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.
Fine with me. However, I may occasionally miss the odd one or two, so will need assistance from others if and when NR's come up.
I also agree that 6 NAPS must be done, and NB's are optional.
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.
Hope Max ok with it and i will keep eye on it through my checking as well. Agree with other points as well especially NAPS ALL OR NONE, NO HALF MEASURES
Thanks Graham, I have the 2 sheets I need but the other one I kept trying to open except it wouldn't so sent the request to you. Yes, it does make sense (I think lol) but I will ask if I have any problems anyway.
Just a quick point on the use of "un-named favourite" in the perms. I won't go into the full detail, but I will be using this appropriately, as it is a statistically good thing to do (in certain cases) imo.
Quite often if a horse is backed into favouritism, it is considerably under-represented in the pool. Lets say that a horse is backed from 5/1 to 5/2 favourite. It probably only carries around 14% of the pool when it's chances of winning are significantly higher.
If it wins, at 14% coverage, and we have it as banker in one perm, it increases the "equity" in that perm alone, over 7 fold.
Anyway, with our "perm structure", quite often we may have 4 perms and a different "banker" in each perm. Ie one banker in PERM A leg 1, one in PERM B leg 2, one in PERM C leg 4, one in PERM D leg 6, for example. These will often (not always) be the SP FAVOURITE, despite NAP selections.
I think we need a hybrid between NAP'S, NB's and statistics. The NAPS and NB's will be used to a greater extent in the "non-banker" legs. Obviously sometimes this will work for us and other times not, so please give this process a chance.
Also, please be aware that to cover a full perm of NAPS would not be viable due to perm costs. However we can keep track on what "full coverage" would cost, and how successful it would be.
Here is an example:
1st LEG (5 unique NAP selections) 2nd LEG (4 unique NAP selections) 3rd LEG (3 unique NAP selections) 4th LEG (6 unique NAP selections) 5th LEG (7 unique NAP selections) 6th LEG (3 unique NAP selections)
At 50p a line in the example below, (Just NAP's not including NB's), full coverage would cost £3,780. So a bit out of our bank roll and of course still no guarantee. This is where our perm structures make it more affordable, but obviously, we can be unlucky, as we were before and have things not fall in the right perms for us.
Using SP FAV as semi bankers allows us more selections in the other legs. For clarification, by "semi-banker", I mean it may be a banker in one or two of the perms. Ie if it lost it would cause that/those perms to bust, but we could still potentially be OK in the other perms.
On the positive side, when our "SP-FAV" semi-bankers win, which in all likelihood would be some people's NAP selections anyway, this open up's the perm in question to have reasonably wide coverage in other legs.
Hi guys. I am away this weekend, so if it rolls over tomorrow, it'll still be a NO-GO on Sunday. If Saturday and Sunday are roll overs, then we can take a look on Sunday evening at Monday's card.
Hi guys, I am going to be out most of Saturday, most of Sunday and all of Monday day time.
If it rolls over on Saturday, I will check this thread Saturday afternoon/early evening, when I am out and see if Roger has identified the meeting and whether people think we should go for it on Sunday or not.
If it's a GO on Sunday, I will do my best to make it happen, but may need to put the perm on slightly earlier than usual, and will be unavailable for any hedging.
I's a bit tricky as I am out for most the afternoon/evening. However once Roger checks the meeting feel free to post here if you think we should go for it on Sunday.
Roger, if the general consensus is a GO, please can you create the sheet.
Cheers,
G
P.S. If it's a GO, I will reset the BLUE MOON NAP sheet when I get home. I will add and NAPS/NB's posted here
I think in normal circumstances it should probably be a go, but I am away for the weekend and it would be really difficult for me to sort out. Also if Vaigret is potentially unavailable too, then we probably are best to give it a miss.
Apologies, but I think due to my lack of availability (On a river boat) both Sunday and Monday will have to be NO-GO's. If I attempt to do it in these circumstances mistakes/rushed judgement could occur etc.
I think in normal circumstances it should probably be a go, but I am away for the weekend and it would be really difficult for me to sort out. Also if Vaigret is potentially unavailable too, then we probably are best to give it a miss.
Apologies, but I think due to my lack of availability (On a river boat) both Sunday and Monday will have to be NO-GO's. If I attempt to do it in these circumstances mistakes/rushed judgement could occur etc.
Comments
I also agree that 6 NAPS must be done, and NB's are optional.
V
Cheers
Andy
Just a quick point on the use of "un-named favourite" in the perms. I won't go into the full detail, but I will be using this appropriately, as it is a statistically good thing to do (in certain cases) imo.
Quite often if a horse is backed into favouritism, it is considerably under-represented in the pool. Lets say that a horse is backed from 5/1 to 5/2 favourite. It probably only carries around 14% of the pool when it's chances of winning are significantly higher.
If it wins, at 14% coverage, and we have it as banker in one perm, it increases the "equity" in that perm alone, over 7 fold.
Anyway, with our "perm structure", quite often we may have 4 perms and a different "banker" in each perm. Ie one banker in PERM A leg 1, one in PERM B leg 2, one in PERM C leg 4, one in PERM D leg 6, for example. These will often (not always) be the SP FAVOURITE, despite NAP selections.
I think we need a hybrid between NAP'S, NB's and statistics. The NAPS and NB's will be used to a greater extent in the "non-banker" legs. Obviously sometimes this will work for us and other times not, so please give this process a chance.
Also, please be aware that to cover a full perm of NAPS would not be viable due to perm costs. However we can keep track on what "full coverage" would cost, and how successful it would be.
Here is an example:
1st LEG (5 unique NAP selections)
2nd LEG (4 unique NAP selections)
3rd LEG (3 unique NAP selections)
4th LEG (6 unique NAP selections)
5th LEG (7 unique NAP selections)
6th LEG (3 unique NAP selections)
At 50p a line in the example below, (Just NAP's not including NB's), full coverage would cost £3,780. So a bit out of our bank roll and of course still no guarantee. This is where our perm structures make it more affordable, but obviously, we can be unlucky, as we were before and have things not fall in the right perms for us.
Using SP FAV as semi bankers allows us more selections in the other legs. For clarification, by "semi-banker", I mean it may be a banker in one or two of the perms. Ie if it lost it would cause that/those perms to bust, but we could still potentially be OK in the other perms.
On the positive side, when our "SP-FAV" semi-bankers win, which in all likelihood would be some people's NAP selections anyway, this open up's the perm in question to have reasonably wide coverage in other legs.
Cheers,
G
GL with your bets this weekend.
Cheers,
G
If it rolls over on Saturday, I will check this thread Saturday afternoon/early evening, when I am out and see if Roger has identified the meeting and whether people think we should go for it on Sunday or not.
If it's a GO on Sunday, I will do my best to make it happen, but may need to put the perm on slightly earlier than usual, and will be unavailable for any hedging.
Cheers,
G
I's a bit tricky as I am out for most the afternoon/evening. However once Roger checks the meeting feel free to post here if you think we should go for it on Sunday.
Roger, if the general consensus is a GO, please can you create the sheet.
Cheers,
G
P.S. If it's a GO, I will reset the BLUE MOON NAP sheet when I get home. I will add and NAPS/NB's posted here
Can create sheet if required
I think in normal circumstances it should probably be a go, but I am away for the weekend and it would be really difficult for me to sort out. Also if Vaigret is potentially unavailable too, then we probably are best to give it a miss.
Apologies, but I think due to my lack of availability (On a river boat) both Sunday and Monday will have to be NO-GO's. If I attempt to do it in these circumstances mistakes/rushed judgement could occur etc.
Lets hope we would have bust.
Cheers.
Graham.
Either way, lets hope it doesn't turn out to be a missed opportunity.
Appreciate your's and everyone's understanding.
Cheers,
G
Roger, could you let us know where it is carried over to, if you get a chance?
As always, anyone please feel free to post thoughts on whether you feel we should go for it or not.
Cheers,
G
If it rolls over and is one of the other meetings, then it may be worth a look.
Currently the 7/4 favourite.