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.

I don't think the internet was invented back then. :D

Maybe just a glitch in the way long term members have been recorded.

Thank god for clearing that up T.O.
If that joining date was correct that,
MEANS HE HAS BEEN POSTING FOR 42 YEARS.

So if he joined at 18 when legally you can bet, he would now be 60,
Leave me out of that.

Cheers.

I see you joined here in 1970. Is that correct ? NO 2004
Maybe just a glitch in the way long term members have been recorded. CORRECT.
Star
There are people that you notice, There are people which you take with a dose of salt picking out the occasional gems, and there are people who have nothing to offer but offer it anyway. Who you listen too and what you collect is in accordance to your frame of mind at time.

I will be honest. Where the privateer was and I was in 2004 were two worlds apart and what he offered was of no interest to me then. However he was a person that you noticed. Now that he has been brought to our attention again, what he offered does suit me today. The forum has been benefical and even if you are matured you can still grow up. Hence I went back through his posts and did exactly what I advised you to do. And I have started to implement the rules.

This is all I can do. I will not post the rules because the privateer requested several times not to list them. Out of respect for the information given in faith I will not post them. BUT THEY ARE ALL THERE. Beton

Would also make sense for Privateer to consider price as one of the latter factors, if not last?

LG

GaryF
there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being past 60. I beleive that middle age is the best time of your life and middle age starts at 50. I hope that you pass 60 and leisurely go past 100. I only hope that you don't go roaring past 60 and come to an abrupt halt. Beton

Almost there Beton only 4 years to go
Hope it doesn't stop at 60 as well.
Especially the winning part.

Cheers.

Get the race (class, # runners, venue, distance) , get the horse that meets the selection criteria (LS,2LS, Place%, average winnings, Wt, TAB#)then make sure that it meets the minimum and maximum Pre-post prices in Friday paper. Not the fav and >$4 SP & 1x3 EW. It has to be the last factor.

Only 60-4 = ..
Oh really?

Consider the scooter order cancelled then mate.

Pennance for claiming being elderly too early is,
A couple of circuits of the straight 6 across road then,
Hit the turf an give me 20 !

LG

PS Failing that, a few quiet uns in the Quiet M ?

Regarding prices - He used Friday Pre-Post as either his No. 1 rule or No. 2 rule (the other rule vying for top spot was fitness).

He took no notice of SP.

Barny
He did not bet <$4 which is the SP. This is not a selection criteria, it just means that if the price was less than $4 then no bet. You have to have the race first and the horse second before you can check the price. Beton

When I said "he took no notice of SP" I meant to say that he punted double figure odds horses.

Thanks for that L.G.
Will take the latter if that's ok(a few quietes)

The former is a distant memory unfortunately (L.O.L..)
Scooter is good though.

Cheers.

Thank you and I understand . I have got my two columns drawn up

Star

I'm certain I've got all the rules too, but I cannot make it work to a profit.

I am prepared to put my money on it. 1 from 1 on Sat. The 6 selections that were no bet because of the wet had 1 win and 2 places for a good return.

What a Surprise!!!!

You will only be too pleased to discover the 90/10 plan i,ve written on my System thread with full results over thousands of races.

Will this be known as the Super Improved Pareto Plan ?

Cheers and enjoy.
darky

It obviously lost in your systems thread so you'll have to refresh with the thousands of results. Beton

Last post.
Ocho was kind enough to post them.
Cheers.

ps .Having its usual massive days of profit today.

Boo

Did you know Privateer ran a "stable" of 30 horses.

Can you please elaborate?

Yes, At one point in his punting life he had a "stable" of 30 horses that he regularly backed. I guess with his Pareto Stuff he gave thataway.

BUT, worthy of mentioning is that he sometimes ventured away from Pareto method.

All was not hard and fast with Privateer, his methods evolved over time, which is what any decent punter should do.

Quote Privateer "Obviously some firmers are as a result ofprofessionally based moves but I think that the majority are as a result of mugpunters associating any betting fluctuation with a horses ability to performwell in a race."

I haven't as yet found proof that he had a stable, but I know he did. Once I've found the post, I'll post it on here. I don't want to be misleading to anyone.

I found it in my notes on Privateer's Pareto ..... NOT a copy of one of Privateers posts so it cannot be confirmed.

I've read and re-read my notes on Privateer's Pareto, and I know think I've misled myself (and as a consequence you lot coz' I've got a lot of his posts). The mention about "But should mention that myextensive trackwork and trial logs wouldn't fall under the heading of"basic handicapping" and they arethe key to this little method.",

I'm pretty sure it refers to selections he makes outside Pareto.

Barny
You have obviously copied most of his posts. Whereas I only copied what was relevant either for or against. I am certain what you have said in your last post was pertaining to something else another system.

here's the full post ..... "

• Now, before anybody jumps down my throat and asks me to provide detailed explanation as to how I arrived at these selections (particularly those Brisbane in I'll tell you.
  
  These selections (with the exception of BR 4 - 18 which was an actual tip I received last night) are based upon a method of assessing track work, barrier trials, form history patterns, class and to a lesser extent weights, in order to determine (a) the fitness of a runner and (b) the class of a runner. Those listed above were the standouts from that analysis. It is not a proven method and not one that I'd seriously consider on a day to day basis at this time. It does tend to throw up good payers though (last week It found Song of Hope at 33/1) although I haven't really looked at it outside of (until now).
  
  As with anything else I post, a 1 x 3 ratio bet is always recommended.

No need to explain to YOU maybe.








But should mention that myextensive trackwork and trial logs wouldn't fall under the heading of"basic


handicapping" and they arethe key to this little method.

Privateer's top 2 were Fitness and Pre-post, so even if you did a two filter selection 1) Must have had more than 3 runs this time in (Fitness) and 2 )must be between 4.00 and 11.00 pre-post ..... there's a decent start !!!

Send cash only ..... no cheques !!!!!!!!!