mardigras

The issue isn't whether I'm right or wrong regarding Redzel. The issue is you claim to use facts, when you rarely do. But you do use a lot of hearsay. You clearly don't understand the difference.

I didn't say you did. But you DID say try this. How are we supposed to try it if we need to know to be selective on which weekends and which metro meetings. Are you now saying try this if you can work out my secret around what weekends it works and what meetings it works on? Starting to sound like the Thomass blue print. The point is, it's illogical for such an approach to work and to suggest to others on here they could do the same, is equally illogical.

Not sure I needed to know what metro meetings or when you bet, since you said 'try this'. I tried it, based on your criteria and found it was not good. Now you say there is more criteria in order for it to work. When you trialled it for six months, how did you work out which weeks in the future it would work for?

Fun is fine. But based on the data I have, it will be a loser long term (which is actually logical). At starting divs (not 10 minutes prior), it was a big loser this year for the 43 weeks of the year I have data for. (excluding the 'noted front runner' criteria of which that is subjective, so I can't use that). I have 223 horses meeting that criteria for 105 winners, losing $1028 to a $100 lay (so exposure laying), excluding commission from winning bets. Happy to provide the list of runners/prices. And laying them all to win $100 loses as well.

The issue I would have following anything even remotely like this Portfolio is that what you describe is just another form of the blue print. Call it blue print II. This one being a "betting data" based blue print on supposed trends. Versus a more generic "horse" based blue print. When betting this year, have you changed/added/removed any of your 'factors/criteria'. If so, why?

Have you tried this? I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. You'd have to be laying before race is about to start and at odds below starting price on betfair imo.

He doesn't do evidence. He thinks hearsay means it's fact. He actually thinks that because Snowden suggests Redzel needs blinkers, that means Redzel runs faster with blinkers. Which has not been proven in any study I've seen. And even the anecdotal evidence doesn't support the idea. I like the idea of putting an extra 20% for blinkers first time when it wins (which we hear about after the event). But as has been shown, that is a rare event, so the times of putting 20% extra on when they lose is what would concern me more. Still, he's loyal to the TAB and NZ Racing needs him. So we should perhaps encourage him to stick with the blue print.

One of my main approaches to punting is that if you can't win from level stakes, there isn't going to be a staking plan that can help you overall since every bet placed should be able to be part of a sequence that is ultimately profit. So whether you back one horse or 6 horses, level stakes should still win for you. Otherwise you are throwing money away on something that is not value. Some won't understand that. But that is at the very essence of punting to value. Also, laying is essentially the same as backing albeit to usually massively tighter margins - which is what makes it more difficult and takes more skill imo. You can lay horses on NZ TAB if you want. Backing and laying are essentially one and the same thing. When you lay a runner in a win market, all you are doing is backing all the other runners to win in that market.

Couple of great posts there VC. One thing I like about using APIs to bet is that there are no ifs or buts. It meets price or it doesn't If you use an algorithm, that's fine. But if the algorithm is flawed, then it won't matter how disciplined you are, you'll lose. I have been demonstrating that with the blue print for some time.

I don't give a toss about how you use your shitty blue print. You wrote it on here. I supply the selections from it. The selections are indisputable as are the losses from them. Your posts are just crap and fairytales, so I'm back to ignoring you.

It's a damn sight more difficult laying to a profit than backing to a profit. Although with the arrival of your blue print, it has become increasingly easier. Thanks.

Only to someone that uses things like blinkers on and down in grade. My ROI in NZ is the same as it is in every other country I bet. There is no riddle, just fairy tales - which you provide enough of for everyone.

Fine by me. I'm quite happy to show my chances for each horse and some of how I arrived at that. Of course, anyone can put up their 'assessment' of chance. But it will only illustrate an approach, and the result of the race won't define what is workable long term.

Yep, the same as the blue print. What a surprise. Maybe try a dartboard.

And good on you for that FTF. Anyone that thinks punting first and foremost is about winners is nuts. Here's a blue print if you want winners. Back the favourite in every race. In NZ, that'll usually give you close to 20 winners each week. In Oz, 30 winners most Saturdays. Brilliant. Like the blue print, a great recipe for losing.

It's just one fairy tale after another from him. You select winners pre race. He claims them as blue print runners post race. His own posts are self fulfilling in demonstrating his own lack of credibility.

Heck no. Everyone is different. It's about identifying a method for you that works. Gives you the value component barryb is talking about and delivers the results. Some will use very simple methods and others like me use more complex methods. No method is better than the other if they both work.

And staking plans are fine. But in my view, if you can't profit from level stakes, you are likely to struggle just the same with a staking plan. And I can take a staking plan and apply it to bets where the staking plan will perform a lot worse than level stakes - and it may even lose where level stakes did not. Staking plans generally are a long term thing intended to gain greater returns over a long period based on chance relative to price. Each day of punting is short term and highly unlikely to make any difference overall. You can just adjust your punting each day to suit. Essentially run a day based staking plan, rather than an individual bet based one. I doubt our resident idiot even understands that.

Taking the issue of time delays a bit further - things like courtsiding have been rife although in some places you can be thrown out (not sure if actually deemed illegal anywhere). People going to games like the cricket or tennis with that extra bit of time to relay info and have teams of people acting on that margin of time. With big money and odds changing ball to ball and point to point, a serious advantage not based on skill.

Exactly Mark. Sadly, that ship has departed.

Yes, absolutely massive betting on those games and cricket in general. Also big tennis tournaments can have massive point to point swings.

Good story Newmarket. I'm sure there are many others that have tried things like that. Always some good stories in the punting game.

Spot on FTF.

FTF is a movie starting soon? VC, no trading for me. And no trials. But it's all info, so why not. Each to their own.

And if you are wanting see to market pressure onbtfair, then this example can highlight that. Doesn't mean they win, even though this one did. A horse that has high pressure on it for backing comparatively given market liquidity/price. It is very unusual for a horse at double figures to have the highest exposure on a race. Below shows the market at start time for Sunshine Coast R7. Aberlady was trading at 18.50 at the 15 minute mark. Reduced every minute from the 7 minute mark with continued pressure on its price. barryb might suggest that someone else has done the assessment or has inside knowledge. I can't claim to have been rewarded for this as I laid the horse as I believed it was under the odds. With a horse like this, by the time it was at 12s, the real advantage has likely been lost. # Runner Back Odds Amt Available Lay Odds Amt Available Traded Last Trade Total Exposure Effective Bookie Position 8 Aberlady $12.00 $280.95 $13.00 $529.36 $9,507.06 $12.00 $57,042.36 -$17,790.89 3 Iron Craft $4.20 $69.76 $4.30 $108.34 $27,083.79 $4.30 $56,875.96 -$17,624.48 10 Patriotic Rose $5.50 $675.96 $5.70 $338.82 $13,508.29 $5.60 $37,147.80 $2,103.68 1 Capeos $4.00 $9.50 $4.10 $370.04 $17,517.00 $4.00 $35,034.00 $4,217.48 9 All Apologies $6.80 $127.68 $7.00 $39.87 $7,109.11 $7.00 $24,170.97 $15,080.50 5 Shinnecock $16.00 $78.31 $17.50 $13.98 $2,498.72 $16.50 $19,989.76 $19,261.72 11 Sheezinajam $140.00 $9.33 $150.00 $13.16 $244.35 $140.00 $17,104.50 $22,146.98 7 Greynomad $38.00 $21.11 $40.00 $12.57 $578.32 $38.00 $10,988.08 $28,263.40 6 Barney $46.00 $15.59 $60.00 $16.50 $456.31 $46.00 $10,495.13 $28,756.35 $78,502.95 Effective Market $ $39,251.48 Total exposure is also understated for the winner - as that is based on traded at current odds. Not what it actually traded at. It was easily the biggest liability in the race.