[AusRace] Sorcery on Course - a system

[Tony Moffat]

Niall was a drunk, he said so. He never drank on course but was often
affected from a morning of it prior to the races. He lived at the back of a
tram depot sometimes and other times he had a bed in a shed in a nursery
where he worked. He was a suit, collar and tie man. He said first he bathed
in the river, he didn't, he cleaned the showers and change rooms at the
depot and washed there. He just bought recycled clothes and binned the
others so washing them was not a priority and his employers provided the
outer garments anyway as part of the corporate image. He wasn't unhappy, he
just never aspired to do other things, be somebody else other than himself,
and seemed to have no past, nobody, and didn't worry about the future. Not
that he said, any rate. He was a pounds, shillings and pence person even
though we were a couple years on from Decimal Currency Day and he capped his
bets at 2 pound ten but might double up in a race by announcing 'I'm not
having a go in the 6th so I'll use that stake here' as if I was the
confessor and this was now my problem. He bet on the tote more, and place at
that. 

He said he used sorcery and smiled when he did. He had gold teeth, and
fillings, and used spectacles but didn't wear them. His bets were written in
his race books and he was studious and isolated for that hour before the
first but seemed to have his bets sorted after this time. At least he didn't
work out the later races until, well, later and if he had 20 or fifty up by
race 5 he might be off looking for a tram. It cost him nothing remember. A
gentleman is a description that fits. 

Nialls Sorcery is this

Horses have history, a record , and that delineates how they may perform in
future races.
23.4.6.2.11 is the history of a recent winner. It shows 23 starts, 4 wins, 6
seconds, 2 thirds, and 11 unplaced.
Further Nialls would extrapolate that record up to a hundred starts using
the same win, place, unplaced ratios.
So 100/23 = 4.347 which becomes the multiplicand for this runner
23 * 4.347 =100 starts
In that hundred starts this runner is expected to win 17.4 races. Found by
4* 4.347
In that hundred starts this runner is expected to run second in 26.1 races
In that hundred starts this runner is expected to run third in 8.7 races
In that hundred starts this runner is expected to run unplaced in 47.8 races

Mathematically those calculations sum to 100 and so are the percentages
associated with this method.

To win this runner has 100/17.388 = 5.8 chances. This is its calculated
required dividend. It won at $5.50
Its calculated price to lose (as if you need to know) is 100/47.817 = 2.09

Okay, so the system didn't churn out a winning dividend. You needed $5.8 and
$5.50 was offered - place was $1.90 and $1.50 was offered

Niall did farnacle with the ratios (it is Sorcery after all) by
adding 2 wins and reducing the unplaced. The ratios stayed pretty much set
as they are here.

2nd race: you needed $2.00/1.30 and this winner paid $5.50/1.90

3rd race: you needed $13/3.30 and this winner(selected) paid $21.70/5.20.
There were others in contention

4th race: too many contenders. The prices you needed were 3.20,4.90,
3.00,2.80r,2.30 winner,4.80,4.50
The winner paid $3.60/1.10

5th race: you needed $1.60/1.30 unplaced at $7.50/2.50
other contender won $10.70/3.30 after needing $3.20/1.80

6th race: you needed 2.80/1.60 and this winner (selected) paid 6.40/2.30

7th race: too many contenders - you needed 1.30/1.00 for the winner
(selected)- it paid $2.20

8th race: too many contenders - you needed $4.30/2.00 and the winner
(selected) paid $13.40/4.10

9th race: too many contenders - you needed $3.70/1.90 and the winner
(selected) paid $7.40/2.60

10th race: too many contenders - you needed $4.60/1.60 and the winner
(selected) paid $4.60/1.85

It's not magic, irreligious, quackism or even sorcery. You don't need to
boost the horse records up to a hundred neither it just seems you do. That
is what system purveyors do too, make it look scientific., the new thing.
Impressive though and somewhat perfect for the man who utilised it to sift
out a bet, or three.

NEW SUBJECT: Niall is adamant you cannot water plants in a pot. He says
water is like electricity, it will seek the path of least resistance. If you
drizzle water on the plant in the pot it will eventually drain through and
leak to the outside but 7/8ths of the below ground (inside the pot) is dry,
untouched by agua, but you saw it running out it must be flooded in there.
It's not. The only way to water plants in a pot is through immersion, put
the whole thing, heavy as it is, into a bath of water and leave it. That is
how you do it. I would have thought that the pot contents would be no wetter
after 30 seconds rather than 3 or 5 minutes but Nialls says no. 5 minutes
immersion is required. At the nursery on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and
Tuesday he set about soaking the pots as described but in manure tea, a bag
of manure dissolved in the bath, a pinch of Fe for green leaves and a
bouquet garni of trace minerals wrapped in muslin. Shop shocked plants
recovered in a couple of days. His responsibility was 'everything vegetable'
and he says he never lost a plant. Now you know.

Another way - probably

Cheers

Tony






-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com