There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1787 comments are related to the topic:
winners last time out system
winners last time out system
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,787
|
By:
what about moufatango 3.45, i really liked the way he won last time out
|
|
By:
well done kw[;)]
|
|
By:
Facts 22 Aug 11 20:43
Ham 5.05 --- I'm Super Too Was the bet for LTO winners imo ! madhatters 22 Aug 11 21:08 Why so Factso ? Because i use a similar system - backing one horse a day - and this was it ! |
|
By:
kevdartsking,85 percent +.
 |
|
By:
thanks deadbrain59
|
|
By:
2 winners and the other a great run for money from 3 seletions. well done!!
|
|
By:
Well George took it a little easy there but we managed 2 from 3 winners and a place so a good day
Win Profit to £10 stake today £35 cumulative £150.82 Eway profit to $10 ew --- £52 today -- cumulative £208.63 Back tomorrow. PS Thanks for all the comments. Keep them coming. |
|
By:
Forget e/w , double your win stake. Profit would now be £301.64
|
|
By:
well done kw...keep it going cause it aint doing to bad..
|
|
By:
Its doing well. Just needs to reduce number of bets.George Baker was a positive selection today( Class 4)
|
|
By:
To Facts. As I said earlier I only bet Win. The each way test is for those who cannot take losing runs. Yes the return is less but the stress level is also somewhat less. For those who are interested selections are currently showing a 32% return on investment.
|
|
By:
well done kw ,i did a place treble.
 |
|
By:
Hear what you say re: stress over LLR. To cater for this the bank should be sufficiently high to absorb a far greater losing run than has been experienced with this type of system.Mine is 40 times unit level stake.Highest ever losing run experienced = 12 (over 4 years)
|
|
By:
I agree wit facts...reverse monte carlo would also work well with this system..increased stakes on a win decrease on a loss..about 12% increase works nicely..maximise the winners..def work well on place betting too...forget each way..just place with possible 30% increase on profit on next bet...simples...
|
|
By:
Agree with the possible increase in stakes after a winner. As long as increased bank still allows 40x stake.Don't agree with reducing stakes after a loser, as when winner does arrive the stake can be too small - and therefore wont recover enough profit to sufficiently reboost bank.
|
|
By:
WHY do people spend and waste thier lives in search of the mythical "SYSTEM"
It does not and never will exist as there are no givens in the game. As for this winner within 7 days rubbish that is laughable. You only need to look at certain trainers who will try to run under a penalty because they feel they have to yet not that many horses have the capability to run quickly again. T Vaughan is a brilliant trainer but look at how many of his get beat at short odds running under a penalty , D Pipe is the same. Forget systems, simply gain the knowledge thru hard work and bet ONLY when value is obvious therefore giving you an edge imo |
|
By:
zippie posts.........and 15 mins later a last time out winner p isses in at 4/1! be quiet
|
|
By:
Zippie, you say there is no such thing as a system, but you have a system! You have rules that use to make decisions, you rate factor X as being more important than factor Y... one rule of your selection is that you only bet when value is obvious!
that's a system! |
|
By:
zippy is an idiot
 |
|
By:
yeahyeahwhatever
spot on Zippie never bet 7 days or less/penalty in NH races. |
|
By:
Facts
Forget e/w , double your win stake. Profit would now be £301.64 times stake x10 and profit £3,010 x 100 and £30,100...WALOFS fact your a sill leek hunt. |
|
By:
What would happen if you used the following filters?
Must be running over same ground/trip as the last time win - only being asked to do what it has already done before. Is it the same jockey as before - some form a bond with the horse and are they keen to retain the ride or are they banned/have they gone elsewhere and a different jockey might not know the horse as well. Is the horse in first 3-4 of betting a bigger price than last time win - current race might be more competitive then last time. I'm sure some of that will cost you odd winners too but if it filters out more losers then it might be more profitable in the long run. |
|
By:
pipercross filters are good.
|
|
By:
All systems work,up to a point then you have to factor in Fallon,Frank and cullthem and then work out what everyone else has plannned.
Ima can fill the details in when he does next weeks bookings.  [;)] |
|
By:
LOL...if I was sorting their bookings I wouldn't be up at this hour of the morning studying how to try to make myself a few bob.....neither do I think too many trainers would appreciate a call at this time asking can Kieren ride their one this afternoon.
|
|
By:
it not about how many winners u back its how u stake them...and FACTS when i say decrease stake on loser it would only decrease back down to original stake..eg 10 wins 12 wins 14 loses 12 loses 10 loses 10 loses 10 wins 12 loses 10 etc etc..
|
|
By:
I hope you realise I am leg pulling regarding you and KF,however the serious stuff about courts and legalities is absolutely nailed on.[;)]
|
|
By:
bets wins %wins returns @betfair est odds
2004-2010all 64179 11254 17.5% 97.4% this is results of last time out winners winning again since 2004 from adrian massey site...nothing stands out with only one year breaking even and to betfair s.p. to bookie sp return was 83.9%...this is wat ur up against....even filtering shows mixed results.... |
|
By:
MrHunt Joined: 15 Jul 11
Replies: 930 23 Aug 11 23:25 Facts Forget e/w , double your win stake. Profit would now be £301.64 times stake x10 and profit £3,010 x 100 and £30,100...WALOFS fact your a sill leek hunt. Not very bright are you ? I was making the point to double his currentlevel of win stake of £10 to £20 rather than his currentlevel of £10 ew. Do try and keep up ! - and learn to spell there's a good chap. |
|
By:
Well the debate will rage on I guess. I agree that a strict " back all winners last time out " will lose. However I am reducing the number of these by some substantial amount. An imaginary example may be :
Selections 500 75 winners Stakes 500 Rtns 400 Loss 100 Now 100 of those also won time before last and are now stepping up in class. Stats show that 0 have won 9 Leave them out 0 Stakes now 400 Rtns 400 Loss 0 Of the remaining 400 50 started at 16/1 or more and did not win ( leave alone ) Stakes now 350 Rtns 400 Profit 50 Of the remaining 350 100 started at 6/4 or less. 30 won but at this price did not produce a profit Stakes now 250 Rtns now 325 Profit 75 or 30% on investment. This simplifies everything by a lot of work but gives a flavour of what I am attemting. |
|
By:
ykickamoocow
ok - understand. |
|
By:
Todays selections
Catterick 3.20 --- Mason Hindmarsh Catterick 4.50 --- Silver Tigress Worcester 3.10 --- Shammy Buskins Wolver 8.10 --- Newlands Princess Wolver 9.10 --- Sopran Nad Once again you formites please have your say. |
|
By:
kw
-interesting. I actually do take into account horses who have not won last time out, but did win the time before.I also consider horses placed last time out in Class 1 and 2 races at Group 1 tracks.I only bet in H'caps. |
|
By:
the best return on any winning favourite using filters in flat races is the 5th fav to betfair s.p. and always has been..3rd fav over sticks....thats from my research..consistent all year round..
|
|
By:
''Well the debate will rage on I guess. I agree that a strict " back all winners last time out " will lose. However I am reducing the number of these by some substantial amount. An imaginary example may be :
Selections 500 75 winners Stakes 500 Rtns 400 Loss 100 Now 100 of those also won time before last and are now stepping up in class. Stats show that 0 have won 9 Leave them out 0 Stakes now 400 Rtns 400 Loss 0 Of the remaining 400 50 started at 16/1 or more and did not win ( leave alone ) Stakes now 350 Rtns 400 Profit 50 Of the remaining 350 100 started at 6/4 or less. 30 won but at this price did not produce a profit Stakes now 250 Rtns now 325 Profit 75 or 30% on investment. Good luck, but i'd always be very wary of backfitting like that. This simplifies everything by a lot of work but gives a flavour of what I am attemting. '' |
|
By:
Sorry, should read.... Well the debate will rage on I guess. I agree that a strict " back all winners last time out " will lose. However I am reducing the number of these by some substantial amount. An imaginary example may be :
Selections 500 75 winners Stakes 500 Rtns 400 Loss 100 Now 100 of those also won time before last and are now stepping up in class. Stats show that 0 have won 9 Leave them out 0 Stakes now 400 Rtns 400 Loss 0 Of the remaining 400 50 started at 16/1 or more and did not win ( leave alone ) Stakes now 350 Rtns 400 Profit 50 Of the remaining 350 100 started at 6/4 or less. 30 won but at this price did not produce a profit Stakes now 250 Rtns now 325 Profit 75 or 30% on investment. This simplifies everything by a lot of work but gives a flavour of what I am attemting. Good luck, but i'd always be very wary of backfitting like that. |
|
By:
3.10 smanny buskins would not be a bet for me today. this horse seemed very fortunate to win its last race, and i like to call these horses a loser with a penalty. firstly the leader fell at the last leaving saved by john in front, and sammy second. then on the run in saved by john appeared to idle badly in front and only picked up when sammy went past which was near the line and too late.
i would think bobs law is a crackung bet here |
|
By:
your selections today kw are all 5ibs close to their lto wins good luck ,i may do some place only,on these?.
|
|
By:
Hi kw - here's my view on the 3:20 (can't do others as only do hcaps)
Mason Hindmarsh - I can't see this one winning. Don't understand you choice here at all. He's up against other horses who have recent plc form above today's OR, who were riding against better horses, who were higher up the weights... I think Mohawk Ridge is a much stronger horse. GL though. |
|
By:
kw - here's my contribution to the debate... unless you start drilling down into your data and compare all runners you current approach of "if they're dropping down in class", "if they're outside the top 3 in the betting" or whatever is flawed.
If I said I had a system that last year returned 500+ points you may be interested, but if I then told you that system picked selections by counting the number of vowels in the jockey's forename and multiplying that by the hour the current Prime Minister was born... and if the resulting value was less than the latitude line of the city in which the jockey had been born... you'd rightly think I was bonkers because there is no analysis! Picking LTO winners without analysing their likely performance in the race they're about to run isn't so far removed from the ridiculous system above. that's what I think anyway |