

Example lets get a favorite to lay so we need something negative, say use just a few above fields

1....ability ; low =novice
2....difficulty of race ; high ; novice chase
3....difficulty of condition ; high ; soft to heavy

Now would you perceive that laying all short priced favorites that were in novice races
in soft to heavy conditions was a profitable system, the answer is yes and check the stats.

You can assemble as many systems as you want as long as you understand how to create a positive or negative edge in respect to the resulting strike rate, its as simple as that.

Regarding phillyharper comment about mordins law

Mordins 3 Year Rule
Mordin said that systems only ever last 3 years. I don't agree with that. A system (that works) will always work until there is a significant influence to the operation of the system. Usually this will be things like changes to the rules and regulations of racing. It can also be when a trainer changes his mode of operation, winds down to retirement, falls out with a major owner etc. But no system should ever fail just because Lady Luck says three years is the lifespan of a system.

I have observed systems back in 1991 that still work now because how can you give a sell by date to
a theoretical edge that most odds compliers are not clever enough to make the backbone of any market,

Though markets are sharper now than 20 years ago, by using exchanges with there generated better odds
you reverse the historical wising up of the form compliers providing you take care to filter out the runners than are un-attractive in the separate markets, but thats something that should be second knowelge to any serious gambler as your not out to back just anything, you need the right range of prices to accept for the perceived strike rate of any system.

3duckeggs, admirable post, I can see you have the theoretical modeling of edges firmly placed in your activities and you profit from them.

Also you understand age groups as a positive and negative group creator and further confirms you have embraced the abilities required to become successful, there is little I can tell you then, though perhaps on greyhounds it might be a different matter.

very well done fellow bettor in the field of the sport of kings

bf_fananatic

You seem to have a lot of the answers.  I found the following particularly interesting.

"Example lets get a favorite to lay so we need something negative, say use just a few above fields

1....ability ; low =novice
2....difficulty of race ; high ; novice chase
3....difficulty of condition ; high ; soft to heavy

Now would you perceive that laying all short priced favorites that were in novice races
in soft to heavy conditions was a profitable system, the answer is yes and check the stats."

You said check the stats.  So I did.

However, I'm not sure I'm on the same wavelength as yourself so could you specify what period your stats cover and also the odds range as "short priced favorites" is a little vague. Industry SP please.

One other thing.  Is your research confined to UK racing, Irish racing or both?

Sorry, there's something else.

How would you cope with double figure losing runs as a layer of these horses?

Something to do with how you pay far less commission when multiple laying, and I think he's on about only laying under 10.0..

Why don't you give it a go with £2 stakes, see if it works?