From chiron1 at iinet.net.au Thu Oct 12 05:35:59 2017 From: chiron1 at iinet.net.au (chiron1 at iinet.net.au) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 02:35:59 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Message-ID: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive?a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt?at Belmont today?which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win ?when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). ? My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. ? Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? ? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less?8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. ? The fixed odds TAB?prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations.? The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see?why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB?fixed odds figure. ? The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS?of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. ? Anyone? Regards, Tony? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikemcb at southcom.com.au Thu Oct 12 08:45:35 2017 From: mikemcb at southcom.com.au (mikemcb at southcom.com.au) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:45:35 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier In-Reply-To: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> References: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <001101d342da$457dea60$d079bf20$@southcom.com.au> Welcome back Tony it has been a long time! Your query sounds like it is perfectly matched to the skills of Nick so we will eagerly await his answer. Keep winning Mike. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 5:36 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt at Belmont today which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less 8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. The fixed odds TAB prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations. The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB fixed odds figure. The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. Anyone? Regards, Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick.aubrey at twonix.com Thu Oct 12 13:01:26 2017 From: nick.aubrey at twonix.com (Nick at Twonix) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:01:26 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier In-Reply-To: <001101d342da$457dea60$d079bf20$@southcom.com.au> References: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> <001101d342da$457dea60$d079bf20$@southcom.com.au> Message-ID: <000001d342fe$05b08fe0$1111afa0$@twonix.com> Hi Mike, Thanks for dobbing me in :( On a sort of working holiday in Cairns NQ and have just finished playing golf at beautiful Paradise Palms GC. Hi Tony, my first thought is that a variable deductions should only apply on the PLACE portion of an EACH WAY bet where the PLA CE odds are defined at say one quarter of the WIN odds (Note Odds not DIVY). But if you got 2.50 FIXED standalone for the PLACE (no WIN bet) then mathematically speaking a uniform deduction should apply. But perhaps the answer is hidden in the terms and conditions of WA on course bookies . Cheers, AN Nick Aubrey Director Tel: +61 (2) 9011 5264 | Mobile: 0403 496 971| Email: nick at nickaubey.com Punt For Profit ? Click below. It?s a Not-For-Loss organistion ! From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of mikemcb at southcom.com.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 8:46 AM To: chiron1 at iinet.net.au; 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Welcome back Tony it has been a long time! Your query sounds like it is perfectly matched to the skills of Nick so we will eagerly await his answer. Keep winning Mike. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 5:36 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt at Belmont today which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less 8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. The fixed odds TAB prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations. The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB fixed odds figure. The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. Anyone? Regards, Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12651 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mikemcb at southcom.com.au Thu Oct 12 18:40:30 2017 From: mikemcb at southcom.com.au (mikemcb at southcom.com.au) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:40:30 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier In-Reply-To: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> References: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <000001d3432d$611df960$2359ec20$@southcom.com.au> Tony & Co Try this explanation which dates back to around 2011 and was originally instigated by Dominic Beirne. http://www.racingaustralia.horse/uploadimg/Deduction%20FAQ.pdf Mike. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 5:36 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt at Belmont today which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less 8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. The fixed odds TAB prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations. The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB fixed odds figure. The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. Anyone? Regards, Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Thu Oct 12 22:58:17 2017 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:58:17 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier In-Reply-To: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> References: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <000001d34351$65727c10$30577430$@bigpond.com> Tony https://www.tabtouch.com.au/tabcontent/documents/pdf/TAB-Fixed-Odds-Racing-Deduction-Schedule.pdf shows the schedule of deductions for varying win odds, and there is a variation for 2nd and 3rd shown Why there is the variation it doesn?t say - and there does not seem to be a ready explanation on their website. A web query will get answered by them in two working days. Otherwise, trust you are well and retired? ? time to fire up RatingsWest as an interest? Cheers TonyM From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:36 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt at Belmont today which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less 8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. The fixed odds TAB prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations. The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB fixed odds figure. The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. Anyone? Regards, Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robbie at robwaterhouse.com Thu Oct 12 10:54:41 2017 From: robbie at robwaterhouse.com (Rob Waterhouse) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:54:41 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier In-Reply-To: <001101d342da$457dea60$d079bf20$@southcom.com.au> References: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> <001101d342da$457dea60$d079bf20$@southcom.com.au> Message-ID: <02c301d342ec$4e8042e0$eb80c8a0$@robwaterhouse.com> The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound.. This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching? It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded. Rob W From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of mikemcb at southcom.com.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 8:46 AM To: chiron1 at iinet.net.au; 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Welcome back Tony it has been a long time! Your query sounds like it is perfectly matched to the skills of Nick so we will eagerly await his answer. Keep winning Mike. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 5:36 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt at Belmont today which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less 8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. The fixed odds TAB prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations. The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB fixed odds figure. The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. Anyone? Regards, Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Fri Oct 13 02:37:05 2017 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 23:37:05 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier References: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <000601d3436f$f5985b70$e0c91250$@bigpond.com> Then there is this: http://www.racingaustralia.horse/uploadimg/Deduction%20FAQ.pdf and again your question remains unanswered somewhat ? cheers TonyM From: Tony Moffat [mailto:tonymoffat at bigpond.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:58 PM To: 'chiron1 at iinet.net.au' >; 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: RE: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Tony https://www.tabtouch.com.au/tabcontent/documents/pdf/TAB-Fixed-Odds-Racing-Deduction-Schedule.pdf shows the schedule of deductions for varying win odds, and there is a variation for 2nd and 3rd shown Why there is the variation it doesn?t say - and there does not seem to be a ready explanation on their website. A web query will get answered by them in two working days. Otherwise, trust you are well and retired? ? time to fire up RatingsWest as an interest? Cheers TonyM From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:36 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt at Belmont today which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less 8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. The fixed odds TAB prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations. The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB fixed odds figure. The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. Anyone? Regards, Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chiron1 at iinet.net.au Fri Oct 13 05:44:45 2017 From: chiron1 at iinet.net.au (chiron1 at iinet.net.au) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 02:44:45 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Message: 1 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:54:41 +1100 From: "Rob Waterhouse" To: "'AusRace Racing Discussion List'" Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound.. This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching? It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded. Rob W TA: Thanks Rob. Everything you have said above accords with my experience, including and particularly the reference to it as a 'secret algorithm'. I popped in on the betting steward to ask a question or 2 and the first thing he did was lower the lid of his notebook to hide the?Excel spreadsheet from my prying eyes... not that I would have had the capacity to remember an algorithm even? if it were visible. I don't disagree with the deduction made from my bet, I'd just?wanted to know how it was arrived at, because it differered significantly from the fixed odds TAB bet deduction.? In fact I think the bookie I wagered with was being looked after by the betting stewards' formula for exactly the reasons you state ...the bookie would be the epitome of?one of the?"...razor sharp, low-margin on-course market" framers... He?took my?(place) bet which was at $5.00 place.. even on my crude knowledge?of how the deduction process works I understood it had to be more than?the 8c/in$1 of the win deduction (the scratched horse was $12.00 when scratched) to cover 3 place payouts at his mediumish-long prices. What was annoying initially was that the TAB fixed odds service, which I think is provided by William Hill to WATAB, paid the deduction as less 8c/$1 the win and same for the place for all 3 places... On turnover they can probably offset losses from other bets. The small bookie is vulnerable when the longer/medium priced ones get up if a few punters jag a result. ------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earnestern at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 09:17:00 2017 From: earnestern at gmail.com (Er Nest) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:17:00 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] Pete's Weekly Report Message-ID: We had planned the trip to the Everest some time ago; exactly why, however, I'm not sure because when we went to Randwick on the third day of the autumn carnival we were somewhat underwhelmed by the "new" Randwick. But more on that later. I asked Linda if it would be wacky to have our (main) bet for the day on a race that we would be run while we would be at lunch at the Queen Victoria Building. She said it wouldn't be. The race in question was the Victory Vein Plate. I thought Legend Of Condor's trial was a cracker. A lovely colt, he jumped two lengths in front and was strong at the finish. We watched the race on Linda's phone and it was remarkably similar to the trial; and exciting when, over the final 100 metres or so, he held off Spin and won by what must be the perfect margin: Just enough to know you've won. Trips to City Chic, Jacqui E, and Sephora followed and, at about quarter-past-two, we arrived at Randwick, where an Indian student in a high-visibility vest explained that the infield car park was full and handed us a map with directions to an alternative and explained that there was a shuttle bus. Midway up High Street, however, there was a small spot (it's good to have a Micra). The shuttle bus took us to the (infield) gates. Linda complained to the African security guard that, unlike the group of English or Scottish girls who were also on the shuttle bus, he didn't ask her for ID. We headed for the (pretentiously-named) "Theatre of the Horse". It was overcast, which was nice because there's no shade when it's sunny. "Where's that?" Linda asked, as a race was being run on the screen above the ring. "Caulfield", I replied. Fast 'N' Rocking ran down Religify. After that, horses began assembling for the St Leger. I was pleased to see this race reinstated. The timing is right, too, two weeks after The Metropolitan, which worked out well for Big Duke, who was apprently well-found at about 7/4 in the days leading up to the race. Evidently very well-found at the "2.10" that he eventually paid. We then got hot chips and a lemonade and returned to the mounting yard steps. Linda then had the idea that she wanted to go to the stands to watch the next race. After ascending about 16 escalators we made our way through a crowded room and toward the stands. The stands were full, we were told. The $20 million stands were full. Or was it $60 million. In any case, they were full. We headed back down the 16 escalators. At about the time we got to the bottom, In Her Time was running down Ball Of Muscle. We headed though more crowds (judging by the crowds who were not in the stands, it's far from clear how many were in the stands). If I had to have a guess, however, I'd say the stands hold about 300 people. We headed down to the fence at about the 250-metre mark. A short time later, the Everest horses came by. Chautauqua was big and grey. Tall and long. Redzel was short but stocky. Enormous hindquarters. Vega Magic. You'd never pick he was any good to look at. English, with her untidy double-blaze, skulked by. Gradually, some of the 29,700 people who weren't in the stands began to fill the lawn behind us. Samantha Jade sung the National Anthem. "What's she off?" I asked Linda. "The X-Factor", she replied, after checking her phone. They got to the 600 in quick time. As they came past us, Redzel had a nice break. English (who I had used a bonus bet acquired via the rugby league Grand Final) was slightly strung up and not doing enough. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robbie at robwaterhouse.com Tue Oct 17 12:42:37 2017 From: robbie at robwaterhouse.com (Rob Waterhouse) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:42:37 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier In-Reply-To: <02c301d342ec$4e8042e0$eb80c8a0$@robwaterhouse.com> References: <7e6276af38d0886672a0e1754780e361d8f3c1fd@webmail.iinet.net.au> <001101d342da$457dea60$d079bf20$@southcom.com.au> <02c301d342ec$4e8042e0$eb80c8a0$@robwaterhouse.com> Message-ID: <00c601d346e9$36482b60$a2d88220$@robwaterhouse.com> Further to the deduction discussion: Last Saturday in the last at Randwick, the 4/1 chance was scratched. The winner was 100/1. The ?black box?, predictably, declared a parsimonious 2 cent deduction. I understand the intellectual argument but a working bookie could have $10,600 on the race, have everything taking out $10,000, have to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter he bet $10,000 to $25. Had the winner been odds-on, it may well have been more than a 20-cent deduction. The black box cleverly answers the wrong question. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:55 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound.. This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching? It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded. Rob W From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of mikemcb at southcom.com.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 8:46 AM To: chiron1 at iinet.net.au ; 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Welcome back Tony it has been a long time! Your query sounds like it is perfectly matched to the skills of Nick so we will eagerly await his answer. Keep winning Mike. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 5:36 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Greetings ausracers. Long time no post. Was looking through recent postings in the archive a few days ago. Ausrace is still collectively the best pool of knowledge on all things racing. Have a question for the mathematically inclined, if anyone can help. Had a small successful punt at Belmont today which had to be reduced from the face value because there was a scratching at the barrier. The scratched horse (St Bel) was at approx. $11.5/12.0win when it was withdrawn (shortly before start time). My bet was with an on-course bookie and had a face value of $100 exactly (place bet). Post race the winning horse WITH BOOKIES, was paid out less 8c in $1 for win and less 11c in $1 for place; 2nd horse was paid less 11c in $1 for place and 3rd horse less 14c in $1 for place.... as said, ONLY WITH ON COURSE BOOKIES. Why the variation in rate for the 3rd place? The TAB fixed odds service which I think is provided by William Hill, paid less 8c win for the winner and less 8c place for all 3 placegetters. The fixed odds TAB prices (win and place) were very similar to the on course bookies' market.... literally only very small SP variations. The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see why the place deduction rate is variable instead of fixed for all 3 place dividends ala the TAB fixed odds figure. The 3 placegetters were (memory) at PLACE ODDS of $2.50, $2.70, $5.00 PRIOR to the scratching. Anyone? Regards, Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Thu Oct 19 15:05:41 2017 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:05:41 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] The Money Mine Method - a system Message-ID: <000a01d3488f$89a56f00$9cf04d00$@bigpond.com> The Money Mine Method was sold in the 60's from a PO Box in Balwyn Vic. You paid nine pounds, post paid, as was packaging and handling. It's a book with a double paper front cover and a cardboard back cover. My copy, one of two, is autographed, by whom I cannot decipher, but there are no authors attributed in the book. The opening sentence tells you 'you now have the secret to punting wisdom. Nobody else knows what you will know after you read the words written here.' My copy is numbered 36 so presumably 35 others, and the author, know this wonderous wisdom admission. Part of my enjoyment of collecting systems is the reading of the claims made for them by the sellers, who may have moved on from snake oil, motor oil or growth chemicals. The use, or overuse, of adverbs and adjectival phrases to describe and sell their product is, to me, entertaining. The earnest or solemn declaration that choosing number 1 or 2 or less than 6 or wider than 9 for barriers say is the path to 'untold wealth and riches', which may be the same thing. Then that choice is never supported with some facts, never corroborated by anything, no trust in the balance of probabilities, nothing about testing beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing like that, except this is what you do, an assertion calmly and simply made. The patois is common too, a lot of the authors, or sellers, or facilitators of these systems use this style, appealing to the lonely, the oppressed, or really the desperate, who need this information in their 'armoury' against the dreaded bookmaker, or just your 2/6d on the tote. The Money Mine Method is a five part (called 'clauses') system to choose your selections. The first part selection rules, those bets for a win, have been posted to Ausrace previously. But it could be the 2 or 3 or 4, no more, selections from a rating program, or a tipster. There is a process of rating and pricing those selections. The second part/clause will be discussed later The third part/clause involves the selection of runners that finance the 'blind funding' of the first clause. Now this is new, and advanced for mid 60's turf accounting. In essence, horse numbers in the first half of the field, (like,14 runners divided by 2 equals 7 so horses 1 to seven inclusive) and priced at over 8/1 are backed and the winnings applied to a fund that finances the 'over betting' of selections in the first clause. That streamlined selection process was used in the results section below. So, not a clause 1 selection, over 8/1, in the first half of the field There have been times, successive periods, where this has been profitable on its own, the winnings carried forward, or 'banked, showing returns that are pleasing, the bank is drawn upon to add extra funds to the main selections betting. The draw down has never exceeded the bank holding. The player is required to 'subscribe' to the fund each week, 2 pounds is used in the example in the book, so although the plan is in the black the user (the 'player') is contributing to the holding. Interesting, as most systems get you spending the profits readily, part of selling the dream I guess. Some examples - Caulfield 18/10/2017 RACE 1 - clause 1 selections 10 and 6 - 6 won 4.40, 10 was 4th. The third clause selections were 3 and five - 3 was third 2.90, the profit from this bet was added to the over bet fund for future bets. RACE 2- clause 1 selection 2 won - 5.10, sole bet. The third clause selection was not bet, eliminated due to the rules, it was a clause 1 consideration, it was outside the price parameter. RACE 3 - clause 1 selections 13 and 1 - 13 won 6.40. The third clause selection was 5 3rd- 2.30 RACE 4 - clause 1 selections 3 and 8 - 3 won 4.50. The third clause selections 4 and 7 lost. RACE 5 - clause 1 selection 1, 2 and 7 won - 31.40! The third clause selection 5 lost RACE 6 - clause 1 selection 2 and 9- 9 won - 5.20 The third clause selections 3 - five - 5 was third 6.30 - perhaps a no go for the system because of very wide prices for the third clause horses. RACE 7 - Clause 1 selection 5,1,8 and 9 -no bet - 8 won 5.00. The third clause selection 3,6 and 7 - no bet, again the prices said no. RACE 8 -Clause 1 selection 12,11,14,7 - strictly no bet - a loss ,winner not selected. The third clause selection 1,2,4,5,8 - no bet. The system failed here essentially, fancy that. This is where the often mentioned 'tenacity of purpose' the fall back phrase for all systemeers, comes into play. Stick with it and it will cycle upwards shortly. Summary The clause 1 selections arrive from a rating program, in the example shown The clause 2 , 4 and five selections will be discussed later The clause 3 selections are those runners in the first half of the field, say 14 nominations/acceptances, then consider only the first 7, 1 to seven. Even though there are scratchings, apparently, it is the first 7 forconsideration. But why. It doesn't say. Of those runners, ignore those in the clause 1 process and back, for a place, the runners over 8/1. The results shown in the book have done that, backed them for a place, but there is nothing in the text to tell you that. Also the authors stat keeping is a little awry. S/He is in effect backing 8 runners, or can do some races, so they are going to get a place hit high most often. This was the selling point too, this place stat appears in the advertising for the system, in The Sporting Globe. There were place getters out to 160/1 although the author cautions against backing runners in excess of 33/1 at any time, win or place, s/he says don't do it on three occasions in the text. Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com From chiron1 at iinet.net.au Thu Oct 19 16:53:38 2017 From: chiron1 at iinet.net.au (chiron1 at iinet.net.au) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:53:38 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Rob and Ausracers, I know deductions only affect us as punters?from time to time but everybody should have a look at the new policy - the IWS_Re Frame, which, on further investigation, seems to be universally adopted in Oz. I'm slowly beginning to get the point?you're making Rob. I?went through the Dominic Beirne slideshow/Q&A that 2 ausracers sent or pointed me to and I could probably accept it, if I could get my head around, not so much?the "fairness" of it. I saw the examples but Beirne says it consists of hundreds of look up tables (written into an algorithm obviously) covering numerous 'anomalous' situations ? but if a bookie has to return all the money held on a scratched?medium shot at say 11/1 ($12.00) but the?fave, on which he stood to lose the most, if it won, goes unplaced, then?it works against the punter even at low aggregate betting percentages. My bet was deducted 14c/$1 via the on course bookie?I laid it with?but only 8c/$1 via the TAB fixed odds system. (The winner paid $7.50; the fave was unplaced) They can't both be answering the same question. Perth aggregate betting percentages often get close to or above 140% win. The TAB fixed odds, permanently. ? With the example you quote isn't the IWS algorithm deducting 50% once the winners price is over 50/1 ... Beirne alluded to it or something like that,?in the Q&A presentation...?I feel a semantic discussion on the meaning of "fairness' coming on.. :-) cheers Tony Message: 1 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:42:37 +1100 From: "Rob Waterhouse" To: "'AusRace Racing Discussion List'" Cc: "'warren woodcock'" Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Further to the deduction discussion: Last Saturday in the last at Randwick, the 4/1 chance was scratched. The winner was 100/1. The ?black box?, predictably, declared a parsimonious 2 cent deduction. I understand the intellectual argument but a working bookie could have $10,600 on the race, have everything taking out $10,000, have to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter he bet $10,000 to $25. Had the winner been odds-on, it may well have been more than a 20-cent deduction. The black box cleverly answers the wrong question. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:55 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound.. This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching? It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded. Rob W -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robbie at robwaterhouse.com Thu Oct 19 17:11:34 2017 From: robbie at robwaterhouse.com (Rob Waterhouse) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:11:34 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f601d348a1$1e524900$5af6db00$@robwaterhouse.com> What you do mean by universally adopted in OZ? My calculation is that it covers but 1% of fixed odds betting. As regards fairness: Any ?bunch ?em up? bookie last Saturday (one making a balanced book, laying every runner) would be suicidal at this deduction. He could have held, say, $10,600 on the race, have had everything taking out about $10,000. With the scratching, he would have had to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter if he had bet, say, $10,000 to $25 the winner. The late ?Digger? Lobb would have called for a hot bath, a bottle of brandy and razor blades. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2017 4:54 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of Hi Rob and Ausracers, I know deductions only affect us as punters from time to time but everybody should have a look at the new policy - the IWS_Re Frame, which, on further investigation, seems to be universally adopted in Oz. I'm slowly beginning to get the point you're making Rob. I went through the Dominic Beirne slideshow/Q&A that 2 ausracers sent or pointed me to and I could probably accept it, if I could get my head around, not so much the "fairness" of it. I saw the examples but Beirne says it consists of hundreds of look up tables (written into an algorithm obviously) covering numerous 'anomalous' situations but if a bookie has to return all the money held on a scratched medium shot at say 11/1 ($12.00) but the fave, on which he stood to lose the most, if it won, goes unplaced, then it works against the punter even at low aggregate betting percentages. My bet was deducted 14c/$1 via the on course bookie I laid it with but only 8c/$1 via the TAB fixed odds system. (The winner paid $7.50; the fave was unplaced) They can't both be answering the same question. Perth aggregate betting percentages often get close to or above 140% win. The TAB fixed odds, permanently. With the example you quote isn't the IWS algorithm deducting 50% once the winners price is over 50/1 ... Beirne alluded to it or something like that, in the Q&A presentation... I feel a semantic discussion on the meaning of "fairness' coming on.. :-) cheers Tony Message: 1 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:42:37 +1100 From: "Rob Waterhouse" > To: "'AusRace Racing Discussion List'" > Cc: "'warren woodcock'" > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Message-ID: <00c601d346e9$36482b60$a2d88220$@robwaterhouse.com > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Further to the deduction discussion: Last Saturday in the last at Randwick, the 4/1 chance was scratched. The winner was 100/1. The ?black box?, predictably, declared a parsimonious 2 cent deduction. I understand the intellectual argument but a working bookie could have $10,600 on the race, have everything taking out $10,000, have to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter he bet $10,000 to $25. Had the winner been odds-on, it may well have been more than a 20-cent deduction. The black box cleverly answers the wrong question. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:55 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound.. This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching? It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded. Rob W -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chiron1 at iinet.net.au Sun Oct 22 14:30:39 2017 From: chiron1 at iinet.net.au (chiron1 at iinet.net.au) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:30:39 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of In-Reply-To: <00f601d348a1$1e524900$5af6db00$@robwaterhouse.com> Message-ID: <282780cf58e2f795596ca23b001e1118c9e39de6@webmail.iinet.net.au> The impression I got from conversations and calls I made following my "deduction" experience, led me to believe that a comment the betting steward made to me on the day, implied IWS Re_Frame software was in common use?in on-course bookmaking around the country ... not in all variants of fixed odds betting ...just on-course bookmaking. Whether or not I formed the wrong impression can be cleared up eventually. By "universally adopted" I was referring to on-course bookmaking only. I have seen with my own eyes that there is no 'universal' deduction methodology across ALL fixed-odds betting?offerers in Oz.?? ? Incidentally, in the hypothetical example you framed (below), with the black box theoretical deduction at just 2% ...I?sense your pain, but let's face it most punters who have been previously skinned by a bookie?see betting with you?as blood sport and wouldn't be very sympathetic! In fact they'd probably?gift you?the razors, supply the brandy and pay for your hot bath! LOL. Cheers,TonyA? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Waterhouse" To:, "AusRace Racing Discussion List" Cc: Sent:Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:11:34 +1100 Subject:RE: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of What you do mean by universally adopted in OZ? My calculation is that it covers but 1% of fixed odds betting. ? As regards fairness: Any ?bunch ?em up? bookie last Saturday (one making a balanced book, laying every runner) would be suicidal at this deduction. He could have held, say, $10,600 on the race, have had everything taking out about $10,000. With the scratching, he would have had to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter if he had bet, say, $10,000 to $25 the winner. The late ?Digger? Lobb would have called for a hot bath, a bottle of brandy and razor blades. ? ? FROM: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] ON BEHALF OF chiron1 at iinet.net.au SENT: Thursday, 19 October 2017 4:54 PM TO: racing at ausrace.com SUBJECT: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of ? Hi Rob and Ausracers, I know deductions only affect us as punters?from time to time but everybody should have a look at the new policy - the IWS_Re Frame, which, on further investigation, seems to be universally adopted in Oz. I'm slowly beginning to get the point?you're making Rob. I?went through the Dominic Beirne slideshow/Q&A that 2 ausracers sent or pointed me to and I could probably accept it, if I could get my head around, not so much?the "fairness" of it. I saw the examples but Beirne says it consists of hundreds of look up tables (written into an algorithm obviously) covering numerous 'anomalous' situations ? but if a bookie has to return all the money held on a scratched?medium shot at say 11/1 ($12.00) but the?fave, on which he stood to lose the most, if it won, goes unplaced, then?it works against the punter even at low aggregate betting percentages. My bet was deducted 14c/$1 via the on course bookie?I laid it with?but only 8c/$1 via the TAB fixed odds system. (The winner paid $7.50; the fave was unplaced) They can't both be answering the same question. Perth aggregate betting percentages often get close to or above 140% win. The TAB fixed odds, permanently. ? With the example you quote isn't the IWS algorithm deducting 50% once the winners price is over 50/1 ... Beirne alluded to it or something like that,?in the Q&A presentation...?I feel a semantic discussion on the meaning of "fairness' coming on.. :-) cheers Tony Message: 1 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:42:37 +1100 From: "Rob Waterhouse" To: "'AusRace Racing Discussion List'" Cc: "'warren woodcock'" Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Further to the deduction discussion: Last Saturday in the last at Randwick, the 4/1 chance was scratched. The winner was 100/1. The ?black box?, predictably, declared a parsimonious 2 cent deduction. I understand the intellectual argument but a working bookie could have $10,600 on the race, have everything taking out $10,000, have to refund $2000 on the scratching and retrieve but $200.50 from the punter he bet $10,000 to $25. Had the winner been odds-on, it may well have been more than a 20-cent deduction. The black box cleverly answers the wrong question. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com [5]] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:55 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Calculating deductions from payouts in cases of horses scratched at the barrier The new way of calculating is a source of contention and hated by on-course bookies and ignored by the betting firms and TABs, notwithstanding it is intellectually sound.. This ?new way? is a black box (meaning it?s algorithm is secret) answers, cleverly, the question: what would a new market look like after a scratching? It has faults. Firstly, people don?t understand it. Secondly, an eccentric bookmaker who only lays long-priced runners is very short-changed. Thirdly, it answers the wrong question, which should be how should the bookmaker be compensated for the loss of field money on the scratching. Fourthly, through no fault of the ?new way? the deductions are based on the large-percentage corporate betting market rather than the razor sharp, low-margin on-course market. Fifthly, when a horse is being considered to be scratched, it blows with the corporates, and the deduction isn?t based on the price it was averagely traded. Rob W Links: ------ [1] mailto:robbie at robwaterhouse.com [2] mailto:racing at ausrace.com [3] mailto:warrenwwoodcock at gmail.com [4] mailto:00c601d346e9%2436482b60%24a2d88220%24 at robwaterhouse.com [5] mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com [6] mailto:racing at ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seanmac4321 at gmail.com Mon Oct 23 14:59:39 2017 From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:59:39 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] The Money Mine Method - a system In-Reply-To: <000a01d3488f$89a56f00$9cf04d00$@bigpond.com> References: <000a01d3488f$89a56f00$9cf04d00$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: Hi Tony Good to see you are still around. Cheer as always Sean On 19 Oct 2017 14:06, "Tony Moffat" wrote: > The Money Mine Method was sold in the 60's from a PO Box in Balwyn > Vic. You paid nine pounds, post paid, as was packaging and handling. > It's a book with a double paper front cover and a cardboard back > cover. My copy, one of two, is autographed, by whom I cannot decipher, > but there are no authors attributed in the book. > The opening sentence tells you 'you now have the secret to punting > wisdom. Nobody else knows what you will know after you read the words > written here.' > My copy is numbered 36 so presumably 35 others, and the author, know > this wonderous wisdom admission. Part of my enjoyment of collecting > systems is the reading of the claims made for them by the sellers, who > may have moved on from snake oil, motor oil or growth chemicals. The > use, or overuse, of adverbs and adjectival phrases to describe and > sell their product is, to me, entertaining. The earnest or solemn > declaration that choosing number 1 or 2 or less than 6 or wider than 9 > for barriers say is the path to 'untold wealth and riches', which may > be the same thing. Then that choice is never supported with some > facts, never corroborated by anything, no trust in the balance of > probabilities, nothing about testing beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing > like that, except this is what you do, an assertion calmly and simply > made. The patois is common too, a lot of the authors, or sellers, or > facilitators of these systems use this style, appealing to the lonely, > the oppressed, or really the desperate, who need this information in > their 'armoury' against the dreaded bookmaker, or just your 2/6d on > the tote. > The Money Mine Method is a five part (called 'clauses') system to > choose your selections. > The first part selection rules, those bets for a win, have been posted > to Ausrace previously. But it could be the 2 or 3 or 4, no more, > selections from a rating program, or a tipster. There is a process of > rating and pricing those selections. > The second part/clause will be discussed later > The third part/clause involves the selection of runners that finance > the 'blind funding' of the first clause. Now this is new, and advanced > for mid 60's turf accounting. > In essence, horse numbers in the first half of the field, (like,14 > runners divided by 2 equals 7 so horses 1 to seven inclusive) and > priced at over 8/1 are backed and the winnings applied to a fund that > finances the 'over betting' of selections in the first clause. That > streamlined selection process was used in the results section below. > So, not a clause 1 selection, over 8/1, in the first half of the field > There have been times, successive periods, where this has been > profitable on its own, the winnings carried forward, or 'banked, > showing returns that are pleasing, the bank is drawn upon to add extra > funds to the main selections betting. The draw down has never exceeded > the bank holding. The player is required to 'subscribe' to the fund > each week, 2 pounds is used in the example in the book, so although > the plan is in the black the user (the 'player') is contributing to > the holding. Interesting, as most systems get you spending the profits > readily, part of selling the dream I guess. > Some examples - Caulfield 18/10/2017 > RACE 1 - clause 1 selections 10 and 6 - 6 won 4.40, 10 was 4th. The > third clause selections were 3 and five - 3 was third 2.90, the profit > from this bet was added to the over bet fund for future bets. > RACE 2- clause 1 selection 2 won - 5.10, sole bet. The third clause > selection was not bet, eliminated due to the rules, it was a clause 1 > consideration, it was outside the price parameter. > RACE 3 - clause 1 selections 13 and 1 - 13 won 6.40. The third clause > selection was 5 3rd- 2.30 > RACE 4 - clause 1 selections 3 and 8 - 3 won 4.50. The third clause > selections 4 and 7 lost. > RACE 5 - clause 1 selection 1, 2 and 7 won - 31.40! The third clause > selection 5 lost > RACE 6 - clause 1 selection 2 and 9- 9 won - 5.20 The third clause > selections 3 - five - 5 was third 6.30 - perhaps a no go for the > system because of very wide prices for the third clause horses. > RACE 7 - Clause 1 selection 5,1,8 and 9 -no bet - 8 won 5.00. The > third clause selection 3,6 and 7 - no bet, again the prices said no. > RACE 8 -Clause 1 selection 12,11,14,7 - strictly no bet - a loss > ,winner not selected. The third clause selection 1,2,4,5,8 - no bet. > The system failed here essentially, fancy that. This is where the > often mentioned 'tenacity of purpose' the fall back phrase for all > systemeers, comes into play. Stick with it and it will cycle upwards > shortly. > Summary > The clause 1 selections arrive from a rating program, in the example > shown > The clause 2 , 4 and five selections will be discussed later > The clause 3 selections are those runners in the first half of the > field, say 14 nominations/acceptances, then consider only the first 7, > 1 to seven. Even though there are scratchings, apparently, it is the > first 7 forconsideration. But why. It doesn't say. Of those runners, > ignore those in the clause 1 process and back, for a place, the > runners over 8/1. The results shown in the book have done that, backed > them for a place, but there is nothing in the text to tell you that. > Also the authors stat keeping is a little awry. S/He is in effect > backing 8 runners, or can do some races, so they are going to get a > place hit high most often. This was the selling point too, this place > stat appears in the advertising for the system, in The Sporting Globe. > There were place getters out to 160/1 although the author cautions > against backing runners in excess of 33/1 at any time, win or place, > s/he says don't do it on three occasions in the text. > > 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: From chiron1 at iinet.net.au Wed Oct 25 23:14:07 2017 From: chiron1 at iinet.net.au (chiron1 at iinet.net.au) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:14:07 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] The Money Mine Method - a system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <824ea31269d9b03b7a6c275202b37d6d0970dc38@webmail.iinet.net.au> Hi Sean I know I have ridiculed mechanical systems in the past and still regard rule-based selection processes as nonsense, but I still admire the hundreds of hours of refinement some of them took to construct. But they won't work in the long run because they are based on 'data' not facts. And yes, there is a huge difference. A datum is NOT a fact. When you see, e.g., a 1 alongside a horse's form you automatically know it won last start but you know NOTHING about the quality of that win or HOW a horse and rider pulled it off and therein lies?one?problem - not all wins, (or places or losses) are of equal value. And that makes ALL the difference if a rule tries to screen by a single datum, or bunches of data. ? Second,?most rules-governed methods then make the error of trying to progress? what looks like perfectly OK?observation-based 'data' to a much higher level -??to 'causal imputation'.... and this can never be because a quantum leap is required that goes from 'associated-with-winning, observed data' and 'therefore-if-observed- again-will-most-probably/hopefully-lead-to-the-same-result-next-time, to ...the same result OUGHT to happen. A soon as a system ponders the prospect of "OUGHT TO" it is in serious trouble because behaviour/outcome-to-be is NOT governed by recent past behaviour/outcome-that-was. ? You don't have to go through philosophical self-flagellation to see this...anyway I'm rambling... ? I did want to say though that every 'system' has some redeeming features - at the very least?the basis in observed patterns. The Money Mine Method - at least tries to cover a)?be guided by?form b) get the right price or overs for your selection of what you think are it prospects of victory... better still quantify them if you can... ? Hasta la vista TonyA?? ----- Original Message ----- From: racing at ausrace.com To: Cc: Sent:Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:00:01 +1100 Subject:Racing Digest, Vol 10, Issue 10 Send Racing mailing list submissions to racing at ausrace.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to racing-request at ausrace.com You can reach the person managing the list at racing-owner at ausrace.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Racing digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: The Money Mine Method - a system (sean mclaren) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:59:39 +1000 From: sean mclaren To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] The Money Mine Method - a system Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Tony Good to see you are still around. Cheer as always Sean On 19 Oct 2017 14:06, "Tony Moffat" wrote: > The Money Mine Method was sold in the 60's from a PO Box in Balwyn > Vic. You paid nine pounds, post paid, as was packaging and handling. > It's a book with a double paper front cover and a cardboard back > cover. My copy, one of two, is autographed, by whom I cannot decipher, > but there are no authors attributed in the book. > The opening sentence tells you 'you now have the secret to punting > wisdom. Nobody else knows what you will know after you read the words > written here.' > My copy is numbered 36 so presumably 35 others, and the author, know > this wonderous wisdom admission. Part of my enjoyment of collecting > systems is the reading of the claims made for them by the sellers, who > may have moved on from snake oil, motor oil or growth chemicals. The > use, or overuse, of adverbs and adjectival phrases to describe and > sell their product is, to me, entertaining. The earnest or solemn > declaration that choosing number 1 or 2 or less than 6 or wider than 9 > for barriers say is the path to 'untold wealth and riches', which may > be the same thing. Then that choice is never supported with some > facts, never corroborated by anything, no trust in the balance of > probabilities, nothing about testing beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing > like that, except this is what you do, an assertion calmly and simply > made. The patois is common too, a lot of the authors, or sellers, or > facilitators of these systems use this style, appealing to the lonely, > the oppressed, or really the desperate, who need this information in > their 'armoury' against the dreaded bookmaker, or just your 2/6d on > the tote. > The Money Mine Method is a five part (called 'clauses') system to > choose your selections. > The first part selection rules, those bets for a win, have been posted > to Ausrace previously. But it could be the 2 or 3 or 4, no more, > selections from a rating program, or a tipster. There is a process of > rating and pricing those selections. > The second part/clause will be discussed later > The third part/clause involves the selection of runners that finance > the 'blind funding' of the first clause. Now this is new, and advanced > for mid 60's turf accounting. > In essence, horse numbers in the first half of the field, (like,14 > runners divided by 2 equals 7 so horses 1 to seven inclusive) and > priced at over 8/1 are backed and the winnings applied to a fund that > finances the 'over betting' of selections in the first clause. That > streamlined selection process was used in the results section below. > So, not a clause 1 selection, over 8/1, in the first half of the field > There have been times, successive periods, where this has been > profitable on its own, the winnings carried forward, or 'banked, > showing returns that are pleasing, the bank is drawn upon to add extra > funds to the main selections betting. The draw down has never exceeded > the bank holding. The player is required to 'subscribe' to the fund > each week, 2 pounds is used in the example in the book, so although > the plan is in the black the user (the 'player') is contributing to > the holding. Interesting, as most systems get you spending the profits > readily, part of selling the dream I guess. > Some examples - Caulfield 18/10/2017 > RACE 1 - clause 1 selections 10 and 6 - 6 won 4.40, 10 was 4th. The > third clause selections were 3 and five - 3 was third 2.90, the profit > from this bet was added to the over bet fund for future bets. > RACE 2- clause 1 selection 2 won - 5.10, sole bet. The third clause > selection was not bet, eliminated due to the rules, it was a clause 1 > consideration, it was outside the price parameter. > RACE 3 - clause 1 selections 13 and 1 - 13 won 6.40. The third clause > selection was 5 3rd- 2.30 > RACE 4 - clause 1 selections 3 and 8 - 3 won 4.50. The third clause > selections 4 and 7 lost. > RACE 5 - clause 1 selection 1, 2 and 7 won - 31.40! The third clause > selection 5 lost > RACE 6 - clause 1 selection 2 and 9- 9 won - 5.20 The third clause > selections 3 - five - 5 was third 6.30 - perhaps a no go for the > system because of very wide prices for the third clause horses. > RACE 7 - Clause 1 selection 5,1,8 and 9 -no bet - 8 won 5.00. The > third clause selection 3,6 and 7 - no bet, again the prices said no. > RACE 8 -Clause 1 selection 12,11,14,7 - strictly no bet - a loss > ,winner not selected. The third clause selection 1,2,4,5,8 - no bet. > The system failed here essentially, fancy that. This is where the > often mentioned 'tenacity of purpose' the fall back phrase for all > systemeers, comes into play. Stick with it and it will cycle upwards > shortly. > Summary > The clause 1 selections arrive from a rating program, in the example > shown > The clause 2 , 4 and five selections will be discussed later > The clause 3 selections are those runners in the first half of the > field, say 14 nominations/acceptances, then consider only the first 7, > 1 to seven. Even though there are scratchings, apparently, it is the > first 7 forconsideration. But why. It doesn't say. Of those runners, > ignore those in the clause 1 process and back, for a place, the > runners over 8/1. The results shown in the book have done that, backed > them for a place, but there is nothing in the text to tell you that. > Also the authors stat keeping is a little awry. S/He is in effect > backing 8 runners, or can do some races, so they are going to get a > place hit high most often. This was the selling point too, this place > stat appears in the advertising for the system, in The Sporting Globe. > There were place getters out to 160/1 although the author cautions > against backing runners in excess of 33/1 at any time, win or place, > s/he says don't do it on three occasions in the text. > > Cheers > > Tony End of Racing Digest, Vol 10, Issue 10 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: