I see
Well thats all good then
I guess this thread is getting too long and tiring for me and I missed the link.
Cheers.

No probs.

Star

I tried emailing Privateer, as this thread he would have throughly enjoyed ( people looking at and using the stats )but it got bounced back.

The post of his I liked the best is “ you asked me about multi type bets, one I omitted to mention that I occasionally have a lash at is an all up for a place. I upset a Sydney bookie at Xmas by taking $31 k from him with a relatively small outlay. Not a happy man at all. I suppose I shouldn't have said "thanks Santa" when I collected.”

So Privateer my old friend, I hope you are still sticking to the bookies

I still think this Paretto has got legs. Now, its evolved a bit from my first post after mr Privateer's old threads became the focus.

I have noted all the inputs from forum members trying to remember his old threads and have come to this opinion at this time.

Correct me if I am wrong but for future research I am going to make a few assumption and trat each as a starting point. For now, I would like to base his plan around what I suppose I can call assumption no1. This may give us a starting point and allow a more methodical approach instead of being all over the place.

Others on here may have a different idea of where to start, feel free to change or alter but bear in mind that I guess their are a few assumptions to go after No 1 and they mcould be followed up to.

Now these assumptions are not in any order, and maybe one is no more important then the other but we have to start somewhere so the beginning is a very good place to start.

ASSUMPTION NO 1

I summed up Privateer's thread based on the information supplied by those who were around at that time. If I have not understood it correctly pleas chime in.

Others had said that Privateer was heavy into place betting and it may be possible his staking of 1 win x 3 place was because his Paretto plan was based on Place betting with an edge ( the $1 ) win part rather then a win system with a ( $3 ) place saver.

This is my Assumption No 1. It is said that he had a bet of $600 win $1800 place on at least one bet. Also it is stated that he had a P.O.T of 25%

I think the above paragraph might have a key part to play in our research plus their is that little thing about what the missing mystery 92% factor was all about. Our Privateer did talk in riddles. For our little exercise we may have to assume a few things as truth ? That the P.O.T. was actually 25% then we can querry it to see if their is any justification and if Mr Privateer actually threw in a few red herrings just to complicate the natter.

I have difficulty with a 25% P.O.T on a 1 x3 staking especially on the price of horse being aimed at. The killer for me is the win bet side, enough non winners and you are going to struggle plus a few runs of out on the place side leaves a big hole.

To consistently have a 25% P.O.T taking into account these losses is mighty effort that I struggle with.
The figures men on here are much better than me but on a 1x3 to break even on a placgetter but non winner you need a dividend of at least $1.33.

A few unplaced runs and it is going uphill to recover. I was thinking that it might be worth investigating a different staking approach that is in line with what Privateers theory is but mor in line with what mr Paretto migh investigate.

If we are still assuming that this is a Place System with a slight win edge maybe using the Paretto principal might be looked at. So, instead of 1 x 3 let's do what paretto might consider. Privateer staked a total of $4 if we used 20% for the win and 80% for the place then the bet would be $1 win $4 place.

This 1 x4 still gives us a win edge built in but the emhasis changes a bit to favor the place. It appears to me that if we are going to use the Paretto Principal it should be considered acrooss the board rather the selective cherry picks, at least for a Paretto thread, otherwise it becomes a Privateer thread which is great.

Maybe we have come to the fork in the road.

Star

Thanks for that.

The ancedotal evidence here implies that Mr Privateer was a serious player and as such should not be dismissed lightly. Now, using Mr Paretto again, perhaps only 20 % of what we have researced here is actually relevant the other 80% put in to confuse and confound.

Star

I disagree here. I feel that he has given all his selection criteria in his posts. These are the 20% that matter. He had 9 points to consider and then added class. I have garnered 13 however one may be a slight variation to a previous point and the two are from him agreeing that another poster was on the money with his rules. I don't think that he was confusing. I think that he wanted to share BUT HE WAS NOT JUST GOING TO POST HIS RULES IN ONE POST ON THIS FORUM. The rules are there and are at least 95% correct and and confirmed. They may be 100% correct. Go back through his posts and make a list 1-10 confirmed and a maybe list. Add each point to the maybe list and move it to the confirmed list once you can confirm it. This should remove any confusion. Beton

I was trawling back through previous postings and I found this back in 2002

96% of winners >$4.00 by pre-race dividends. Does this mean Newspaper pre-post markets?

Is the missing link?

Thanks Beton.

Maybe I should explain. I see you joined here in 1970. Is that correct ? If so, the fact that you still have a clear idea of what Privateer was on about implies that he was somebody to listen too. I have only picked up snippets of info from forum posts and from what I can see the old posts only go back to 2002.

Maybe I was confused because your quote above does clarify a lot and I thank you for keeping me on the path. Obviously he was very good at what he does and was a serious player.

Thanks.

Star

ps

I will do what you say.

TTA Good work.
Could very well be on both accounts. This is in line with what has been stated before. The link has to be with prices. Beton

Just had a quick look 87% of winners were =<$4 on tote. That is a lot of shortening.