For those interested I think this explains it fairly well.

http://www.probabilitytheory.info/c...9-equipartition

5% is a very good return with volume. One must remember that to make that 5% you must first break even from a negative sum position. In the case of the tote, you have in fact made 23.5%. In the case of the bookie - greater. 12.3% on BF.

Not with me he doesnt Bernie.

Anyone with a brain knows that some of the stuff Re systems I put up is a dig at the system sellers who troll these sites.

I wont put up anymore as some cant appreciate a bit of a giggle and I,m sick of getting TOUD

Cheers

So can you point out when you're not being truthful please dd?

Darky
Does this mean that if you are betting 5 days a week, you are making $4000?
I always thought you preferred to back multiple selections per race?

Gentlemen.

You are all correct regards the significance of the 5% POT achievement on a consistent basis.. it's a bit bleeding obvious in the light of day! Feeble brain being what it is here and one too many late nights of late has somehow superimposed the concept of POT onto ROI(return on original bank or whatever term you use for it).

With 1-5% POT applied to decent volume, the accomplishment is material but a rare thing it would seem.

Apologies to you UB for any annoyance I have caused here. I will bow out now but point to a recent synopsis in passing as to how I think you play this game and your key point of difference in this respect...

1. you research like a scientist and
2. execute like a machine.


Good afternoon.

LG

I guess everyone should now have an understanding that the more events we invest the further we move from Equipartition, etc etc

This is why real statisticians compute the deviation from the mean.

If we tend to play even money propositions, the more we should become concerned with the deviation from equipartition.

As UB recounted the volatility of even money propositions on a daily basis.

Knowing from past results what our longest losing run will be, helps us to design the what length of betting series will be for these propositions. Published past results show that the typical longest losing run for this type of proposition will be 11.

Your betting series will now be 10 events, if you have past results break them into blocks of 10 events and record how many times you comeback to equipartition in each block of ten races.

Do this for as many races as you can. As the amount of times coming back to equipartition in a short term model is what then helps create your geometric progression model for this proposition.

Actually 12 parameters that helps us to invest short term in these propositions and to win long term.

Hi Clive ,
I still multibet on suitable races but added betting suitable favs 1287 bets ago .after something I read in Paul D thread.
Both work equally as well.
Cheers

Re:


Play this game, and the amount of times a certain number appears is astounding in one extreme for one player, and can appear to be extremely the opposite for another player.

5 players, or an odd number of players makes this game interesting if you are into probability stuff.

http://zilch.playr.co.uk/rules.php

Statistics, very basic

http://zilch.playr.co.uk/strategy.php

How does this relate to horse racing ?

Well, it sort of does, I can't explain why or how, but it eerily does.

Good old zilch.
I just got rid of all games off the computer, and you re-introduce one. I realised the amount of time that we can waste by switching our brains off. Surprising those that can't figure probability soon tire of the game. Which is why there is a portion of the community that says that you never win at gambling. And those that do win say that they are not gambling. Which leave the other group (thankfully) believe that they can win at gambling.

Possibly many have glazed over this rather important principle.

The more trials (bets) you have the more likely you will actually have the REAL performance point of your given method. Knowing what your real performance point is will enable you to trust your system/method to perform to that long term mark while riding out the deviation from such performance point.

The results of a system with a specific performance, as they appear one after the other is random, that is, the procession of results cannot be predicted. All that can be predicted is the over all performance (given you have a large enough sample to predict it accurately and don't change the method of application).

The volatility of individual (smaller group) of results is then the issue that most punters grapple with. To give example, long term our IR strike rate is 26.8% for the top pick based on 50,000+ races published and double that for our internal records, so something that I would consider to be a solid sample size. Yet, this strike rate has fluctuated on daily bases from 7% to 55%. On monthly bases this has recorded fluctuations from 24.5% to 29.7%. On Quarterly basis the fluctuation is less and yearly is less again.

Emotionally most people can handle the day when the strike rate reaches 55%, no problems there :) but as soon as we get a day like 7% the questions come out, whats wrong, whats broken, you shouldn't be having those horses on top, and those other horses should be ... and on it goes. To be honest, I am the first one to wonder! Yet, NOTHING is broken, what is happening is a random deviation which can and do last for days until a correction occurs.

I and those with understanding and confidence let these days/results wash over and move on, those that don't understand immediately start adjusting their methods, and moving their longterm performance point without even knowing what it is. Eventually this leads them to questioning every selection that looses and ends up in them giving up and moving on. Sadly, it is quite possible that many had the punting grail they still search for in their hands already and they threw it away.

I know the risks associated with my betting methods in terms of run of outs, bank draw-down both average and longest and volatility/performance in groups of bets samples because Axis has a module that performs these calculations and I wouldn't be without it; it has saved me thousands.

Nicely put Michal. Like you say, it's having a long term outlook with an iron clad confidence and discipline to match.

Brilliant post Michal. Illuminating stuff on a Monday morning.

My thoughts are that if we can manage to separate the following tasks and execute them like a 'professional', we will be able to better manage and exploit the concepts of probability and randomness, with respect to this 'game'.

1. research / gathering evidence - like a scientist
2. selection amongst different options - like a business manager
3. execution of the strategy - like a machine

Given that most of us are not resourced up to manage all three simultaneously and/or at a consistently high standard, outsourcing some (all?) may be the answer. We are lucky enough today to witness the kind of technologies and relatively low price points that make this achievable.

If this is the case, perhaps all we would then need is some direction and clarity from time to time to keep the plates spinning in the right direction, the bank increasing etc. Better still, make the impact of 1 - 3 real-time, and put it in the palm of our hand to oversee. You may just have a 'game changer'.

A blue ocean of opportunity?


Cheers LG

A nice set of Racing Maxims there LG. :)

The true professionals do just that, I should note that to be a professional you just have to behave like one, you don't have to look forward to being one when your bank grows. Do small things in a great way; that way you'll mange to do great things in a great way without any problems.

I probably misunderstand this but are you saying that unless one has 50,000 trials then no bet should be made.

My problem with that is that I,d be dead of old age before any bet could ever be made.

Cheers.

Hi Darky,

No, that is not what I was saying. My example of our top IR rating was to illustrate that having such a large sample, it is much easier accept the bad days as nothing other then deviation which is what they are.

Providing that a method is based on sound principal the sample can be far less; however more is always better. It all depends on the person as to what it takes to convince him/her that their method is solid long term; and in reality that is the only person that needs convincing; yourself

Thanks Michal.

By the way - quite a nice price on Godfrey today.

Thanks

Aside from the tip, Godfrey was Top rated on R2W: Speed Rating, Consensus rating, PkD rating, RV rating and an Indicator with our IR rating having it 2nd pick. A lot of opinions pointing to same one horse are hard to ignore.

Just reading the above statement, if you think about how ppl generally calculate their avg. payoff. Maybe that part of their wagering equation is flawed from the get go.

From the 'evidence' of the ratio of successful and unsucessful punters one could say that sadly most punters wagering is flawed in some way or another.

The more I learn about this game the more Im convinced that in the scheme of importance a successful system is a distant second important factor. The mental frame is first and of foremost importance. Everyone can loose with a flawed system, most punters however can't even win with a profitable one.

Firstly most punters don't have a profitable method in the first place as most are working of poorly researched and tested evidence.
Secondly even if the evidence was there they wouldn't believe it anyway and expect that it will fail at some stage. It must, can't possibly continue.
Thirdly most punters expectation is centered around unrealistic forecasts fostered by most of the industry and well meaning colleagues that don't disclose the full picture and generally only talk about the good times.

When the Third doesn't happen, (in good time), the Second point comes up and it is concluded that the First has happened and its time to move on. The interesting part of the exercise is that most will then employ the exact same methods to obtain the next best thing and expect different results.

What most punters don't realise is that their frame of mind is one of the most important of tools they have; if they subconsciously approach their betting with the disbelief of winning, how on earth would their conscious mind prove its brother wrong. Self sabotage is abundant as a result. Ever did something while punting that you knew you shouldn't (in the light of clear thinking) but you did it anyway? Chased losses? Ignored bets? Listened to others? So on and so on. As a result each time this is done your internal conflict is resolved on the side of your underlying belief and you are proven correct. Told you so ..... Finally the more they change and search the more out of control the above. The dizzy heights of success can be followed by depths of despair all in just a few days; until there is a point when they give up and take a break, most return with a clear mind later to begin the slide downwards again when their expectations are not meet. The interesting part of the exercise is that most will then employ the exact same methods to obtain the next best thing and expect different results.

Punters have to get their mind into a correct frame, the only way I know how to is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their method works (on paper) and in real life without pressure of actually punting, and then approach their punt in a consistent manner regardless of short term results. That takes resolve that most don't have! That coupled with a realistic expectation and understanding and good approach to wagering will give you what you need. Sadly our success has nothing to do with the amount of work you put in if your tools or frame of mind are flawed.

There is a lot more to this then I can write here, but I hope that I have conveyed enough. It certainly is something that we try to assist our clients with.

In answer the the original question re late mail - from 2005 or somewhere- my view is that at best it is just marketing gimmick to portray some kind of up to date, exclusive inside information but more likely used to throw punters off the scent and improve the price of another horse whilst depressing the price of the nominated horse and thus making it more attractive to lay.

yes i so agree with that. i have lost or more correctly not won over $100k in the last 12 months by either
1. doing some "personal laying" i.e not betting a selected horse because even though everything i calculated indicated it would be a selection i have left it out because it came up a bit long in the market and/or
2. not getting organised and putting my bets on in time.

re #2 i had a D&M with myself and tried to work out why this was so and i concluded that it was because i had subconsciously concluded that a bet missed was a bet saved. so many times i have missed the first couple of daily selections only to see them romp in a good prices.

both 1&2 seemed to happen if i am punting bad around it.

so as the man said get you head in the right space - now i just punt on like a robot and ignore as much as i can the performance.

for example- I think i have lost or broke even everyday this week - so overall down and had a rough day yesterday. i then got the night time bets going - lo and behold - first bet at gowran park ( ireland) calls for a $480 bet - my unit size is 80 so that was a bit outside my comfort zone - but i remembered my wise counsel and closed my eyes and put it on. 2 hours later it wins at 8-1 and i am closer to being up for the week..

so off we go again.