Bf Bot Manager - Forum

thanks for the suggestions...
paralysis by analysis is starting to become an issue

for the past hour I have I have been looking at narrowing down my fields...I have also changes the seq in a couple that arent working.

Im thinking going forward to set up another VPS, so I can have one live betting, the other trialling Strats

Thanks for starting these threads...it is certainly helping me

cheers

Since the last update, I have combed thru all the GH UK tracks and found a few little nuggets in the results tab, however I have a question how you guys/ladies base your decisions....

What do you find works the best for you? Is it last 30 days worth of results? or overall year by year stats? or combine the them all to find a baseline model and then just go by that? Many thanks in advance.

dn6789 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:27 pm I am rapidly losing interest in updating this thread with new stuff

there only seems really 3-4 people who even make an effort besides me -- either no-one can figure it out or no-one cares much about making money

thanks to those who participated so far I appreciate it - I guess we see how it goes bit longer.

Some find it too hard to follow, others find it too difficult to put the research time into building sustainable bots going forward. As much as you want to help people, unless you spoon feed them then they don't wanna know you. As always it's way easier to get things handed to you rather then doing the work required.

On a positive note, after gathering information in the Aus Horse markets, I have built my first bot . It's really early and it won't see many runs daily, but from what I can see it should be +2-5pts or worst draw down for the past 30 days has been -3pts. Overall it was +22pts for the last 30 days. Happy to be stacking up the points.

No worries, happy travels and keep on improving.

Dont get bored with the thread - it made me step back and look at the best way to dutch horses and dogs - a mix of F1/F2 or F1-F3 dutching - all done with recovery. I am only dutching this to £1 stakes - mainly to test out strike rate. I made my strategies up using the data I had available through the results tab and did the pain staking checks of every track in UK & AUS - so at the moment running about 120 unique strategies - only one week in. Week one saw a peak profit of £50 only for it to drawndown to a min drawdown of -£8 - now sitting at +£10.

I am using a loss recovery methos - increase stake 20% on losing bet and decrease by 10% on winning bet. Some market strike rates in 80% others 40%+, objective is to continue to tweak the strategies over the whole of July to either:
a) ditch the course / track due o less preditable results
b) Revise the dutching either up or to cover more or less of the field
c) Look at dutching by traps if favourite number dutching is not profitable
d) Revise loss recovery and staking methods to improve profitability
e) Use stop at a profit across strategies to lock in profit on a "Good Run"

The data I have so far doesnt merit posting on this thread yet - maybe in a week or two.

Phew

Having read through all this thread. So much information. I’m so confused. My brain is totally over loaded. So many questions I don’t know where to start.
How can a sequence of winners from the past be used to make a winning system !!!

Could someone explain in layman’s terms ?I
Is the sequence referring to the size of Stake or Favourite/Stall ?

woweee wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:24 pm Phew

Having read through all this thread. So much information. I’m so confused. My brain is totally over loaded. So many questions I don’t know where to start.
How can a sequence of winners from the past be used to make a winning system !!!

Could someone explain in layman’s terms ?I
Is the sequence referring to the size of Stake or Favourite/Stall ?

The sequence is favourite position.

Thanks Madjon

How many races would we need to know which fav was the winner ?

Once we have a huge list of results.
Example
3,5,1,6,9,1,5,2,6,4,1,1,4,7,6,3,4,1,6,7,3,1,2,1,5,4,3,1,8,1,2,4,1,2,1,5,3,6,3,1,7,3,2,7,3,1,5,1,6,1,8,3,2,5,1,3,6,3,5

In the above results the sequence 1,2 appears 3 times.
Is this what were looking for ?

This is my example for SQ. See attachment. Good Luck!

DN,

Can I clarify again (as you have mentioned it many times) I never asked you to post YOUR strategy, I asked you to post an EXAMPLE. Because myself, like others in this forum still don't really understand your method, despite trying our best to understand.

With regards to purchasing strategies, I don't think people expect to purchase and then start printing money. I think it's a case of getting some starting inspiration (which many of us struggle with) then tweaking and tweaking some more to tailer it to our needs (that's what I am doing anyway)

Although I don't post (because I have tried and failed to engage) I do enjoy these posts and look forward to your sample strategy you appear to be creating. Can you give us any hints what it is based on?

Hi DN,

A lot's happened since I last looked in on one of your threads.

The SQ ideas in this thread are interesting.

I'm looking at the BFBM results downloaded into Excel and trying to find for example a sequence for Faves 1, 2 and 3 for UK dogs (as in attachment).

The first thing is to look at "view statistics" in the BFBM results screen which gives % occurrence of F1, F2 and F3:

F1 = 30%
F2 = 23%
F3 = 16%

So, if we had a sequence which was 30 + 23 + 16 = 69 steps, then if the sequence was just randomly jumbled 1,2,3's we'd need to have 30 1's, 23 2's and 16 3's ideally as part of the sequence. However, because we reset to the start of the sequence on each winner, we're not going to realistically get anywhere near 69 steps - because it would mean 69 losers in a row.

So, when we create a sequence we'd make it smaller, though in similar proportions to what we've seen in the "View Statistics" - hence these could work well:

F1 - 8 steps
F2 - 6 steps
F3 - 4 steps

From here I think the only clue we can get as to how to structure our sequence is to look at repeating favourites appearing in runs in the results - such as we may see clusters of 1,1 or 1,1,1 in a lot of results, whereas all the 2's and 3's are generally spread out.

Our first step in the sequence must be the favourite we have selected with the highest % frequency from the statistics and the order in which favourites appear in the first steps should be in decreasing order of their %. Hence, F1 in this case is the first step and F2 should appear before F3.

Now - we're in the trial and error phase where we build several strategies in Sim based on the rules above...

Example sequences could be:

1,1,2,1,3,1,3,2,1,1,1,3,2,2,3,1,2,2
1,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,1,1,2,2,3,2,1,3,1,3
1,2,2,2,1,3,1,1,1,3,3,2,1,2,3,1,2,1

Am I on the right track here?

Many thanks for your advice

I prefer to pick up as many races as possible because the variance spreads out more nicely that way - which I think you mentioned in an earlier post.

I like the idea of ignoring any Fave 1 bets below 1.9 because the reward isn't worth the risk.

If I'm going to include 4 and 5 then there's filtering I could add to reduce the amount of losers on these (from what I've seen, longer distances, mean longer running times which means that favourites will be more likely to collide more often allowing less favoured dogs to take the lead). However, including those sort of filters I think would be more suited to a "long shot" strategy - which perhaps concentrates on getting big winners from faves 4,5 or 6 - perhaps with a sequence too?

If I include the distance filter when I have faves 1,2,3,4 and 5 then I suspect that I might be filtering out a lot of profits which could come from the lower faves in short distance races. Though food for thought and something to try out.

You mentioned creating 20 strats in Sim and running them for 1 day. At the end of that day's testing do you recommend ditching all the losers and continuing to test the winners? If so, how long should we be testing the winners for in Sim, before putting them live? A week would cover every day and there are noticeable differences in UK dog results at weekends compared to weekdays - so my guess is that we should do at least 7 days testing.

Hi

Just wanted to say i still following the thread. Work has been busy so tak8ng up a bit of time
Im continuing testing, refining, testing again
I feel im pretty close to going grom Sim mode.
Will update hopefully early next week, working 6 days straight at present.
These latest posts have given me a few new ideas, i have an exercise book with quite a few pages of furure strat project ideas

Thanks
Wondra

dn6789 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:39 am also as well I just want to say - your so far thinking about it in terms of absolute

fav 1 this fav 2 that etc

but that is how everyone else thinks - like the guy from betangel in his video

you absolutely need to use filters to defeat the inherent bias against winning by staking fav 1 .... what are the conditions that allow fav 1 to win @70% instead of 35% -- this is key for the future results.

Thanks for reinforcing this idea which I'm seeing applies more and more with creating successful strategies.

The data is tricky to analyse, as it's not as simple as trawling through BFBM results (as in UK dog races they only give you a 1/6th of the picture, albeit an important one!).

I picked up on your advice from earlier about how you manage to get those big winners with the long odds. There's a limit to what data is available for the dogs in BFBM compared to horses, so I think we're limited to filtering on the following:

1) Odds ranges of runners we're betting on
2) Odds ranges of runners we're not betting on
3) Spread of odds amongst favourites (e.g. when outsiders win a race are the 1st 3 favs all close and low odds like 2 or 3 ish?)
4) Grade of race (or class and grade in AU?)
5) Distance
6) Day of race (different biases seem to occur at weekends - at least in UK dogs)
7) Time of race (for UK dogs it appears that the afternoons are the best and most reliable times to bet)

Is there anything else which I've missed?

When I've created strategies in the past, I've always homed in on the non-filtered characteristics of the races and invariably I've become unstuck when the variance kicks in. What I like about the sequence is that it's all pretty much random anyway (you could start the same strat at two different times of day and end up with massively different results - instead of a difference of 1 or 2 bets which is what we'd normally get), so if you can get it performing well on one day, it shouldn't take too much work to make it successful every day - at least in theory lol.

Thanks for the hint about checking more deeply the relationship between the runners.

I've realised that I missed two other criteria from my list:

Checking Trap (box) numbers
Checking for possible venue biases

My main point was that we have a finite amount of criteria which are possible to check for dog races in BFBM.

For example, we can't check form, speed, trainer etc.

Anyway, given that we have a limited amount of data which can be analysed to give us that edge, I think you've done an amazing job putting together so many profitable systems from that data!