Diary for May 04 2007
OUTCOME: BASIC PLAN: -11 pts [within OVERALL -4]
PROSPECTS (as they seemed over-night):
Based on my stats, my short-list is: POLINAMIX/2ND (Row 1), WINDJAMMER/WON, HOWARD HOWARD/BOMBED, RICARDO'S CHANCE/WON & MOUNT USHER/2ND (Row 3), SATCO'S DECEPTION/2ND & WESTFIELD DANCER/WON (Place Only I). My Odds Configuration stats are not terrific, roughly 50/50 for the win, except on Polinamix which are encouraging.
I found peripheral opportunities but I've no firm expectation on how the day will go. However, I am dependent on Polinamix and, to a lesser extent, Ricardo's Chance To Place to be all right, I think, as elsewhere I don't have much risked other than collectively.
My "Glossary on the Philosophy" is at the base of this entry
Summary Day 034 C/F to May 05 (Month02Wk1.5Phase07ADay35) E&OE - BASIC PLAN Phase 07A (wef 01/04/07) Deficit = -605 ... within OVERALL Deficit -790 @ ave. of -c23/day O/A; 01 Overall win-day in May;14 Overall win-days in April, mainly small - a disappointing month.
Combo I (Press Corps) bets: 123 & Xtra Combos + Xtra/s BASIC PLAN -15
See below re Combo III (Miscellaneous tips). "Combo II (Naps Table)" discontinued for the time being.
Row 1
610 Font. POLINAMIX/2nd F/c 2/5 Min value odds according to my Odds Config. stat + 20% = 1.60 New odds stat stakes enhancer (Row 1) x 2.16 Old odds stat stakes enhancer x 1.22 - Bets: Token Basic & Token Star + Mop Ups, Token Basic Place Only BASIC PLAN -4
Row 2 - No qualifier
Supplementaries (Row 2): Short-List (Place Only) 'Combo,' Supplementary Mop Ups on all the short-list, Mistake/s: 123/1A & LateXtra/1A bets because I omitted Polinamix - but reinstated after Polinamix's 2nd (as -/2 bets) [Nil], Accounting discrepancy [+1] [OVERALL +2]
Row 3
WINDJAMMER/Won, HOWARD HOWARD/Lost, RICARDO'S CHANCE/Won, MOUNT USHER/2nd - Bets: Token Basic Place Only BASIC PLAN -1
Place Only I - on Rows 1&3 and
SATCO'S DECEPTION/2nd & WESTFIELD DANCER/Won - Bets: Basic BASIC PLAN EVEN [+0.36]
Place Only II - All, or from, YAROSLAV/WON, OTANTIQUE/3RD/FORT ORT/LOST, COCKATOO/WON, BOLTON HALL/LOST - Bets: Token Basic [OVERALL +3]
Naps I
WINDJAMMER/Won & POLINAMIX/2nd (Both Double stakes) - Bets: Token Basic Win & Place Only + Mop Ups BASIC PLAN +1
Naps II
RICARDO'S CHANCE/Won - Bet: Token Basic Place Only BASIC PLAN EVEN [+0.40]
Place Only III/Naps
WINDJAMMER/Won (Double stake)/NORTHERN DARE/LOST, IMPERIAL ECHO/LOST, POLINAMIX/2nd (Double stake), RICARDO'S CHANCE/Won, CEREMONIAL JADE/2ND, FABINE/WON - Bets: Basic Place Only BASIC PLAN +7
A) Miscellaneous Tips:
(i) No Main tip - Bets typically (against advice) @ 3 pts (for 'large' field) split between a tiny Win bet and the balance To Place OVERALL N/A] (ii) RP International Zone: USA (Chur): MAY NIGHT/NO RUN - yesterday, RSA(Fair) BLUE WHITE/LOST, 854 USA(Chur) ASI SIEMPRE/2ND F/c 5/2 - Bets: Tiny Place Only [OVERALL EVEN (+0.23 ] (iii) Place Only Aust/Free "Bet4Place" tips (overnight): 4PL(incl.3W)2L (1 Losing bet missed) [OVERALL +3]; (iv) Miscellaneous cards (incl. Spotlight/Free Pricewise if any/on F/c Odds): USA(Chuc) RAGS TO RICHES F/c 5/2/Late result - see tomorrow, IR(Cork) 720 KELLS CASTLE/PLACED F/c 3/1, 750 DBEST/WON F/c 1/3 - Bets: Small Place Only [OVERALL EVEN (+0.05)] (v) Anti-Post: ADAGIO @ 7/2 (SportingOdds) for 5th May
B) Processed:
Combo III: No bet [OVERALL N/A]
[(i) Endorsements over obstacles: Discontinued (until next Jumps season) OVERALL N/A] (ii) Sporting Post (RSA) Selections: Fair: Race 7 SMART KID/LOST F/c 7/1 Added: 110 WAR EMBLEM/LOST - Bets: Small Win, very occasional EW [OVERALL EVEN (-0.38)] (iii) RP Selection Boxes: MICKEY PEARCE/3RD, SPIRIT OF NEW YORK/WON/THE BIG CANADIAN/UNSEATED - Bets: Basic Place Only [OVERALL EVEN (+0.25)]
Diversity is intrinsically good.
OVERVIEW
This blog details the fortunes this financial year (continuing from last year) of a betting format I have evolved during my first three years-plus of punting - a stable and fairly comprehensive one (if rather fiddly) that, in my opinion, is much better than, to the superficial eye, it appears. I expect it to look a lot healthier to that same eye before too long. (Hum. It's taking a while...)
It seems to work well for me psychologically. Absorbing from start to finish; gives me an interest in a number of races without risking a great deal; alerts me to when I might invest more; damage limitation is generally good; allows of experimentation whilst pointing to what bet types should be in line ultimately to form part of one possible viable professional approach; allows the size of bets to be weighted and adjusted according to performance and historical experience (to keep risks to a minimum on dodgy days and to enhance the potentiality of good returns on less dodgy days).
POSSIBLE POINTS OF INTEREST TO VISITORS OF THIS BLOG
(1) Apart from academic interest (on how NOT to do things, even, I often think, when I remind myself I am still a comparative green-horn - Yup), this blog could be useful to novice punters visiting this site in that, for "Basic Plan," I rely on a careful, and particular, analysis of the Selection Boxes in the Racing Post on the assumption that their contents arise from thorough studies of form by experts to a standard far better than any of us novices could begin to emulate. (I used to major on the Naps Table but came to find the Selection Boxes much more useful.)
Anyone who looks at these boxes might like to see which selections I have chosen on a given day to qualify. I do believe I find the likeliest prospects, for the most part - my search biased towards identifying winners, I must admit, rather than value bets. Even Place Only qualifiers are chosen on likelihood to win as opposed, strictly, to finish in the frame. (I don't personally indulge in EW 'thievery' except indirectly through 2x2, 3x3 multiples and sometimes in the Tips Row.)
(2) Then again, for stake levels bet by bet, I maintain a set of statistics which I devised to provide clues on how strongly individual runners might be backed. Value is meant to be obtained by betting more on races showing good stats, less on historically chancier races, broadly speaking. My sharing of adjusting factors in the blog might be of interest to those who, like me, adjust stake levels horse by horse, race by race. (It is fair to say this blog is not for staunch believers in "level stakes" betting.)
(3) My "Overall" accounting includes selections from a couple of tipster services (and promising free ones that come to my attention from time to time), but I don't back these if, by reason of negatives thrown up by my research for Basic Plan bets, I am unhappy with them. My remarks, if delivered in time, may be useful to visitors who are thinking of backing any of these.
(4) I much prefer to 'go with my numbers' but I'm currently in what I call "The Delta Quadrant" (see the Glossary) and can't act on my preference, at least not often. Phase 06B & 06C were, as was 06Dr, a period of dour dependence on my most reliable bet types, the preparatory work for which is concentrated chiefly upon finding qualifiers for my multiple bets. The new financial year has started in it, I fear, more deeply so due to a bad start. So, this diary is also potentially interesting to visitors who go in for short-odds multiples in the hope that value is obtainable via combinations of banker bets (rather than win singles on them) through the higher strike rate one achieves at short odds. (This blog is partly a history of my test out of this theory.)
(5) My general advice to myself is that "bets on runners that have not qualified for Rows 1, 2 or 3, Place Only I or II are committed at my peril; likewise, lumping extra cash on runners that are not in Rows 1 or 2." Novice punters might do worse than follow this two-fold advice to myself - if I may make so bold.
(6) Also, the qualifiers/selections in this blog are generally to be avoided as Lays, perhaps (but, if gone for, will likely constitute 'value').
Wealth is time left, divided by state of health, multiplied by hope.
IS MY "STAGE 1" AS A PUNTER OVER NOW?
Sometimes I think I may have been missing the point about horse racing; I mean, by making 'achieving a profit' my main aim. I speculate that my priority may change over time, gradually leading to fewer bets, and these, mainly, to add interest, and to spice up the challenges of the sport as a sport (as opposed to using it, soulessly, as a profit making opportunity). Be this as it may, initially you HAVE to achieve betting policies that steer you towards at least successful 'damage limitation.' The performance of my Basic Plan bets does seem to be close to having achieved this. I can ask is my Stage 1 over? If it is, Stage 2 involves, perhaps, identifying the fun in horse racing rather more precisely, leading to the eventual elimination of time-consuming chores associated with the regular pursuit of punting gains.
I speculate that betting on horses will come to seem to me more art than science. After (1) arriving at a collection of rules of thumb for making selections on runners (and bet types) that have shown themselves, over time, to be 'conducive,' (2) your general trend of outcomes feels right, and (3) you are betting knowing that, in routinely exercising your judgements, you are not going to put yourself into deep financial trouble, then, you can concentrate on improving the quality of your judgements on border-line decision-making. Maybe, after betting stops being 'a needlessly expensive hobby' is when the real fun of horse racing more properly begins?
Finances should not have to depend upon a horse!
THE GRAND WRITE OFF
Many of my non-punting friends, acquaintances, relations, have the greatest difficulty in distinguishing spending on gambling from other spending such as in pubs or stores. In many people's perception, the word 'gambling' seems to mean 'losing money.' Actually, only when deficits are written off has money been spent. Until that time, brought forward deficits are akin to a single rolling speculation that may or may not yet bear fruit or cost you. Wins offset against losses, losses against wins, on and on, on and on, until "the grand write off" is effected (if it has to be). At that point, yes, you have indeed spent; and it was expenditure on nothing, so to say, except the fun it bought. In this, I believe, we find the rationale behind, possibly, the biggest lie in racing: that one should 'never bet with more than one can afford to lose.' It should, more truthfully, read: 'Never lose more on gambling than you can afford to spend on this branch of entertainment.' The rub is that it can take you a while to work out how much to write off. I myself have yet to write off a single penny in over 3 years of daily punting. Whilst I regard the brought forward deficit as recoverable, in theory I've "spent" nothing!
Usually, given sensible punting, the write off will be surprisingly small, more often than not, as a percentage of the total speculated since the previous write off, if there was one. One of the conclusions I came to quite early on about betting on horse racing is that, in a sense paradoxically, it is founded on success. If it were founded on failure, who would go on? If you lose, and keep losing, you stop. (Don't you?? ...)
Admittedly, success is overall mostly enjoyed by the bookmaker. But, to work out what to commit yourself, it is essential in my view to keep good records on your gambling in order, for one thing, to pitch the general level of your staking. I mean, if your see that you tend to lose £10 in every £100 invested, and this is supportable, you can 'afford' to continue investing £100 to get back £90 on average. Would there be much point in dropping outlay to £10 to lose £1? Nothing too spectacular would happen to you if you did that. Highs and lows are what we are about as gamblers, perhaps? As I say, you answer the question: How much is this branch of entertainment worth to me? If it's £10 per dip, risk what you normally commit to lose that. You may win, instead, at an appropriate level.
TO CAP OR NOT TO CAP, THAT IS THE QUESTION
Bad as my record is at the close of Phase 06A, it was caused by only a couple or so disastrous days. Such few wipe-out days do the principal damage overall, I've found. My solution at present to try to avoid these is "capping." But because this necessarily caps the level of winnings too, it remains to be seen what the overall effect will work out to be using this more cautious approach.
I had rather not cap, frankly. Having to, to me, means I've not yet got the balance right (my Dashboard settings as I call them) in my betting policies/stakes levels, category by category. In short, I see it as 'an necessary evil, temporary-in-the-extreme.' But I must admit it has come in very handy on many an occasion so far.
FURTHER OVERVIEW
Under "Overall" I indulge in experiments and regularly ring changes; but not so within "Basic Plan."
The main differences between Phases 06A & 06B are (1) single win bets are fewer in Phase 06B (I had lost sight of the importance of my multiple bets) and (2) my stakes (subscription tips excepted) in Phase 06B were, and remained so in 06C, @ stats-adjusted token or capped levels commonly (true also of the latter stages of Phase 06A - the period leading up to my decision to draw a line under it for now).
Phase 06C, distinctively, began overtly to show Basic Plan as the predominant side on my format. I had hoped that phase would see off my period in "the Delta Quadrant," ideally before the end of the 2006/7 financial year, but it slipped away from me.
Phase 06D(r) was transitional, just through March 2007, involving greater use than hitherto of my AMD innovation - trying to improve my format in readiness for the 2007/8 campaign. The current Phase 07A is meant to capitalise on improvements to the format but they have not worked so far except on, believe it or not, 'damage limitation.'
Stock-take post-Phase 06C (Basic Plan)
Starting at “A” my AMD (Alphabetical Monitor) had registered “(O)” by Feb 28 – a circa 11 rung improvement. However, my Basic Plan Bank had deteriorated in the same period by 122 points. Each rung of ‘improvement’ had lost circa 11 points on average. Conclusion? Tweak the Basic Plan 'Dashboard' somehow to compensate.
Changes to the format since 06C - in the order they were made:
1) My first change doubled the threshold for capping of my Row 1 "Star" bets. This bet category is thoroughly proven, having enjoyed a growing credit balance for ages. If I'm right, this change should have the effect, jointly, of increasing the number of winning days and decreasing the average size of losing ones. Unfortunately Star bets only come round once or twice a month.
2) I moved the Combo bets back into Basic Plan but as the top rows of the format. See also (9) & (14) below
3) I discontinued my Fancies Row for the time being. It is now, effectively, buried within the Tips section.
4) I decided to keep the 2-Row Doubles (Row 1 & Naps I) within Basic Plan (but have now dropped it altogether as Naps are value bets more suitable for Singles).
5) I decided to restrict routine Remedial Supplementaries primarily to Row 3 qualifiers.
6) I decided to make Row 3 qualifiers' Place Only Basic bets additional to those within the Place Only rows i.e., dependent on my Overall Bank rather than my Place Only I bank.
7) After cutting the category out for a few days, I reinstated "Place Only II" but, as expected, within "Overall." (It had been within Basic Plan before the cut.)
8) I had decided to do Place Only bets routinely within the Naps Rows whenever doubling (or more) the stakes. Now that I have Place Only III/Naps as a Row, I shall do Win bets on Naps II as well as Place Only ones. The initial success of Place Only III/Naps suggests that my inclusions from the Naps Table are very suitable for Place Only bets. Thus, I shall be making Place Only bets on all Naps Rows inclusions.
9) As I maintain banks for Selection Box qualifiers and for Naps Table selections separately, I decided to sub-divide the Combos section into "Combos I" (Press Corps) and "Combos II" (my list of favoured RP Naps Table tipsters - but also see above).
10) I've increased (by 20%) the capping threshold for Basic Plan bets outside Row 1. (Row 1's was doubled recently.)
11) The "2-Row Trebles" bet (re: Rows 1 & 2) was recently changed to "2-Row
12) I've decided to use my main banks to calculate Place Only bets in Rows 1, 2, 3 qualifiers & Naps I selections (sometimes Naps II). (Mop Ups will remain at Place Only I levels.) So long as my strike rate on Place Only bets is favourable, this change should have the effect of reducing losses on losing days and increasing profits on winning days.
13) I decided to add a Naps III Row (in Basic Plan) for Place Only bets on Naps - quickly renamed "Place Only III/Naps"
(14) I have decided to sub-divide Infiltrations to Row 3. Those that come from the Selection Boxes will be included in the 123 Combo. The Total Combo - a departure now called Diminished Total Combo - will now only occur if I have also Infiltrated Naps from the Naps Table into Row 3. (The Total Combo will no longer routinely include Naps I & Naps II selections.)
(15) I decided ssome time ago to not do Supplementary bets (FS & RS) on Win Only races. I have now decided add Star bets to this rule. This is because Mop Up (damage limitation) bets are not possible on Win Only races.
Notes:
(1) "Basic Plan" bets seem to have broken even in 2006/7 (yet to be double checked).
(2) "Overall," however, seems to have ended with a 2875 pts deficit (@ an ave. of -7.9 per day/365 - not yet double checked). I enjoyed easily 8 pts worth of entertainment per day from the year, of course, but I had envisaged a healthy gain would accrue from my efforts. So the outcome is disappointing to say the least. The damage was done early in the year and, mainly as a consequence of loss of "Scope" (enforcing lower stakes), I failed to recover from it. Basically, I relied on too many major win bets in Phase A and was too slow in catching myself on.
(3) I've not lost faith in the general approach, though. The format, in its present state of evolution, is in fairly good shape, I believe, despite the bad start made to the new financial year.
NOTEWORTHY
Surplus & deficit figures (as guides to performance) get distorted in "the Delta Quadrant" because gains/losses from earlier standard stats-adjusted stakes are inadequately counterbalanced by those from later non-standard (depressed) stats-adjusted stakes. It's like the account is manfully see-sawing away as best it can after the other end has, so to say, been vacated. It would be wrong, for example, to view Phase 06A as a failure. It is by no means certain that its fortunes would not have turned right around had I been able to continue 'going with my numbers.' A bad run dropped me off scale and put me into "the Delta Quadrant." By over-betting inadvertantly, and unsuccessfully, I lost "Scope." It was my big lesson learnt this financial year: never to allow this to happen. I'd been in the same situation before, several times, but I finally recognised it as avoidable. But recent experience suggests I have not succeeded in avoiding it totally. This April I lost what I have termed "Intermediary Scope." Ah well. I hate losing money, but I never mind having had to pay for not knowing something yet.
The Overall account position appeared disproportional alongside that of Basic Plan for most of 2006/7. The disproportion, despite the relatively long period of time it was there, was regardable, I concluded, as temporary - arising partly from over-low stakes on Basic Plan rather than over-high stakes on non-Basic Plan. As Basic Plan bank sizes increase, for one thing, the disproportion should diminish, then disappear, I deduced. I think the green shoots of this are showing themselves of late. There is no great disproportion in the balances of Basic Plan and Overall at the moment. I shall come back to this shortly.
It is always tempting to boost the rate of progress by altering bank levels in a good period, but I prefer to let banks increase organically, rather than raise them, as one might say, artificially, at a stroke. Betting policies are best left to prove themselves from a next to zero start point I have found. If they are not working on pennies, certainly they are going to fare no better on pounds. Fortunately, betting is even more fun at small stakes, I find, than when a lot is put at risk!
Supplementary betting was 2006/7's biggest disappointment, it must be said: it contributed significantly to a big deficit in Phase 06A, undermined 06B, did likewise in 06C. But, non-Basic Plan bets, being chancier and more speculative than proven Basic Plan ones, have to be expected, in a poor period of results, to perform least well of the two categories all other things being equal. Basic Plan is meant to finance Overall (which includes the Supplementaries). Ideally, Overall in surplus should be slightly worse in amount than Basic Plan if the right bet categories are in Basic Plan and experiments in Overall are not performing disastrously. If Overall shows a surplus significantly greater than Basic Plan's, it's time to see what shifts into Basic Plan from Overall should be contemplated.
I hope this run-through of options illustrates the usefulness of the distinction between the two strands of my betting format. At present the deficits confuse things. A bad run can make you over-question what you are doing. Generally, it seems best to keep your nerve and beware of making knee-jerk radical changes. To me, for the moment, the relatively even state between the two strands of accounting, Basic Plan & Overall, is at least more satisfactory than it has been for some time.
GLOSSARY ON THE PHILOSOPHY
AMD: an "alphabetical monitoring device" for non-level stakes betting
If the metaphorical 'dial' on Supplementaries 'reads' "ZH," the next day's gain, in this bet category, would take it to "ZG," or, if a day's loss, to "ZI" i.e., it rises up the alphabet with a day's Supplementaries loss and falls back following a day's win. Having reaching "ZA, then "Z" (i.e., at this point the 'A' is dropped - of course, only after a gain), then on from "Z" to, finally, "A" (the aim) which, once achieved, will have squared off the Supplementaries account as regards gain v. loss days from when the sequence had begun. Why express it this way? Well, it has the same advantages that you get with algebra. I used to get lost when only using figures if, for example, banks were artifically adjusted several times.
[To illustrate: at a glance, the sequence on Supplementaries was at its worst last year on 26th April, 2006 @ "ZW." At its best (until recently) I had brought it 'down' to "ZC" by 10th September. Today, it stands at "U."
-/A [suffix]: When a bet has had to be repeated with an error corrected. Refers to the original wrong bet. Accounted within "OVERALL."
123 COMBO: Multiple bet consisting of runners from Rows 1, 2 & 3 in, usually, EWDoubles if the odds allow (otherwise Win Doubles), plus an EWAccumulator (or equivalent i.e., Single, Double or Treble) If the stats look especially strong, I might add EWTrebles.
2X2 Pair of selections from two races in the hope of picking up one extra good Double from the four runners. [Currently out of favour.]
3x3x3 Three selections from each of three races in the hope of picking up one extra good Treble (rare - more usually done as a 2x2x2). [Currently out of favour.]
4321 SINGLE: Win bet on a runner that has finished 1, 2, 3 & 4 within its previous six races.
BASE STAKE: The start point for stats-adjustment of stakes. The sizes of the "BASE STAKES" depend on the state of banks that I maintain under various headings. My policy on banks that are in deficit results in a situation whereby, as the deficits approach zero (i.e., improve), the stake sizes actually reduce. The hope is the bet sizes will increase as the banks leave zero balances behind and move into growing credit. Resolutely, I resist the temptation to bump them up, so to say artificially, in a good period. I allow myself, in this way, to suffer extendedly, as a caution to husband my betting from these banks to better effect in future such that I won't have again to endure the torture of doing well, results-wise, on miserably tiny stakes. [Currently several banks are creeping towards the good from near zero.]
BASIC PLAN: Bet types I depend on (after having been tested and proven within OVERALL).
BASIC: Stats-adjusted single bet.
CAPPED: E.g., when multiple bets consist of 4-8 runners inclusive, I slice 1/3rd off the computed stake; when more than 8, 2/3rds, etc. [Fewer runners than these is more usual.] I also CAP other bets at any time for any reason.
COMBO: Bet that includes runners from more than one "ROW." Notional stake contributions are calculated per runner exactly as on single bets but the stake to be committed is arrived at by totalling the contributions, averaging, and adjusting for, usually, Doubles (half), sometimes Trebles (1/3rd) if the runners are extra strong &, always, an Accumulator (or equivalent i.e., Single, Double or Treble).
CONSENSUS FAVOURITE: The most popular selection in the Racing Post’s Selection Box.
DELTA QUADRANT: Borrowed from Star Trek as my name for when I cannot freely ‘go with my numbers’ having lost SCOPE.
FLAT (e.g., "FLAT BASIC"): A stake that is at its BASE level i.e., non-adjusted.
FS: A supplement to a "BASIC" bet in Row 2 added when my stats look extra favourable (though I take liberties with this @ token or capped levels). Note: The letters FS originate from "Fibonacci Series," a loss recovery staking system that I experimented with some time ago but have discontinued except in a severely diluted form - see 'Remedial Supplementaries' within the entry on "SUPPLEMENTARIES."
INFILTRATION: See under "NAPS."
LateXtra/1 COMBO: If a runner in the "XTRA COMBO" fails to win, I usually re-back the remaining runners in a further Accumulator. (".../1" would be the 1st of these.) Though the runners reduce in number, usually I commit the same stake as per the Xtra Combo (though I will de-cap capped levels if indicated by the reduction in the number of runners involved in the LateXtra/- Combo bet/s).
"LAURA LUCK" days: When clear "CONSENSUS FAVOURITES" are thin on the ground and, generally, a 'lorra' (lot of) luck may to be needed to achieve a profit.
MAJORITY STAT: I make a note of the size of tipster majority that qualifiers enjoyed in the Racing Post Selection Boxes over the second most favoured runners. (9 or more, with certain reservations, has proved significantly more reliable as a guide to likely winners than 8 and less.)
MISTAKES: Accounted under "OVERALL" (as quasi-Supplementaries) unless they are tied-in elsewhere in my accounts due to some complicating factor.
MY LAY BETS: Experimentally, I confined myself to races with 6 runners F/c @ under 14/1 of which 5 are F/c @ under 8/1 - accounted under "OVERALL." But I have learnt to restict lay bets to when my cash flow position is excellent. [Currently out of favour.]
MOP UP: Place Only bets made along with, usually, major win bets @ the same stakes level as per "PLACE ONLY I" (i.e., not reflective of the 'parent' major win stake level) to help nudge returns up a point or two towards profit/extra profit (or mitigate slightly against loss) by the end of an accounting period. Note: Success depends, of course, on a favourable Place Only strike rate.
NAPS: I follow the tips of 8 tipsters from the Naps Table but reject selections that are too far from having qualified for other Rows. Commonly, Naps that are already qualifiers elsewhere in BASIC PLAN will be considered for
NEW ODDS STAT: This stat is restricted to Rows 1 & 2 qualifiers and has two elements:
(1) A record of qualifiers' results according to (a) which Row they were put into and (b) the number of runners F/c @ under 14/1 that were forecast to be competing; and
(2) a stat (that I call "General") which combines the results of the two Rows into one total for each size of field F/c @ under 14/1.
I use (1) as part of the process of computing the adjusted stakes for "BASIC" bets for Rows 1 & 2.
I use (2) (the General stat) for 'add on' bets like "STAR," "FS," "REMEDIAL SUPPLEMENTARY" and also for "ROW 3" & "PLACE ONLY." These are stats-adjusted in other respects exactly as all bets (except, obviously, Singles within Rows 1 & 2). Stats that record outcomes for Rows 1 and 2 qualifiers separately are confined to the New Odds stat at present. Note: Having built up a body of data, I update it, now, on results experienced solely within Rows 1 & 2. (If you overdo data collection, I feel, a danger exists that your results dumb down in usefulness, become 'bland,' such as proving conclusively that the oft quoted 'stat' that "1 in 3 favourites wins" is indeed, well-what-do-you-know?, true.)
ODDS CONFIGURATION STAT: My present standard for this stat is "the number of runners F/c @ under 8/1 and those F/c @ 8/1 or above but under 14/1," a separate stat for each configuration e.g., one category, alternatively expressed, is "4 runners F/c @ under 14/1 of which 3 are F/c @ under 8/1." This stat shows the number of wins and losses which past qualifiers for, solely, Rows 1 & 2 experienced in races with the same F/c "ODDS CONFIGURATION." It is used (along with 2 other stat categories, plus the F/c odds ['odds-on' disregarded i.e., I treat all these notionally as Evens], plus the number of runners F/c @ under 8/1) to adjust the relevant "BASE STAKE" for the bet category to arrive at the stake to actually commit.
REVERSE STATS STAKES ADJUSTMENT: The computation I use for adjusting the stakes sizes on non-qualifiers (i.e., ones not in Rows 1-3 strictly by qualification) reverses the impact derived from my stats. Instead of multiplying by the win record I have to hand, I divide: instead of dividing by the loss record side, I multiply. I find that these steps prevent stakes sizes from computing ridiculously tiny - for, being on non-qualifiers, the stats are generally unfavourable (or the - otherwise worthy - runners would quite possibly be qualifiers). I would struggle to justify this mathematically, I must admit! But I can attest that it does seem to work. I've never felt the need in the slightest degree to discontinue this variant of my staking method as it applies to non-qualifiers in Row 3 by "INFILTRATION," and, by selection, in "NAPS I & II," "PLACE ONLY I & II" & "TIPS."
SCOPE: Freedom to 'go with the numbers' on stats-adjusted wagers.
SEQUENTIALS: When there are few qualifiers/selections in a multiple [Doubles usually], I proceed singly, committing gains only after the first bet (but repeating the bet if the 1st one loses). I don't do "Sequentials" when races are due off close together in time.
SHORT-LIST COMBO: Win multiple including all the runners in my short-list. Accounted under "Overall." [Out of favour currently.]
SHORT-LIST (Place Only) COMBO: A misnomer in that it isn't a multiple. Enhancements, really, of existing Place Only single bets, stakes adjusted @ Place Only I levels even when the main Place Only bet is located within Place Only II. (Note: stakes can be higher in Place Only II than they are in Place Only I, the banks of these two bet categories being separate.) Accounted under "Overall."
STAR: A supplement to the Basic Bet in Row 1 but sometimes on its own instead of the Basic Bet.
SUNDAY MODE: Major stake levels halved because the information from which qualifiers are identified is less complete on Sundays. Not always applied.
SUPPLEMENTARIES: Non-"BASIC PLAN" additions to BASIC bets including staged REMEDIAL SUPPLEMENTARIES (up to 10 rungs of a remedial ladder, applying an escalation factor per rung of 1.6) intended to recover a percentage of past losses. Accounted under "OVERALL." A winning 10th rung bet is followed by a 9th rung one. If the 9th rung bet loses, I am back at the 10th rung, and so on. Restricted to Row 3 qualifiers. If I extend beyond 10 rungs, I reduce the escalation factor. As the Supplementaries are stats-adjusted, it follows that the stakes do not rise/fall uniformly through the ladder rungs; differences, rung to rung, can be considerable.
SUPPORT: The weight of opinion in a runner's favour (Naps/NBs, usually) gleaned from a Racing Post Selection Box.
TOKEN: Standard bet using a much-lower-than-standard level of stake.
TOTAL COMBO: Multiple consisting of all runners in Rows 1,2&3, Naps I&II, usually EWDoubles plus an Accumulator. If my stats look especially encouraging, I might add EWTrebles.
XTRA (adjustments): As per "LateXtra."
XTRA COMBO: Multiple consisting of runners in Rows 1,2 &,sometimes,3 (INFILTRATED selections excepted usually) and Place Only I. An EWAccumulator or equivalent.