[AusRace] The Money Mine Method - a system
chiron1 at iinet.net.au
chiron1 at iinet.net.au
Wed Oct 25 23:14:07 AEDT 2017
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: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171025/82edae94/attachment.html>
More information about the Racing
mailing list