Do you use PPFA to increase the accuracy of the data? I would recommend it without reservation.

Best wishes,

I have entered all your systems from parts 3 to 5 and I have a total of 55 systems.
But try as I might I can not find your posts for parts 1 and 2.

As I do not want to re enter systems that I already have entered before could you supply me with the three systems I am missing from parts 1 and 2 only please?.

I have entered each system as Drongo 1 or drongo 2 etc. plus any of the rating types to be used ie. Drongo 1 BR$1 PR$1 etc.

So I can not use the boxed set, as I can not pin point which systems were in parts 1 and 2

I hope you understand my problem here?.

You can send them to me off list if you like?.

My email address is ral16763@bigpond.net.au

I only require the three systems from parts 1 and 2 please?

Regards,
ral16763

Cheers
Makadollar

Goodluck

What I do with these systems is to excessively retrofit them, as they rarely ever are by Drongo.

Though I always retain the original as well.

My initial system might read Drongo 1, and the excessively retrofitted system might read Drongo 1 W. In other words, the system that has picked up all the winners. Or it might read Drongo 1 P, where I've used the place screen of BS that's managed to pick every placegetter found on Drongo's system.

Anyway, that's just the way I approach all systems. In this case the systems would be:

Drongo 1
Drongo 1 W
Drongo 1 P

If the selection were to come up on the Drongo 1 system, but not on the Drongo 1 W system, then chances are I'd pass the bet. If it were not to come up on the Drongo 1 P system then I'd most definitely pass the bet.

Another approach that I use is to reverse the system name, in this case to Ognord. Using the Place screen of BS analyser, for example, say no placegetter has ever come from barrier 1, then this will appear in the Ognord system. So, if it appears in the Drongo 1 and Ognord 1, it's not a bet.

Perfectly simple really!

Anyway Ognord, seems to me a more suitable name for Drongo. You're really off the planet for sharing these systems with us battlers,

Much appreciated,

Barrywh

I would appreciate clarification
Cheers
Brian

ALL SYSTEMS TEST 24/11/07.

Number of Systems: 58
Races Bet: 42
Races Won: 22
S.R/Race: 52.4%
Outlay $: 43.00
Return: 65.30
$ Profit: 22.30
% P.O.T: 51.9%
Average Div: $2.97
Divs from Unitab

If you had started betting on the Boxed Set of Systems the day after I released them, you would have accumulated 42 Units Profit. Here is a All Systems Test from the 19th of November to yesterday the 17th of December 07.

Races Bet: 345
Races Won: 115
StrikeRate: 33%
Outlay: 356
Return: 398
Profit: 42
P.O.T: 12%
UniTAB Used to test. Higher profits would be realised using Bookmakers and Best Of TABS.

Below are the final 2 Systems of the Boxed Set. It took me quite a while to remember. It was in 1958 that I commenced eighteen months of research on 60 Systems which were published in 1961.
The book of Systems was called GREATEST SYSTEMS OF THE CENTURY by Clif Cary and published by Cary Thorn Enterprises. But I did all the bloody hard work, no personal computers back then, just pencil and paper.

HIDDEN FORM BR$5

Dist: 1100 to 3200
Class: 0 to 53
Max First Up: 3
Age: 3 to 6
Starts: 5 to 30
Weight: 53.0 to 57.0
Runs This Prep: 0 to 5
Last Start Fin Posn: 7 to 7
2nd Last Start Fin Posn: 8 to 8

8th Dec 2004 to 17th Dec 2007
WIN BETTING.
Races Bet: 247
Races Won: 47
StrikeRate: 19%
Outlay: 248
Return: 563
Profit: 315
P.O.T: 127%

PLACE BETTING.
Races Bet: 247
Races Won 111
StrikeRate: 45%
Outlay: 248
Return: 341
Profit: 93
P.O.T: 38%

VALUE IN SMALL FIELD.

Field Size: 5 to 6
Max No First Up: 0
Barrier Posn: 2 to 4
Weight: 40.0 to 60.0
Days To Last Start: 0 to 28
Runs This Prep: 2 to 6
Last Start Fin Posn: 8 to 9
Last Start SP: 0.0 to 66
Max Last Start Margin: 8.0

8th Dec 04 to 17th Dec 2007.

WIN BETTING.
Races Bet: 180
Races Won: 46
StrikeRate: 25%
Outlay: 189
Return: 392
Profir: 203
P.O.T: 107%

PLACE BETTING.
Races Bet: 180
Races Won: 100
Strike Rate: 55%
Outlay: 189
Return: 222
Profit: 33
P.O.T: 17%

Nine Kids quite an effort.

I don't use systems but even still you get my vote as the best and most generous contributor to the Forum in 2007.

John SM

Yesterday and today provided some good examples of why I bet on all the selections from the 60 Systems and especially the Duplicates.
Danzamonkey 2.20 selected by 6 Systems, Prince Of Vasac 14.50 selected by 3 Systems, Danecay 1.40 selected by 3 Systems, Would You Believe 2.20 selected by 2 Systems plus 2 singles.

Im betting on each System selection. Every System is profitable so why would I not bet on every System selection.

I dont want to know the name of the horse, just the number.
I dont want to know the track, woop woop is fine by me.
I dont want to know the jockey, somebody has to steer.
And I dont want to know about Duplicates, just as long as they bloody win.

All Systems Test for the 18th and 19th Dec.

Races Bet: 42
Races Won: 18
StrikeRate:42.9%
Outlay: 45
Return: 73
Profit: 28

UniTAB prices were used for testing, you could have done better elsewere.
Regards,
The Flamin Drongo.

I have followed with interest over the last month or so the on going discussion re the Drongo set of systems and the

merits or otherwise of duplicate betting . As many of you are well aware, I am not a systems player in the true

sense of the format, that is, applying a set of rules via System analyser or My calc but I was interested in the

format that Drongo applies.

I did notice in the Portfolio of systems that many used BR$ or PR$ and given that these are generated on the fly and

have very little user input or impact in relation to their construction or have any correlation to any manner of

form analysis which is the heart of my method, I removed that pre requisite and ran the systems using PPFA adjusted

CIS Ratings only.

As Drongo and others have alluded to, there are a few that are not workable, a couple that were virtually identical,

a couple that were blantantly obvious that only a favourite would be selected in most cases and a couple of the

Longshot systems that had numerous bets and were in Profit because of 1 Duplicate winner at long odds.I eliminated

these even though most had some level of profit and I was left with some 45 systems.

I then found that a very high percentage used SP rank of 1, this is not in keeping with the betting strategy(dont

bet short priced favorites) that I use so I made SP rank of 2 the minimum and also applied a Minimum price of $3.00

which is more in keeping with our normal approach.

As a comparrison I ran the test using SP Rank 1, the strike rate improves but the bottom line is lower as is the

average dividend, this is in keeping with previously discussed results when betting shorter priced runners with

higher strike rate versus betting better pice runners with a lower strike rate.

As Drongo advocates betting duplicates I have tested initially in that format and it is an individual decision that

each can make for themselves as to the merits of this style of betting.
I have left Drongo's rules basically intact with only very minimul adjustments basically to meet the basic

requirements of my betting strategies.

Weight minimum adjusted to 51.0kg
Weight maximum adjustment to 58.0kg
6 1st up runners being the maximum allowed.
Eliminate ALL 2yr olds and set minimum to age of 3

Please note that if any of the above were already within the parameters of the set of rules in the respective Drongo

System, it was left untouched.EG: If the original rules have a 53.0-56.0kg parameter, the system remains untouched

but if it was 53.0-59.0kg I have adjusted back to 53.0-58.0kg , if the age restriction was 3-5, it was left as is,

if it was 2-5, it was changed to 3-5.

The above rule adjustments were applied to EVERY SYSTEM across the board and not back fitted to selected systems

where it suits best..

The results are below for the period Drongo posted, 18/11/2006 to 18/11/2007:

USING SP RANK 1 onwards and MINIMUM PRICE OF $3.00

Meetings considered : 1793
Win Strike Rate/Seln. : 20.8%
Plc Strike Rate/Seln. : 45.5%
Average Win Dividend : $6.42
Average Plc Dividend : $2.26

WIN
Races Bet : 3423
Races Won : 845
S.R./Race : 24.7%
Outlay ($): 4055.00
Return : 5428.90
$ Profit : 1373.90
% P.O.T. : 33.9%

USING SP RANK 2 onwards and MINIMUM PRICE of $3.00

Meetings considered : 1793
Win Strike Rate/Seln. : 19.3%
Plc Strike Rate/Seln. : 43.7%
Average Win Dividend : $7.25
Average Plc Dividend : $2.39

WIN
Races Bet : 2863
Races Won : 653
S.R./Race : 22.8%
Outlay ($): 3386.00
Return : 4736.20
$ Profit : 1350.20
% P.O.T. : 39.9%

I have also run the test removing duplicate betting from the equation.

The result is very interesting with the bottom line still a significant PLUS and the key indicator seems to be that

the elimination of betting short priced runners(under $3.00), the system rules are sound enough to give merit to

betting them standalone or duplicate. From what I have observed previously, the losing run of duplicate short priced

runners has a major adverse effect on the bottom line and by eliminating that from the equation, evrything else

stands up.

USING SP RANK 2 onwards and MINIMUM PRICE of $3.00

NO DUPLICATES

Average Win Dividend : $7.30

WIN
Races Bet : 2719
Races Won : 483
S.R./Race : 17.76%
Outlay ($): 2719.00
Return : 3525.00
$ Profit : 806.00
% P.O.T. : 29.64%

Overview::

The systems that Drongo has made available are based on sound principals and when applied to the PPFA adjusted

CIS/BASE ratings have performed most admirably both with single or the duplicate betting strategies.Of the 45

systems, 6 did not stand up without duplicate betting and failed significantly but the other systems performed well

using either approach.

Please keep in mind that these tests are run on PPFA adjusted data and DO NOT USE either PR or BR for any of the

selections.The rules are Drongo's basic rules with very minimul adjustments related to Market position and prices

available, they are not back fitted to suit rule changes and the changes have been applied to each and every system.

Also today's selections for interest:

SYSTEM SELECTOR REPORT FOR: ALL__SYSTEMS 26/12/2007-26/12/2007
Created by Bet Selector at 17:52:07 on 26/12/2007

ULTRA BETS: 26/12/2007 MOE
XR 7 # 5 x829 PANETIMOS 10/9
RECENT RACER GOLD: 26/12/2007 ELLERSLIE
XR 7 # 9 2434 GRACE 40/1 WON 8.40 PL 3.60
CHELTENHAM SYSTEM: 26/12/2007 CHELTENHAM
AR 8 #10 34x1 MR TRIPPING 7/1 WON 4.00 PL 1.60
ULTRA BETS: 26/12/2007 BUNBURY
XR 4 #12 x632 THE BAY ONE 5/2 2ND PL 1.80
FAV X 1200M: 26/12/2007 AWAPUNI
XR 2 # 4 1901 CANTGETENOUGH 3/1 WON 4.70 PL 1.80
FAV3: 26/12/2007 AWAPUNI
XR 2 # 4 1901 CANTGETENOUGH 3/1 WON 4.70 PL 1.80
LSW BY 1 LEN: 26/12/2007 AWAPUNI
XR 2 # 4 1901 CANTGETENOUGH 3/1 WON 4.70 PL 1.80

Meetings considered : 11
Win Strike Rate/Seln. : 71.4%
Plc Strike Rate/Seln. : 85.7%
Average Win Dividend : $5.30
Average Plc Dividend : $2.07

WIN
Races Bet : 7
Races Won : 5
S.R./Race : 71.4%
Outlay ($): 7.00
Return : 26.50
$ Profit : 19.50
% P.O.T. : 278.6%

The benefit of duplicate betting is clearly evident

All the Best

One hell of a post Steve thanks for the information and time to do such a test.

Regards to all

Tim.T

No problems, happy to assist.

In keeping with my own personal betting criteria of a $4.00 minimum price being acceptable, I ran the Drongo systems with the following criteria and results.

USING SP RANK 2 onwards and MINIMUM PRICE of $4.00

SYSTEM SELECTOR REPORT FOR: ALL__SYSTEMS 18/11/2006-18/11/2007
Created by Bet Selector at 20:56:46 on 26/12/2007

Meetings considered : 1793
Win Strike Rate/Seln. : 17.6%
Plc Strike Rate/Seln. : 40.9%
Average Win Dividend : $7.98
Average Plc Dividend : $2.54

WIN PLACE
Races Bet : 2602 2601
Races Won : 546 1206
S.R./Race : 21.0% 46.4%
Outlay ($): 3105.00 3104.00
Return : 4358.40 3065.04
$ Profit : 1253.40 -38.96
% P.O.T. : 40.4% -1.3%

Test Duration = 01:23:06

I think that this most definately highlights the merit of avoiding betting "shorts" and the benefits of looking for the value in a race, whether you bet single or duplicates, the bottom line will be a PLUS.
again with a slightly lower strike rate we get a slightly better average dividend and a better POT.

All the best and I hope this is of some benefit to those that use the Drongo systems

Your figures are astonishing when you consider that there are 3105 bets in a 12 month period. The magic of compounding could work wonders on numbers like that. If you bet 1% of your bank on each selection, you would turn over your bank (100 bets) every 12 days. If you achieved a POT of 26% on your bets (less than your figures indicate) and recalculated your bet size after each 100 bets (i.e. 1% of the new account balance), you would double your bank in 36 days. Over a year, you would double your initial bank 10 times. An initial $500 account would (theoretically) grow to $500,000. Your bet size by that stage would be $5,000 at 1% of bank, so in real world application you would need to take out some profits along the way to dampen things down a bit, but the maths indicate what can be done with a profitable system that throws up so many selections.

Who wouldn't want to use the Drongo systems if your published results are achievable?

Jim V

I fully endorse the comments about you being the contributor of the year - Well done! - the restuls are most impressive. Whilst not being a system person myself, the posts and discussion that you have generated is fantastic, and must make us non-system people re-think our positions!!. Will follow with interest the future trials and tribulations of the "drongo boxed set".

kind regards, fred

thanks for your overview but I cant take credit for too much other than testing Drongo's systems on PPFA adjusted data,all the work has been done by Drongo in the developing of the systems.

My overview was more along the lines to show how systems can be evolved and applied to any set of sound data with profitable results.

As most of Drongo's systems are BR or PR based and the tests I ran make NO reference to either of those ratings, hopefully it will allow others to explore other options and get the best possible results.

I do not play systems and my personal point of view on this form of betting is well documented, this however does not preclude the fact that many do play systems succesfully and that was the main reason behind the testing I did.

My thought was hopefully to show that there are options in developing the Drongo systems to the next level with additional fine tuning to suit a wider range of betting strategies, in my case where I never consider anything under $3.00 as a betting proposition and therefore applied that small rule with significant results being the outcome.
Along with a few other very minor adjustments as detailed in previous post, the bottom line is healthy but to me the most significant factor is the increase of average dividend of $3.95 with the base Drongo systemsto $7.30 average dividend with those small adjustments in the acceptable betting price structure.

I am sure that there will be many others with a far better system methodology than I producing exceptional results using the Drongo methods as a base starting point

All the best

I agree that any selection paying less than $3.00 is poor value. At a shorter price, there is not enough leeway for all of the unpredictable variables of racing, no matter how highly rated a particular horse might be.

I would like to understand better your views on Better Ratings and Plus Ratings. Could you say a bit more about that. (If you have already done so on these forum pages, perhaps you could refer me to the relevant post.)

Many thanks

Jim V

I don't have any opinion one way or the other in relation to Better ratings or plus ratings other than the fact that these ratings are created on the fly within the Bet selector program and any adjustments to the base ratings which has a definitive effect on the final CIS rating figures has little or no bearing on the BR or PR ratings.

In my scenario where I do extensive Form analysis with the PPFA program and this in turn has a distinct effect on my final ratings figure, I cannot see any benefit in looking at any ratings that do not take into account all the adjustments I have made.

This is not to say that there is no use for the BR and PR ratings, just not for me with what I do.

As for running systems etc over BR or PR ratings, again I am sure that there is benefit in that but I still would consider a ratings figure that has been adjusted to take into account the various factors of todays race a far more accurate guide as against a figure created on the fly that does not take any adjustments into account.

I suppose it all comes down to which methodology one subscribes to, "How important is Form Analysis" or "Do I just want to push buttons"

There are success stories for both sides of the fence, a combination of the two would logically produce the best scenario?

I am currently running some additional tests on the Drongo package which I think will clearly highlight the benefit of having accurate ratings before you run any systems on them. I will post when these are completed

All the best and hope this helps

Note that Drongo's 60 systems are now available via download in the latest Bet Selector upgrade (no need to key them in).

When you removed the Better and Plus ratings, did you substitute the equivalent CIS rating? e.g. if the original Drongo specified BR$3 did you put if CIS3 if there was no CIS rating in the original system or did you put in CIS1 or did you leave the system without any rating at all?

I removed all the BR$ and PR$ from the equations which left me with the CIS rating only,

As I bet my top 2 picks I felt that using the CIS rating for the purpose of testing the Drongo systems was appropriate also given the fact that this is what PPFA adjusts. In my opinion, the logical solution is to use the rating that most accurately reflects the winning chances. I dont see much point in doing all the form analysis and then using a rating that doesnt reflect any of the adjustments???
but as I have said on many occasions, what I do may not suit everyone and as long as the bottom line is good, it doesnt matter how you get there,the key is to get there on a regular and consistent basis.

All the best

Thanks for that. Am I right in saying that for systems that had no CIS rating at all you inserted CIS 1 and 2?

Yes, that will do it or simply only consider predicted 1 or 2

Seems to be a great deal of interest in the set of systems provided by Neale in the latest update, many people have crunched these figures over the last few months since "Drongo" most generously made them available, I too "crunched the numbers" and made the adjustments to fine tune those systems that relied on the 1 big dividend "fluke" factor and eliminate the obvious short priced systems that favor the short priced fav selections, overall it showed a reasonable profit as was posted, Neale has now indicated that some additional "fine tuning" in relation to days since last run may further improve the bottom line, again this will require further crunching and I am sure that it will improve the bottom but my only "concern" is that there is a possibility that some users may get into the "backfitting mode" and start adding "rules and changes"

WHY???,

In my opinion this is what most users do when a system hits a bad patch and "it needs to be fixed", NO system is going to win every day in the same manner that the methods I apply can't win every day, if we could, we could eliminate all the anguish and simply ask our bookies to send us a cheque each week and save everyone the hassle of having to bet"we are going to win anyway", It has never worked this way and never will, good runs, bad runs, all part of the structure of punting, How one approaches these turns will determine your success or failure, the "mind games" that punters have to deal with in coping with these swings is a major factor in the overall scheme of things.

It seems that the "loss" of a couple of % in December and then 2 bad days 12th/13th jan has sent a shudder through the "Drongo" advocates, my advice and this is simply a personal observation as I DON'T PLAY SYSTEMS, be wary of changing too many things in your system rules especially if they have performed and served you will until this latest lapse, these things are going to occur and swings and roundabouts will balance out especially if your over all approach is sound.
I have used the same format for the last 6yrs and apart from some very small adjustments that I have made in the way I approach the form analysis (basically have added in new developments that have been advantageous,eg Field strengths and more recently time factors)I stick to the same procedure day in, day out. I have runs of outs like everyone else, some of these can be long, I stick to the same format, history has told me that swings and roundabouts will balance it all out. Of course human nature makes us question things that "go wrong" and then we have to "fix it", my past experiences (prior to 2002)are proof that this knee jerk reaction is in most cases detremental.

Whatever format you adopt, we are all learning on a daily basis and constant vigilance is a very good thing and keeping an open mind and attitude will in the long term be of great benefit in this game.

The on going "tweaking" of system rules needs to be done to fine tune situations that may arise but the BASE rules need to be sound to start with and if that is the case, the rest will fall into place.
I adopt the same approach in my "Form analysis", the base methods are sound and the fine tuning completes the process.

All the best, off to the airport and will see all the QLD guys on the weekend

I'm proceeding cautiously. So easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater and these systems command great respect. I've deleted just 6 of them at this stage. I've required Age 3, min weight of 51, min 1 start and base price of $2.60 which in previous testing seemed to work better than $3.00. Favs are still in if they meet the price rrequirement and additional ratings are untouched.

These small amendments give a 24% POT for the EI period and gross profit jumped from $84 to $186.

I'll now run Neale's MyCalc 14 day requirement of the 3 year period and see what that does. Will take a while!