Hi, S.B.

Glad you won with your method, especially with a 100% strike rate.

Today's selections:

Sun Coast
7/16

Orange
2/3, 10, 12, 13
4/3, 7, 9
5/15

Ballarat
5/5
7/11

Terang
2/2, 15
3/8, 11

Hobart
7/12
8/14, 15
9/10

Albany
1/9
2/7, 10
3/5
4/9
7/16
8/5, 8

Fortunately there were no "accidental" accidents today.

From the 25 selections there were 25 smiles for a profit of $127.48.

Hi Michaelg,

I'm a little concerned that you pulled the trigger too early on the T,C,D qualifiers being omitted.

You've made handsome profits thus far and my observation was merely based on 1 days results.

I think a comprehensive review of the T,C,D qualifiers is needed. My worry is based on there being so few qualifiers now compared to before the new rule and will it actually make a difference to the bottom line?

Since Michael stopped laying the T, D selections there have been 59 lays for 3 losses for a loss after comm of 5.99 laying to a liability of $11.
The jury is still out.

According to my records I began applying the T,D, & C (The Schmile) filters on Friday 8 Feb, but up to that time there was an overall total of 34 accidents for 16 of The Schmile accidents which is a worry.

The filter has been existent for the past three days. During this period there's been 72 selections for 70 smiles for a loss of $86. However, one of the accidents wasn't from a genuine selection. If I had identified this, then the method over the three days would be in profit of $247.

As there is doubt about the efficiency of the filter I now hope to look at the three days from Friday 8 to yesterday and see how the deleted (T, D and C) selections would have fared. When known, I will detail the result here.

michael,

You will need at least 1000 (or even better 2000) selections to make any sort of assumptions to these filters for this system. Your strike rate is about 98% so basing filters on a few days results is not the best idea.

Hi Michaelg,

I think it might be best to take Vortech's thinking in introducing the top 4 tatts filter where it reduced 50% of accidents for only a 13% reduction in selections.

My question is that the T,C,D filters, while being 16 of the 34 accidents may actually make money laying overall due to being overbet?

Hi, T.S.

I already omit the top 4 selections in Tatts/Unitab's rankings as recommended by one of the forumites - might even have been Vortech. And I also omit any selection rated between 96 and 100 Unitab points.

I have checked the last three day's results for any selections that had C, T or D in their form.

The results were not conclusive because of the relatively few selections. There were 33 selections for one accident for a break-even result. The accident was Saturday's Newcastle 6/6 whose price was surprisingly at single figures. I would expect at least one of the several filters to have eliminated it but unfortunately this was not so.

I don't have immediate records (would take too long to check them) to see if the filter was profitable over the entire term of the method, but because the method has been doing relatively well without the filter I will not apply it in the future. Hopefully I don't regret it.

I think it's probably best to continue as you have been until the T,C,D filter has more conclusive results as you've been doing admirably up until the last few days.

The law of averages will hopefully swing in your favour this week Michaelg!

Knock 'em outa tha' park!!!

Thanks, T.S.

Today's selections:

Wagga
3/2, 3, 6
4/10
8/6, 11

Ararat
1/6, 7, 8, 9, 11
3/15
5/11
7/12, 13, 14


Today's T, D, & C selections:

Wagga
8/6, 11

Love the separation method!

A good day - from the 25 selections there were 25 smiles for an overall profit of $92.99.

The T, D and C selections were beaten for a profit of $24.08 (included in the above overall profit).

After three weeks there have been 489 selections for 482 smiles for a profit of $1,732.

Today's selections:

Queanbeyan
2/9, 10
4/2

Stony Creek
1/3, 10
2/10, 12
4/1, 5, 14
5/3
8/11, 14, 15

Townsville
3/5, 9


No T, D or C selections today.

Not a bad day. There were 16 smiles from the 16 selections for a profit of $51.47.

Don Scott
 

I'm only new to this blog but couldn't help noticeing everyones preoccupation with Don Scotts ratings and laying outsiders which is mighty dangerous. Don't bother with that, Lay his short priced nuerals ! At the time of writing Townsville still had 2 races left and Qbyn one. D Scott had picked 3 winners from 19 races. Skyform picked 10 winners from 19. So back Skyform favourites and Lay D Scott's. If they were any good he wouldn't be giving the info away, he'd be a billionaire.

Geez it's quite in here.

Has anyone tried Rinconpaul's suggestion?

What constitutes a short priced neural and do you still lay it when it's not the fav?

Hi, Riconpaul.

Yes, laying outsiders is fraught with danger, however I am laying them on S.P. where the size of the loss is decided, and can be minimal if so wished.

The method is doing quite well. Including the testing period there have been 2,113 selections for 2,075 smiles which is a strike/success rate of 98%. And if the current $333 liability was layed on every selection a profit of $5,429 would have been made after the 2.5 months of its existence.

Don Scott's market is framed a few days (I'm under the impression its three days) before the actual race, so the calculations cannot take into account some important factors, such as the state of the track, the barrier draw, etc.

It's not surprising Skyform has a better record then D.S. with fancied horses. However I don't think we should apply too much importance on only one day's results.

Don Scott passed away several years ago. I think the Racing and Sports website may have applied some adjustments to his original calculations even though some of the prices are quite puzzling. Our lay system isn't based solely on his market, and several filters are in force to identify which selections are to be layed.

After my positive comments hopefully the method will now not crash and burn. Some of us punters can be so superstitious.

Can you tell me what is dangerous about laying outsiders if you lay to a liability, Rinconpaul

Further to Don Scott ratings
 

Further to my observations yesterday I note that the only 3 winners D Scott ratings came up with was when they were in agreeance with Skyform. So simple analogy based on one day, Back any D Scott nueral fav that agrees with Skyform for 3/3 and Lay all the D Scott nueral favourites that aren't in agreeance with Skyform for a perfect 18/18. Use a Recovery staking plan. Can't do a historical as Skyform don't retain their selections that I know of, but I'll start to do a paper trial. It'll probably crash & burn!

Just a query - Don Scott's market has no relationship on the neurals, they are unrelated.

I assume you mean the D.Scott market as shown on the Worksheet page?

Good luck with your findings - I'm sure there's a lot of interest here.

Neurals
 

I'm sorry I was referring yesterday to the lowest price rated in the PR column on the Neural sheet, apologies to Don Scott.
What I'll do is load the following selections into the bot and run on simulation.
Back for Win: ASCOT R1-6, R3-1, R6-8. CANT R1-7, R2-6, R4-3, R6-3, R7-5. E'Farm R1-7, R4-1,R5-8, R8-9. L'CESTON R1-3, R3-2,R7-2. MORN R2-2, R6-9. M Bridge R2-4, R4-5, R7-4, R8-1. ELLER R1-3, R4-3. RICC R1-1, R4-2, R5-2.

LAY ASCOT R4-3, R5-7, R7-2, R8-10. CANT R3-3,R5-2. E FARM R2-3, R3-5, R6-10, R7-9. L'CESTON R2-13,R4-2,R5-7,R6-1,R8-2. MORN R3-2,R4-2, R5-9, R7-7, R8-4, R9-4, R10-6. M BRIDGE R3-5, R5-3, R6-7. ELLER R2-1, R3-2, R5-4, R6-9. RICC R2-3, R6-16, R7-3, R8-9.

I'll apply a recovery staking plan probably 3

Post results this arv

At the sake of repeating myself Rinconpaul: What constitutes a short priced neural and do you still lay it when it's not the fav?

My data over 18 months has the Neurals P&L outperforming both the Skyform ratings and AAP.

Short priced neural
 

Short priced neural means just that the horse with the lowest price in Racing & Sports Neural list and yes I'm going to lay it whether it's favourite or not. Being 1st favourite doesn't mean much these days! But as others have suggested it may be a coincidence that none of the shortest, "lowest" priced neurals except three jointly picked by Skyform in the overall best category, won a race. We'll see with my test today.

Second try
 

Hey Rinconpaul
I make a fair portion of my income from laying longshots. You stated earlier that it is dangerous so I'd like to know what it is that you know on the subject that I don't. I'm beside myself with worry so please let me know asap.
Thanks

Speedy

LOL at SB

I think you should start up a new thread for this Rinconpaul as you are nearly doing the compete opposite of michaelg's superb outsiders system.

I will follow it with interest.

If you get the price right isn't there reason you can make money on both the short priced horses and the longshots?

Unfortunately I'm having problems getting into the R&S website.

Earlier this a.m. I was able to identify the selections for the first eight races at Mornington only.

They are:

Mornington
3/4
5/2
7/9, 13
8/9, 11

When/if I can access the website I will list the remaining selections here.

Here are the remaining selections.

Eagle Farm
6/13

Ascot
2/9
8/4, 5, 7

Murray Bridge
2/1, 3, 9, 12
4/7, 11
6/14, 16
7,1, 2, 10
8/12

Launceston
2/7, 11, 14
3/9, 10
5/6, 10
6/11

The D, T, and C selections:

E.Farm
6/13

Murray Bridge
7/1, 2, 10

Launceston
3/9, 10


Murray Bridge 1/1 was a selection but because I didn't have time to list it here I can't claim it's profit of $8.03. Fortunately, I was able to lay it.

Hi MG

How did you come up with Murray Bridge 1-1, it was first up?

Reply to Speedyben
 

Sorry mate, I guess when I said it was dangerous, in hindsight all betting is. You can go broke just as quick backing even money Fav's as laying 15/1 shots. It's all about Lady Luck. For instance backing $2 horses for a win says you have a 50% chance of winning, but the maths says you could have a losing run of up to 10 before that next win. Laying a 15/1 shot the percentages say you have 94% chance of winning, but there's no guarantee that your next loss might occur in 10 bets time followed by another 5 bets later. So its all about having a staking plan to recover losses and save you long term. Keep doing what you're doing if it works for you. I just hate laying anything over $6.50, it's just what you feel comfortable with.

Hi, Reddevil, you are correct - it should not have been a selection because it was resuming from a spell.

Due to being rushed I incorrectly listed the raw selections here before applying the filters - it was shown in the Daily Telegraph as not resuming but I only believe Unitab which unlike the Tele showed it as resuming from a spell. I was lucky it didn't win the race, and it's good to be aware of the interest of some people who check the authenticity of the selections.

I've double-checked the other selections and as far as I can tell they are all genuine selections.

SpeedyBen longshots
 

Mate I hope you didn'y Lay No.1 Prussian Power at Mornington R5. Won @ Lay price of 34:1? If it makes you feel better I just dropped 2 Lays for $166 but am only $20 behind for the day, still a way to go.

Thanks Rinconpaul
I lay from $21 up to $999. I have won 89 of the last 100 days and average 1.5 losers per 100 lays at about $25. It works for me so i'll keep going.

In Mornington 5 I laid nos 7 and 13 so no drama for me. Longshots get up occasionally but the whole fabric of racing would need to turn upside down for them to start winning consistently. All studies that I have seen show that if you BACK every even money chance you would lose less than 5c in the dollar but if you back every 33/1 chance ( e.g ) you would lose a far higher % of your turnover. I use the converse of this to selectively lay the longshots for a healthy profit. Laying to a fixed liability takes the stress out of it. Anyway, enough of this.
I was unaware of the Skyratings and I have never paid much attention to neurals so your posts have alerted me to something new for me to study. Thanks for that.

SpeedyBen, please clarify
 

Mate if you've won 89 Lays out of the last 100 days at say $1 stake = $89 win. So does that also mean you had 11 losing days at average $25 per $1 stake = $275 loss or you had 1.5 losses at $25 = $37.50 loss. It's a bit unclear? Thanks for the insight.

A bettable race for me but i didn't do anything,
Other than record the selections on a spreadsheet.

S.B. these are the ratings you referred to.

Good luck to both for the rest of the day.

http://www.skyracing.com.au/tab/for...38580&plusday=0

Cheers.
Garyf.

5 o'clock news
 

I've made my target for the day so I am reporting on the results so far on using the shortest price Neural. If you backed the Neural when it agreed with the best overall Skyform horse, you had 17 races for 7 wins = 41%.
If you layed all the other shortest price Neurals you would have had 18 Lay wins and 1 Back win = 95% Lay win strike rate. Almost as good as yesterday(100%) No rules required except if it matches Skyform don't Lay it.
In fairness to R&S if I reversed the scenario and Layed the best overall Skyform horse except when it matched the Neural, you had 24 races for 19 Lay wins = 79% Lay win strike rate.

NEURALS – Multi factor analysis of numerous stats and data to produce an overall mathematical Neural rating.

In fairness only 2 days data.

A disasterous day - there were two accidents from the 34 selections for a loss of $439.59.

Since increasing the liabilty to $333 (22 Jan) there have been three D, T and C accidents for a loss of $999 yet I doubt the profit for the D, T and C smiles for that period have even come close to half of the $999. So from tomorrow I am re-introducing the filter.

There may now not be many selections but I expect/hope the profit will be better.

Tough day....
 

...with what felt like a ridiculous number of favourites getting up.

Would love to know how Mark went today.

Regards,

Massive