During my overseas jaunt I have been able to update the Pensioner Plan experiment figures I was struggling to finish just before I left. For those not interested this is going to be quite a long blog and is all about the plan however for those who have been following the plans let me say there is some sunshine peeping through worth reading about.When I first began the Pensioner Plan series of blogs it was my intention to develop a system that might add a few dollars to the wallet at the end of a
During my overseas jaunt I have been able to update the Pensioner Plan experiment figures I was struggling to finish just before I left. For those not interested this is going to be quite a long blog and is all about the plan however for those who have been following the plans let me say there is some sunshine peeping through worth reading about.
When I first began the Pensioner Plan series of blogs it was my intention to develop a system that might add a few dollars to the wallet at the end of a years punting on the PP selections. I was also keen on developing an approach for staking built around target betting (seeking $x per race). I remember stating in one of the early blogs I was on a hiding to nothing as I could quite easily end up looking like Mr Dunce of 2009/2010 if it all went haywire. Along the way I instigated some changes which have aided the project.
One of the changes involved taking a backward step with my original staking premise of using a "floating divisor" (changed depending on price of last collect or run of outs) by reverting to the traditional static divisor that never changes. This came about because I tackled the original wild cat Plan 1 selections and due to the plan struggling massive amounts of money had to be invested to even claw back the losses to an acceptable losing amount.
I have always stated in any writings that there is a deep, deep relationship between 1) the $x race objective, 2) the divisor figure, 3) the size of the betting bank and 4) controlling the run of outs. In target betting the importance of the relationship cannot be underestimated otherwise when the bad run eventuates, and it will, you will be unprepared mentally as well as monetarily. Trust me when I state this as years and years of tinkering with target betting both on paper and with cold, hard cash has me in no doubts this is fact. To be assured of minimal mental and monetary stress it is factor 4, the run of outs, that must be controlled as best as possibly be can.
I started this experiment with providing the Plan 1 selections which are based, broadly, around the best last start form figure of horses in the first three lines of betting. Commonsense decrees by adopting this approach I will at least be in the right ball park but the brutality of horseracing betting almost certainly guarantees a loss on turnover will occur with such a selection process. As far as I am concerned I am extremely surprised to tell you this is not fact, so far, and there is actually a profit occurring with the Plan 1 selections which I will detail further into this blog. In order to stunt the growth of the dreaded run of outs I introduced Plan 2 which eliminated females versus males, 3yo's versus 4yo and older, limit weight horses, first up runners and second up runners: all of these types of selections will lose overall unless you really, really know what you are doing form wise.
My contention was to eliminate them and take all the doubts out of the equations.
The Plan 1 figures improved with the Plan 2 eliminations but I decided to add Plan 3 to the list where I went beyond just a list of static rules and introduced some subjective assessment to the process. This subjectivity centered around whether the Plan 2 selection was a front runner, on pacer, mid fielder or get back type. You do not have to be the classic rocket scientist to know front runners and on pacers have an advantage at the racetrack and consequently the figures for Plan 3 were better than Plan 2 which were better than Plan 1. Don't you just love this sort of symmetry in horse racing!
At one stage I mentioned the possibility of a Plan 4 where even further rules could be brought in but with further rules, some of which could be very, very subjective, would start to bring what is a system too close to what is the normal form process. I want the Pensioner Plan to remain as a systematic format and the only subjective factor should be the assessment of roughly where each runner normally positions over todays distance. Most punters worth even one cent would know an on pacer like Light Vision over 2000m plus will not be anywhere near the pace in a 1200m event and with a sensible look at the form guide it is usually fairly straightforward to make this assessment with most runners. If there is any doubt leave it out.
With the opportunity to update my figures on a couple of the four to five hour treks across Europe (in between sleeps) I have been able to assess the worthiness of my "bet for a win at $3.50 or less and bet for a place at $3.60 or greater" approach and I have to admit what works for me on Betfair certainly does not work on TAB dividends. Some of the collects I received on Betfair were excellent when compared to the TAB dividends for the place, especially. I recommended this approach to aid in the halting of any massive run of outs as I believed eventually the right run of collects arrives and objectives will be cleared even using place bets. I even used the best place dividends of the three TAB's but the place dividends still d
Ok, so what do the figures show? Let's take them plan by plan and state by state. I need to mention the figures I am about to detail cover the period October 3 to November 28 as that is when I introduced Plan 3.
Plan 1: Win only using Best Bookmaker Fluctuations
Melbourne 78r85.25, Sydney 73r82.10, Adelaide 71r56, Brisbane 70r63 and Perth 72r90.10
Totals: 364r376.45 or +3.42%POT
Plan 1: $3.50=< for win, $3.60=> for place using Best Dividends of three TAB's
Melbourne 78r87.50, Sydney 73r62.70, Adelaide 71r53.60, Brisbane 70r54.60 and Perth 72r81.35
Totals: 364r339.75 or -6.66 %LOT
An astounding difference between the two approaches. What amazes me is we actually have a level stakes profit for win only best fluctuations on such a simple selection process.
Plan 2: Win only using Best Bookmaker Fluctuations
Melbourne 51r73.15, Sydney 37r29.70, Adelaide 40r30, Brisbane 35r37 and Perth 42r48.20
Totals: 205r218.05 or +6.36%POT
Plan 2: $3.50=< for win, $3.60=> for place using Best Dividends of three TAB's
Melbourne 51r61.3, Sydney 37r30.4, Adelaide 40r24.6, Brisbane 35r30.9 and Perth 42r47.4
Totals: 205r194.6 or -5.07%LOT
Still a fair difference but at least Plan 2 TAB figures have clawed their way back percentage wise.
Finally what should be the coup de grace
Plan 3: Win only using Best Bookmaker Fluctuations
Melbourne 18r40.85, Sydney 16r16.30, Adelaide 14r7.35, Brisbane 14r18.40 and Perth 16r13.25
Totals: 78r95.85 or +22.24%POT
Plan 3: $3.50=< for win, $3.60=> for place using Best Dividends of three TAB's
Melbourne 18r25.4, Sydney 16r18.3, Adelaide 14r10.3, Brisbane 14r12.8 and Perth 16r18
Totals: 78r84.8 or +8.71% POT
Well, lo and behold, the TAB figures are finally in profit with Plan 3. Have we hit pay dirt or is it too early to start beating the drums and make outrageous press statements. You know the answer and that is "it is too early". I could start a nonsensical approach by stating "drop Adelaide" as their figures are showing a substantial percentage loss even in Plan 3 but with no occurrences higher than 18 in Plan 3 we are most definitely discussing extremely low figures. The best approach is to wait until each state has had at least 100 occurrences thus totaling 500 across the five states before we start fiddling too much.
I know it will seem like forever but it will take several months before a meaningful set of statistics is available as this process is occurring in real time. The plans are not based on past statistics so bear the pain because by this time next year we will all know whether the Pensioner Plan experiment is a success or a big floperoo.
For those prepared to have a small play and I clearly state SMALL it might be worth discussing issues around objectives and divisors and the betting bank. After years and years of struggling with the combinations needed I have come to the conclusion that whatever your $x objective is per race you must have a bank 2000 times that objective to be completely safe mentally and monetary wise. The reality is with a plan like Plan 3, where many negatives have been eliminated, you would be safe with a lesser bank and if you were betting just best bets of the day you would need even less but why not cover all bases anyway. If you never need to use all of the set aside betting bank what's the problem: it is still sitting in your bank account. Just be aware I have recommended a ratio of 2000:1 - if you choose a lesser amount and bite the dust it has been your choice. The main reason why target betting has such a bad name in racing is because the punters have not had the bank to cope with the bad runs.
As far as a divisor is concerned I would use 4 as my divisor and if the price is longer divide by that price as far as the Pensioner Plan selections are concerned.For instance if you are seeking to win $200 and the price is 8/1 your bet is $200/8 = $25 and not $200/4 as advocated by some proponents of target betting. The longer the prices you deal with the longer likely runs can occur and to be treating 8/1 chances like 4/1 chances in target betting I feel is a dangerous practice.
s an insurance factor you can draw a line after a collect if a series of bets has returned a percentage profit you are happy to accept even if the objective has not been cleared. For instance, let's say in a wild series you have outlayed $1000 and your next collect has you returning $1100 (10% POT). Perhaps you might like to say "I won't go broke by taking a profit" and accept the profit even though you might be chasing, say, $200 profit. The choice is yours but if you want my opinion I would happily accept the 10% POT as over one year all those 10% POT's will add up. I would just start the next series of bets and begin on the minimum again. Admittedly if you have bet in 1000 races over a year you will not win $1000 if chasing $1 per race with this approach but what you will have done is reduced the mental pressure not to mention the suction of money from your wallet during a bad run. Staking plans should be all about safety as much as possible in the first instance: don't buck this premise and most times you will be relatively safe.
Well, I said this was going to be an extensive blog ! Amongst all of what I have discussed today there is one factor that stands out and that is win only must be the approach for the Pensioner Plan selections for most bettors. If you bet on Betfair for the win you WILL accumulate more total returns: there is no doubt at all about this. If you are stubborn like me and still want to incorporate place bets then Betfair is the only venue to consider, at this stage. I say at this stage because of the positive figures in Plan 3 with the TAB approach but as I mentioned earlier the occurrence figures are too low to base a serious approach upon.
At this point in time I am very happy with the Pensioner Plan experiment and for those of you that have persevered with all the reading and ramblings involved I hope the journey is proving worthwhile.