• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

New Live System

Would be very interested to learn your views on how to avoid bacfitting.HRB is a great resource which I have used a while now but seldom better than small loss or breakeven
 
  • Like
Reactions: gav
As you know Bill any system can be made to look good with massive profits using past results and loads of filters added to create the would be profit.
But there are only certain angles that are logical and should be at least remotely consistent. I believe the best filters over time are trainer/jockey stats,
breaking down every course. I would then be looking at class/weight and adding sire/dam stats with prodegy results.
My system just now focuses mostly on these filters as to me these are important and can be verified. Sure add more filters if you can justify them.
HRB has all the info but it takes a bit of time to learn about it and I'm very much still learning the most useful filters.
My view is that systems only narrow down the field to a degree so that you can see where the most likely winners/places are.
 
I totally agree with gav gav that any filters you use should be there for a logical reason.
My own approach is to come up with an idea (or a scenario) first where I can explain why I think it should be profitable, and only then run it through HRB to check it out.
Some I can't use HRB, those I run as a paper exercise for a decent length of time before even considering actually putting my hard earned on them
 
  • Like
Reactions: gav
I find Trainers to be a good start but you need at least 10 years results with constant profits i have found, with courses i find it works best on the AW because more runs to work with in most cases, and yes as mentioned above the jockey can have a fair influence for certain trainers or on certain courses.

Breeding for me works best with AW Lingfield and also on all course with 5f and 6f races.
 
dave58 said:
I totally agree with gav gav that any filters you use should be there for a logical reason.
My own approach is to come up with an idea (or a scenario) first where I can explain why I think it should be profitable, and only then run it through HRB to check it out.
Some I can't use HRB, those I run as a paper exercise for a decent length of time before even considering actually putting my hard earned on them
Click to expand...
That's my way of thinking dave58 dave58 , If the idea seems good first and looks to make a profit then you have something to work with otherwise the backfitting stategy starts to kick in.
If only it were as simple as taking out the bad parts of a system
OnTheNod said:
I find Trainers to be a good start but you need at least 10 years results with constant profits i have found, with courses i find it works best on the AW because more runs to work with in most cases, and yes as mentioned above the jockey can have a fair influence for certain trainers or on certain courses.

Breeding for me works best with AW Lingfield and also on all course with 5f and 6f races.
Click to expand...
As quite a new user with HRB I am looking forward to the winter months on the AW tracks OnTheNod OnTheNod
 
OnTheNod said:
I find Trainers to be a good start but you need at least 10 years results with constant profits i have found, with courses i find it works best on the AW because more runs to work with in most cases, and yes as mentioned above the jockey can have a fair influence for certain trainers or on certain courses.

Breeding for me works best with AW Lingfield and also on all course with 5f and 6f races.
Click to expand...

The problem I’ve found historically from using such an extended period of trainer figures is that rarely do they remain consistent over such a long period. Training methods change as do trainers approaches and these can have a positive or a negative effect.

6BC2A8A8-E6F6-41DB-A3FC-F8D67D2D2C6B.jpeg

It would seem that something happened here between 2015 and 2016 that made a difference. Results have been remarkably consistent since 2016 and even though 2014 was a stellar year the chi score would suggest the results may have been a bit of a one off. This is one of my banker systems and I have a year filter of post 2015 which helped me to isolate particular rules that pre 2016 would not necessarily have been effective.

Like many here , I have made every mistake going over the years and even though I’ve hit profitability for a few years now, I have continued to make schoolboy errors. I’ve known all the rules, read some great stuff on here, learnt things that you won’t find in any text book but still made mistakes that impacted what I was trying to achieve. This is the year the penny dropped and I’ve put it all together consistently. I have never had so few bets. There is a lesson there. Many on here preach that it’s not about finding more winners, but less losers. That is the single most fundamental truth of betting in my opinion. I say this not to brag but to illustrate what is possible. In the last 9 weeks I have had 14 winners from 24 bets and my betting bank is up 90%. Stakes are 1/50th of the bank every time the bank reaches a new high but remaining the same on a loser. In previous years I would have thrown the odd fun bet in there or backed a trial system as well and would have lost sight of what worked and what worked well. Discipline and specialisation are probably my big areas of improvement. There is rarely a one size fits all system or approach.
 
Hi Sigster Sigster i use trainers mainly for my lay systems and outsiders systems, and look for constant ones only is not perfect of course but seems ok for me, i suppose it is what one feels comfortable with abit like a golf swing maybe.
 
Many thanks gav gav Sigster Sigster dave58 dave58 OnTheNod OnTheNod a heck of a lot of ideas to digest and hopefully incorporate.I have tended not to pay much attention to the trainer/jockey angles as I thought they would be readily available and not lead to any value. I have tended to look at the horse itself it's OR improving or not, its distance and track preferences,its position in the weights etc
Reading the suggestions I think I need a bit more focus on the horses trainer,rider and mum and dad! And to quote Sigster have a bit more "discipline and specialisation" ohh and maybe fewer betsAgain many thanks
 
Bill said:
I have tended not to pay much attention to the trainer/jockey angles as I thought they would be readily available and not lead to any value.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how often the market will send horses off at mad prices despite trainer, jockey, sire information being readily available that indicates the contrary-the other day I posted up a possible selection based on Kevin Ryan at Hamilton and in Nurseries-both fairly straightforward angles and you'd assume they would be factored in to the price, but it ended up drifting massively during the day from 5.2 when I posted to 9.0 at the off, and then won-last month I backed one of the progeny of Sir Prancealot, whose offspring have so far excelled on good to firm ground (A/E 1.48) which it was on the day, again you'd think the market would correct for something as fundamental as sire going preferences-that one drifted from about 12 to 18 and then it won as well.

I'm not boasting with the above by the way (I've made a hell of a lot of errors the last couple of months that I'm frankly embarrassed about, although back on track now) but it just goes to show that value can be found with quite simple angles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top