No Name Method

[John]

I got some old stuff and among them is a 1997 letter [ flier ] the author is Robert Hurrell who gave his street address and apt. number He lived in New York City back then and claimed to be a Statistic and Probability instructor at a New York city University.

Hurrell, stated in his letter that his test were good as a matter of fact.all plays under 3-1 won over 40% of their races and showed a flat bet profit.
The 1997 sample has 5000 races, 854 selections. 267 winners,profitability of 38% on the dollar. it handicaped sprint races with outside post positions only.

I was wondering if anyone got this [ No Name ] method and did it do as good as the author claims. Curious minds want to know.

I would appreciate any more information.
Thanks
John

[singunner]

Too small of a sample. If it says 5000 races, 854 selections, to me that means "854 races". Also, is the 854/5000 "sprint races with outside post positions only" or is 5000/XXXXXX "sprint races with outside post positions only"? I'd wager it's the second scenario, which means you get to bet on hardly any races at all.

[John]

Too small of a sample. If it says 5000 races, 854 selections, to me that means "854 races". Also, is the 854/5000 "sprint races with outside post positions only" or is 5000/XXXXXX "sprint races with outside post positions only"? I'd wager it's the second scenario, which means you get to bet on hardly any races at all.


Singunner thanks for answering.

The Author says,

"As a final test L used every race run at 36 major and minor thoroughbred tracks during June and July of 1997. This is a sample of approximately 5000 races, 854 selections yielded results of 267 winners and profitability of 38 % on the dollar This is a win percentage of 31%. A $2.00 bet on every selection returned a profit of $ 646.80"

[ Singunner, I think you may be right about a small amount of plays. 854 plays is less than 20 percent of 5000. less than 2 plays for every 10 races. ]

I thought there would be at least one member that tried the method and could satisfied my curiosity.

[BMeadow]

From the May 1998 issue of Meadow's Racing Monthly (an index is available at trpublishing.com):

All plays: 3368
Wins: 31.6%
ROI: 0.94 (loss of 6%)

Of the more than 30 commercial methods we tested in Meadow's Racing Monthly, not a single one lived up to the claims of the system seller.

[John]

Barry Thanks, I appreciate your great work.

Nice of you to share your workout results.I was offered a copy of the rules for $50.00. You just saved me a lot of money.

Best of luck to you.

John

[First_Place]

Of the more than 30 commercial methods we tested in Meadow's Racing Monthly, not a single one lived up to the claims of the system seller.

Maybe that's why they're "commercial methods." :) Someone would have to be a fool (or philanthropist) to sell a "black box" method, i.e. no-brainer system that actually showed a profit over the long haul.

However, with some tweaking and subjective judgement, i.e., handicapping experience, I've been able to make the few systems (I've bought early in my horse racing handicapping 'career' ) very 'workable,' i.e. profitable. Too many stipulations to get into, e.g. some systems work better than others as far as class level, dirt vs turf, sprint vs route, etc., etc., as well as different racing venues.

But I do get your point.

FP

[John]

Of the more than 30 commercial methods we tested in Meadow's Racing Monthly, not a single one lived up to the claims of the system seller.

But I do get your point.

FP

Very Strange how a commercial method can show a workout that is profitable and yet you do a workout at your track and can't come close to the method 's workout figures

I would think if there is a good commercial method ether Barry Meadow or John Balye would have it.

[GaryG]

Years ago Raleigh Burroughs, then the editor of Turf & Sport Digest, said something like this: It is barely possible that we will someday publish a system that will make money on a consistent basis. But not if I see it first. That was great!

[singunner]

My program has returned about 6000 dollars with a longest losing streak of 1000 dollars from January to the middle of March for 2006. It bet on 3029 races in 2.5 months. I could get together the 1000 dollars I need to cover myself in a second, but you don't see me running to the track.

Chaos is very volatile in horse racing. It wouldn't be half as interesting otherwise.