System Attic

[Jackform]

A decade since I started this thread and not been back since, so it must be good . I will put one up from my Sporting Chron Hcap Book archive, where I still have a cupboard full of complete copies going back to 1973, how sad is that? (the domestic supervisor claims they are a fire hazard and need to go for recycling - No way Pedro!). Enough of that anyone who wants them can come and collect them in a van or with a trailer. I live three miles north of Stoke-on-Trent, about a mile Est of the Mow Cop folly.

Quote:"From SCHB Sports Forum, January 12, 1980 form The Bacon man, Altrincham. Roulette Idea for a Bet a Day.
(He goes on to describe following betting forecast favourites selected by the Sporting Chron form expert and a convincing write up by one of the Chronicle correpondents and later writes 'I have found the roulette staking system called a paroli to be really profitable, especially when it is considered basically only single stakes are used').
Using the Paroli 1 point per selection bet up to a winner. The next stake is the total return from the winner plus 1 extra point. If this wins the total return is placed on the selection, but no extra points are added to the two already bet.
Example for three even money winners:-
1. Stake 1 point return 2 points
2. Stake 3 points return return 6 points
3. Stake 6 points return 12 points
(That's it and I thought it might be nice for a day out at the races, which is expensive before having a punt anyway, or for me as an armchair punter watching TV - I wiil post Epsom selections today).

 

[Michael231]

Wish I could Alan but my domestic supervisor won't allow me.
All I can say is put them on your computer ( or should I say get your son to do it for you) then you may be able to get rid of them.
That is unless you can get someone to take them. Hope you can do either seems sad that they have to go. At least if there on your co.puter you an index them so if you were looking for a particular system you can just do a search and there it is.

 

[Monty]

Thanks for drawing my eyes to this post, Michael. Jackform’s posts are always interesting and worth a read. His archive must be amazing. I reckon I will have bought all of the Handicap Book editions that he still has but didn’t have either the foresight or space to save them. There will be some long forgotten systems on the back pages and it’s always interesting to read them. Cheers, Jackform. Please keep posting these snippets from years gone by, great to read them.

 

[Jackform]

Here is something I wrote for somebody in 2011 but it refers back to an item highlighted from my racing note book from Sports Forum 1973, so it may be of interest to novice punters- if not no matter .
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING HANDICAP RACES
It is correct to state that the true mathematical odds in any race are one less than the number of runners; horses of course have differing abilities so it does not strictly apply. However, it does seem illogical to operate completely against the maths, certainly when the odds available are around 8/1 or longer in any race. If everyone and his dog, including the connections, poring over the form data can't find reasons to support runners causing the odds to drop; that must say something.
Handicaps are rather illogical anyway as they are supposed to be weighted on past performance to give all the runners an equal chance of winning, within a weight allotment of not more than 2 stone covering the field and allowances for age, gender, young riders etc. IMO it is impossible to do this without knowing the change in bodyweight for every runner from race to race, and I am not knocking the handicappers as they do a difficult job well enough. Connections are the one's most likely to be in the know, although not all stables weigh horses they go by seeing the horse from day to day in appearance and on the gallops.

Basically, I support the opinion of 'Supernap’ of the Daily Herald (circa 1960’s) and his 7 Golden Rules:
1. Never bet unless you have a good reason and that reason should be based on consideration of form alone.
2. Never knowingly back a horse at odds-on.
3. Bet each way where possible.
4. Never back a 2-y-o the first time it runs.
5. Only back in a handicap on runners with very recent form.
6. Never back a filly before August except in a filly’s race.
7. Always bet on a level stake.

Take rule 5, according to this we should be considering horses that have run close up in not more than the past month, 14 days preferably. Indicating they should be track fit and possibly reducing their bodyweight too giving a further advantage. This should be reflected in the price if the connections agree with the assessment. Such a runner set to carry a stone or over less warrants serious consideration, gradually scaling down until carrying the same weight as last time, even a small increase up to 5lbs is not a great imposition in my experience.

Here is a rule of thumb for weight-change from the previous race (I score any attributes a runner has): -
Dropped 14lbs or more scores 5
Dropped 10lbs to 13lbs scores 4
Dropped 6lbs to 9lbs scores 3
Equal weight to dropped 5lbs scores 2
Up 1lb to 5 lbs scores 1
Up 6lbs to 9lbs deduct 1
Up 10lbs to 13lbs deduct 2
Up 14lbs and more deduct 4

Also a Rule of Thumb for determining runners finishing an acceptable distance behind the winner: -
In races of 5 to 8 furlongs no more than 2 ½ lengths behind the winner.
In races of 9 to 13 furlongs no more than 4 lengths behind the winner
In races of 14 furlongs or further no more than 7 lengths behind the winner.

 

[eeyore]

jackform just started to take the daily Mirror again as i have a little more time to read it and since the Mail has no rating anymore even for the football i used the Mirror i have 1 to 3 systems from the old Handicap book i wonder i you have any more in you collection i could try with the ratings in the mirror thank you if you could?

 

[Jackform]

eeyore, this is one you could try. Best of luck with it

 

[stedz]

I knew an old boy who swore by a system. In handicaps he backed any horse carrying top weight priced 8/1 or more each way.

 

[stedz]

Cannot imagine having a lot of qualifiers.

 

[eeyore]

eeyore, this is one you could try. Best of luck with it

View attachment 168370

thank you jackform for the system tbh i was looking for system thats use the SF F ew and topspot combined as i remember a old boy swearing by it and there were many many sent in by readers as the daily mail does not have them anymore and i bought a book that use them to good affect and trying to use the mirror instead but not same results thank you again for the system

 

[Jackform]

eeyore, being at a loose end I was checking my files for systems dealing with speed figures, usually dating back to Ken Hussey, Split Second days. He actually supported a chap named Morton Coles who wrote some letters to the Sporting Chron forum, circa 1979. His edge was to combine up to the past six seasonal outings of SF with the race distance. I will try and post them up. However, in the meantime I came across this from a chap I sed to correspond with and thought it might be of interest:

Assessing the Worth of Systems (Colin Evans)
This is the transcript of a letter from Colin Evans a semi-pro punter (made part of his income from betting) that I corresponded with from the 6th October 1988. I should state that he followed a portfolio of simple systems. As the advice is still relevant after 30 years I have posted it for interest.
“This is a rule of thumb for checking the basic worth of systems generally. It involves no more than watching just how many qualifiers (not winners) they actually produce over a period. Speaking personally, I would say that any method throwing up more than 4/5 selections a month is based on insufficiently strong form lines. The one-a-day brigade are doomed to failure long term for the simple reason that, again statistically, races in which strong form factors predominate (and so, logically, have a good chance of delivering the goods) do not regularly occur on a daily basis So if you are devising an approach from scratch keep a running check on the number of qualifiers only – and then keep adding additional form rules until you reduce the number to no more than six a month. At this point you have a sound system – unavoidably. The next hurdle is to find out whether it’s actually profitable.
To check whether you are on the right lines (statistically) average out the SP of all qualifiers. Ideally the result should fall into the 11/8 range. By confining the selections to races of around ten runners (which should always be one of the rules, if for no better reason it nullifies the more flagrant effects of the bookies over-round, and so provides truer odds) you are also confining 75% of the winners to the first three in the betting forecast – and in a strong form race (another mandatory rule, in my book) you’re not likely to often meet anything worthwhile over 9/4.
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the all important value is not only obtained from prices in isolation; it can also be gained indirectly, if you like – through the percentage strike-rate. If your current strike-rate is 60%, for instance, any winner at 8/11 is a value bet. Those who advocate that you should never back at odds-on are missing the point. The real yardstick is never to back at odds that are (a) less than the true chances of the horse winning or (b) below the current value of the strike-rate. (Convert your percentage into odds and then only back above that price. This will change with each subsequent bet, of course). And since genuine odds-on chances are about as common as a first dividend pools win the latter approach is probably the safest all round. If at this stage you are still not showing a profit (however small) then begin an analysis of the winners of the races in question (the one’s you didn’t find, that is!) See if a significant percentage of these share a common factor you have not included in your own system rules (dropped in class, weight, running over the same distance/going etc). If such a factor is present add it to your basic selection requirements and run the trial again. If you can’t find anything, however, the odds are that the winning results are largely arbitrary (which happens with even the best laid plans) and can be safely ignored.

These guidelines can be used to monitor virtually any approach, and can be relied on to keep things along the right lines.”

 

[Jackform]

eeyore, at the time many Sporting Chron readers felt that he was better than Van der Wheil. Now I will go and leave you alone .

 

[eeyore]

eeyore, being at a loose end I was checking my files for systems dealing with speed figures, usually dating back to Ken Hussey, Split Second days. He actually supported a chap named Morton Coles who wrote some letters to the Sporting Chron forum, circa 1979. His edge was to combine up to the past six seasonal outings of SF with the race distance. I will try and post them up. However, in the meantime I came across this from a chap I sed to correspond with and thought it might be of interest:

Assessing the Worth of Systems (Colin Evans)
This is the transcript of a letter from Colin Evans a semi-pro punter (made part of his income from betting) that I corresponded with from the 6th October 1988. I should state that he followed a portfolio of simple systems. As the advice is still relevant after 30 years I have posted it for interest.
“This is a rule of thumb for checking the basic worth of systems generally. It involves no more than watching just how many qualifiers (not winners) they actually produce over a period. Speaking personally, I would say that any method throwing up more than 4/5 selections a month is based on insufficiently strong form lines. The one-a-day brigade are doomed to failure long term for the simple reason that, again statistically, races in which strong form factors predominate (and so, logically, have a good chance of delivering the goods) do not regularly occur on a daily basis So if you are devising an approach from scratch keep a running check on the number of qualifiers only – and then keep adding additional form rules until you reduce the number to no more than six a month. At this point you have a sound system – unavoidably. The next hurdle is to find out whether it’s actually profitable.
To check whether you are on the right lines (statistically) average out the SP of all qualifiers. Ideally the result should fall into the 11/8 range. By confining the selections to races of around ten runners (which should always be one of the rules, if for no better reason it nullifies the more flagrant effects of the bookies over-round, and so provides truer odds) you are also confining 75% of the winners to the first three in the betting forecast – and in a strong form race (another mandatory rule, in my book) you’re not likely to often meet anything worthwhile over 9/4.
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the all important value is not only obtained from prices in isolation; it can also be gained indirectly, if you like – through the percentage strike-rate. If your current strike-rate is 60%, for instance, any winner at 8/11 is a value bet. Those who advocate that you should never back at odds-on are missing the point. The real yardstick is never to back at odds that are (a) less than the true chances of the horse winning or (b) below the current value of the strike-rate. (Convert your percentage into odds and then only back above that price. This will change with each subsequent bet, of course). And since genuine odds-on chances are about as common as a first dividend pools win the latter approach is probably the safest all round. If at this stage you are still not showing a profit (however small) then begin an analysis of the winners of the races in question (the one’s you didn’t find, that is!) See if a significant percentage of these share a common factor you have not included in your own system rules (dropped in class, weight, running over the same distance/going etc). If such a factor is present add it to your basic selection requirements and run the trial again. If you can’t find anything, however, the odds are that the winning results are largely arbitrary (which happens with even the best laid plans) and can be safely ignored.

These guidelines can be used to monitor virtually any approach, and can be relied on to keep things along the right lines.”

thank you jackform

 

[eeyore]

eeyore, at the time many Sporting Chron readers felt that he was better than Van der Wheil. Now I will go and leave you alone .

thank you jackform i just going to look back in a book thats grandad had 30 years ago and he was a daily mirror man through and through and see if a system works as ascot coming up and it it funny what we keep and find hard to let go