The Totopoly Kid

Phase 2007B is proceeding satisfactorily [I wrote in Sep]. Ended up 920 pts on Basic Plan. This is not bad considering the contraints of betting 'in the Delta Quadrant.'

Additionally, Phase 2007Ct (Dec only) ended up 164 pts on Basic Plan whilst Overall, for the whole of 2007 (Jan-Dec), ended near enough Even (-15 pts).

Negligently I lost Intermediary Scope in the 1st week of Dec and was struggling with cash-flow problems in the UK after that. I was saved from virtual betting extinction by the Australian tipping service being able to utilise funds already in my Aussie racing account. 

I am happy with the AMD method of setting Base stake levels for each bet category. Now firmly established as my preferred method of fixing the Base Stake level for each bet category. This approach plus a wary eye on the state of the bank for each category seems to be taking care of things nicely.
The present basket of bet types seems about right, though some of its contents receive airings far less often than used to be the case. I am become ultra-cautious. My present bias in favour of Place Only betting seems to be working to my advantage.

I may be moving towards betting only on what are now Capped bets, applying stakes adjustment to that category's Base Stake to arrive at the actual stakes. This possibility I am mulling over currently.
No "Write Off" process needed, after all.

I am expecting a good 2008, betting-wise.

But previously I wrote:

"In abeyance for the duration of Phase 2007B. I am waiting to see how the present version of my format does.

Notes on the process so far

The 'write-off 'calculations are proceeding but proving un-straightforward. My accounting system evolved only gradually from zero experience in this field and I made a number of radical changes over time to both style and content. So I am having trouble interpreting past global figures and summaries meaningfully. One thing is all too clear: my R&D period on this project is going to prove much more expensive than I had feared.

Well, I have now been through as many relevant past & present banks as I could isolate and it looks like 16,350 pts is a ball-park figure that seems about right for write off when I'm ready. It is not made up of Overall less Basic Plan at present because, so far, it has proved too complicated to calculate that way. A further complication is that I find I am most reluctant to drop whatever the true Overall picture is from current summaries.
My mechanisms to ensure safety were never adequate in the past, I have to admit, and, certainly in the earliest days, infected by over-optimism in the abilities of a succession of methodologies I introduced intended to recover losses. I always thought that by doing better in future, previous losses would be recovered. "Better," I have done, progressively, but only in successfully losing less in any given time-frame than (within Basic Plan) I did before. I failed to foresee that a drastic deterioration in cash-flow leads to a prolongation of the recovery process. Though I can do much better with my betting, now, funds cannot presently be committed of a size commensurate with the task of the recovery of my past losses. It may never become possible to recover my Write-Off figure as I may be unable ever again to  commit to individual bets the sort of funds that disappeared in accumulating it. I feel that any figure written off should be one that is deemed forever irrecoverable. It is this thought that has prompted me to wait and see how the present Phase performs. My assumption is that this finding, when available, may influence the write-off process in the matter of what irrecoverable figure to accept.
On a more hopeful note, I think it fair to say I cannot do as badly in future as I did in the past. The present Write-off when finalized will prove, I hope, to be the only major one I ever make.

I retain the hope that, in due course, Basic Plan will recover the present deficit accrued to it since I began accounting it separately within Overall.

[Yet previously, still, I wrote: "After the write-off I shall zero Basic Plan to start it anew. Overall has to be carried forward as is, I think."] For a while I was unsure how to handle my brought forward totals once I had acted on these decisions. I liked the idea of Overall continuing to reflect the overall cumulative position, and, indeed, Basic Plan! But when is a write-off not a write-off??? Then it hit me that the above mentioned write off figure pre-dates the present brought forward figures for Basic Plan & Overall so I don't need to do anything about these for 2007? They can stay as they are? Except, except  ... the current Basic Plan sequence began immediately following the close of 2005. Overall ended Dec 31, 2005 @ -5554 pts, and Dec 31, 2006 @ -11022 pts. For the present, after all, I have decided to add these back. Thus the write-off process continues. The next major stage is a careful look back over my earliest records for anything relevant I may have overlooked. But I have not started this stage yet.

These deficits seem exactly as bad as they are, but it is worth remembering that they did aggregate over 3+ very-green-to-plain-green years, and nearly 5000 pts disappeared in a single mad afternoon (Jan 6th last year). At least they do make the present 1000+ pts down in a whole half-year seem a lot like definite improvement! Better days lie ahead, I'm sure.

It is paradoxical, perhaps, that this decision to write off deficits is made at a time when I am broadly confident about what I am doing albeit that I am currently tweaking things around a bit. But it can be argued that, by reason of the confidence (despite the adverse impression suggested by results prior to this August), this is the very time to stop and start again?

I was in business for myself for some 4 years and one of the conclusions I arrived at was that companies do not go under over millions of pounds of debt. No. They go under for the last £50 that they can't find at a critical moment of no return.

I've not gone under, as such, but the critical moment came for me after Imps Way recently came 2nd instead of winning. Then the present pass was mirrored by something that happened to me that night. All through that afternoon and evening I had tried to keep everything going (it had been a complicated punting day for me) but had kept falling asleep half-way through calculations. Late on (about 1.30 am) I fell asleep yet again obviously whilst I had been working on the day's update of my master-file becaue I found that file's contents in disarray around my feet. Half-asleep I cobbled it back together any-old-how and retired to bed. When I awoke the next day I knew at once I must stop what I'd been doing and re-assess my modus operandi. "

Note: For the sake of the record I am leaving the rest of this entry un-updated.

UP TO RECENTLY ...

This blog is detailing the fortunes this financial year [2007/8] (continuing on from last year) of a betting format that I evolved during my first three years-plus of punting - a stable and fairly comprehensive one if rather fiddly (too much so I recently decided) 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 (this will not happen, now). It seems to work well for me psychologically. Absorbing from start to finish - not completely (I began to find some aspects tedious & over time-consuming); gives me an interest in a number of races without risking a great deal - too many, I came to think; alerts me to when I might invest more; damage limitation is generally good (No, really: it is!); 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

This blog is recording my attempt to profit by processing information in the Racing Post (Selection Boxes, the Naps Table, Spotlight and International Zone).

(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 (moderated by the contents of the Naps Table) 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 actually to major on the Naps Table but came to find the Selection Boxes much more useful as a first base.) Well, a major difficulty of concentrating on the Selection Boxes is that obvious but, in reality, dodgy favourites look on the page exactly like good things. I mean a runner may be the obvious choice as likely winner, but knowing punters nevertheless let it to run unbacked by them. I am presently ignoring obvious favourites (i.e., for major bets) if my eight favoured Naps Table tipsters have, and for middling-sized bets, if nobody's napped them. So far, this is proving safer.

Anyone who looks at the Selection 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.) Given that I have failed to generate disposable profits, despite many successful periods, I am unclear that my stakes adjustment policy enables value to be actually ignored in favour of betting on the likeliest winners. I had thought that, through my stakes adjustment policy, it might do.
Using level stakes, there is no doubt that value is 'a must.' However, it continues to feel right to me to bet more when my stats are favourable and less when they are not. I'll not be able to make a definitive judgement on this until I have punted uninterruptedly for long enough without the constraints of operating within what I've called "The Delta Quadrant (see the Glossary)."

(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.

NOTEWORTHY: "A good tip is a good tip whatever the price?" A truism, perhaps, but it implies there is a case for NOT adjusting stake levels the way I do (i.e., including according to the F/c odds) whenever you are fully confident in the tip's source. But I speculate that a level stakes policy only works when the quality of the backed selections is optimal. It will help you not in the least when they are too often inadequate quality-wise; quite the opposite. Unfortunately, in the last analysis, "the only good tip is the winning one?" Another truism, I guess. The rest failed, after all.

(4) I much prefer to 'go with my numbers' but now I'm in "The Delta Quadrant" I can't act on this preference, at least not often. Phase 2006B & 06C were, as was 06Dr, a period of dour dependence on my most reliable bet types, the preparatory work for which was concentrated chiefly upon finding qualifiers for my multiple bets but I am doing fewer of these currently. 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 remains partly a history of my test out of this theory.) One firm conclusion I came to recently is that Naps are not safe enough candidates for inclusion in major multiple bets. I had long suspected that "a Nap is an excellent selection that is quite liable to lose [my definition]." I decided, finally, to adopt this as true and to reflect it in my betting format.  (Naps are nominated, I suggest, on a 'likely odds compared against assessed real chance' basis - which is why apologies often follow if a price drops extra low: "Didn't expect it to go off that short!" tipsters will often, sheepishly, protest.)

For multiples, I prefer to go for combinations of virtual certainties. These are often chosen from non-napped short-priced favourites - but it is often hard to sort out the solid from the dodgy i.e., I want to include ones that, though they failed to get napped due to their likely low price, do have a seriously excellent chance of winning.

(5) My general advice to myself is that "betting on runners which have not qualified for Rows 1, 2 or 3, Place Only I or II is done 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. Currently, most of my bets are in my Place Only III/Naps row, which is proving more reliable than any category I have tried out so far (an 'eye opener' for me on what a good category should do, actually, though there have been reverses, some of them major).

(6) Also, the qualifiers/selections in this blog are generally to be avoided as Lays, perhaps (but, if gone for, will likely constitute 'value').

True wealth is time left, divided by state of health, multiplied by hope.

Ever wondered what a bet is, actually? Well ...
"'Bet' or 'a bet' means the staking of any money or valuable thing by or on behalf of any person or the express or implied promising, undertaking or agreeing to pay or give any money or valuable thing by or on behalf of any person as or for the consideration for any assurance, undertaking, promise or agreement, express or implied by another person, to pay or give thereafter any money or valuable thing on any event or contingency of or relating to any horse race, or sports, or on any other event or contingency whatsoever, or as, or for consideration for securing the payment of any money or valuable thing on any such event or contingency whatsoever as aforesaid; and ‘to bet’ means to make a bet as hereinbefore defined;..."
So now we know! [I am indebted to my RSA bookie's website for the definition.]

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, finally, 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?

THE GRAND WRITE OFF

Actually, only when punting deficits are written off has money been spent. Until that time, deficits are akin to a single rolling speculation that may or may not yet bear fruit. 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 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 one can afford to spend on this branch of entertainment.' The rub is that it can take a fair while to work out how much to write off. 4 years in my case!

Usually, given sensible punting, the write off (large or not) will be surprisingly small 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 - well, successes enough for you to carry on.

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 appropriately interesting level.

Well, I've vowed, from the start of the present Phase, to lose nothing beyond what the entertainment of racing is worth to me; and I've eliminated some "time consuming chores."

Finances should never have to depend upon a horse!

TO CAP OR NOT TO CAP, THAT IS THE QUESTION

Bad as my record is at the close of Phase 2006A, 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 capping as 'an necessary evil, temporary-in-the-extreme.' But I must admit it has come in very handy on many an occasion so far. I feel presently that Capping is here to stay for me amounting to a nod in the direction of level stakes betting i.e., I am on quasi level stakes, effectively, on bets at the highest stake levels that I am prepared to commit.

One useful function for Capping some bets is that your uncapped ones can be placed at interesting stake levels. Without capping, you have to drop stakes across the board - with the attendant risk that the majority of your bets, likely, will be uninterestingly low.

It might be that an alternative is to come to this matter of stakes adjustment from the opposite end: drop capping but set a minimum stake level? At this time, however, I can't see that interesting general stakes-adjusted bet levels are possible without capping those that compute too high to be chanced. Presently, I favour enjoying an interesting general level of stake size, whilst never exceeding the maximum I allow category by category. (I tend currently to limit myself to the Base Stake if my computed stake has ended up higher.)

It is worth pointing out that my stakes-adjustment policy computes many very low stakes. The level is all according to what impact my stats make when I apply them to my Base Stake, category by category. My Place Only III/Naps Row, for example, is tending to do all right via stakes adjustment with very little of my money on many of its inclusions. That Row exemplifies my system in microcosm, I suggest - but, of course, its inclusions are generally 'value' ones. It may be that it is the value and not the system that is doing its work, principally. This said, I would say, anecdotally, that level stakes employed on these inclusions is unlikely to work as well. It never did when I was making more Win bets than I do now, using level stakes on tips from, more or less, the same selection of tipsters. Overall loss was my common experience, then, which is less true of my present use of these tips operating a stakes-adjustment policy.

Noteworthy: It occurs to me that a consistent staking policy is, ipso facto, a level stakes policy, albeit that stakes committed, in my case via stakes-adjustment, vary horse by horse, race by race. I mean, whenever the exact same stats are applied, the indicated stake calculates out exactly as before. It can be said correctly, therefore, that I have a level stakes policy per stat, per circumstance i.e., many stakes levels running concurrently, each one 'level' though different from the rest. Thus, the fact that my stakes actually deployed vary is but an incidental within a level stakes policy.

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 - currently far fewer) 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, through loss of Scope, it slipped away from me.

Phase 06D(r) was remedial/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. Phase 2007A was meant to capitalise on such improvements to the format as I had found but they did not work out except on, believe it or not, 'damage limitation.' I was on the wrong foot by the end of Day 3 and, though getting there, I've not yet recovered. 07A became a transitional phase renamed 07At.

Phase 2007B retains the basket of bet categories I had before but with a Basic Stake, now, individual to every category (reviewed daily currently). I had long suspected that the balance of my banks was wrong in that, likely, some were too high and others too low; more so the latter case, if anything. My belated AMD analysis across the range of my favoured bet types confirmed me in the justice of this suspicion: the imbalance had indeed been preventing me from gaining sufficiently from the better performing bet categories!  My problem was less a matter of losing too much on some bet types, rather one of not gaining enough (through over-low stakes) on the ones that were doing all right. Crushingly simple, really!
I am hopeful I have begun, now, to significantly redress this imbalance.

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. This has worked.

2) I moved the Combo bets back into Basic Plan but as the top rows of the format. See also (9) & (14) below. Combo bets are rarer now and include fewer qualifiers than formerly.

3) I discontinued my Fancies Row for the time being. It is now, effectively, buried within the Tips section (within "Cards") and the Processed section (within "Boxes").

4) I had decided to keep the 2-Row Doubles (Row 1 & Naps I) within Basic Plan but have since dropped them altogether (as Naps seem value bets more suitable for Singles).

5) I decided to restrict routine Remedial Supplementaries primarily to Row 3 qualifiers. Rarer now but not discontinued. Qualifiers for Row 3 are often ones I used put into Row 2. Ones that used to go into Row 3 I now often locate in Place Only I.

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 Bank for this Row (bet category) 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.) Pretty much discontinued for a while but then (cautiously) reintroduced. Actually this bet category scored highly in the AMD analysis I did on results in April and presently its Basic Stake is one of the highest I have on the go. It is now back in Basic Plan.

8) 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). However, recently I shifted emphasis for major bets away from Press Corps and onto the Naps Table (in that I do not do major bets on Press Corps selections if I see no Naps Table support for them). So this distinction, though retained in the accounting, is not as relevant as it was.

10) I've increased (by 20%) the capping threshold for Basic Plan bets outside Row 1.

11) The "2-Row Trebles" bet (re: Rows 1 & 2) was recently changed to "2-Row Doubs&Trebs." Discontinued.

12) I've decided to use my individual Row *banks as appropriate to calculate Place Only bets in Rows 1, 2, 3 qualifiers & Naps I & II). (Mop Ups, however, 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. *Currently I am using the success rate of my bet categories as indicated by my AMD (see the Glossary) to set fresh Base Stake levels daily.

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 - rarer but not discontinued. The Total Combo has been added to by a Combo I've called "Diminished Total Combo." It occurs if I have Infiltrated selections from the Naps Table into Row 3.

15) I decided some time ago to not do Supplementary bets (FS & RS) on Win Only races. I have now decided to add Star bets to this rule. This is because Mop Up (damage limitation via Place Only) bets are not possible on Win Only races. This has proved wise on an encouraging number of occasions.

16) I've decided to move the RSA bets into Basic Plan as "Place Only I/RSA."

17) I have made a change in the stakes adjustment routine as it affects Odds On qualifiers/selections. Say the F/c odds are 8/15: I multiply by 8 and divide by 15. This has the effect of causing computed stakes to be at their highest on Odds On chances when the F/c odds are just worse than Evens. Then the computed stakes get progressively lower the longer the F/c Odds On prices are. This policy safeguards me from risking too much on such inclusions in my betting line-up. So far, I am very happy with this change.

18) Phase 2007B keeps broad faith with the basket of bets from Phase 07At. I started an analysis wef April’s experience using my AMD initiative but, this time, on a bet category by bet category basis. It was immediately apparent that several categories had been operating from Basic Stakes that were far too low when viewed in the light of their actual performance. I now use the AMD reading daily to re-set the Basic stakes; the better the record, the higher the stake. I have not optimised the rate of change. I kicked off at 1 point per alphabetical movement but, presently, I have changed this to an increase of the Basic Stake by 1 point for every 5 letters of improvement of the alphabet read-off (reducing by 1 point for every 3 letters' deterioration from a mean Basic Stake level of 10 points which all banks kick off at). I am hopeful that the fruits of this exercise will manifest sooner rather than later. The current Phase (2007B) should prove interesting in this respect.

19) I have decided to add the top Australian tip to Basic Plan bets (current stat is 51W31L). This puts it simultaneously into 2 bet categories. However, I do Win bets on this selection as well in my Naps rows.

20) Having gone down the AMD (alphabet) twice on Place Only I to (AA), I have decided to add 10 points the Base Stake upon reaching each (A). I have jumped my Base Stake up to 30 pts wef 24/08/07.

Notes (This section awaits updating):

(1) "Basic Plan" bets seem to have broken even in 2006/7 (yet to be double checked but, from more recent calculations, appears to be wrong by a fairly small amount on the deficit side).

(2) "Overall," however, seems to have ended with a 2875 pts deficit (@ an ave. of -7.9 per day/365 - not yet double checked. (Could be quite wildly off the mark. May be a figure net of Basic Plan? Apologies for the imprecision). 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. Note: Phases work off the financial year in my system, anyway latterly. But Overall figures use Jan to Dec. (I have yet to establish which period is best for 'the horse racing year.' My suspicion is that one gets a better punting balance using Jan to Dec i.e., mid-Jumps season to mid-jump season.)

(3) I've not lost faith in my format's general approach, though. In its present state of evolution, it is in fairly good shape, I believe, despite the bad start made to the current financial year. The initial success of Place Only III/Naps led me into a period of doubt. however. I need to be doing as well generally as this category was doing. (Note: It has fared far less well recently.) I am now using these selections as a filter for the rest of the format, which has cut down the time it takes me to process the info daily and, of course, results in fewer bets. In short, a change in emphasis has occurred but the basic bets content has been retained.

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 in 2006/7: 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 temporarily 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.

NOTEWORTHY: I've made a change to how I handle cash-flow. I now keep trim my balances in bookmaker accounts, moving money in only as necessary, day by day, and out (slightly more out whenever possible). I try to finance later bets in the day from the early ones. This does give me irritating difficulties sometimes but it forces me to think more carefully before I commit funds on bets that are larger than current balances allow. Only when I am quite happy about a bet do I call up new money to finance it. This is proving a better approach than I had before.

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. Since confirmed as almost certainly so in essence (though over-high non-Basic Plan bets probably contributed). As Basic Plan bank sizes increase, for one thing, the disproportion should diminish, then disappear, I deduced. 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! I have made the equivalent of bank jumps at the start of Phase 2007B, however. The yardstick for change presently is the performance of each bet type indicated by my AMD. The state of actual banks, though recorded, is currently not taken into account in setting Base Stake levels.

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. Deficits on both strands of my accounting can 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 relative status of the two strands, Basic Plan & Overall, is at least more satisfactory than it has been for some time.

Magic is only real to magicians