What Happened To Systems?

walsworth

walsworth

Journeyman
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
1,718
Location
North Herts
When I first discovered racing forums, everyone was posting systems every day and discussing ideas well into the early hours.

I remember reading a post on the On Line Betting Guide (does that still exist?) where a chap said there were three kinds of betting people.

Those that did not believe that systems work.
Those that believed in systems but could never quite find the right one to make a long term profit.
Those that knew that systems worked, but could never prove it because if they did, it would not work any more!

I'm firmly in the second group, how about you?
 
I experimented with systems many years ago.

Using a database (can't recall its initials) I came across a 'system' that from 20 or so bets per season had a 100% strike rate.

My first bet using the 'rules' lost. I assumed it was an overdue blip.

The second bet also lost.

I decided either the database was flawed or I was wasting my time, or both.

I've never experimented with 'systems' since.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I experimented with systems many years ago.

Using a database (can't recall its initials) I came across a 'system' that from 20 or so bets per season had a 100% strike rate.

My first bet using the 'rules' lost. I assumed it was an overdue blip.

The second bet also lost.

I decided either the database was flawed or I was wasting my time, or both.

I've never experimented with 'systems' since.
Click to expand...
The other 18 won though, but you packed in :D :D

The thread I started is a system of sorts, not kept up last few days not felt great, but will continue. No form study required at all

Most systems are based on one block of past results when tested, when in fact people should us alternate years when testing, then run whatever they think they have on the other years in between.

I was a user of Flatstats and later Horseracebase. I used both for systems, in fact on Flatstats I had about 200 systems running, some were silly, some where ok. I used the selections in multiples each day and two days running in October 2016, I had 4 winners from 5 on consecutive days and won about £4k. Those selections are posted on what you backing thread on here from that time, if that period is still accessible. I remember it well as I gave my son £500 quid for xmas, if the 5th one had one on either day I would have won £10k instead of 4 and given him £1k.

To be fair I have traded between the absolute madness and time consuming mentalness in timing races sectionally by measuring finishing distances at certain points in a race, to the laziness of systems. That was when there was no sectional data available except on my spreadsheets.

I think overall I had more success with the mentalness of timing races from previous days videos over a period of time sectionally. I actually used to use a cardboard strip with TV horse lengths on for the sectionals. That is right bad obsession isn't it? :D

Systems are about logic, and that can evade you when looking at past results. I prefer to try a system not based on past results, but on current logic. At least when you work in real time there is no backfitting. I will continue with my new "system" in real time and if it is sh^t will just accept it.

Your story DO does remind me a little of a story I heard in the 80s from a work mate. He wasn't into racing. He subscribed for some tips, the first 4 won, the 5th one lost, so he packed em in:D. To be fair systems doubters can have that mindset, it is like they have to win every time or are sh&t.

One thing I have noticed is that people who do the form like DO and myself, to a degree, with how we look at form, are more accustomed to facing losing runs, and still stick with it. But when given a system theirs and mine to a degree, mindsets seems to have a higher expectation and they will face a few losers and given in more quickly.

A form follower will face LLLLLL a lot better than a system follower will face LLLLLL.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of systems that win LONG TERM at Football.... Lay the Draw works , just by using certain teams across most Top European Leagues... Tottenham have a great record using LTD ... I run a few systems that win LONG TERM .. you have to be disciplined and take big hits some weeks.
 
NUGGSY said:
There are plenty of systems that win LONG TERM at Football.... Lay the Draw works , just by using certain teams across most Top European Leagues... Tottenham have a great record using LTD ... I run a few systems that win LONG TERM .. you have to be disciplined and take big hits some weeks.
Click to expand...
Most system followers won't take big hits though because the decision process has been taken out of their hands. So they go back to other methods that are more based on actually assessing what is in front of them.

I am sure most here would like to see you post your selections, dip in chap
 
I find long losing runs very difficult to take.

I currently use, what I would call a method rather than a system.
I start by making a list of the top five trainers by percentage wins over the last 30 days with runners on the current day.
I then check if any of them have runners in races of 8 to 12 runners.
If any trainer has more than one runner in the same race or two trainers have runners that race is ignored.
I then use my instinct to decide whether to bet or not but I rarely back any horse outside the top three in the betting.

I never bet on extremes of going or if the weather is likely to prove changeable.
 
This conversation is reminiscent of some of the letters that used to be published in the Raceform Update back in the day.

There was another publication, available only by subscription, a number of years ago which was about stats, systems, etc but I gave up on that as a waste of time because I realised life was too short to waste on other people's ideas. I can't recall its name.
 
I welcome other peoples ideas and will cherry pick parts of them that interest me,
I don't take the attitude that I am too old to learn something new.
 
Desert Orchid said:
This conversation is reminiscent of some of the letters that used to be published in the Raceform Update back in the day.

There was another publication, available only by subscription, a number of years ago which was about stats, systems, etc but I gave up on that as a waste of time because I realised life was too short to waste on other people's ideas. I can't recall its name.
Click to expand...
I was an avid reader of Raceform and the letters page on there that was the best bit of it. It was the best bit because people shared ideas about getting winners way before the internet.

When the internet started my first search was for racing forums. I searched it because I knew I would find people similar to me, lonely. I say lonely because apart from that letters page I thought people interested in the nuts and bolts of racing did not exist. When I found out they did I was as happy as Larry.

I am a bit surprised at you DO because I remember many years ago telling you how good sectional timing was, % finishing etc, to actually assess a race and find future winners from a race. You were not that bothered then you know, now I see you quoting those %'s a lot on here years after the fact. Saying you do not find other people's ideas not interesting is not being honest now is it? come on?

I always find learning from people very progressive, otherwise you would be a stick in the mud that thought they knew everything. No one knows everything about racing

I have learned a lot just on this forum over the last 20 years from people who just watch and judge a race, I am no good at that, lots on here are. Horses for courses

A bit surprised at your comment there DO. Not criticising, just surprised that you think you can't learn anything. I never stop tbh
 
Last edited:
walsworth said:
I welcome other peoples ideas and will cherry pick parts of them that interest me,
I don't take the attitude that I am too old to learn something new.
Click to expand...
I been like that ever since I got on the internet 25 years ago. I will gladly read stuff I think I might know, but if I read 20 things and glean just one pearl then I am happy. I have also encouraged people on many forums, apart from this, to impart stuff, if they would, many won't. I have imparted many many ideas, got laughed at for some but so what.

I also do not believe that giving ideas reduces profit, most punters do not have the patience to stick with anything long enough to change betting markets

I could start a thread tonight giving massive profits long term, but the losing bits would stop it changing SPs because people soon lose interest when the losing bits come.

I can't by the way:)
 
I find long losing runs very difficult to take.

Mentally I cannot do it either unless I know a 33/1 shot will save me for sure, so a system or idea that throws up 3/1 shots regular or less has no interest for me if it goes 20 or more with no win. Might make no sense to some, but if I gone 20 with no wins at that level of price, firstly, it is shit no matter how the value fans say it don't matter. On paper you must wait they say, we do not live life on paper, we live in real life. Paper is lucky, it don't crap itself.
I can really imagine going to bed one night after 20 losers and thinking...oh tomorrow will be the day.:lolup: Life don't really work like that does it?, You are going to bed thinking, head shoved in the oven or under a inter city 125 next day if you don't see some light. Lets be real.

Then someone says, what a shame if only he had held on, there were 5 straight winners at 5/1 after that. Yeah right. Mentally anyone who can lose 20 straight bets is going to be mentally f^cked off. Or maybe there are people made of mental metal out there that I cannot ever comprehend. Maybe it's me being a mental wus?
 
Last edited:
I remember arguments years ago about whether Adrian Massey's ratings affected SP's, got quite heated at times!

As regards the search for value I use a simple rule of thumb:
Subtract 1 from the number of runners This is the upper limit for a possible e/w or place only bet.
Divide by 2 . This is the upper limit for a win only bet.
Divide by 2 again and this is the lowest price for a win bet.

Example:
8 runner race, do not bet above 7/1.
Between 7/2 and 7/1 consider e/w or place only.
Between 7/4 and 7/2 consider win only.
Below 7/4 do not bet.
 
That takes me back to the letters page in Raceform tbh. They are rigid rules that are very generic in a random world, so systematic yes. Looking at it logically though, an 8 runner race and not betting above 7/1 suggests all runners are equal in relation to their odds, they aren't in most races. Below 7/4 does no bet does not make sense to me if a horse has lbs in hand. Many best bets are below 7/4. Hard to live by that formula for me. If it works for you then it cannot be faulted, I couldn't do it though.

Looking at a race without a systematic approach or with one, I would never use that type of rule myself. In fact if following a system, I would back a horse at 50/1 in an 8 runner race, especially now where you can lay that horse off at 2/1 or less and still make money, sometimes:)
 
Last edited:
Ah, systems, systems - takes me back a bit. Always used to test any system I came up with by making a random number selection in the same races. Guess which invariably proved better :)
 
A system is a way of working, organising, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules.

This is why people are always laughing at people who say they have a system, because those systems always involve a multitude of rules.

My system does not involve any rules, just organised plan and way of doing something and working.
 
EC21 said:
I find long losing runs very difficult to take.

Mentally I cannot do it either unless I know a 33/1 shot will save me for sure, so a system or idea that throws up 3/1 shots regular or less has no interest for me if it goes 20 or more with no win. Might make no sense to some, but if I gone 20 with no wins at that level of price, firstly, it is shit no matter how the value fans say it don't matter. On paper you must wait they say, we do not live life on paper, we live in real life. Paper is lucky, it don't crap itself.
I can really imagine going to bed one night after 20 losers and thinking...oh tomorrow will be the day.:lolup: Life don't really work like that does it?, You are going to bed thinking, head shoved in the oven or under a inter city 125 next day if you don't see some light. Lets be real.

Then someone says, what a shame if only he had held on, there were 5 straight winners at 5/1 after that. Yeah right. Mentally anyone who can lose 20 straight bets is going to be mentally f^cked off. Or maybe there are people made of mental metal out there that I cannot ever comprehend. Maybe it's me being a mental wus?
Click to expand...
I think this is what makes the difference between betting for a living and betting as a hobby. The professional punter has to be able to take successive kicks in the teeth and not let them affect their judgement. I can’t imagine that being easy to do when there are pressing bills to pay.
 
Not sure I ever said those things, EC21, or maybe my remarks were not well worded or are being misinterpreted?

At the 'beginning' of sectional timing I may have been a bit ambivalent about it but once I started to read up on it I did find it interesting enough to try and factor into some race results.

I've certainly said on here many times things like "every day is a school day".

Bachelors Hall's input on juvenile hurdlers is priceless, for one.

At the same time, though, I have stated that I am not comfortable betting on a race I haven't studied for myself; that way I only have myself to blame if a bet loses.

On the other hand, Trefflich and others have shown on the 'Should Be Odds On' thread that some people's input can be followed pretty blindly and I am grateful for their input.

I do still have issues with sectional timing, to be honest, since I've seen several races which are obviously slowly run yet do not produce a faster than par finishing split. Are these just horses that cannot quicken?

I got quite a lot of letters published in the old Handicap Book / Update. Hope you read them, EC21!
 
System generally don't work or submit you into submition. Only thing that ever worked for me dates back to about 1968. my idea was to back 3 horses on a Saturday in a 3 cross...for example 3 x 10 doubles and a 20 treble. So your annual outlay would be 2600 sheckles. You would only select horse at 3/1 to 4/1 which mean 1 treble from 52 bets and you were in profit. Add to that how many doubles??? And you'd be quids in. But one word spoils the system.. Discipline... No way could I have kept it up and although it worked well for me for months I was betting in many other races and losing what I was winning
 
We should also bear in mind the difference between a system and a method.

With the former everyone 'following' it should end up with same selection.

With the latter there is scope for diverse interpretations along the way.
 
Very true, that is exactly why I described my selection process as a method, the final decision to bet or not, is down to my gut feeling. Also if I feel like taking a rest from betting for a few days, I don't feel that I might be missing winners.

A big problem that I found with hidebound systems was that if, for any reason, you missed say an 8/1 winner but noticed it later, you then had to miss seven losers just to maintain your strike rate.
 
Possible bets Sunday.

TimeCourseNo.Horse
13.15Aintree7Moveit Like Minnie (IRE)
13.42Wexford2Music Of Tara
15.00Aintree4Chief Sunday (FR)
15.35Aintree9Long Draw (IRE)
 
Personally I'm not a fan of systems for selections that's not they say the don't work but every race is unique in it's own way and there isn't a system that will take all aspects of a race into account. However time versus money if you can make a bit of profit from from a lot less effort then more power to you.

I think the place where you need to be systematic long term is with staking. I've long thought someone who is fairly emotionless, who's good at managing money, methodical with their staking and has a little bit of knowledge about horses will out perform the most knowledgable horse pundit who gambles like a loon. Long term anyway.

I'd say the majority of punters know the things they should do to at least improve their game but don't follow through with it.
It always makes me smile when people refer to the bookies as the old enemy as most gamblers worst enemy lies between their ears. And an old sign that used to hang in my local bookies office that said " A bookmaker is a pickpocket who just allows you to use your own hands" sums it up nicely.
 
Nice thread, I'd be in group 3 of walsworth's original post as I did develop something myself that worked. Unfortunately the ratings that I based it on stopped being produced (Adrian Massey's). I think the most important point here is that you're not going to be able to buy a system that works, if it really worked, it wouldn't be up for sale. It has to be something you've developed yourself and will take a lot of time and effort to produce.

The reason that I take this approach is that I realised I'd never be as good the excellent form readers (including people here), so decided to try something different.

Also agree with Danny that a staking plan can make a big difference to your results. If you bet on a percentage of bank basis, you will always stake more on your losing bets. For example, if you start with a bank of £100 and bet 10% each time (excessive I know, but easy math for me here) and had a couple of losses, you would bet £10 on the first selection, £9 on the second, and only £8.10 by the time you had a winner on the third. I use something called a rising floor staking plan, which increases stakes after a loss, but has checks and balances in place to stop it getting too aggressive.
 
Back
Top