- Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:41 pm
I've looked at a lot of sequences for UK GH, testing them against historical results in Excel.
This has several advantages:
1} You can get instant results instead of waiting to see what happens in Sim.
2) You don't have the delayed odds effect which can be seen in Sim which can mean that favourite positions in Sim are different to those in Live.
3) You can compare the effect of the SQ between months.
No. 3) bugs me because I found it to be hugely tricky to create SQ's which would be profitable over several months.
Does this mean that next month or the month after your GH SQ strategies may stop working?
If so, how do you know that they've stopped working when they could just be having an off day or two which is expected with normal variance?
Another concerning thing is that SQ's are so sensitive that by changing a single favourite number from 6 to 5 in the sequence, I could change the monthly profit of several hundred £'s into a loss. Faves 5 and 6 don't win too often, however in this particular month, were there more 6 winners and less 5 winners than normally expected? Not as an overall % proportion of winners over the month, though it's possible that handful of 6 winners got the big odds winners that might not be obvious.
All this seems a bit hit and miss. If we have a sequence 1,2,1,1,6,1,3 and the winning results from the first races are 5,1.2,4,1,6,2 we have an SR of 0/7.
However, if we were to start betting from the second race of the day we'd have an SR of 4/6, plus we'd pick up the fave 6 which would be a big winner.
I can see how the SQ is giving us a pseudo-random selection which is a good thing because of the unpredictable nature of dog racing, though I have the impression that we could spend time creating a sequence which works great in Sim right now and transferred to live is ok, though in a few weeks time, we're staring at a screen with a sea of red and wondering what went wrong.
Admittedly I've not really looked at AU GH as I've been concentrating on the UK (which DN has also found to be a tricky nut to crack). It's possible that AU GH are much more consistent in their sequences - e.g. perhaps a huge amount of the time we may get runs of 1,1,1,2,2,1,1,2,2... with lower faves appearing in clumps and these can be seen regardless of the month of data we're looking at.
Anyway, they're just a few of my thoughts - I'm finding this seemingly basic and simple strategy quite tricky to tame into any level of consistency.