[AusRace] Barrett's System - Using Stop Lock for Profit - a system as used by the Beeac Flyer

Tue Jan 31 11:12:36 AEDT 2017

I'll keep an eye out for that lighter Tony.

  <https://mailtrack.io/>Sent with Mailtrack
<https://mailtrack.io/install?source=signature&lang=en&referral=norsaintpublishing@gmail.com&idSignature=22>

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Tony Moffat <tonymoffat at bigpond.com>
wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Moffat [mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 7:51 PM
> To: 'ausrace at listserver.com.au' <ausrace at listserver.com.au>
> Subject: Barrett's System - Using Stop Lock for Profit - a system as
> used by the Beeac Flyer
>
> Mr Barrett sold his system in Melbourne newspapers in the 60's and
> 70s. It cost $4 and there was $2 P&H.
> It was centred on picking a runner in each race using different
> criteria for each selection, and thus each race.
>
> The Beeac Flyer(BF) was an avid race goer in the 70s, when I was
> working on course. I never knew his name but his nickname came from
> his occupation, he delivered the first edition next morning papers
> overnight  from Melbourne to the western districts of Victoria with
> the run terminating in Beeac. He said he carted items back to
> Melbourne from Beeac so he got paid each way. His long term and full
> time employee was Healesville Harry (or Henry) and these two and HH
> grand daughters were often in the ring or tote queue on course.
> BF drove the paper truck then slept in the back while HH drove
> sedately to Melbourne. The truck was then used to bring hire furniture
> to some of the courses, and they got entry for free as a result.
> After the last they collected their furniture, loaded and left. BF and
> HH slept in the truck during racing if they had no other interest in
> betting in later races. They often did though.
> Then home for a sleep for a few hours then off down the highway again,
> at speed I was told.
>
> BF often had a bet in the first race and it was his success there that
> made him a watched man.
> Often he had his $50 on the favourite in the first. He chose this
> runner if it was the most popular pick by the selectors in 'The Age' -
> if the selectors had picked this to run a place most often. It had to
> be priced at 5/2 or more at the time of selection. It appears, and he
> said, that he was unfazed about the price at race time, if it was a
> selection he backed it. He used the Tote also but did not have the
> assistance of a dividend display back then. He knew his return on his
> ticket from us though.
>
> BF used Barrett as the basis of his selections and backed them. He was
> a character and inveterate tea drinker on course, as was I, and he
> borrowed my Zippo lighter one afternoon and never returned it.
> Its silver and has my initials engraved on it.
>
> In race 1 only - choose the horse with the most mentions in the
> selection panel, if it is priced at 5/2 Or greater it is a bet.
> Otherwise disregard this race. Stop betting at a win.
>
> Interestingly he folded up his form guide and filed this inside his
> race book, neatly always, and secured it with a wooden clothes peg. If
> he won the first race he often had bets in subsequent races, always
> the quad which was on split races then, like the 4th and 5th then race
> 7 and race 8 and there were only 9 spots to cover, runner numbers past
> 9 were co-joined with other runners, you thought you were getting
> coverage for nothing in those situations.
>
>
> In race 2 only  - choose the runner  with a pre post price of 3/1 or
> greater. So the First horse you encounter priced at 3/1 or more is the
> selection. The system does not provide a method of choosing your
> runner if it is bracketed at that price with other(s) .
> Stop betting at a win. So you only bet here if Race 1 failed to cough
> up a system runner and if your selection here wins, stop, put the cue
> in the rack. It says to do that in a reworked version of the system .
>
> Remainders Rules: - there are several-read on. In races other than 1
> and 2 Choose the 2nd poll favourite, only if it has more win tips that
> the 1st poll favourite.
> This rule applies to the remainder of the racing remember. So your
> choice would be the 2nd poll horse if it has more win tips from the
> selectors but due to otherwise disinterest it does not have a greater
> poll score or points. Equal 2nds may both qualify, they may both have
> more win tips than the Fav.
>
> Remainder Rules A - Clear 2nd poll favourite with more win tips than
> the clear poll favourite.
>
> Barrett's System requires you to continue with selecting and looking
> for that elusive winner.
>
> Remainder Rules B - in any race except 1 and 2 and in any race (other)
> than   where there is a selection
> from a previous rule, continue as follows. In eligible races, the poll
> favourite is a selection if it is 1/1 or better.
>
> Supplementary Rule - in any race except 1 or 2 and in any race (other)
> than where there is a selection from the Previous rules, continue as
> follows. In eligible races where there are equal poll favourites,
> runners have the same point score from their tipster support, then
> choose the runner with pre post odds of 3/1 or better, your choice
> will be the 3/1 horse, Or the next poll favourite at say 7/2. You will
> select the first nominated horse at 3/1 or better(written as it is in
> the system papers)
>
> Last race - if this race has not been a contender to provide a bet
> previously, using the system rules to this point, then the selection
> is the favourite in the last.
>
> Some runners he chose and some reasons
> Aug 5 1972 Caulfield Race 1 Steeple - Yawander won. It was 5/2 pre
> post (although 7/4 in The Australian) and had 42 points A win for the
> system - stop betting. It was 10/9 Tote and started at 11/8 - he got
> 7/4 with us and doubled his stake bet as a result.
> He mentioned that the next system bet, in Race 2 was Morgiana (3/1 pre
> post) it won however he went for Analie at $7 place under the auspices
> of another, separate,  system. Barrett did not require a bet here.
> In the remainder of the races, the system selected Faux Pas in the
> Hurdle (win 2/1) in race 3  and Grey Abbey won 4/1 in race 4 and there
> were no other choices except last race , the favourite Special Boy,
> 2nd 9/2.
>
> Aug 12 1972 Sandown Race 1 -No selection. Selection excluded because
> of price requirement. Winner 100/1 Race 2 - Gala Supreme won, it was a
> system selection, 11/2, paid $9.30 tote. A win for the system - stop
> betting No other selections capable except Dear Girl won 3/1 in race 5
> Favourite last race - fail
>
> Aug 19 1972 Moonee Valley Race 1 Steeple - Chango 11/8 won. It was 5/2
> pre post, longer in The Australian and had 37 points A win for the
> system - stop betting.
> In Race 2 Analie won and was a system selection however Barrett did
> not require a bet here.
> There were other qualifiers during the day The last race favourite
> failed.
>
> Aug 26 Sandown R1 Steeple - Whitby won at 9/2 it was 7/2 pre post and
> had 36 points A win for the system - stop betting In R2 Analie won
> (again) it was 13/4 and a system selection but not required.
> There were other qualifiers during the day The last race favourite
> lost.
>
> On Sep 2 1972 the first race system selection Analie won at 11/8 A win
> for the system - stop betting
>
> On Sept 9 1972 the first race system selection failed
> InR2 the qualifier won paying $2.90 - a win for the system - stop
> betting
>
> So you got system selections at 11/8, 11/2,11/8,9/2, 11/8, -1,15/8 Or
> in layman's terms 2.37+6.50+2.37+5.50+2.37+-1+2.87= 20.98.
>
> Turf Monthly are sadly missed. They have an extensive system back
> catalogue TM have The Merit Method with all the rules and results in
> MAXIMUM 4. This method Is starkly similar to Barrett's although it has
> additional rules and exclusion clauses. The system Authors are
> thorough in providing you with decisions about selections that clash
> or co-incide.
> While I won't go into all the rules, I won't spoil it for them, I can
> say they require the system selection to be a fit within their
> parameters, unlike Barratt's which appeared to grab the first
> qualifier and stop looking after you do. TM have rules that eliminate
> clashes or promote selections because of their attributes.
> From their rules:- "Start from the 3rd poll favourite, which could
> include equal second poll favourites or Equal third poll favourites.
> Choose the first one mentioned from the 3rd up to and including the
> poll favourite which is mentioned Right across the poll. This means it
> must receive a vote for first selection, second selection and a third
> selection vote  by tipsters.
> It could receive more than one mention for any placing. The horse must
> be 5/2 or longer in prepost If it is less, move up to second poll
> favourite and if right across the selection sphere and 5/2 or better
> it is a selection.
> Still no selection, examine the attributes of the poll favourite. If
> mentioned right across the selection sphere and 5/2 or better it is a
> selection Assuming we have no eligible right across selection up to
> this stage, we simply choose the second poll runner provided it is 5/2
> or longer If still no selection then choose the poll favourite and if
> it is 5/2 or better it is the selection.
> After all this there might not be a selection listed to start at 5/2
> so the final selection is the third poll favourite.
> In any of the above trials where there are equal candidates
> qualifying, such as equal points and both right across, preference
> goes to the The shortest price at 5/2 or better in prepost pricing.
> Still equal, preference to higher weight, then highest last start form
> figure, then most recent starter, and finally to break the tie, the
> lowest barrier.
> Thorough or what. The highest last start form figure is quoted as best
> last start form figure in other rule tests, which I won't mention here
> TM ask you to use the rules to finalise 4 runners for the meeting for
> the day, then stop at a winner, locking in profit.
>
> Mechanical betting systems seek to use race results as if they are
> causes.
> Systems operate generally on the premise that yesterday's results will
> cause todays results in terms of yesterday's conditions.
>
> There are limits to how systems can work. Some cleverly researched and
> designed systems do succeed, but most fail.
>
> Systems must fail because they are pale and inferior examples of
> rating methods, which generally fail also.
>
> However, there are amusing and instructive anecdotes in the racing
> literature on the claims and methods of systems.
>  The patois utilised is that of positivity of purpose with your
> method.
> If it succeeds it is expected.
> If it does not succeed there is a reason in the rules.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20170131/940e6897/attachment.html>