Is little Acorns genuine or a blag!?

[ShaunWhite]

What is a positive BSP vs a negative BSP, and is the top of the market the BSP Fav?

Yes it refers to the favourite, and +ve is backing at bsp is favourable.

then it makes me think about the old adage "favs only win 1/3 of the time"... A third of what; 6months, 12 months... 5 years

Exactly, it's just a finger in the air number. What they should say is that 2.0 shots win 50% of the time, 4/1 shots win 25% of the time etc and 10.0 shots win 10% of the time. If favs win 1/3 of the time it's only because their average price is 3.33. And sometimes they're winning at a rate of 1/2.99 and other times at a rate of 1/3.01.

[wearthefoxhat]

Having a look for the reason it looks like at least over a sample of BSP odds that Rank 1 is winning more than it has done historically over the few months of decline.

The top of the market BSP swings from being positive to negative over long periods, iro 6 months. People see its paying, they pile in so it reduces slowly and goes negative, then people slowly give up on it maybe seeing it's now lay value, and value starts to return. The issue is predicting when that tipping point happens.

Any strategy found in data has to pass the "why" test and I don't see a reason LA should work. Where's the 'why'?

That chart just looks like the output from a random strategy that's showing mean reversion to me.

What is a positive BSP vs a negative BSP, and is the top of the market the BSP Fav?

Is it referring to how accurately favs are priced over time? If it is, then it makes me think about the old adage "favs only win 1/3 of the time"... A third of what; 6months, 12 months... 5 years

My brain hurts already lol Be interesting to know though...

How about 19 years.

All Races.png

By Price Ranges

PriceRange.png

[firlandsfarm]

The original criteria and the tweaked criteria are on the screenshots on the last post by me on page 1 of this thread. I ran the original criteria over 3yrs of data and concluded it did not appear to work within that time window. Tweaking the odds slightly could however turn it into something that might work. The latest update from Aug 15th till now represents the outcomes of both criteria going forwards rather than looking back into historical data albeit also on paper.

Sorry for the late response and sorry again if something like this has already been picked up but ... I 'found' Little Acorns many years ago (before I realised just how 'trappy' such systems can be!). Anyway, I bought it on a 'guaranteed profit or refund' basis and on receipt promptly put it across my database ... it failed. I put it to the seller (author) that I couldn't agree his claims for past performance and he responded 'you can't use BSP, it doesn't work ... you have to use market prices just before the off'! After an exchange of emails I got my refund!

[Atho55]

Just looking at Rank1 within the LA range criteria <=2.6 it looks like for Apr-Jun being the months where it bombed, it looks like there were fewer opportunities if you do a count on the BSP`s within that range and compare it to other years.

LA Count of BSP.png

It also looks like these fewer opportunities went on to win more than other years

LA Win%.png

The highlighted cells represent the top 3 values in the row

[Teleman85]

No argument from me that in its original form, it simply didn't work and for profit, relied on a staking plan that I simply wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

BUT, running it with the adjusted odds suggested on here does seem to show consistent (all be it small) profits and a small edge as shown previously:

LA Yearly.jpg

It shouldn't work but it would appear that it does. What is the reason for that? Favourites being over-backed?

[Euler]

We just had a support query that touched on this system. I hope the person doesn't mind me posting this, but I will remove if there is an objection. But it puts it on angle on somebody that has tried this system and now has arrived at our doors: -

I have been running the Little Acorns Strategy in SIM Mode with the Fibonacci Sequence and Level Stakes, and with a Stake of 30.To say I have been dissapointed with the results is an understatement.

Little Acorns Fib Seq -1,214.83
Little Acorns Lev Stake -569.77

[elofan0]

I think no matter what system you use ... it has to be tweaked and find out were it is not performing ie its the stats that are needed like any other system .. dont use this just giving my view

[Atho55]

I think the enquiry should have been put in the thread instead of a support query. The thread itself is to determine if it`s genuine or a blag and should be treated as information.

Sim losses only so nothing lost in real terms.

[HotStreak]

You been playing level stakes long run? If so, have you seen much of a margin?

I think I did do level at the start many moons back, but pretty much Lay 1-4, first manually then with a bot.

This is an update on the LA strategy which looks to agree with an earlier post re its decline in fortunes. IRE has not been updated yet so just GB Revised and Original.

Good to have my recent ugly run confirmed. Since I do little else these days I only update my spreadsheet once every couple few months.

Could you tally your strike rate(s) up until Apr 23 and post Apr 23?

[Atho55]

This is up to Apr 23 from 15 Aug 22

LA GB Strike Rate Aug15 22 to Apr 30 23.png

This is just Apr 23

LA GB Strike Rate Apr 23.png

Strike rate by Month from the start

LA GB Strike Rate by Month.png

[ajanthony]

Hello all,
I have read some of this thread with interest as I have looked into loss recovery recently. In the end what I discovered was it was not about selecting a winning horse, it is about picking a winning jockey. I live in Western Australia so I found the the jockey that had the highest strike rate amongst the top 5 jockeys in Perth, WA. Jockeys with this type of form will ride at least 2 if not 3 winners per meeting. Occasionally, they will win 4 and rarely they ride only 1 or none.
The method I have used for the last 8 meetings with small stakes is basically Martingale. Starting with a $1 win bet and doubling each time he doesn't win and reverting back to $1 when he wins.
So far this method has netted me $318.87 of profit.
It is not proved with only this many meetings but it is working so far, the longest losing run my selected jockey has gone without a win is 4. Being a top jockey many of his rides are on favourites or second favourites but occasionally he is on a longer priced runner and they come home which gives a great pay out. I start the sequence again at the next meeting he rides in.
I am doing this as a bit of experimenting and I don't know whether it may win or lose in the long run.
The one thing I do know is that top jockeys are top jockeys because they win consistently.
I would welcome any opinions.
Regards,
Anthony

[ShaunWhite]

The one thing I do know is that top jockeys are top jockeys because they win consistently.
I would welcome any opinions.
Regards,
Anthony

Its not about picking winners it's about getting value. You only make money by backing or laying when the odds you get are better than the likelihood of the outcome. Staking plans don't alter that and it doesn't matter if its a favourite or an outsider.

Martingales might be attractive when you're staking $1 but you'll be averaging very low stakes. Profit is edge * opportunity * stake so you need to be turning over as much cash as possible. Eg averaging hundreds not single figures. A Martingale will restrict your earnings not improve them.

[ajanthony]

The one thing I do know is that top jockeys are top jockeys because they win consistently.
I would welcome any opinions.
Regards,
Anthony

Its not about picking winners it's about getting value. You only make money by backing or laying when the odds you get are better than the likelihood of the outcome. Staking plans don't alter that and it doesn't matter if its a favourite or an outsider.

Martingales might be attractive when you're staking $1 but you'll be averaging very low stakes. Profit is edge * opportunity * stake so you need to be turning over as much cash as possible. Eg averaging hundreds not single figures. A Martingale will restrict your earnings not improve them.

Hi there,
A couple of points here that I don't necessarily agree with. I also did state earlier that I was only 8 meetings in with this system so there is a lot further to go before it can be proved.
But you say that you need to be turning over hundreds rather than single figures. Staking is easily scalable, I could have started with a $5 stake and the profit would have been over $1500 or a $10 stake which would have made the profit over $3000. It is about being scalable.
The other point you mention is value and edge. I read that a lot on these forums about it but I really don't understand it. If a runner is the 4th favourite then statistically it has about a 10% chance of winning. Are you saying that if it's odds are 15 to 1 then that is good value because realistically it means nothing. That is just an opinion or a perception, it is not statistically or mathmatically proven. It is a horse race with a multitude of variables. This type of perceived value or edge is vastly different to a casinos edge which is mathmatically proven.
If I have got this wrong about my perception of value, I am happy for an explanation as to what it really means.
Regards,
Anthony

[ShaunWhite]

I also did state earlier that I was only 8 meetings in with this system so there is a lot further to go before it can be proved.

I sent you a PM, This won't be what you're doing but it's a recent example of a similar blind betting test. It's very easy to think you're on the green arrow when the trend is the red. It's about 4000 selections from this year. In that middle 2 months you'd be calling the car dealership, by the end it's a call to send the car back. And the opposite can happen too.

Screenshot_2.jpg

[ShaunWhite]

Just an observation on this backing 'top jocks'. It's often the case that we need to oppose the wider opinion. I'd imagine lots of people would be backing top jocks especially if they only have a couple of rides. That would theoretically reduce the price to a level lower than it should be and it might well be lay value?

The general mindset though is to look for situations where punters lose, and then be the person they lose to. It's more like bookmarking than punting in that regard. The hardest part for ex-punters is making that mental leap over the counter. Thats most obvious in the decision to either take or offer prices.