MCLARKE CHALLENGE

[Zilzalian]

16 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

I agree it is a pointless exercise but I was responding to a challenge.

A bit harsh saying my systems are crap though to be fair recent results have been rubbish. October is on track to be my worst month ever although I'm still well in profit for the year. I've had bad runs before and I've recovered from them.

I'm taking a bit of a break now from racing, I need to spend more time on my shares investments as those returms have started to dip.

No disrespect intended Micheal, Crap in the respect that they throw up too many gg's (many in one race) which makes them unmanageable to my mind. the clue is there though where you say you hit the fc/tc in one race good profit in there somewhere because you don't need many of those on a butty to make a meal.

[MCLARKE]

1 hour ago, Zilzalian said:

No disrespect intended Micheal, Crap in the respect that they throw up too many gg's (many in one race) which makes them unmanageable to my mind. the clue is there though where you say you hit the fc/tc in one race good profit in there somewhere because you don't need many of those on a butty to make a meal.

In reality I only bet on 1 horse in a race but listed them all on here just for the purpose of this challenge.

I did an analysis of forecasts compared to lsp and lsp showed a profit whilst the forecasts showed a loss.

[MCLARKE]

You’ve said it is easy and anyone can do it “so go ahead and now show the forum how it is done. 

43 winners in 11 days. 

41 winners in 10 days.

However, a loss of 91 points at SP.

A much smaller loss at BSP of 28 points. BSP was better on 38 occasions. This shows that it is foolish to bet at SP.

 

[Zilzalian]

22 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

You’ve said it is easy and anyone can do it “so go ahead and now show the forum how it is done. 

43 winners in 11 days. 

41 winners in 10 days.

However, a loss of 91 points at SP.

A much smaller loss at BSP of 28 points. BSP was better on 38 occasions. This shows that it is foolish to bet at SP.

 

41 winners from how many selections Micheal? I am curious to compare how many winners i have had in the last 10 days and how many and how far back would i have to go to total 40 winners.

Now here's the point i wanted to ask @Sporting Sam the same question but he doesn't keep records and i don't fancy going through all his posts to add them up.

[MCLARKE]

There were 401 selections

 

[harry_rag]

2 hours ago, Zilzalian said:

41 winners from how many selections Micheal? I am curious to compare how many winners i have had in the last 10 days and how many and how far back would i have to go to total 40 winners.

I thought it was a pointless exercise?  If you’re going to the trouble you might as well tot up the respective P/L figures as well.

I’ve been thinking about this a bit given all the talk about number of winners, returns and the whole forecast discussion and realised it’s all a bit pointless to an extent. Someone tells you they’ve hit 100 winners in a month and it’s obviously meaningless devoid of context. They tell you how many bets they’ve had and at least you get an idea of strike rate but it’s still meaningless because they could all have been either odds on shots or massive prices. So they tell you profit and loss figure and ROI. At last, something worthwhile to quote. But then, win or lose, it just tells you what sort of month they had. The sample size will be too small to prove whether they won or lost as a result of luck or skill.

Ultimately you need a sample size of 1000s of bets at typical horse racing odds to prove anything either way. I bet at much shorter average odds but see runs like 1 winner in 20 bets and 10 consecutive winners. The swings between best and worst runs will be more extreme at your game.

Point of this ultimately pointless post? I suppose it’s keep proper records and keep them for a long time before you draw any conclusions from them, whether positive or negative. And ignore any partial or short term information that gets put out there as it means absolutely nothing.

 

[Zilzalian]

5 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

I thought it was a pointless exercise?  If you’re going to the trouble you might as well tot up the respective P/L figures as well.

I’ve been thinking about this a bit given all the talk about number of winners, returns and the whole forecast discussion and realised it’s all a bit pointless to an extent. Someone tells you they’ve hit 100 winners in a month and it’s obviously meaningless devoid of context. They tell you how many bets they’ve had and at least you get an idea of strike rate but it’s still meaningless because they could all have been either odds on shots or massive prices. So they tell you profit and loss figure and ROI. At last, something worthwhile to quote. But then, win or lose, it just tells you what sort of month they had. The sample size will be too small to prove whether they won or lost as a result of luck or skill.

Ultimately you need a sample size of 1000s of bets at typical horse racing odds to prove anything either way. I bet at much shorter average odds but see runs like 1 winner in 20 bets and 10 consecutive winners. The swings between best and worst runs will be more extreme at your game.

Point of this ultimately pointless post? I suppose it’s keep proper records and keep them for a long time before you draw any conclusions from them, whether positive or negative. And ignore any partial or short term information that gets put out there as it means absolutely nothing.

 

All you say is indeedy correct, and yes i was going to look at p/l which was my point,. Anyway, for a man like you that likes shorties 215 Plumpton sees western soldier at better than evens, this animal was trained in Germany by Peter Schiergan and was a decent animal with a good bit of class obviously bought by the excellent judge Milton for this jumping game bet of the day for me i reckon it should be 1/2 not 5/4.

[harry_rag]

Thanks @Zilzalian I was referring to my footy bets typically being at shorter odds, I tend to look for bigger prices when I stray into your domain. Be rude not to have a nibble at that one though; got 12/5 by using the weekly double odds offer that I always forget to make use of!

[Zilzalian]

1 hour ago, harry_rag said:

Thanks @Zilzalian I was referring to my footy bets typically being at shorter odds, I tend to look for bigger prices when I stray into your domain. Be rude not to have a nibble at that one though; got 12/5 by using the weekly double odds offer that I always forget to make use of!

Its not every day you get a freebie 😁 7l winnerrrrr.