Yalwen

I have purposefully excluded any form study at all in this exercise to try to prove that odds on selections are viable in their own right.
I am sure that any returns can be improved by adding additional criteria.
These include (for flat racing) :-
Exclude the top 3 in the weights. This increases returns by 9%
Irish bred 5%
1st or 2nd last time 3%
More than 6 runners 4%
Not drawn in top 3 3%
Good to Firm or Firm going 4%
Last ran more than 30 days ago 5%
Last ran less than 13 days ago 7%
Exclude 5/6 furlong races 2%
Forecast odds less than 4/5 2%
Male horses 2%
 
 

After a few hours number crunching today I’ve reached the conclusion that it may be time to admit defeat with this system because a much simpler and more profitable approach has been hiding in the data! I’ll have to recheck my maths tomorrow but just wanted to set my thoughts down while it’s going round in my head.
The current system is theoretically profitable in that if you backed every one of the 1616 players at my target odds you’d be 137.17 points up with an ROI of 8.5%. In practice though, I’m around 5 points down from 394 actual bets (based on 1 point level stakes where I’m trying to bet £10 per point). Obviously it’s easy to come up with a theoretically profitable system (e.g. back Harry Kane to score in every game at 5/1 or better would be a belter) but harder to realise an actual profit. So far the evidence suggests this system is likely to fall just short of break even. I decided to see how a fellow punter’s “Rule of 70” system would have performed with my data. To cut a long story short you do a simple sum and if the result is 70 or more you have a bet. It would have resulted in 463 bets for a profit of 12.29 points with an ROI of 2.65%. That’s actual rather theoretical profit as it’s based on best bookie’s price. It might have been possible to get better still on BF. Having reviewed a range of numbers I alighted on using 72 rather than 70. This reduced the number of bets to 334 but increased the profit to 31.2 points with an ROI of 9.3%. As this was loss making at the shorter end of the price spectrum I looked at various options for a minimum price to apply and decided on 2.3 which reduced the number of bets to 287 but increased the profit to 40.8 points with an ROI of 14.2%. This supports the observations when I looked at AE for the different price ranges. So, to sum up, I’m trying to see if there’s any reason not to switch from my system (complex and theoretically profitable but not in reality) for another system which would appear to be simpler and profitable in reality. Just tweak the “magic number” from 70 to 72 and apply a minimum price of 2.3.

Leeds
A slightly controversial one coming in next with last season’s relegation escape artists Leeds being my pick for finishing just one spot off the bottom. I mean, we can look at a number of factors as to why I think this and it goes beyond just simply seeing the departures of Kalvin Phillips to Manchester City and Raphinha to Barcelona (again, how are the Spanish outfit still signing players for this sort of money?!). Head coach Jesse Marsch has already moved to replace those star players with the signings of Tyler Adams from RB Leipzig and Brenden Aaronson from RB Salzburg. They may well both be players that Marsch is familiar with but do they have what it takes to cut it in the Premier League? You have to say even the most optimistic of Leeds fans will feel this is a double downgrade.
Those two are not the only new arrivals at the club though. Right back Rasmus Kristensen from RB Salzburg, central midfielder Marc Roca from Bayern Munich, and winger Luis Sinisterra from Feyenoord are all noteworthy additions. The last of those is another player who could fill the void left by the creative Raphinha. Unfortunately, they are all big gamble signings. It’s perhaps a damning indictment of an American head coach who himself is short on experience of the top division in English football. Marsch has a 33.33% win ratio with the Whites so far and that’s before he lost the club’s two biggest stars.
This remains a Leeds team that is very much still part of the Marcelo Bielsa era. Question marks remain over the reliability of goalkeeper Illhan Meslier, the defence has hardly been improved despite conceding 79 goals last season, the midfield has lost its two best players with the replacements being untried at this level, and no striker has been signed even though Rodrigo has shown he’s far from prolific, Patrick Bamford is injury prone, and Tyler Roberts has been shipped out on loan to QPR. How are Leeds going to stop conceding so many goals? How quickly can the new-look midfield adapt to life in the Premier League? Where are the goals going to come from? How does all this function within Marsch’s new approach? It’s a lot. It’s probably too much. The Leeds fans are nervous and I can totally see why. Looking at their opening batch of fixtures they need to start well otherwise it’s going to be very difficult.
Final Position: 19th

good luck with this trotter/  somewhere in my archives is a  "speed figures based system" given to me by "dapper character"
called "MILO"  i recall him telling me { after far to many beers } that it was given to him by Phil Bull  { possibly bullshit }
that was back in the 80's   but he did seem to do quite well from his punting /  perhaps i"ll try dig it out /  
ive always found it difficult to bet to a system /   hope yours goes well   be lucky 

Knowing how we love to come up with ratings systems I've thought of a new one using the Racing Post
It's very simple ...... you add together 2 figures from the race card ....... the RPR and the Trainers RTF
RPR is the Post's form figure for the horse ...... RTF is the trainer form figure, ie to what extent are his horses currently running up to their form
So the rating is trying to answer the question ...... how good is the horse and how likely is it that he'll run up to his level
Of course it takes no account of trip, going, track suitability but if you're concerned about all that you might as well just do your hours of form study ...... the idea here is that it's quick and simple, based on horses class and trainer form and introduces an element of randomness and whatever the opposite of subjectivity is. So hopefully it'll throw up some of  those random looking winners that you probably wouldn't pick if you were studying form
Trial Run at Chester ..... number of selections based on field size and EW places
1.50 - Pink Stripes 177, Kiss N Cuddle 142
2.20 - Endeared 158, Utilis 157, Zephina 147
2.55 - Princess Shabnam 192, Ventura Diamond166
3.30 - Yanifer 199, Paws for Thought 156, Sweeping 155
4.00 - Rogue Spirit 177, Rock of England 172
4.30 - Mythical 166, Midraar 157, Wynter Wildes 142
5.00 - Cormier 153, Wots The Wifi Code 135, Golden Melody 133
I'll update results later
 
 
 
 

A daily thread is putting your comments / fancies for the day on the appropriate thread 
ie today's daily thread = 
RACING CHAT - FRIDAY JULY 29th .
Your input is fantastic but by opening lots of threads it's lots of extra & unwanted scrolling about to find new(ish) & long term existing ones etc...
Enjoy your day hope you bag a few winners & that this explanation is understandable ?

On Saturday the Daily Mail announced, in a very low key manner, that Nigel Taylor’s FORMCAST would be ending after 43 years.  Now, I know that there have been many systems and methods based around the Top Rated 78 horse and also that some of them were quite successful, particularly in the non-handicap races. So, this morning I opened the paper to see what the replacement ‘private handicap ratings’ would be like. Unbelievably, in this day and age, there was no replacement. Just a list of runners for each race together with the usual betting forecast and they haven’t even printed the number of declarations per race. What a shambles! What used to be one of the country’s leading formcards now becomes a shadow of its former self. Talk about back to the drawing board. A very disappointing start to the week and my subscription to the rag will cease at the end of the month.

If you're sharp enough the value can be had with the bookmakers.  The trouble then is with keeping your Accounts. These guys are constantly looking for anyone who may be a shrewd backer and if you take the value you'll soon be banned. Their sophisticated software flags up winners and even losers who constantly take value. Look at the profits made by the leading bookmakers - that tells its own story. They only want and encourage losers. Unfortunately they have made it impossible for clever backers to hold on to regular accounts so, it's obvious, the exchanges, who only want your commission, is the way we are all being forced to go.   

I've been involved in gambling, on and off course, for even longer than McLarke and I would wholeheartedly agree with him.  The problem that the originator is facing is not his profit - he is already making a level stake profit of +16 points, which is good - it is his expectations. His strike rate is ok, but could be better and he needs to focus on the number of losers that he backs. and the stakes that they carry. If he can do that, and I can, then he will see that level stakes or considered stakes is the only way to go. Money management is crucial and you only get grey hairs and problems with most, probably all, forms of staking plans especially those that depend on any form of retrieval. Of course, it goes without saying, that a solid and realistic bank roll is required and your betting pattern should never put the bank under severe pressure. 

Harry, Clive Holt's staking plan is extremely logical.  I've used it for years and the sense is apparent.

I've been involved in gambling, on and off course, for even longer than McLarke and I would wholeheartedly agree with him.  The problem that the originator is facing is not his profit - he is already making a level stake profit of +16 points, which is good - it is his expectations. His strike rate is ok, but could be better and he needs to focus on the number of losers that he backs. and the stakes that they carry. If he can do that, and I can, then he will see that level stakes or considered stakes is the only way to go. Money management is crucial and you only get grey hairs and problems with most, probably all, forms of staking plans especially those that depend on any form of retrieval. Of course, it goes without saying, that a solid and realistic bank roll is required and your betting pattern should never put the bank under severe pressure. 

That's a terrific post, Harry. I don't think that you are asking for anything that is too onerous and it would certainly show much greater clarity. Let's hope that the response is positive.

Has the Racing Industry gone insane?
No one can visually tell if a whip is used to caress , coax or beat unless the horse tells them visually or by pist race inspection. Its ludicrous 1 or 41 use of the whip is not important except to the anti-Racing Woke Industry which as the exciting Tory leadership candidate Badenoch explains employs over a million trouble makers and has tied up 200,000 police in knots with its phoney "offensive" claims. The vet is on hand and he should make an objection to any horse's finishing position he deems fit.
The whip may not be used at all and I would have thrown out the occasional winner for abusive riding. The kick in the belly and boots is far worse.
 

Anmaat wins in another exciting race ...fantastic price last night too ...returns 65.00 ...  total returns so far 130.00 ...2 races to come
Edit ....actually it's 140.00 ...I can't add lol ? 

I couldn’t agree more with your views Quartu. Watching any of the sports presenters on any of the TV programmes is like being addressed by unqualified Social working geography teachers. Comparisons with these people and the real ‘experts’ of recent years is impossible. The great voices and knowledge of people such as O’Sullivan, Francome, Lord Oaksey, McCririck were voices of wisdom, information and authority. Todays so called ‘presenters’ comprise box-tickers and loud mouthed buffoons with, of course, the important inclusivity agenda regardless of the ability of those ‘included’. I’ve taken to recording the races, fast forwarding through the drivel and, apart from the actual commentary, the mute button is pressed. 

I couldn’t agree more with your views Quartu. Watching any of the sports presenters on any of the TV programmes is like being addressed by unqualified Social working geography teachers. Comparisons with these people and the real ‘experts’ of recent years is impossible. The great voices and knowledge of people such as O’Sullivan, Francome, Lord Oaksey, McCririck were voices of wisdom, information and authority. Todays so called ‘presenters’ comprise box-tickers and loud mouthed buffoons with, of course, the important inclusivity agenda regardless of the ability of those ‘included’. I’ve taken to recording the races, fast forwarding through the drivel and, apart from the actual commentary, the mute button is pressed. 

Just use the racing post ratings (RPR) top rated for the 78 rated you wont be a million miles out ?

That's a terrific post, Harry. I don't think that you are asking for anything that is too onerous and it would certainly show much greater clarity. Let's hope that the response is positive.

That's a terrific post, Harry. I don't think that you are asking for anything that is too onerous and it would certainly show much greater clarity. Let's hope that the response is positive.

Here's my take for what it's worth, as an only occasional racing punter and someone who only follows other people's selections on an ad hoc basis. (I don't have the time or inclination to follow anyone else where it entails backing several selections on a daily basis but I'm interested in seeing how any thread does where someone is actually willing to run it for a decent number of bets.) 
Selections - credit where it's due, the thread's off to a decent start and the selections would appear to be profitable regardless of any "noise" relating to commission or the staking plan. I'd like to see where we are after 10 cycles in terms of a worthwhile sample size.
  Commission - I have to agree with the consensus here, the results should categorically factor in commission at 2% which is the minimum most people are likely to pay. I'd suggest that should be done from now on. BSP is a perfectly valid measure for the P/L but it makes no sense to then choose to ignore commission, especially when the staking plan has such specific 50% and 100% targets. The results would have so much more "real world" validity just for the simple step of making the appropriate deduction.
  Staking plan - I'm not sure of the merits of such a specific approach to staking but it obviously introduces an element of chance when it comes to how much you end up winning or losing on a particularly good or bad day. I think it's valid to expect a comparison to level stakes. What I'd like to see is, at the end of each cycle, a statement of how much the average stake would have returned if applied as a flat stake to every bet, to compare to the return from the staking plan, e.g. if the average stake is £45 would you have done better or worse just having £45 on every selection. Surely you would want to know if the staking plan is adding value or not? I'd be interested to see how the first four cycles would have done if you'd just had the average total stake on every selection.

On Saturday the Daily Mail announced, in a very low key manner, that Nigel Taylor’s FORMCAST would be ending after 43 years.  Now, I know that there have been many systems and methods based around the Top Rated 78 horse and also that some of them were quite successful, particularly in the non-handicap races. So, this morning I opened the paper to see what the replacement ‘private handicap ratings’ would be like. Unbelievably, in this day and age, there was no replacement. Just a list of runners for each race together with the usual betting forecast and they haven’t even printed the number of declarations per race. What a shambles! What used to be one of the country’s leading formcards now becomes a shadow of its former self. Talk about back to the drawing board. A very disappointing start to the week and my subscription to the rag will cease at the end of the month.

I have this month showing a 19 point level stakes loss (including commission at 2%)

Some anomalies there, unless I'm cracking up, mate.
Beryl Burton was a selection on Saturday at a BFSP of 3.10 and finished 4th of 5, and, as MCLARKE noticed, you didn't post anything yesterday.
By the way, my bank since 6th August stands at £784.20 - in theory anyway, and after paying the commission at 2%.

You didn't post any selections yesterday !

If commission is not taken then that impacts on the daily profit/loss figures, which impacts on the bank, which impacts on the next days stake.  It also means that the final figure for the cycle is incorrect.