At the end of next week the number of Plan A Pensioner Plan selections will reach 487 , assuming 8 races on each of the five metropolitan meetings. As I stated when I first started this experiment I wanted to use a wildcat type of system to test variations of the basic target betting approach. I warned readers not to back the selections as I felt they would lose at flat stakes for starters and at some stage there would be a sizeable run of outs with the staking plan which would savage, if not wi
At the end of next week the number of Plan A Pensioner Plan selections will reach 487 , assuming 8 races on each of the five metropolitan meetings. As I stated when I first started this experiment I wanted to use a wildcat type of system to test variations of the basic target betting approach. I warned readers not to back the selections as I felt they would lose at flat stakes for starters and at some stage there would be a sizeable run of outs with the staking plan which would savage, if not wipeout, the betting bank as recovery bets took place.
I initially used a Floating Divisor that rose and dropped according to the odds of the collects and although that did halt the losses for a while the really, really bad run early saw the bet size rise astronomically. From a low $4 the bet size rose to $365 and if the great run of 7 straight collects had not eventuated one wonders what bet size the bets would have reached. A recovery took place and eventually a loss of $160 odd dollars was posted but, in all fairness, the staking plan was not at fault. It is extremely difficult to win back lost monies in any staking situation if the collects do not arrive reasonably regularly and for quite a few bets the collects were spasmodic to say the least.
So, how have things gone with Plan A and its 447 selections. All told there have been 82 winners equaling 18.34% winners for SP returns of 311.75 units and for Best Fluctuations the returns were 328.5 units. These are massive losses of 135.5 units (30.30%) and 118.5 (26.51%) respectively. The three TAB's returned 287.3 (NSW), 296.3 (SUPER TAB) and 299.0 (UNI TAB) which are even worse figures. Surely no wrap whatsoever for backing reasonably well fancied horses on the TAB's.
What surprised me were the place dividends. The returns were 353.15 (NSW), 374.9 (SUPERTAB) and 356.0 (UNI TAB) which are ALL better than any of the win dividends! The rule where I bet place if the SP figure was $3.60 or longer returned 362.3 at Super Tab odds. There is no doubt at all that betting the best of the three totes would have found better returns. Clearly the Plan A selections are duds. My prediction not to bet on them has been proved beyond doubt.
What about Plan C: the plan where I introduced a series of filters/rules designed to eliminate the roughest of the Plan A selections. Since its introduction there have been 130 selections for 27 wins (20.76%) for returns of 101.45 SP and 111.65 Best Fluctuations which are losses of 21.96% and 14.11%. Clearly the introduction of the filters has helped a set of abysmal selections improve but certainly not enough to even break square.
What about the staking plan on the Plan C selections? With the dropping of the Floating Divisor I set 3 as the permanent divisor as I felt there would be a good chance of the occasional $3 to $3.50 winner which would help recover any losses. However, again a bad run showed quite clearly what can happen when the divisor does not match the dividends returned. At one stage there was a series of 28 bets which returned 4 place dividends of $2.30, $2.60, $1.90 and $1.60 totaling $8.40. The size of the bets rose to $365 and it is only luck that again 7 successive collects eventuated and showed a profit on the series. I certainly would not be recommending 3 as a divisor for a plan where place betting becomes part of the bet process.
What would happen if we made the divisor a minimum 2/1 for the win bets and if longer divided by the received price and used the divisor 6/4 for the place. Surely this would help or would it?
Now I know this is "backfitting" but remember my first interest in this experiment was to show you how you really had to do some serious figurework on your selections to determine a sensible divisor. My second want was to show you how a simple set of filters can eliminate suspect runners which has been proven. More filters are required, however, to reduce the losses and when I finish at 500 selections I will go through all filters mentioned in this experiment, plus another couple, individually to ascertain which really made the difference.
I am out of time so my next job is to do some figurework and get back to you with the "backfitting" divisor plan of 2/1 for the win and 6/4 for the place. I will leave this until the 500th selection has been listed which will be in two weeks time for the Plan C selections. By that time there will have been around 150 Plan C selections.
Along the way I hope all of you have learnt just how dangerous target betting can be if the selections and the divisors are not as tight as possible. Yes, you could have made the $300 plus bets and recovered but what if they were beaten? It does not bear thinking about does it.