|
Quote:
Nice work for the last 2 weeks. |
Well done michaelg.
|
I wish I could say well done on your efforts michaelg but I just can't do that to you. ;)
|
Thanks, gents, including you, T.O.
T.O. I have to assume you wish the method well and I don't believe in curses, not even here on the forum. I expect to be proven correct particularly because when "your" accidents occurred two of the current filters did not exist at that time. Today's selections: Taree 2/3, 7 3/8 4/3, 9 6/13 7/5, 6, 10 8/7 Swan Hill 2/4 5/2, 4 6/10 Townsville 5/1, 8 7/3, 8 |
Quote:
You would be correct in that assumption. |
Thanks, T.O.
Now let's see the curse vapourise. |
Correction - Taree 7/6 is not a selection because it in the top 4 of Unitab's rankings. (Stugot's filter).
|
A very bad day. There were two accidents from 25 selections for a loss of $585.00.
No, T.O. You did not cause the loss. The last five days all won so it was about time to be hit with a loss. |
Quote:
Sorry to hear that michaelg. I know it's stupid but I do sometimes feel like a cooler. For the sake of yourself and all your followers, I won't bother saying any congratulatory things on this thread again. Just know that I'll still be looking on with interest. |
T.O.
Don't worry about it, it's all coincidence even though if I were in your position I would probably have your very attitude. If you ever want to comment again please do so. Today's selections Kembla 6/6 Sandown 3/15 6/7 7/9 Dombeen 3/1, 4 5/11, 15 7/13 9/14 Strathalbyn 1/6 2/2, 4 4/3 6/11 7/14 Ascot 2/6, 9 3/10 4/7, 10 5/13 8/16 |
Today's 22 selections were beaten for a profit of $145.76.
|
Back in the black Michaelg.
|
Yes, TS, but it's still got $444 to make up for Tuesday's loss.
If I had started from day one (Friday 7 December) laying for the current $333 liability the method would now be in profit by $4,585. So at the moment I'm still somewhat hopeful even though a couple of quick accidents do put a dent in one's confidence and create some negative thoughts and expectations. Today's selections: Grafton 4/12 5/10 8/11, 13 9/13 10/10, 12 Seymour 2/2 3/9 8/9, 12 Sun Coast 4/5 5/9, 12 6/6 7/5, 9, 11 Pt Lincoln 7/7 Geraldton 3/3, 6 4/4, 10 7/5, 7 |
You're batting at a 98% SR Michaelg, 2 out of every 100 will be losses. Simple at the moment.
I noticed both the accidents were c or t/d winners. Something in that? Great thread! |
Thanks for your observation, TS.
I haven't paid attention to the selection's history apart from it's last start placing and if resuming now or at previous start, but as soon as I get the time I will do so and report back here. It certainly would have saved Tuesday's two accidents but it may have prevented many smiles - even though it will be time consuming I have to check it out. |
The Schmile, I've decided to omit any horse with a "C", "D" or "T" in its form. It will reduce the amount of selections but I don't think there would be too many of them that are $100-plus in D.S's market. However, one of them ran second today so that's convinced me. Better safe than sorry applies to the method because even one accident causes heart ache which takes some time to recoup.
A good day - from the 25 selection there were 25 Schmiles for a profit of $262.17. |
michaelg have you looked at laying the place as well?
|
Quote:
Hi Michaelg, I'd be interested in what percentage of the accidents were T, C or D? |
Hi, Mark.
I Place layed the selections for only one day but I then stopped. I lost interest because Betfair unfortunately fielded (and still does) S.P. for the Place on major tracks only. The Schmile, I've checked the accidents for "C'' "T" and "D". There's been from day one a total of 1,802 selections for 34 accidents. Of these there have been 16 that come under the above form scenario - that is almost 50% of all accidents. I don't how many smiles this filter would have eliminated (none of the Maiden races) but I'd be surprised if it did not increase the strike rate and profit. So from today I'm adding this as the "The Schmile" filter. |
Michael and Schmile
A quick check of yesterday's fields shows that of 299 horses listed in the 3 east coast meetings there were 87 that had a C,D or T. About 29%. Looks like a good decision to omit them. Having said that I'm going to leave them in with a reduced liability to see how it affects the DS100 selections. I'll report back in a couple of weeks. You've all done very well ............. |
Thanks, SpeedyBen. I'm looking forward for the results of your research.
I read Don Scott's book how he prices a horse. I'm fairly certain he did not take into account the C, T and D factors unless the horse won recently, yet today's electronic and printed form guides think it's worthwhile to show this information regardless of when the horse won. If his market still ignores this form factor then its possible his market for his "outsiders" may have a weak point as evidenced by our Lay method that shows 16 accidents from the total of 34. |
Today's selections:
Moonee Valley 4/2, 9 Walcha 1/2, 13 2/3, 6, 9 5/9, 10 6/5, 11 Pakenham 3/4 4/1 5/3, 11 7/8 9/9, 11 Canberra 6/3, 5 Bunbury 2/6 3/9, 11 4/1, 7 5/6, 9 |
Quote:
A fair enough response michaelg. Despite no SP on most races have you kept records of how many ran a place? |
Unfortunately no. I can check my records but that will take ages, but I'm not too sure if/where Betfair keeps their Place results.
|
Quote:
Most of the time on the country tracks (and sometimes the city ones) there is just no volume for placing any meaningful back or lay place bets. |
Another weak point, which you have overcome, is that the ratings show unraced and untrialled horses at $301 dollars or so instead of putting N/R next to them.
|
A bad day - there was one accident from the 26 selections for a loss of $173.40.
|
michaelg,
I hope you have been recording down all the info in a spreadsheet so you can check things easily. If so could you provide a breakdown based on field size. I think you might find most of the accidents fall in the fields sized 9 through to 12. |
Hi, U.B.
Not knowing anything about computers I don't have a spreadsheet. However I've manually looked at the results from last Saturday. Regardless of field size there have been 3 accidents for a profit of $453, and with fields of 13-plus there's been a profit of $331 but with no accidents. It's something I will look at when I get time. Maybe it's worthwhile to increase the size of the standard bet in these larger fields. If there's any selections today in these larger fields I will identify them. |
Quote:
thanks michael. |
U.B.
I've checked the records of the accidents. Unfortunately field size hasn't had any importance. Fields of 13-plus have had their fair share of accidents. I'll ignore field size and hope the method continues to perform. Thanks for your positive intentions. |
Quote:
Betfair has a simple function to download your history into a spreadsheet. All you need is to have Excel on your computer. Most do and you can get some fantastic summaries from it. Happy to lend a hand if you'd like. |
Thanks for your kind offer, Speedy Ben. However one of my fiends will soon be spending a week in my area and I will ask him to sit at my computer and show me what to do.
Today's selections: Warwick Farm 8/11 Newcastle 2/3, 14 4/1, 7 5/5, 16, 17 7/10 Nowra 4/10 5/5, 6, 8 Coonabarabran 1/7 2/15 3/5, 10 Gold Coast 3/5, 9 7/12 Toowoomba 2/7 Not many selections today because of the introduction of the recent filter. |
Quote:
|
None fortunately. However after today's results I'm beginning to think I may have a few unknown ones.
There was one accident from the 21 selections for a loss of $213.78. That's two successive losing days - there's never been three so I suppose I should be hopeful about tomorrow...but I can't. |
Michael
I don't know if you'd call this good news or bad news but Newc 7/10 ( a loss for you ) was rated at $19. |
Thanks, Speedy Ben, you are right about it's D.S. price being $19.
But maybe R&S reduced it's price after the race to reflect it's win. However no such thing happened to Friday's accident of Pakenham 9/9 because the Worksheet still shows it's D.S. price at $300. All I can think of is that yesterday I must have identified it's D.S. price before R&S loaded the scratchings which reduced it's price to $19 - this is something I must consider. So I don't really know if yesterday's accident was a genuine one. And to reduce from a price of $100(?) to $19 does seem extreme and unlikely, but because I listed it here as a selection I have to wear it. However, yesterday's disappointment is now almost non-existent. Fortunately I layed some of the other selections for more than the standard $333 to break-even on the day. Thanks for checking it out and bringing it to our notice. |
I record before scratchings:
The Final Rating was 33.5 and the don scott price was $26. Here are all the horses:
Possibly the selection should have been 11 ? |
Thanks, U.B - whatever happened, the mistake was mine.
I first write down the selections based on the Worksheet market and at the same time I cross-reference them with the Telegraph. Finally, I look at Unitab for the remaining filters and come up with the final selections. When I looked at Unitab, No.11 was scratched, so I believe I could not have considered it. No.10 matched all the rules, except for the price, so I still can't say with certainty why I made the mistake. There's been 1,949 selections - I hope I haven't made any more mistakes. My only excuse is that my selection process is done manually. Sorry anyone, if you layed it. I just have to be more careful. |
Quote:
The reason that I checked your selections is that I worked out my own selections and I did not have a loser on the day so, I assumed that I may have overlooked this one. I go a bit wider than you so when you have a loss I always have it too. I did the first half of each meeting on Fri night and the second half about 3pm eastern on Sat. so that is when i would have done the loser's race. |
| All times are GMT +10. The time now is 11:39 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.