From a TIMESCALE point of view, picking 6 NAPS makes more sense ( although I am happy to create REMOVERS SPREADSHEET ) , as yesterday EVENING meeting ROLLSOVER after 8:30 race and following day AFTERNOON meeting starts at LUNCHTIME.
Doing REMOVERS could potentially take a couple of hours to prepare spreadsheets, meaning some members missing the opportunity to participate.
With 6 NAPS, once we have the GREEN LIGHT, gives MEMBERS more chance to be involved.
No problem. Always happy to receive constructive input.
I think the key thing for us is the perm structures. This is the bit I feel we got right. However I am happy to be open minded about how the actual horse selections are made.
I take on board yours, Misty's and Wynne's feedback regarding the removers and I am happy to try something new.
I like your idea of people napping a horse in every race, particularly when we are not going for it very often.
It also means Roger won't need to do the remover's spreadsheet potentially at very short notice.
I have designed a NAP sheet to cater for this, take a look (you won't be able to update this yet)
I would suggest that everyone puts in one NAP for each race, and optionally puts in a "Next Best" for any race they wish to. Although NB's won't be compulsory for each race.
Next Best will be taken into consideration for the perms, but won't count for the NAP's competition.
Although, V, if you want to record a table for NB's results, you are more than welcome to.
Snuffer, I might need to enlist you again for counting up the number of NAP's and NB's.
P.S. At the moment totalling each person's profit and loss will be a manual thing, so would be good if everyone confirms/checks the total P/L of their NAPS on the day.
I like the 1st look at that sheet G.
As I was never part of the removers team, this would be right up my street (I have trouble picking winners, let alone picking non winners!). I also thought that it might be more beneficial for the team to focus more on their NAPS. This will obviously throw up some duplicate selections with the 'experts' going with the same horses. However, with the inclusion of NB's, there will be more scope for a couple of bigger priced horses being considered for the perms. This is where, IMHO, that our syndicate could hopefully increase our chances of landing the Jackpot.
From a TIMESCALE point of view, picking 6 NAPS makes more sense ( although I am happy to create REMOVERS SPREADSHEET ) , as yesterday EVENING meeting ROLLSOVER after 8:30 race and following day AFTERNOON meeting starts at LUNCHTIME.
Doing REMOVERS could potentially take a couple of hours to prepare spreadsheets, meaning some members missing the opportunity to participate.
With 6 NAPS, once we have the GREEN LIGHT, gives MEMBERS more chance to be involved.
R
Hi Roger.
I thought about this last night. What is really handy about the remover's spreadsheet is having the ability to play around with the perm structures and it automatically creating number of lines etc, so it would still be handy to have a modified version of it, but just for NAP's and NB's, and for me to submit final perms.
I will create another template. People won't have to wait for it to be done before submitting their selections. It will also "total up" NAP and NB selections.
I do have concerns with the new process, in as much as the "REMOVERS" was aimed at still having horses left in that "weren't necessarily desirable." There may be a 10/1 shot with 000 in it's form for the last three runs etc. Quite likely not to be a NAP or NB but is sure to be under represented in the pool, these type of horses, imo, we need in at least one perm, as that is what potentially allows us to get the Jackpot up, when everyone else fails.
Anyway we'll see how it goes. I will largely try and stick to the NAP's and NB, but can always put in some Market movers and horses like the above if it seems prudent to do so.
As I have said before, the Jackpot is a "statistics" type bet and imo, needs to be tackled in that way. If we are going purely on assessment of horse form then backing them at fixed odds is more appropriate, and we wouldn't need a syndicate for that.
Anyhow, I am happy to try this new process to "complement" the statistics based strategy that underpins our approach. However if we move away too much from the statistics aspect and concentrate solely on people's NAP's and NB, then I think we reduce our chances, as our selections could end up being too "mainstream" and not getting the value from the pool as the selections are likely to be well covered by the "masses"
Obviously, as the old "system" failed, it can come in for much criticism, and I am prepared to listen to people's opinions, however, I do feel that the statistical approach did, time and time again get us as far as leg 5 and 6, we just didn't get over the line often enough.
I also think people should purely go for their own NAP and NB rater than try and manipulate the system by going for something they want in the perm even if it is their 3rd/4th choice, because their 1st and 2nd choices are already covered by others etc. So people should imo, enter their selections just as they would for a NAP's league, not to try and influence the selection process.
Anyway, lets give it a go. I feel our "potential success" will be based on how well we integrate NAPS, NB and the statistical aspect. And of course, that good old thing called LUCK! :=)
Cheers,
G
P.S. Also I realise that it's probably "more fun" to look at picking winners than losers. So that is another reason why I am happy to go with the proposed change. It's always a nice feeling if people's NAP's/NB's help us win the Jackpot. So as we are doing this once in a "BLUE MOON" I would like it to be as much fun for all as possible.
No problem. Always happy to receive constructive input.
I think the key thing for us is the perm structures. This is the bit I feel we got right. However I am happy to be open minded about how the actual horse selections are made.
I take on board yours, Misty's and Wynne's feedback regarding the removers and I am happy to try something new.
I like your idea of people napping a horse in every race, particularly when we are not going for it very often.
It also means Roger won't need to do the remover's spreadsheet potentially at very short notice.
I have designed a NAP sheet to cater for this, take a look (you won't be able to update this yet)
I would suggest that everyone puts in one NAP for each race, and optionally puts in a "Next Best" for any race they wish to. Although NB's won't be compulsory for each race.
Next Best will be taken into consideration for the perms, but won't count for the NAP's competition.
Although, V, if you want to record a table for NB's results, you are more than welcome to.
Snuffer, I might need to enlist you again for counting up the number of NAP's and NB's.
P.S. At the moment totalling each person's profit and loss will be a manual thing, so would be good if everyone confirms/checks the total P/L of their NAPS on the day.
Agree the perm structures are key , just thought this idea will give you more idea of peoples thoughts on winners.
Naps sheet looks brilliant and I would say only Naps count towards the Naps tables, next bests only for your info when doing perms and really should only be used by people when they have a difficult choice to make between horses. With the naps table being competitive and only one nap a race I think that will focus minds fully on getting the winners. Also whilst lesser fancied horses do win and if the favs won all the time we would have won the jackpot more often, so it is no where near full proof, I have a feeling people wont want to be £(6.00) down on a going day so more winners should be selected. It certainly seems to work in my itv 7 comp with people getting multiple winners regularly.
If all in agreement I think we should give it a go. V
I do have concerns with the new process, in as much as the "REMOVERS" was aimed at still having horses left in that "weren't necessarily desirable." There may be a 10/1 shot with 000 in it's form for the last three runs etc. Quite likely not to be a NAP or NB but is sure to be under represented in the pool, these type of horses, imo, we need in at least one perm, as that is what potentially allows us to get the Jackpot up, when everyone else fails.
Anyway we'll see how it goes. I will largely try and stick to the NAP's and NB, but can always put in some Market movers and horses like the above if it seems prudent to do so.
As I have said before, the Jackpot is a "statistics" type bet and imo, needs to be tackled in that way. If we are going purely on assessment of horse form then backing them at fixed odds is more appropriate, and we wouldn't need a syndicate for that.
Anyhow, I am happy to try this new process to "complement" the statistics based strategy that underpins our approach. However if we move away too much from the statistics aspect and concentrate solely on people's NAP's and NB, then I think we reduce our chances, as our selections could end up being too "mainstream" and not getting the value from the pool as the selections are likely to be well covered by the "masses"
Obviously, as the old "system" failed, it can come in for much criticism, and I am prepared to listen to people's opinions, however, I do feel that the statistical approach did, time and time again get us as far as leg 5 and 6, we just didn't get over the line often enough.
I also think people should purely go for their own NAP and NB rater than try and manipulate the system by going for something they want in the perm even if it is their 3rd/4th choice, because their 1st and 2nd choices are already covered by others etc. So people should imo, enter their selections just as they would for a NAP's league, not to try and influence the selection process.
Anyway, lets give it a go. I feel our "potential success" will be based on how well we integrate NAPS, NB and the statistical aspect. And of course, that good old thing called LUCK! :=)
Cheers,
G
P.S. Also I realise that it's probably "more fun" to look at picking winners than losers. So that is another reason why I am happy to go with the proposed change. It's always a nice feeling if people's NAP's/NB's help us win the Jackpot. So as we are doing this once in a "BLUE MOON" I would like it to be as much fun for all as possible.
Agree totally with all above and still think the new system gives you complete freedom to select market movers/ dark horses as well as peoples selections (if they coincide with stats) which I feel will be pretty similar, As to people trying to manipulate, I doubt it especially with naps, I think they would rather get winners for the naps table than try and be clever but we will see. LOL.
By the way notice Sid70?? now in syndicate and he is in a couple of my comps and is a very steady picker of winners . He might like to take part and hasnt pushed himself forward.
I do have concerns with the new process, in as much as the "REMOVERS" was aimed at still having horses left in that "weren't necessarily desirable." There may be a 10/1 shot with 000 in it's form for the last three runs etc. Quite likely not to be a NAP or NB but is sure to be under represented in the pool, these type of horses, imo, we need in at least one perm, as that is what potentially allows us to get the Jackpot up, when everyone else fails.
Anyway we'll see how it goes. I will largely try and stick to the NAP's and NB, but can always put in some Market movers and horses like the above if it seems prudent to do so.
As I have said before, the Jackpot is a "statistics" type bet and imo, needs to be tackled in that way. If we are going purely on assessment of horse form then backing them at fixed odds is more appropriate, and we wouldn't need a syndicate for that.
Anyhow, I am happy to try this new process to "complement" the statistics based strategy that underpins our approach. However if we move away too much from the statistics aspect and concentrate solely on people's NAP's and NB, then I think we reduce our chances, as our selections could end up being too "mainstream" and not getting the value from the pool as the selections are likely to be well covered by the "masses"
Obviously, as the old "system" failed, it can come in for much criticism, and I am prepared to listen to people's opinions, however, I do feel that the statistical approach did, time and time again get us as far as leg 5 and 6, we just didn't get over the line often enough.
I also think people should purely go for their own NAP and NB rater than try and manipulate the system by going for something they want in the perm even if it is their 3rd/4th choice, because their 1st and 2nd choices are already covered by others etc. So people should imo, enter their selections just as they would for a NAP's league, not to try and influence the selection process.
Anyway, lets give it a go. I feel our "potential success" will be based on how well we integrate NAPS, NB and the statistical aspect. And of course, that good old thing called LUCK! :=)
Cheers,
G
P.S. Also I realise that it's probably "more fun" to look at picking winners than losers. So that is another reason why I am happy to go with the proposed change. It's always a nice feeling if people's NAP's/NB's help us win the Jackpot. So as we are doing this once in a "BLUE MOON" I would like it to be as much fun for all as possible.
Agree totally with all above and still think the new system gives you complete freedom to select market movers/ dark horses as well as peoples selections (if they coincide with stats) which I feel will be pretty similar, As to people trying to manipulate, I doubt it especially with naps, I think they would rather get winners for the naps table than try and be clever but we will see. LOL.
By the way notice Sid70?? now in syndicate and he is in a couple of my comps and is a very steady picker of winners . He might like to take part and hasnt pushed himself forward.
v
Cheers V, lets hope that between us all, we can get it right. Re Sid, if you want to participate in NAP selections on GO-LIVE days SID, please post here and I will sort out the GOOGLE SHEET so that you have access to it and there is a row for you.
Don't worry if you are unsure how to use the GOOGLE SHEET, SID, while you get used to it you can just post your selections on the thread and I am sure people will put them on the sheet for you.
Let me know if you would like to participate with NAP selection on GO-LIVE days for now.
I can also create a row for you on our normal NAP's sheet if you want to participate in that. Next year you can join the full monthly, quarterly and yearly tables if you wish.
Up to you, let me know.
Cheers,
G
P.S. V, if you contact Sid, can you point him in the direction of this post.
I do have concerns with the new process, in as much as the "REMOVERS" was aimed at still having horses left in that "weren't necessarily desirable." There may be a 10/1 shot with 000 in it's form for the last three runs etc. Quite likely not to be a NAP or NB but is sure to be under represented in the pool, these type of horses, imo, we need in at least one perm, as that is what potentially allows us to get the Jackpot up, when everyone else fails.
Anyway we'll see how it goes. I will largely try and stick to the NAP's and NB, but can always put in some Market movers and horses like the above if it seems prudent to do so.
As I have said before, the Jackpot is a "statistics" type bet and imo, needs to be tackled in that way. If we are going purely on assessment of horse form then backing them at fixed odds is more appropriate, and we wouldn't need a syndicate for that.
Anyhow, I am happy to try this new process to "complement" the statistics based strategy that underpins our approach. However if we move away too much from the statistics aspect and concentrate solely on people's NAP's and NB, then I think we reduce our chances, as our selections could end up being too "mainstream" and not getting the value from the pool as the selections are likely to be well covered by the "masses"
Obviously, as the old "system" failed, it can come in for much criticism, and I am prepared to listen to people's opinions, however, I do feel that the statistical approach did, time and time again get us as far as leg 5 and 6, we just didn't get over the line often enough.
I also think people should purely go for their own NAP and NB rater than try and manipulate the system by going for something they want in the perm even if it is their 3rd/4th choice, because their 1st and 2nd choices are already covered by others etc. So people should imo, enter their selections just as they would for a NAP's league, not to try and influence the selection process.
Anyway, lets give it a go. I feel our "potential success" will be based on how well we integrate NAPS, NB and the statistical aspect. And of course, that good old thing called LUCK! :=)
Cheers,
G
P.S. Also I realise that it's probably "more fun" to look at picking winners than losers. So that is another reason why I am happy to go with the proposed change. It's always a nice feeling if people's NAP's/NB's help us win the Jackpot. So as we are doing this once in a "BLUE MOON" I would like it to be as much fun for all as possible.
Agree totally with all above and still think the new system gives you complete freedom to select market movers/ dark horses as well as peoples selections (if they coincide with stats) which I feel will be pretty similar, As to people trying to manipulate, I doubt it especially with naps, I think they would rather get winners for the naps table than try and be clever but we will see. LOL.
By the way notice Sid70?? now in syndicate and he is in a couple of my comps and is a very steady picker of winners . He might like to take part and hasnt pushed himself forward.
v
Hi Graham, yes I would love to take part in all the above so thanks for the invite
OK SID. I have added you to the NAPS and BLUE MOON sheets.
If you try and follow the format that myself and the other guys use when adding selections, that'd be great.
You won't appear on the auto generated leader boards this year, but I am sure Vaigret will track your progress in a similar way that he does for Misty, so your results will be measured that way.
Normal NAPS run from Friday to Sunday, with two selections on Fri and Sun and three selections on Saturday. Selections must be from afternoon meetings only (not evening) and meetings from England, Scotland and Wales only. Not Irish meetings.
I am sure the boys will help you out if you have any questions.
Seriously though, would NB's count instead of NR's?? .......or would that start to complicate things for the scorers??
Good point Misty LOL, I'll leave that to G to decide although i am sure I could pick NR's for both !!!!!. Welcome Andy/Sid any help you need let me know. Also I will add you onto the checking tables, good luck all of us.
I think the scorer (MAX) would need to remove the NR and put their NB in the NAPS cell instead, leaving the NB blank. If the NR is noticed before the off of the first race, then both can be replaced by the person concerned, otherwise, leave it to MAX.
OK with you MAX?
On the point of NB's. I would recommend everyone did them for all races, to give me more to work with, however they are optional, so you can have anything between 0 and 6 NB's. Regarding NAP's, to be fair to all, I think it should be all or none, non runners aside.
Andy. I just got a request to open a google sheet from you. The one you can't open is an old one that I sent to you by mistake. So don't worry about that.
There will also be one other on the day of the GO-LIVE which is created by Roger. However you just need these for now.
Some care needs to be taken (but I do have a backup so don't worry), however all the NAPSTERS access the same sheet and we all have update access to the whole sheet, so one needs to take a bit of care to only update your own cells and not corrupt the formulas.
Also try to leave all the formatting as it is by typing your selection in directly. If you use copy/paste, make sure you paste special VALUES ONLY. If you do corrupt the format of your cell by mistake, then copy/paste a cell that is OK into the corrupted cell. Hope this makes sense.
Comments
Concentrating on trying to find Winners and NB's is a more positive idea.
From a TIMESCALE point of view, picking 6 NAPS makes more sense ( although I am happy to create REMOVERS SPREADSHEET ) , as yesterday EVENING meeting ROLLSOVER after 8:30 race and following day AFTERNOON meeting starts at LUNCHTIME.
Doing REMOVERS could potentially take a couple of hours to prepare spreadsheets, meaning some members missing the opportunity to participate.
With 6 NAPS, once we have the GREEN LIGHT, gives MEMBERS more chance to be involved.
R
As I was never part of the removers team, this would be right up my street (I have trouble picking winners, let alone picking non winners!). I also thought that it might be more beneficial for the team to focus more on their NAPS. This will obviously throw up some duplicate selections with the 'experts' going with the same horses. However, with the inclusion of NB's, there will be more scope for a couple of bigger priced horses being considered for the perms. This is where, IMHO, that our syndicate could hopefully increase our chances of landing the Jackpot.
I thought about this last night. What is really handy about the remover's spreadsheet is having the ability to play around with the perm structures and it automatically creating number of lines etc, so it would still be handy to have a modified version of it, but just for NAP's and NB's, and for me to submit final perms.
I will create another template. People won't have to wait for it to be done before submitting their selections. It will also "total up" NAP and NB selections.
Cheers,
G
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/115Ao8BSpTVMFR8V8unqDxukYhGFV98y-omNoZQ1Q_kA/edit#gid=0
All current NAPSTER's should have update access to this sheet.
You can try and update (in one of your own columns/cells) if you wish and then remove it again to make sure you have update access.
If you can't update it, let me know
Cheers,
G
Anyway we'll see how it goes. I will largely try and stick to the NAP's and NB, but can always put in some Market movers and horses like the above if it seems prudent to do so.
As I have said before, the Jackpot is a "statistics" type bet and imo, needs to be tackled in that way. If we are going purely on assessment of horse form then backing them at fixed odds is more appropriate, and we wouldn't need a syndicate for that.
Anyhow, I am happy to try this new process to "complement" the statistics based strategy that underpins our approach. However if we move away too much from the statistics aspect and concentrate solely on people's NAP's and NB, then I think we reduce our chances, as our selections could end up being too "mainstream" and not getting the value from the pool as the selections are likely to be well covered by the "masses"
Obviously, as the old "system" failed, it can come in for much criticism, and I am prepared to listen to people's opinions, however, I do feel that the statistical approach did, time and time again get us as far as leg 5 and 6, we just didn't get over the line often enough.
I also think people should purely go for their own NAP and NB rater than try and manipulate the system by going for something they want in the perm even if it is their 3rd/4th choice, because their 1st and 2nd choices are already covered by others etc. So people should imo, enter their selections just as they would for a NAP's league, not to try and influence the selection process.
Anyway, lets give it a go. I feel our "potential success" will be based on how well we integrate NAPS, NB and the statistical aspect. And of course, that good old thing called LUCK! :=)
Cheers,
G
P.S. Also I realise that it's probably "more fun" to look at picking winners than losers. So that is another reason why I am happy to go with the proposed change. It's always a nice feeling if people's NAP's/NB's help us win the Jackpot. So as we are doing this once in a "BLUE MOON" I would like it to be as much fun for all as possible.
You should have the new BLUE MOON template.
It's called "ROGERS_BLUE_MOON_TEMPLATE"
If you copy this baseline on each GO-LIVE day, as before, that'd be great.
Cheers,
G
Naps sheet looks brilliant and I would say only Naps count towards the Naps tables, next bests only for your info when doing perms and really should only be used by people when they have a difficult choice to make between horses. With the naps table being competitive and only one nap a race I think that will focus minds fully on getting the winners. Also whilst lesser fancied horses do win and if the favs won all the time we would have won the jackpot more often, so it is no where near full proof, I have a feeling people wont want to be £(6.00) down on a going day so more winners should be selected. It certainly seems to work in my itv 7 comp with people getting multiple winners regularly.
If all in agreement I think we should give it a go.
V
By the way notice Sid70?? now in syndicate and he is in a couple of my comps and is a very steady picker of winners . He might like to take part and hasnt pushed himself forward.
v
Don't worry if you are unsure how to use the GOOGLE SHEET, SID, while you get used to it you can just post your selections on the thread and I am sure people will put them on the sheet for you.
Let me know if you would like to participate with NAP selection on GO-LIVE days for now.
I can also create a row for you on our normal NAP's sheet if you want to participate in that. Next year you can join the full monthly, quarterly and yearly tables if you wish.
Up to you, let me know.
Cheers,
G
P.S. V, if you contact Sid, can you point him in the direction of this post.
P.S. V, if you contact Sid, can you point him in the direction of this post.
In other words.....(for those young enough to remember)........
Andy
If you got any questions about how it all works, just ask. Either I or some of the other lads will help you out.
If you try and follow the format that myself and the other guys use when adding selections, that'd be great.
You won't appear on the auto generated leader boards this year, but I am sure Vaigret will track your progress in a similar way that he does for Misty, so your results will be measured that way.
Normal NAPS run from Friday to Sunday, with two selections on Fri and Sun and three selections on Saturday. Selections must be from afternoon meetings only (not evening) and meetings from England, Scotland and Wales only. Not Irish meetings.
I am sure the boys will help you out if you have any questions.
Best of luck and welcome to the team!
G
Seriously though, would NB's count instead of NR's?? .......or would that start to complicate things for the scorers??
I think the scorer (MAX) would need to remove the NR and put their NB in the NAPS cell instead, leaving the NB blank. If the NR is noticed before the off of the first race, then both can be replaced by the person concerned, otherwise, leave it to MAX.
OK with you MAX?
On the point of NB's. I would recommend everyone did them for all races, to give me more to work with, however they are optional, so you can have anything between 0 and 6 NB's. Regarding NAP's, to be fair to all, I think it should be all or none, non runners aside.
The two links you need access to are below:
Usual NAP sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t8ficDZZKMrLpNGdRRiDSh68BhqFAQP5IUr37TUTqgA/edit#gid=0
Blue Moon Sheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/115Ao8BSpTVMFR8V8unqDxukYhGFV98y-omNoZQ1Q_kA/edit#gid=0
There will also be one other on the day of the GO-LIVE which is created by Roger. However you just need these for now.
Some care needs to be taken (but I do have a backup so don't worry), however all the NAPSTERS access the same sheet and we all have update access to the whole sheet, so one needs to take a bit of care to only update your own cells and not corrupt the formulas.
Also try to leave all the formatting as it is by typing your selection in directly. If you use copy/paste, make sure you paste special VALUES ONLY. If you do corrupt the format of your cell by mistake, then copy/paste a cell that is OK into the corrupted cell. Hope this makes sense.
Cheers,
G