<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p><font size="4">Hi Sean </font></p><p><font size="4">I know I have ridiculed mechanical systems in the past and still regard </font></p><p><font size="4">rule-based selection processes as nonsense, but I still admire the</font></p><p><font size="4">hundreds of hours of refinement some of them took to construct. </font></p><p><font size="4">But they won't work in the long run because they </font><font size="4">are based on 'data' not facts. </font></p><p><font size="4">And yes, there is a huge difference. A datum is NOT a fact.</font></p><p><font size="4">When you see, e.g., a 1 alongside a horse's form you automatically know it </font></p><p><font size="4">won last start but you know NOTHING about the quality of that win or HOW a</font></p><p><font size="4">horse and rider pulled it off</font><font size="4"> </font><font size="4">and therein lies one problem - not all </font></p><p><font size="4">wins, (or places or losses) are of equal value. </font><font size="4">And that makes ALL the difference</font></p><p><font size="4">if a rule tries to screen by a single datum, or bunches of data.</font></p><p><font size="4"></font> </p><p><font size="4">Second, most rules-governed methods then make the error of </font><font size="4">trying to progress </font></p><p><font size="4">what looks like perfectly OK observation-based 'data' to a much higher level - to</font></p><p><font size="4">'causal imputation'.... and this can never be because a quantum leap is required that</font></p><p><font size="4">goes from 'associated-with-winning, observed data' and 'therefore-if-observed-</font></p><p><font size="4">again-will-most-probably/hopefully-lead-to-the-same-result-next-time, to ...the </font></p><p><font size="4">same result OUGHT to happen. </font></p><p><font size="4">A soon as a system ponders the prospect of "OUGHT TO" </font><font size="4">it is in serious trouble </font></p><p><font size="4">because behaviour/outcome-to-be is NOT governed by recent </font><font size="4">past behaviour/outcome-that-was.</font></p><p><font size="4"></font> </p><p><font size="4">You don't have to go through philosophical self-flagellation to see this..anyway I'm rambling...</font></p><p> </p><p><font size="4">I did want to say though that every 'system' has some redeeming features - at the very least the </font></p><p><font size="4">basis in observed patterns. The Money Mine Method - at least tries to cover</font></p><p><font size="4">a) be guided by form b) get the right price or overs for your selection of what you think are it</font></p><p><font size="4">prospects of victory... better still quantify them if you can...</font></p><p><font size="4"></font> </p><p><font size="4">Hasta la vista TonyA</font> <br /><br /><br /></p><blockquote><br />----- Original Message -----<br /><div style="background:rgb(228,228,228);width:100%;"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> racing@ausrace.com</div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">To:</div><racing@ausrace.com><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:00:01 +1100<br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>Racing Digest, Vol 10, Issue 10<br /><br /><br />
Send Racing mailing list submissions to<br />
racing@ausrace.com<br /><br />
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br />
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com<br />
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br />
racing-request@ausrace.com<br /><br />
You can reach the person managing the list at<br />
racing-owner@ausrace.com<br /><br />
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br />
than "Re: Contents of Racing digest..."<br /><br /><br />
Today's Topics:<br /><br />
1. Re: The Money Mine Method - a system (sean mclaren)<br /><br /><br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />
Message: 1<br />
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:59:39 +1000<br />
From: sean mclaren <seanmac4321@gmail.com><br />
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List <racing@ausrace.com><br />
Subject: Re: [AusRace] The Money Mine Method - a system<br />
Message-ID:<br />
<CAOBDE-RAo7DK5gZGKSv5rAKOuZMviu-Dzz8GKPd4mHKJbYevDQ@mail.gmail.com><br />
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br /><br />
Hi Tony<br /><br />
Good to see you are still around.<br /><br />
Cheer as always<br /><br /><br />
Sean<br /><br />
On 19 Oct 2017 14:06, "Tony Moffat" <tonymoffat@bigpond.com> wrote:<br /><br />
> The Money Mine Method was sold in the 60's from a PO Box in Balwyn<br />
> Vic. You paid nine pounds, post paid, as was packaging and handling.<br />
> It's a book with a double paper front cover and a cardboard back<br />
> cover. My copy, one of two, is autographed, by whom I cannot decipher,<br />
> but there are no authors attributed in the book.<br />
> The opening sentence tells you 'you now have the secret to punting<br />
> wisdom. Nobody else knows what you will know after you read the words<br />
> written here.'<br />
> My copy is numbered 36 so presumably 35 others, and the author, know<br />
> this wonderous wisdom admission. Part of my enjoyment of collecting<br />
> systems is the reading of the claims made for them by the sellers, who<br />
> may have moved on from snake oil, motor oil or growth chemicals. The<br />
> use, or overuse, of adverbs and adjectival phrases to describe and<br />
> sell their product is, to me, entertaining. The earnest or solemn<br />
> declaration that choosing number 1 or 2 or less than 6 or wider than 9<br />
> for barriers say is the path to 'untold wealth and riches', which may<br />
> be the same thing. Then that choice is never supported with some<br />
> facts, never corroborated by anything, no trust in the balance of<br />
> probabilities, nothing about testing beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing<br />
> like that, except this is what you do, an assertion calmly and simply<br />
> made. The patois is common too, a lot of the authors, or sellers, or<br />
> facilitators of these systems use this style, appealing to the lonely,<br />
> the oppressed, or really the desperate, who need this information in<br />
> their 'armoury' against the dreaded bookmaker, or just your 2/6d on<br />
> the tote.<br />
> The Money Mine Method is a five part (called 'clauses') system to<br />
> choose your selections<br />
> The first part selection rules, those bets for a win, have been posted<br />
> to Ausrace previously. But it could be the 2 or 3 or 4, no more,<br />
> selections from a rating program, or a tipster. There is a process of<br />
> rating and pricing those selections.<br />
> The second part/clause will be discussed later<br />
> The third part/clause involves the selection of runners that finance<br />
> the 'blind funding' of the first clause. Now this is new, and advanced<br />
> for mid 60's turf accounting.<br />
> In essence, horse numbers in the first half of the field, (like,14<br />
> runners divided by 2 equals 7 so horses 1 to seven inclusive) and<br />
> priced at over 8/1 are backed and the winnings applied to a fund that<br />
> finances the 'over betting' of selections in the first clause. That<br />
> streamlined selection process was used in the results section below.<br />
> So, not a clause 1 selection, over 8/1, in the first half of the field<br />
> There have been times, successive periods, where this has been<br />
> profitable on its own, the winnings carried forward, or 'banked,<br />
> showing returns that are pleasing, the bank is drawn upon to add extra<br />
> funds to the main selections betting. The draw down has never exceeded<br />
> the bank holding. The player is required to 'subscribe' to the fund<br />
> each week, 2 pounds is used in the example in the book, so although<br />
> the plan is in the black the user (the 'player') is contributing to<br />
> the holding. Interesting, as most systems get you spending the profits<br />
> readily, part of selling the dream I guess.<br />
> Some examples - Caulfield 18/10/2017<br />
> RACE 1 - clause 1 selections 10 and 6 - 6 won 4.40, 10 was 4th. The<br />
> third clause selections were 3 and five - 3 was third 2.90, the profit<br />
> from this bet was added to the over bet fund for future bets.<br />
> RACE 2- clause 1 selection 2 won - 5.10, sole bet. The third clause<br />
> selection was not bet, eliminated due to the rules, it was a clause 1<br />
> consideration, it was outside the price parameter.<br />
> RACE 3 - clause 1 selections 13 and 1 - 13 won 6.40. The third clause<br />
> selection was 5 3rd- 2.30<br />
> RACE 4 - clause 1 selections 3 and 8 - 3 won 4.50. The third clause<br />
> selections 4 and 7 lost.<br />
> RACE 5 - clause 1 selection 1, 2 and 7 won - 31.40! The third clause<br />
> selection 5 lost<br />
> RACE 6 - clause 1 selection 2 and 9- 9 won - 5.20 The third clause<br />
> selections 3 - five - 5 was third 6.30 - perhaps a no go for the<br />
> system because of very wide prices for the third clause horses.<br />
> RACE 7 - Clause 1 selection 5,1,8 and 9 -no bet - 8 won 5.00. The<br />
> third clause selection 3,6 and 7 - no bet, again the prices said no.<br />
> RACE 8 -Clause 1 selection 12,11,14,7 - strictly no bet - a loss<br />
> ,winner not selected. The third clause selection 1,2,4,5,8 - no bet.<br />
> The system failed here essentially, fancy that. This is where the<br />
> often mentioned 'tenacity of purpose' the fall back phrase for all<br />
> systemeers, comes into play. Stick with it and it will cycle upwards<br />
> shortly.<br />
> Summary<br />
> The clause 1 selections arrive from a rating program, in the example<br />
> shown<br />
> The clause 2 , 4 and five selections will be discussed later<br />
> The clause 3 selections are those runners in the first half of the<br />
> field, say 14 nominations/acceptances, then consider only the first 7,<br />
> 1 to seven. Even though there are scratchings, apparently, it is the<br />
> first 7 forconsideration. But why. It doesn't say. Of those runners,<br />
> ignore those in the clause 1 process and back, for a place, the<br />
> runners over 8/1. The results shown in the book have done that, backed<br />
> them for a place, but there is nothing in the text to tell you that.<br />
> Also the authors stat keeping is a little awry. S/He is in effect<br />
> backing 8 runners, or can do some races, so they are going to get a<br />
> place hit high most often. This was the selling point too, this place<br />
> stat appears in the advertising for the system, in The Sporting Globe.<br />
> There were place getters out to 160/1 although the author cautions<br />
> against backing runners in excess of 33/1 at any time, win or place,<br />
> s/he says don't do it on three occasions in the text.<br />
><br />
> Cheers<br />
><br />
> Tony<br /><br />
End of Racing Digest, Vol 10, Issue 10<br />
**************************************<br /></blockquote></body></html>