On the Chase

lets say that your average odds are 2.85 which is a strike rate of 35%

as soon as you hit 37% whch you will because of the deviation then you will profit by a given amount.

over 100 bets you bet £50 when you hit 37% you will have made £100. Roughly won 3250 lost 3150

I think thats right

Still not sure what you mean by deviation here:
you win on the up part of the deviation of the odds by getting your losses back. Its when the deviation is too small to allow this eg roullete.

Do you mean 'fluctuation from the mean' - in this sense, deviation in roulette might allow me to make a profit over the course of a night's betting. Or do you mean 'edge' (ie difference between odds and true probability). In this sense, deviation in roulette will mean that if I play for a long time, I will inevitably lose.

ffs mate. how many times.... forget roulette !

blimey o'reilly

it aint rocket salad !

Strike rate is effectively value. If your S/R on even money shots is 55%, you're finding value. People just have some issue with the name 'value'.

Plus, yes the markets on here are pretty much spot on at the off time. Markets move, sometimes drastically, you have to be ahead of those moves or get better odds than when the market is at it's most liquid.

Why do people have to complicate things so much...

yes I agree, strike rate = value (and in my view the most important component as value is only quantified after the event as Ive said)

I checked my example and it is correct give or take a few quid.

I'm sorry, but you confused matters in your opening post by distinguishing value from strike rate.


You implied that there was a way to win on BF that involved something other than finding value.

If when you talk about profiting from 'deviation' or from advantageous strike rates, you are just referring to getting value, then why complicate matters?

. . . and if you are using 'strike rate' as synonymous with 'value', then how can you reconcile these two remarks:

  value is subjective and cant be quantified until after the event.

and

In sports the strike rates of the various elements are known

!!

f*ck knows - I just fail miserably at trying to be intelligent.

anyways I know what I mean, and I also see that there is no point in discussing it here.

Then let me make things more straightforward for you.

There is only one way to win at betting, whether it be sports betting, casino games, poker, or whatever. And that it is bet at value (=defn betting at odds which imply a lower/higher (backing/laying) probability of the event in question occurring).

If, as you imply in your opening post, you think that BF prices are nearly always extremely accurate, and/or, you yourself are unable to spot when they're not accurate, then no staking plan, or analysis of 'strike rate' will help you. You will lose.


Perhaps when you say this:

In sports the strike rates of the various elements are known. It is not random like a roulette wheel.
we know how often horses win etc and we know their prices. They always come back to the average in a given time scale.

So why cant (or hasnt) a martingale type system be developed using these known documented variables

you mean that we can somehow profit from the fact that the run of successes/failures will revert to the mean? And that predict that there will be some such reversion, using a staking plan to profit from it?

Then let me make things more straightforward for you.

ta.

There is only one way to win at betting, whether it be sports betting, casino games, poker, or whatever. And that it is bet at value (=defn betting at odds which imply a lower/higher (backing/laying) probability of the event in question occurring).

I know that, and I said it already.

If, as you imply in your opening post, you think that BF prices are nearly always extremely accurate, and/or, you yourself are unable to spot when they're not accurate, then no staking plan, or analysis of 'strike rate' will help you. You will lose.

ah, well thats where youre wrong see, cos I gave an example of how the 'value' is built in cos of wot I call the 'deviation'

we can somehow profit from the fact that the run of successes/failures will revert to the mean? And then predict that there will be some such reversion, using a staking plan to profit from it?

yeah, I reckon so.

cheers

Variations of the gambler's fallacy

Some researchers believe that there are actually two types of gambler's fallacy: Type I and Type II. Type I is the "classic" gambler's fallacy, when individuals believe that a certain outcome is "due" after a long streak of another outcome. Type II gambler's fallacy, as defined by Gideon Keren and Charles Lewis, occurs when a gambler underestimates how many observations are needed to detect a favorable outcome (such as watching a roulette wheel for a length of time and then betting on the numbers that appear most often). Detecting a bias that will lead to a favorable outcome takes an impractically large amount of time and is very difficult, if not impossible, to do, therefore people fall prey to the Type II gambler's fallacy.[14] The two types are different in that Type I wrongly assumes that gambling conditions are fair and perfect, while Type II assumes that the conditions are biased, and that this bias can be detected after a certain amount of time.

Another variety, known as the retrospective gambler's fallacy, occurs when individuals judge that a seemingly rare event must come from a longer sequence than a more common event does. For example, people believe that an imaginary sequence of die rolls is more than three times as long when a set of three 6's is observed as opposed to when there are only two 6's. This effect can be observed in isolated instances, or even sequentially. A real world example is when a teenager becomes pregnant after having unprotected sex, people assume that she has been engaging in unprotected sex for longer than someone who has been engaging in unprotected sex and is not pregnant.[15]
Relationship to hot-hand fallacy

Another psychological perspective states that gambler's fallacy can be seen as the counterpart to basketball's Hot-hand fallacy. In the hot-hand fallacy, people tend to predict the same outcome of the last event (positive recency) - that a high scorer will continue to score. In gambler's fallacy, however, people predict the opposite outcome of the last event (negative recency) - that, for example, since the roulette wheel has landed on black the last six times, it is due to land on red the next. Ayton and Fischer have theorized that people display positive recency for the hot-hand fallacy because the fallacy deals with human performance, and that people do not believe that an inanimate object can become "hot."[16] Human performance is not perceived as "random," and people are more likely to continue streaks when they believe that the process generating the results is nonrandom.[17] Usually, when a person exhibits the gambler's fallacy, they are more likely to exhibit the hot-hand fallacy as well, suggesting that one construct is responsible for the two fallacies.[18]

The difference between the two fallacies is also represented in economic decision-making. A study by Huber, Kirchler, and Stockl (2010) examined how the hot hand and the gambler's fallacy are exhibited in the financial market. The researchers gave their participants a choice: they could either bet on the outcome of a series of coin tosses, use an "expert" opinion to sway their decision, or choose a risk-free alternative instead for a smaller financial reward. Participants turned to the "expert" opinion to make their decision 24% of the time based on their past experience of success, which exemplifies the hot-hand. If the expert was correct, 78% of the participants chose the expert's opinion again, as opposed to 57% doing so when the expert was wrong. The participants also exhibited the gambler's fallacy, with their selection of either heads or tails decreasing after noticing a streak of that outcome. This experiment helped bolster Ayton and Fischer's theory that people put more faith in human performance than they do in seemingly random processes.[19]
Neurophysiology

While the representativeness heuristic and other cognitive biases are the most commonly cited cause of the gambler's fallacy, research suggests that there may be a neurological component to it as well. Functional magnetic resonance imaging has revealed that, after losing a bet or gamble ("riskloss"), the frontoparietal network of the brain is activated, resulting in more risk-taking behavior. In contrast, there is decreased activity in the amygdala, caudate and ventral striatum after a riskloss. Activation in the amygdala is negatively correlated with gambler's fallacy - the more activity exhibited in the amygdala, the less likely an individual is to fall prey to the gambler's fallacy. These results suggest that gambler's fallacy relies more on the prefrontal cortex (responsible for executive, goal-directed processes) and less on the brain areas that control affective decision-making.

The desire to continue gambling or betting is controlled by the striatum, which supports a choice-outcome contingency learning method. The striatum processes the errors in prediction and the behavior changes accordingly. After a win, the positive behavior is reinforced and after a loss, the behavior is conditioned to be avoided. In individuals exhibiting the gambler's fallacy, this choice-outcome contingency method is impaired, and they continue to make risks after a series of losses.[20]
Possible solutions

The gambler's fallacy is a deep-seated cognitive bias and therefore very difficult to eliminate. For the most part, educating individuals about the nature of randomness has not proven effective in reducing or eliminating any manifestation of the gambler's fallacy. Participants in an early study by Beach and Swensson (1967) were shown a shuffled deck of index cards with shapes on them, and were told to guess which shape would come next in a sequence. The experimental group of participants was informed about the nature and existence of the gambler's fallacy, and were explicitly instructed not to rely on "run dependency" to make their guesses. The control group was not given this information. Even so, the response styles of the two groups were similar, indicating that the experimental group still based their choices on the length of the run sequence. Clearly, instructing individuals about randomness is not sufficient in lessening the gambler's fallacy.[21]

It does appear, however, that an individual's susceptibility to the gambler's fallacy decreases with age. Fischbein and Schnarch (1997) administered a questionnaire to five groups: students in grades 5, 7, 9, 11, and college students specializing in teaching mathematics. None of the participants had received any prior education regarding probability. The question was, "Ronni flipped a coin three times and in all cases heads came up. Ronni intends to flip the coin again. What is the chance of getting heads the fourth time?" The results indicated that as the older the students got, the less likely they were to answer with "smaller than the chance of getting tails," which would indicate a negative recency effect. 35% of the 5th graders, 35% of the 7th graders, and 20% of the 9th graders exhibited the negative recency effect. Only 10% of the 11th graders answered this way, however, and none of the college students did. Fischbein and Schnarch therefore theorized that an individual's tendency to rely on the representativeness heuristic and other cognitive biases can be overcome with age.[22]

Another possible solution that could be seen as more proactive comes from Roney and Trick, Gestalt psychologists who suggest that the fallacy may be eliminated as a result of grouping. When a future event (ex: a coin toss) is described as part of a sequence, no matter how arbitrarily, a person will automatically consider the event as it relates to the past events, resulting in the gambler's fallacy. When a person considers every event as independent, however, the fallacy can be greatly reduced.[23]

In their experiment, Roney and Trick told participants that they were betting on either two blocks of six coin tosses, or on two blocks of seven coin tosses. The fourth, fifth, and sixth tosses all had the same outcome, either three heads or three tails. The seventh toss was grouped with either the end of one block, or the beginning of the next block. Participants exhibited the strongest gambler's fallacy when the seventh trial was part of the first block, directly after the sequence of three heads or tails. Additionally, the researchers pointed out how insidious the fallacy can be - the participants that did not show the gambler's fallacy showed less confident in their bets and bet fewer times than the participants who picked "with" the gambler's fallacy. However, when the seventh trial was grouped with the second block (and was therefore perceived as not being part of a streak), the gambler's fallacy did not occur.

Roney and Trick argue that a solution to gambler's fallacy could be, instead of teaching individuals about the nature of randomness, training people to treat each event as if it is a beginning and not a continuation of previous events. This would prevent people from gambling when they are losing in the vain hope that their chances of winning are due to increase.

sporting events are not random events like coin tossing or throwing dice.

YUP ...I agree ....but Lex is stating that by backing all horses at set odds " can somehow profit from the fact that the run of successes/failures will revert to the mean? And then predict that there will be some such reversion, using a staking plan to profit from it?"

Each race has nothing to do with "reverting to the mean"...and should be bet on based on the value on odds for the horse selected to have a better chance of winning than the odds etc

So using such "reverting to the mean" reasoning is in effect treating situation like a coin toss ....where no edge exists.

ah, well thats where youre wrong see, cos I gave an example of how the 'value' is built in cos of wot I call the 'deviation'

Yeah, I think that's where you lost me!

Lex : There has been many a topic regarding 'value'.

But the general consensus is that value is subjective and cant be quantified until after the event.

Yes, I've heard that said many times, but personally I believe the general consensus to be wrong.

Thanks for the replies.

Do you agree from my example that if you get 37% strike rate that you are in profit?
if you do, then you will see where Im coming from. Ive done the maths more thoroughly and it seems true. What we need to know next is how to determine when the 'upturn' comes.
(and no its got nowt to do with the gamblers fallacy or f*ckin roullete)

Commission coming into your example?

Just me reverting to be mean

Of course Ive allowed for 5%. I aint daft you know.

why dont u give the system u are thinking of a shot here in the forum?

He's too busy turning base metals into gold, and putting the finishing touches to his perpetual motion machine.

Ive got an idea of how to do this, so I shall give it a go myself for a while. I need to study the results and prices and see how much they fluctuate and how long it takes to return to the average. Best that I make a fool of myself in private rather than on here !

Ive got the gold part of the puzzle sussed, its the perpetual thingy that giving me jip.

http://bit.ly/LER3Fr

To put the article in the link another way - we're not looking for value, we are waiting for it to happen.. and its no fallacy because it isnt so random

Lex,

The article relates to volatility, which, as is well-known, is serially dependent and therefore (potentially) mean reverting.

Series of sports events, though, are obviously independent and therefore the results are not mean reverting.

of course they are, why else would you get the average price of horse favourites being consistant month on month ? up and down they go... and arrive at the same mean.

Or am I wrong ?  (careful now! )

Someone posted that 60% probability equated to "odds" at 2.5.
P=60/100
Odds=60/[100-60]=60/40=6/4
in favour ,therefore the odds are on,i e 4/6.

Ssssh it was the same chap that said

Series of sports events, though, are obviously independent and therefore the results are not mean reverting.

So by the same logic 60% = 2.5   I thought it was 40% by hey ho....

Yes, sorry, a silly mistake.

DFC hit the nail on the head.
It's not whether results will revert to the mean ( they will over time), it's how they will revert.
For a simple example ( just for discuussion purposes).
You might observe a hisrorical situation where in 100 events, only 30 % of even chance odds came up.
So you then say thus must revert to 50%.
It will in due time, but it is probably more likely to do it by travelling at or near the mean over an even longer future time period.
For example, if it now hits 470  on out of the next 900 events I ( that is 52.22 % ), then it will have reverted fully as assessed over these particular 1000 events.
But at this strike rate you will not win on even chances over these future 900 events,
as you will be betting most probably on the bid side always ( which will be just below fair odds) and you will be paying commission on winning bets.
And this is not to even discuss things as to whether your observed historical observation is either correct ( after all it was probably done on paper) and also the fact that it itself is only part of unlimited other possible historical observations of even greater length and accuracy all of which will show variances ( big and small) in all sorts of conttradicting directions, and raise the basic question, which one do you chose to attempt meanrsion on ?
Contrarian is absolutely right on all this and anybody doubting him is dangerously kidding themselves.

In case anybody was googling " meanrsion" at the end of my post, it was only a typo of mean reversion.
Btw Lex is a well known humourist on here.
And so perhaps it is simpler just to quote Monty Python to hm.
" That parrot is dead sir ".

Lex : Ive got the gold part of the puzzle sussed, its the perpetual thingy that giving me jip.

Haha, the lump of rock we're living on is pretty close to being in perpetual motion.

Ta Froggy the fine haired one. - a civil reply - well done !

Ive been sifting through some very interesting stats. Once Ive sorted them and if they make sense then I will post up. - it appears that the 'mean' (for horses) is reached quicker than you would have thought ...


Cheers All.

Ex parrot.

The "mean" is irrelevant....because, if you are backing horses that are say 2-1 SP based on the mean of such odds horses winning 1 in 3 races, instead of backing it because it has a strong chance of winning, and its odds should be shorter......ie VALUE IN ODDS.....then you are just gambling. The "edge" is why you might win....not the fact that horses are 2-1 win 1 in 3 races.

Thanks DFC I know that cheers, but its not what Im getting at.
Its the type of horse eg clear favourite which you back or lay at Betfair sp. You get prices up to say 7.0 and as low as say 1.2 - the mean is historically 2.85 the average win rate is 33% so you need average odds of at least 3.0 just to stand still. The win rate ranges between say 50% and 25%. Over x races (which I am looking into) the average win rate exceeds say 3.0 ( or whatever is needed to overcome commission etc and make a profit) . The frequency of when this happens is ahorter than you would expect, so a staking plan can be devised.
When the win rate is less than the mean you lay when greater, you back.

The figures are rough but the principle looks interesting.

Thanks for the input guys.

Have you checked out "THE RETIREMENT STAKING PLAN" ?

It takes "strike-rate" in to account etc.....and the AVERAGE ODDS you generally win with etc

Might suit you to a tee

http://www.grandstand.com.au/retirementstakingplan/

Yes thank you. Using a divisor based on average odds is sensible imo.

I havnt looked at divisors yet tbh.

Apparently there is software for this....I've no idea how this works....but might interest you?

http://www.soft82.com/download/windows/the-staking-machine/

I need to drill down further into past results but so it looks like the revert back to the average happens roughly every 120 races. so during that time period the winning rate goes through and passes the mean average. On that basis then, taking into account the last peak, the favourites will be scoring well (around 40%) over the next 2 days.

we shall see.

I honestly don't know whether you're joking or not!

if this works you could apply it to almost any type of betting.... even roulette!

I do understand that youre sceptical. So am I. But its the logic here. At some stage in the cycle of events, the resultls must be performing better than normal (mean) else all results would be 'flat'

According to the stats we are in a 'trough' and due a 'peak'. over the next 2 days we should see favourites perform better than 'average'.

Lets see if they do. If they dont, then clearly I am mad as a box of frogs
(sorry FAFH )

According to the stats we are in a 'trough' and due a 'peak

But you do accept that the events you are describing are independent of each other?

for the millionth time (almost)  forget roulette ! it works on sports (bookmaker markets)

Lex,

Are the events independent of each other or not?

Oh gawd, you dont get it do you..   they are NOT independant that is the point.
Roulette is independant, sports is not - it is cyclic and 'trendy'

We'll resume this once the results come in. You should see the horsey favs performing better than normal over the next two days. If they do, then we know we are onto something, cos Lex can predict when to back or lay.

and it costs nothing to wait an see..

So you believe that the probability of whether X number of favourites win today is somehow affected by the number of favourites that won yesterday?

I have my fingers crossed for the faves...

hmmm  good question. I dont know.

It could be a few things.

a)bookmakers are aware of trends and price accordingly.
b)there is a finite number of good horses running that happen to be favourites
c)track considitions and other physical characteristics change.

But the fact the industry SP is so solid along with the stats prompted this idea in the first place.

Even in roullete the wheel gets changed because it becomes biased.

lex, the success with martingale depends on ur finacial ability to take big losses. i am sure u now this, but somehow u want to ignore it.

why do u want to ignore it?

I said a martingale type system

eg one that gets back your losses because things are in your favour but that doesnt mean stoopid mad double yer money type staking does it ?


sheeeesh 

so far so good, the favourites are performing better than expected so far today. But we've a way to go yet. Interestingly according to the stats if the next 16:30 Newton Abbot has a clear fav it should lose. But I think it should win (Blue Hills). Oh the dilemma ...

me right; stats boll0x

Jun 11, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Lex wrote:

I said a martingale type system eg one that gets back your losses because things are in your favour but that doesnt mean stoopid mad double yer money type staking does it ? sheeeesh 

you seem to now what u are doing. good luck.

know

yesterday I said that favourites will do well over the next 2 days with over 40% winners.
The cycle is around 120 UK races


11-06-2012 17/34 =50%, average SP 2.91

Today it wont be so high but still above the average.

My comment re Blue Hills was because it is rare to get 5 consecutive winning favs but I miss counted. The 5th one did lose. 6th conseq is v.rare, 7 happens twice a year and 8 never happens.
So if you had 4 winning favs start laying them. If you havnt had a fav win in 10 races start backing them although a few years back 3 days went by without a fav winning - 54 of them. Then over the next 2 days they hit gold and the stat for the week was the same as the previous week !

Digging still deeper into this  jockeys and trainers stats (amongst many) are also cyclic. an example that springs to mind is AP McCoy. Bad few days then... boom. His Martin Pipe David Johnson days where extraordinary; shame I missed the boat by not stumbling on this earlier

Im learning excel now so I can graph this lot. Ive got results going back to 1988 ! 

So you disbelievers - it NOT like roulette ! Its BETTER !

Why don't you just backtest this idea against historical data?

If you do it in real time, it will take months to get a meaningful sample size.

Daft begger !

Of course Ive tested it against 'back data' - since 1988 !

Thats why I can say 40% or better favs today.. 

I must be typing in a foreign language or somefing.


Luv ya

You've backtest this system and it works! I suggest you've made an error in your calculations.

Also, if you've backtested it and it works, then why the f*ck are you advertising it on the forum. Keep it to yourself!

how much £ would you have made per year?

Im stumped how to reply to that - I know your name is contrarian but that takes the biscuit - so you dont want me to share this with you ?

Ok I wont.


JL, a staking and monitoring plan that avoids racking up losses due to losing runs is the next step. alternatively backing and laying according to where I am in the cycle.

Lex- this not an edge.....it is sheer madness.

Each race should be weighed up on its own merit.....using edge/s that you know "work" on that type of race at the distance of race and on the going for that race......and also taking every horse's form etc into account.

Each favourite is either a value selection, or about rightly priced, or poor value .....taking all factors into account for each race.

The previous day results re favourites are irrelevant to the next day races......as are the previous race result.

Each bet should be based on the amount of value on such bet....this is the hardest part to weigh up. STAKING should not be based on previous losses.....but THE RETIREMENT STAKING PLAN does take strike rate/average odds / bank size etc into account, and probably is the "best" way for you to go ....based on what you have posted.

GL with your trial.

so you dont want me to share this with you ?

No, thanks! I have my own edges that don't rely on the gamblers' fallacy.

getting better than expect winners is not an 'edge' ? 
seriously ?
50% winners with a sp of 2.91 is not an edge ?


and if you get better than average today thats not an edge either ?


cripes, Im stunned at these sharp minds

Contra - repeat after me - this is not roulette and gamblers fallacy does not apply.


Blimey o'reilly how many thimes do I have to say it !


there's none so deaf as those that dont want to hear

Lex, how much did you have on at those prices yesterday?

how much have you made from your wonderful system?

Read my first post again please.
This thread is just an idea. Which over the past few days of checking past results looks like an interesting idea. It appears to be true that bookmaker markets ( in this case horse racing) appears to be cyclic to the point of being predictable. Its not roulette or other fixed odds game - it is organic and somehow possibly influenced things I dont understand. It is therefore probably biased in someway. Nothing more nothing less. As Ive already said the next step if this works is to devise a plan of some sort.

Youre being contrary just for the sake of it arent you ? oh, yes of course you are, Contrarian

Jun 12, 2012 -- 6:50AM, Lex wrote:

getting better than expect winners is not an 'edge' ?  seriously ? 50% winners with a sp of 2.91 is not an edge ? and if you get better than average today thats not an edge either ? cripes, Im stunned at these sharp minds

IMO Can't be called an edge until real money's down and the system holds water for "x" amount of bets. Until then it's just a theoretical edge. If you have the confidence to chuck 10 units on each selection and post the results then plenty of people on here will watch.

A contrarian is a person who takes up a position opposed to that of the majority, no matter how unpopular, which is what you're aiming at with your upturn/downturn system isn't it?

Lex,

I am being a bit contrary, yes, but I'm honestly confused. Either you're still testing (as you implied in your opening post), or you've done the testing. If the latter, and it works, you DEFINITELY shouldn't be advertising it on here, and you definitely should be using it to make money.

Lex, was the 'backtest' you checking that series of consecutive favourites winning last for a certain(ish) number of races?

all Im doing is sharing an idea based on me drilling down through years of results, which anyone can do.

50% winners with average odds 2.91
was yesterdays findings. So I dont need to put 10 units on anything. and that was a bookmakers SP btw not betfair.


Will continue today ? well, lets wait and see.

JL, didnt quite understand your question ? try again. cheers.

Your back tested results include joint and co favourites too? How do you know which horse is going to be favourite in advance? Hence why I think it's a theoretical edge.

ok, what did you do for your backtest?

I counted the favourites and joint favourites that won.

How do you know which horse is going to be favourite in advance?

err look at the market before the off ?

When the favourites win more often, the odds compilers are in form.

A link that might interest you re CONSECUTIVE losing favs etc within odds range 2-1 to 11-4 SP etc etc

http://adrianmassey.no-ip.org/web1/db3/thaccess.php

Go into fav stats...then do a CUSTOM REPORT etc etc

any system involving "fav" or "2nd fav" is a load of b*llocks as when do you put your bet on?  1 sec before the off?  Even then you might not be sure what the fav is going to be.

I admire your investigative determination Lex, but I'm siding with Contrarian on this one :)

12-06-2012 favourites 10/30 =33.33%, mean sp  3.14 +1.4 points.

So the 2nd day did pan out as I said (being lower than the expected 40% due to 50% the previous day)

over the 2 days  64 races, 27 favs, 42.19% sr ( as I said it would) , 3 ave sp,  33.33% req. @ SP  17 points

Now I know you wont believe me but this happens every 120 races or so and has done since my records from 1988

As a bonus yesterday we had 4 conseq favs so I laid the 5th Heading To First 9/4F 8 pm Brighton.

I am going to do this live now taking on board that the industry returned favs may not always be the one at the off - but this is rare. I have also noticed that according to how well the bookmakers are doing favourite prices are manipulated accordingly. This is very interesting and could well account for why the statistics are so solid.

On the basis of the 120 race sequence and the full cards expected over the next few days I could tell you how the favourite results will pan out until Saturday. But then again to most of you the Earth is flat and theres no way to win at blackjack. 2 days doesnt prove anything does it. But if youre interested look at the last 30 days results and then 30 before that and so on...

1249 races, 447 favs, 35.79% sr, 2.84 ave sp
1036 races, 353 favs, 34.07% sr, 2.65 ave sp
933 races, 322 favs, 34.51% sr, 2.7 ave sp
811 races, 301 favs, 37.11% sr, 2.51 ave sp
673 races, 254 favs, 37.74% sr, 2.52 ave sp
862 races, 325 favs, 37.7% sr, 2.48 ave sp

straight backing would have been a level stakes loss of 290 points at sp

But

There were 44 backing sequences where the win rate was better than average which gave over 600 points profit at sp - betfair prices are better.

..and this has been the case since 1988.

i dont understand this. if u somehow think u re upto something, why are u discussing this? do u lack confidence to stick ur money without gettung confirmation that u are right?

It's not so bad to discuss it, now he hasn't have to do it...! But I think a modified idea can be good...

Fools paradise?

Lex before you lose any money on this dont do it.I,v tried it.I got Betbotpro and had it set to lay specific margin favs ie between 4/6 and 6/4 for £5 with a recovery + £5 rate ie one wins at evs say then it layed the next one for £10 and so on so everytime one got beat i won £5.Figured i had cracked it after about a week when i was averaging about £90 per day until i noticed a flaw which was i only partially got matched after about 5 winners and it reset.Needless to say i tried to fix it and something like 12 in a row won and wiped me out at the time.

I was thinking like you and tried numerous different approaches to no avail and at some cost.What i will say is you can make money on here as i finally cracked it so dont give up trying.Just dont do it this way.

the industry returned favs may not always be the one at the off - but this is rare

Guess again.

With respect bookie - what I have been saying throughout this thread is not remotely close to the method you used.


fool paradise       nope. But the only positive bit of feedback Ive had is to keep this to myself and I will now.


Evey now and then I might pop back and give you a winner or two. maybe.

Thread closed

tar.

ooh look Cardinal Walter another winning fav for me. What a load of tosh I talk.


bye bye.

shut the door behind you - thanks

Last weeks stats for you.. enjoy

08-06-2012  11/40 =27.5%, average SP 2.96
09-06-2012  13/49 =26.53%, average SP 3.15
10-06-2012  4/21 =19.05%, average SP 3.81
11-06-2012  17/34 =50%, average SP 2.91
12-06-2012  10/30 =33.33%, average SP 3.14
13-06-2012  13/43 =30.23%, average SP 3.57
14-06-2012  19/49 =38.78%, average SP 2.65
15-06-2012  21/56 =37.5%, average SP 2.86
16-06-2012  10/42 =23.81%, average SP 2.41

364 races, 118 favs, 32.42% sr, 2.92 ave sp, loss  -19.44 points

BUT

3 cycles + 39 points profit at SP. Betfair prices are better.
and the bonus of 2 runs of 4 favs where the 5th was laid.

If you chart these you will see the pattern.

Until next time .....

Runs of consecutive losers would be more interesting Lex........

Lex

Re. the some of the numbers that you posted on 13 & 17 June.

There are some queries I'd like to raise but try as I may I can't get a grip on some of your figures.

Could you answer the following questions please?

1)  Do your figures cover UK races only or UK & Irish?

2)  Do your figures relate to clear Industry SP favourites alone or have you included races with joint or co-favourites?

TIA

Hi - they include uK and Ireland  clear and joint favs not co favs

Thanks.

I Read through & probably some valuable insights lurking here but I do feel this thread is best suited to left brain dominant types who have a higher capacity for Logic, Critical Thinking, Numbers & Reasoning.  We Rightists who are more about Intuition might get bogged down by it all.................................................Carry on the Conversation left brain dominant types!

Well at least it has you thinking....


All I will tell you it that it does work - Just now the % is below where it should be so I think that today the % will be better for backing favourites. The trend was low for a few days and then last night is kicked off again with a little run of winners at good odds.

We shall see. (please keep the abuse to a minimum - ta )

are you putting money on your theory yet Lex, would love to hear you are making a good profit from your hard work.