Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Bobbins... If you're referring to me Juninho fan, I am no genius. Even if you're taking the rise. Listen regarding my system, I don't have all the answers. All I can say is it has worked consistently for me for nearly 9 months now. And in my total research it has worked for 4.3 years. Like I have mentioned before I truly believe one of the major reasons my system works for greyhounds is the set number of 6 possible outcomes. I wouldn't dream of attempting to find the common losing limit for say roulette or horse racing. Because there are too many possible outcomes to overcome. A roulette wheel has 37 possible outcomes. And horseracing has uneven possibilities. You can have 2 runners in one race and 22 in the next. There is no set criteria to work with, like there is for greyhound racing. And that set factor is 6. A manageable number of outcomes. I think this is the important factor you have to bare in mind before you start to give your reasons for not believing my system works. If you can understand my point maybe you can see why it's possible to identify a zone in the long losing run where the vast majority of long losing runs come to rest for the middle two traps. Trap 3 & Trap 4. I am only concerned about this re-occuring situation. I never have any Idea what dog is running in trap 3 or 4. Or its previous stats. Only how those two traps perform between day 14 & day 20 of my system. And all I can say is the performance is very impressive. An average of 12 losing runs finish their life in that 7 day gap, for every 1 losing run that goes beyond the 20th day.

[Guest lufc]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested HTML Comments are not allowed

[Guest lufc]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested Hmm message seemed to have messed up... Again... Trap Number = Fixed, the two most consistent for winners in general and for this system Dog running in trap = Random, you will get a variety of different classed dogs, of high and low odds. Chance of victory = Pretty high in 7 attempts with different classes of dogs. After a losing run = Higher Chance, this seems to be the point most people are debating over. There are those who feel it is not logical, and among themselves and what they beleive, they are correct. Other people beleive in probability in greyhound racing, the probability of a trap number winning after a losing run is higher than when losing straight from day 1 where there is no run behind it. People may have their own opinions on this, and are each correct in their own way, but you must remember for greyhounds, they are unmanned runners, they have no obstacles to overcome, they have no weight on thier back => chances are they will run more towards statistics.

[Guest lufc]

Re: Bobbins...

You guys(lufc/Fenderstratocaster/Boytractor4x4x4x4) make me laugh, you're willing to pump hundreds if not thousands of pounds onto a trap number, A TRAP NUMBER!!!!, just because it hasn't won a race the day before at the same time! Potentially you could end up having a week's wages riding on a dog that is the slowest in the race and has no trapping ability whatsoever!! WOULD YOU BE CONFIDENT?

Fender has stated that he started on a bank of £200. Thousands? Not likely. Not many people would pump so much into a system that did not work. He has stated that over nearly 9 months the system has been successful...doesnt seem like hes saying it is making a bankrupting loss and hes pumping money into it weekly? If its been so successful for so long hes only pumping WINNINGS into the system. I am unaware of BT's account status, i have only to my knowledge, one recollection of where he referred to his bank and that was a £50 profit. You lot can drag up some quote to prove me wrong if you like. I have not yet to this day pointed out the bank i will start on this system. I may only start on £50/100, noones going to be stupid enough to put a whole weeks wages on one dog. I will be following Fender's Stake plan, that is, i beleive, 6% of your bank for each run, not exactly putting anyone in the gutter financially?

[Guest fender2004]

Re: TO lufc... Juninho fan you're thinking too much about the form of the dog running. If it were all about form you would never get 6/1 or better outsiders winning in greyhound races. I have no interest whatsoever about the dog in the trap. It could be a three legged mutt for all I care. The only factor that concerns me is the nature of THE LONG LOSING RUN IN GREYHOUND RACING. I know I have found the common limit for greyhound racing through endless hours of relentless research. Whether you choose to ignore what I am saying or not is up to you. Intelligent contributors to this board like Seen2001 refuse to recognise I may have something. Their thinking is tainted by what they think they know to be the absolute fate of any system that doesn't follow the tried and tested methods and uses increment staking. It is for me to show them there is another way that works. BTW where is Seen2001 ? Seen if you're out there I need to ask you some questions about the backfitted system you illustrated to me the other day. Kindest regards fender.

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested Lufc, I have always admired your intelligent and well though out posts. I must strive to be more like you. You're one hundred % right about the different types of beliefs regarding betting stratedgy. I am definately the latter type. There is no question that a trap is more likely to win having not won for 13 days. Than a trap is having not won for 1 day. Otherwise there would be no limit for a losing run in greyhound racing. And my system wouldn't stand a chance. Here is some food for thought. In 4.3 years of research for the 8 races I analysed. No long losing run has ever gone beyond *40* days. Not once. Could that possibly be the absolute limit for the long losing run in greyhound racing ? 38 days is the longest ever losing run my 4.3 years of research recorded. Interesting don't you think ?

[Seen2001]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested I'm here :) The main point I took issue with your system is because you would not put up the selections before racing, and were only mentioning the winners and not the losers. This creates a false impression, a bit like when Derek Thompson puts an advert in the Racing Post which reads... 3 brilliant winners given yesterday, 5/1, 9/4 and 15/8!!!!! ...which tells us nothing without knowing how many tips he gave for that day (probably 20 knowing Tommo). You claim a 90% strike rate and an average winning SP of 7/2 - this is misleading simply because the 90% strike rate is for each 'run', whereas the average SP is for each individual winner. You need to keep things in proportion. ie On your newest thread where you have shown the bets for this month, you have had 4 winners from 4 runs. The SPs were 6/1, 7/2, 3/1 and 5/2, giving an average SP of 3.75/1. You would therefore state a 100% strike rate at average winning odds of 3.75/1, yet this is misleading. You have in fact had 16 bets with 4 winners, so a 25% strike rate at average winning odds of 3.75/1. Or, the alternative way to state it is to group the bets into 'runs'... So you have had a 100% strike rate, but the winning odds must be calculated in the same way as I described in an earlier post - by using the full risk as the total outlay for that individual run. So the 4 winning 'runs' were actually at odds of 2/5, 2/13, 2/13 and 1/7. This is why the system seems far better than it actually is - you're taking the stance that it hits a veyr high strike rate at average odds of 7/2, whereas in reality the average odds are long odds-on (or the strike rate falls dramatically if you prefer to keep the average odds at 7/2). As I said, all I wanted was for you to post the bets up so we can see exactly what is being backed and what is being staked. Now you have agreed to do so, you have earned a bit of respect. As for the level stakes thing, you've got the wrong end of the stick. I did say that if a system doesn't work at level stakes then no staking plan will turn it into a winning one, but whilst that is true (whether you believe it or not) I was not saying that level stakes is the only way to bet. Variable betting is not the same as a loss-recovery plan, for example if I fancied 2 horses, A and B, and I thought A had a really strong chance and B a minor one, it'd be totally illogical to stake the same amount on each selection, seeing as I fancied horse A much the stronger. Don't get mixed up with variable (adjusted) stakes with basic increasing stakes after a loser plans, these go against logic as you are staking more money on a dog which has in all probablility no better chance than the previous one which you staked less on.

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested Seen2001 good morning. There is no question that on the technical aspects of explaining systems and stratedgies, you're way beyond me. So much so, that I didn't fully understand your stats for that horseracing system you illustrated to me. What I wanted to ask you is. Over the 5 years that system appeared to be working, by what percentage did the initial betting bank grow ? For example if you started with 100pts did it increase to 500pts or 1000pts etc ?

[Guest lufc]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested hehe ty Fender, beleive youre a nice guy, beleive the system works, have full faith in it so i will defend it with my two cents each time i see an opening to do so. Seen2001 you have valid points about your strategies/betting knowledge throughout your contradictions of the system but i beleive your preferred sport of betting is horse racing and that you do not take a great interest in greyhound racing. For horse racing there are a varied # of runners of different classes, if this was just the case well youd have a 1 in x chance of winning...but next you have to bring the jockey into the picture. If Horse A is a high calibre horse and Horse B is a lower calibre horse, then there would be alot stronger chance of A coming home ahead of B, but lets say you put Jockey A (a high quality jockey) on Horse B and Jockey B (lower quality jockey) on Horse A, then you have a harder time in picking a winner. With greyhounds you do not have this scenario, so you get what you see. Fender has based his system on this.

[Seen2001]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested

....but i believe your preferred sport of betting is horse racing and that you do not take a great interest in greyhound racing.

Not so, lufc - I have a healthy interest in greyhound racing (hell I even tipped up a stonking 6/1 winner tonight on the Romford draw bias thread :D ) but if what you are saying is correct, then surely fenders staking plan should work even better on the roulette wheel, where there are only 3 outcomes when backing red/black, and one of them is a 36/1 shot (the 0). But the fact is that NO roulette system/staking plan can possibly work. Here's an insight into the fundamentals of staking plans, have a read though, these are guys with a lot of experience and knowledge regarding such things.... www.racing-systems.co.uk/cgi-bin/boardp/discussion.pl?forum=2&discussion=2677

[Seen2001]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested

Seen2001 good morning. There is no question that on the technical aspects of explaining systems and stratedgies, you're way beyond me. So much so, that I didn't fully understand your stats for that horseracing system you illustrated to me. What I wanted to ask you is. Over the 5 years that system appeared to be working, by what percentage did the initial betting bank grow ? For example if you started with 100pts did it increase to 500pts or 1000pts etc ?

Well, it made a level stakes profit of 172.50 - so if your stake for each bet was £10, from a bank of say £200, then at the end of 5 years the bank would have grown from £200 to £1,925.00.

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested Thankyou lufc, you're right again. I wouldn't even consider trying to work out a system based on finding the common limit for the long losing run for horseracing. There are too many variables to deal with. It was hard enough work to find it for greyhound racing. I have increasing respect for seen2001's knowlegde and technical ability in explaining things and giving his opinions and common beliefs for the limits of what is possible when trying to create a working system. But I still dis-agree with his stance on staking for a system. For me there is no point in sticking to level stakes or even variable stakes. If an increment staking plan can turn a greater profit. I think it doesn't matter what staking method you're using, so long as it works. And it maximizes the profits you're making. While still not risking too much of your overall betting bank. And I believe my staking plan does that. Like you pointed out 6% on a run per average, won't have me getting the begging bowl out anytime soon...

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested Okay Seen2001 thankyou. I have another question regarding the same system. On the two years it fell apart. What was the total loss of points ? And did you note the average number of losses between winners ?

[Guest lufc]

Re:

Not so, lufc - I have a healthy interest in greyhound racing (hell I even tipped up a stonking 6/1 winner tonight on the Romford draw bias thread )

I watched this thread and well does it not contradict all the contradictions to Fender's system? :P

Dunno if anyone is betting at Romford tonight, but the track seems to be riding against the railers. It may be just a coincidence but traps 1 and 2 are really struggling to get competitive.

...just 1 placings from traps 1 and 2 from 14 runs. The races can be reduced by 33% if crossing out traps 1 and 2, which gives the punter an edge - although you still have to find the winner!

You based your selections on disregarding two traps which seemed to be on a losing run. Not sure of how you picked your winners, whether it was form or random but disregarding two trap numbers for their inconsistensy on a given night, without overlooking the dogs in those traps surely relates back to this system? And it drew up 3 winners for you, and a nice profit also. Beleive in greyhound statistics? ;)

[SmallTimePunter]

Re: Re: It has nothing to do with a losing run lufc..i am a beleiver in greyhound statistics, such as advantages being gained from what trap a dog is drawn in..and will it have the speed to beat the dog inside or outside to the first bend. Its the same in horse racing..every body goes on about the advantage from a high or low stall draw..this has nothing ata ll to do with a losing run. It could be that the ground is better on one side, or in horse racing the races at a particular track are being run down the standside but a horse is drawn on the farside and has to get across to the stands ???. Yes Seen disregarded two traps last night but because there was a draw disadvantage on the inside because of crowding or whatever.

You based your selections on disregarding two traps which seemed to be on a losing run. Not sure of how you picked your winners, whether it was form or random but disregarding two trap numbers for their inconsistensy on a given night, without overlooking the dogs in those traps surely relates back to this system?

The selections from the thread were all based on logic not a losing run. Cheers mate :ok

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Re: Smalltimepunter, you're fond of that word Logic aren't you ? Have you ever considered the possibility that a working system doesn't essentially have to be based on logic ? Although I maintain, there is nothing more logical than the fact that there will ALWAYS be long losing runs in any form of betting. I also believe that trap 3 & 4 do in fact have a slight advantage due to their position in the race. Over the 8 races I follow for example. Trap 3 has performed so well this month that there hasn't even been 1 losing run of 13 days and many of the winners are outsiders. That is extroadinary. Another interesting statistic is, that no losing run has ever gone beyond 38 days Over the last 4.3 years. That means that if you'd the patience (and I know virtually nobody does) to wait for a losing run to go to 31 days. Using my system you wouldn't have suffered even 1 losing run over that period of time. The only problem is the number of qualifiers wouldn't be enough to interest anybody. Only 17 over a 4.3 year period. That is why instead of building my system around what is very possibly the absolute limit of the long losing run (40 days) in greyhound racing. I have built it around the common limit which is 20 days. And although the frequency of qualifiers for the two traps I follow is alot higher. 33 so far this year. I will suffer the occasional loss. Although there hasn't been 1 yet this year, which is incredible. I know it can't last for much longer. Trap 3 or 4 must surely produce a losing run in excess of 20 days soon. That is why I am operating my system at its lowest staking level until it happens. To minimize my loss.

[SmallTimePunter]

Re: Re: I very much agree fender 3 + 4 are by far the most consistent traps in greyhound racing throughout the country. Many people try to come up with an effective system and it certainly appears that yours can provide good profit..maybe because its very specific..as you say only 17 qualifiers ?? Does this mean your system only has 5 qualifiers a year ?? Cheers

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Re: Calling Seen2001! I think I managed to figure out how much that horseracing system you illutrated to me the other day lost in its two bad years. Overall, it took 8 years to produce 90.50pts profit if I am correct? So the two years when the system lost money didn't in fact wipe out the profit totally as you stated. They diminished the profits of the first 5 years by approx 50%. Which still isn't good but not a total disaster. The turnover for the first 5 years was fairly good. But it could've been alot better if the level stakes had been replaced by even a very slight increment staking plan. But overall the strike rate simply wasn't high enough in the first place to sustain a 50% drop. With the Timline system, because the strike rate is so good (even if the prices are short as you worked out) The very worst I believe can go wrong is my profits would simply be less one year than another. I don't think it is likely that I would ever experience a year when I lost money. For that to occur my win to loss ratio would have to suddenly drop from 12-1 to 3-1. Which I believe simply isn't possible. It may drop to 8-1 or even 6-1. But bare in mind 5-1 or better equals profit. That is what fuels my extreme confidence in the system. Also there is another factor. Because of the staking plan I use, when I hit the jackpot (6/1 or better) on a win in the latter stages of my 7 bets. The profit margin can be over 100% of the ammount I am resigned to losing...

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Re: No Smalltimepunter. My system will produce an average of 100 qualifiers per year. I was referring to how many qualifiers you would get if you waited for for the long losing run to go past 30 days. Which for the 8 races I follow, has only happenned 17 times in 4.3 years. Simply not enough frequency, even for me Lol! I use what I believe is the common limit which is 20 days. But I suspect 40 days could be the absolute limit in greyhound racing.

[Guest lufc]

Re:

Yes Seen disregarded two traps last night but because there was a draw disadvantage on the inside because of crowding or whatever.

Crowding will always be the case in greyhound racing. Very often you will see a crowdout at the first corner and see a few dogs being blown out of it. However he doesnt mention anywhere on his thread about the greyhounds in the upcoming races having tendancy to crowd or any other reason to bet against them except for the fact that the random dogs, racing in those traps earlier in the night, have not performed well.

The selections from the thread were all based on logic not a losing run.

Im not sure what basis you used to pick your selections, but you made those selections on the assumption that the two traps on the inside, would not win. That cant be logical can it?...with disregarding two dogs in each race for no other reason than the trap has performed poorly on the night for other dogs.

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Re: Good questions lufc. I am sure STP will come back with a good response. But I agree those two traps were dis-reguarded because of their poor performance. I personaly don't like the inside traps. Trap 1 is at a dis-advantage from the word go. I have seen the 1 dog squeezed out of the race many times.

[SmallTimePunter]

Re: Re: I think greyhound racing is all just possibilities and maybes, the fastest dog in the world could be running and get crowded out..bumped and lose..so yes lufc you are very true when you say crowding is a problem..it happens in almost every race at some stage. But i beleive its possible to rule out a trap as was the case last night at Romford..if the two dogs on the inside are slow starters..which a lot of them were. If you look at the cards for last night at Romford every dog in 5 + 6 in every race was a wide runner. Now you cant bet on every trap to win..but when theres two slow starters on the inside..and the dog with the fastest time in 3 for example..and 4 is a just a decent starter..it is fair to assume that 3 will get up to the bend first and been the quickest in the race it will be in for a box to wire success. Now in the thread last night i selected ... 9.25 T6 9.41 T4 9.57 T5 10.13 T6 10.30 T3 3 of these were winners now 3 out of 5 aint too bad. So lufc you ask if this cant be logical..ive used my own knowledge to assess the situation..logic ?? i dont know. You say at the end for other dogs..of course i wouldnt rule a dog out from 1+2 but you have a look and none of them catch the eye as a winner as far as im concerned.. Cheers Hope all that answers ur question..if not im sure u will say :ok

[Guest lufc]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested "and the dog with the fastest time in 3 for example..and 4 is a just a decent starter..it is fair to assume that 3 will get up to the bend first and been the quickest in the race it will be in for a box to wire success." You have just basically stated one of the main reasoning behind fender's system. Traps 3 & 4 ususally perform really well, Traps 1 and 2 often are tight on the rail, 5 & 6 are often bumped out wide, 3 & 4 are sometimes in the middle of a sandwich between the two but if they get out theyll go on. Traps 3 & 4 are almost always in with a chance (unless theyre up against a REALLY high calibre greyhound) and their chances of success are pretty high in 7 attempts. I beleive (and this is also what fender has based his system around) is that after a losing run their chances of success are higher.

[Seen2001]

Re: Re: lufc said...

I watched this thread and well does it not contradict all the contradictions to Fender's system? :P You based your selections on disregarding two traps which seemed to be on a losing run. Not sure of how you picked your winners, whether it was form or random but disregarding two trap numbers for their inconsistensy on a given night, without overlooking the dogs in those traps surely relates back to this system? And it drew up 3 winners for you, and a nice profit also. Beleive in greyhound statistics? Crowding will always be the case in greyhound racing. Very often you will see a crowdout at the first corner and see a few dogs being blown out of it. However he doesnt mention anywhere on his thread about the greyhounds in the upcoming races having tendancy to crowd or any other reason to bet against them except for the fact that the random dogs, racing in those traps earlier in the night, have not performed well. Im not sure what basis you used to pick your selections, but you made those selections on the assumption that the two traps on the inside, would not win. That cant be logical can it?...with disregarding two dogs in each race for no other reason than the trap has performed poorly on the night for other dogs.

...and Fender said...

Good questions lufc. I am sure STP will come back with a good response. But I agree those two traps were dis-reguarded because of their poor performance. I personaly don't like the inside traps. Trap 1 is at a dis-advantage from the word go. I have seen the 1 dog squeezed out of the race many times.

Without wanting to sound too disrespectful, those quotes show how little you two guys actually know about greyhound racing. Lufc - that was a nice try attempting to liken my winner-finding method of last night to fenders idea. That made me laugh out loud. I'm sorry to tell you that it had nothing to do with trap losing runs, but, just as the thread title said, track bias. What I said was... "Dunno if anyone is betting at Romford tonight, but the track seems to be riding against the railers. It may be just a coincidence but traps 1 and 2 are really struggling to get competitive." Note the words "the track seems to be riding against the railers". In horse racing, it is often the case that one part of the course is of different underfoot conditions to another (usually after a period of wet weather or artificial watering), thus giving those horses drawn towards that strip of ground a considerable advantage. The same happens in dog racing, especially after or during rainfall. Sometimes the inside of the track becomes more saturated than the rest of the track, conversely sometimes the outside rides slower. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the dogs which are drawn on the slowest ground are going to be up against it. This is what I suspected last night and got my reward with a couple of nice winners. It was based on logic and common sense - to try and say it was along the lines of fenders system is both naive and ridiculous. Sometimes you will see another kind of 'track bias' - like tonights meeting at Walthamstow for instance, nearly every winner won from the front, because the way the track was riding made it incredibly hard for any dog to accelerate from behind. Even a 33/1 shot which led couldn't be caught even though it had no chance on the book. This had nothing to do with stats or losing runs, it was simply a case of spotting the track was riding slower on the inner. 9 out of 10 for effort though, lufc ;)

[Seen2001]

Re: Re:

You have just basically stated one of the main reasoning behind fender's system. Traps 3 & 4 ususally perform really well, Traps 1 and 2 often are tight on the rail, 5 & 6 are often bumped out wide, 3 & 4 are sometimes in the middle of a sandwich between the two but if they get out theyll go on. Traps 3 & 4 are almost always in with a chance (unless theyre up against a REALLY high calibre greyhound) and their chances of success are pretty high in 7 attempts. I beleive (and this is also what fender has based his system around) is that after a losing run their chances of success are higher.

I've just had a look at the trap stats for all of todays dogs meetings which are covered by the Racing Post, here they are... Belle Vue T1 - 173 T2 - 144 T3 - 149 T4 - 136 T5 - 132 T6 - 139 Romford T1 - 211 T2 - 178 T3 - 216 T4 - 182 T5 - 158 T6 - 195 Crayford T1 - 171 T2 - 188 T3 - 177 T4 - 163 T5 - 148 T6 - 142 Sunderland T1 - 149 T2 - 168 T3 - 119 T4 - 150 T5 - 155 T6 - 172 Sheffield T1 - 176 T2 - 148 T3 - 150 T4 - 138 T5 - 137 T6 - 179 Nottingham T1 - 158 T2 - 121 T3 - 133 T4 - 154 T5 - 117 T6 - 128 Brough Park T1 - 130 T2 - 177 T3 - 154 T4 - 173 T5 - 136 T6 - 168 Walthamstow T1 - 183 T2 - 169 T3 - 159 T4 - 140 T5 - 146 T6 - 196 Doesn't look like Trap 1 is a trap at a disadvantage to me. Of the 8 meetings, Trap 1 has either the best or 2nd best record in 5 of them. The total record for each traps are... T1 - 1351 T2 - 1293 T3 - 1257 T4 - 1236 T5 - 1129 T6 - 1319 Traps 1, 2 and 6 have the best record, this is over a sample of 1,264 races.

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Re: Good morning seen2001, you're right I know little about greyhound racing in conventional terms of thinking. You are the man for that without doubt. Did you read my earlier posts on here about that horseracing system you illustrated to me the other day ? I just want to make sure I understand the profits & losses of those 8 years. I calculated that even though 2001 & 2002 were bad years. Overall the eight year period turned a profit of 92.5 pts. Is my assumption correct? Many thanks. Also I can't speak for all the races down the card or all the evening cards. But one thing is for certain Seen2001. If you take the 8 races I follow. Trap 1 is the poorest performer.

[Seen2001]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested

Did you read my earlier posts on here about that horseracing system you illustrated to me the other day ? I just want to make sure I understand the profits & losses of those 8 years. I calculated that even though 2001 & 2002 were bad years. Overall the eight year period turned a profit of 92.5 pts.

On paper it made 92.5pts profit yes, but in reality it wouldn't have because the rules were made around the first 4 years results. We can't go back in time, that was the whole point of the example. A system can be made to look great if you keep adding filters until huge profits are made (a bit like when you realised traps 1, 2, 5 and 6 were putting your system in danger) but when you run it in real time (as the subsequent years in my example) it will in all probability not work.

[Guest fender2004]

Re: Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested I don't follow Seen, you say on paper it works, but your results were from an 8 year period. And although an average of 11.5 pts per year is very bad. Profit is profit. My system will average 400pts per year at its current level. That is the kind of return I expect from something I invested so much time in...

[Seen2001]

Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested Someone PLEASE explain the concept of backfitting to Fender - my brain is beginning to hurt :lol

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Timeline (Greyhounds) System Tested :rollin