In the yearly table above, you will see that @zadoc is in 3rd and @SidV79 4th despite @sidv79 showing less of a loss, as my table is sorted on Average P/L not Total P/L. They round at £0.25 each, but with all the decimals, @zadoc is slightly ahead.
I think it makes sense to do it by Average, as if, for example, someone had 400 selections and showed £99 loss and someone had 500 selections and showed £100 loss the guy who "did better" would clearly be the guy with the £100 loss, which is why I sort on average, as it resolves that issue.
This is your gig though Terry, and, as such, your call @vaigret, but thought it may be worth you clarifying what way you want to go before we get into December, as the placings are very close, and to save any "disputes" come 31st December.
We cant stop GRAHAM as he comes from behind to win another festival with a very good second day with 4 winners. LUCCIA EVENS, ZANZA 11/2, FIRST STREET 3-1 AND AMARILLO SKY 11/8. TERRY got second thanks to MCFABULOUS 2/1 to hold off the chasing crowd . ERIC LE MILOS 9/2 and MARK ZANZA.
In the yearly table above, you will see that @zadoc is in 3rd and @SidV79 4th despite @sidv79 showing less of a loss, as my table is sorted on Average P/L not Total P/L. They round at £0.25 each, but with all the decimals, @zadoc is slightly ahead.
I think it makes sense to do it by Average, as if, for example, someone had 400 selections and showed £99 loss and someone had 500 selections and showed £100 loss the guy who "did better" would clearly be the guy with the £100 loss, which is why I sort on average, as it resolves that issue.
This is your gig though Terry, and, as such, your call @vaigret, but thought it may be worth you clarifying what way you want to go before we get into December, as the placings are very close, and to save any "disputes" come 31st December.
Please see Grahams comments above and please give your thoughts for next year, hopefully you are all going to participate again. However for this year and as we already have the 70% rule to qualify for the prizes and the prizes are only for 1st and second anyway I think going for averages or percentages to split people is not necessary. What it really comes down to is the real non runners and some people have the time/chance to change them at the last minute but some dont. For example me yesterday, I had 2 non runners but no chance to change them as I was out all day. I think others might not be able to change through work etc. Thats why I would prefer to stay as we are for next year as well and hopefully it would never be so close to matter anyway. THANKS Graham for bringing up though as it had never occurred to me it could be so close.
Terry
PS do you want me to try and get new people for next year through posts as we go into December.
We are also on again next Friday and Saturday for Tingle Creek
I have amended the sheet to order table by total profit not average and will do that going forward. It is very rare that it would make a difference unless there is a big disparity of the number of selections. (Using @thefall as an example who would be in second) were he included in the yearly league table this year.)
I too was surprised it was close enough to make a difference between @SidV79 and @zadoc at this stage.
The more the merrier if you want to try and get others, as long as they are prepared to commit to most of the races.
yes got to commit and if they dont hopefully would fall in the under 70% bracket and if they missed two or three on trot they would be gone anyway. Would include that last one in the rules for 2023.
The more the merrier if you want to try and get others, as long as they are prepared to commit to most of the races.
yes got to commit and if they dont hopefully would fall in the under 70% bracket and if they missed two or three on trot they would be gone anyway. Would include that last one in the rules for 2023.
Yes, I like the missing two or three on the trot rule, unless extenuating circumstances. It wouldn't be quite right if someone who only played 70% won by a pound or something.
I am sure, like now, everyone would play in the right spirit, it is just possible that "new players" may lose interest if they get a bad start, and might not have the commitment of us current lot, so the missing two or three on the trot rule, would sort that out, if indeed it ever became an issue.
What do you think about increasing the 70% threshold, maybe even to 90%, or somewhere in between? People on a few weeks holiday will still be fine, etc.
My original 70%, back in the day, was based on using an average P/L for yearly, maybe set it higher if using total?
One other thing, would you be interested in running another type of comp on the side?
I was thinking something like, just one NAP, only 1 horse, every Saturday.
I can easily do the sheets for it. It would be different in as much as the punter can pick and choose just one horse from any meeting on the Saturday, so they can go for their real "best bet"
Just thinking out loud really. If it's too much then no problem.
I think 70% rule ok although we could think about that over the coming weeks for 2023, by the way already had interest on who would be our first lady entrant. She very much up for it. As to the 2 or 3 weeks yes I thought about extenuating circumstances after I suggested it, in the first instance it would only apply to new entrants , I think our old timers would all have extenuating circumstances as they all keen.
One other thing, would you be interested in running another type of comp on the side?
I was thinking something like, just one NAP, only 1 horse, every Saturday.
I can easily do the sheets for it. It would be different in as much as the punter can pick and choose just one horse from any meeting on the Saturday, so they can go for their real "best bet"
Just thinking out loud really. If it's too much then no problem.
Hi Graham,
I was hoping you were going to be up for another comp. I'll pm you and explain.
One other thing, would you be interested in running another type of comp on the side?
I was thinking something like, just one NAP, only 1 horse, every Saturday.
I can easily do the sheets for it. It would be different in as much as the punter can pick and choose just one horse from any meeting on the Saturday, so they can go for their real "best bet"
Just thinking out loud really. If it's too much then no problem.
Hi Graham,
I was hoping you were going to be up for another comp. I'll pm you and explain.
brilliant it worked I will update you on everything when i have talked to the man who does all the technical stuff and the man who first came up with the Jackpot naps and to get his views on how he would like to go forward. Terry
Comments
12.15: LUCCIA
12.45: THYME HILL
1.20: KILLER KANE
1.55: PEKING ROSE
2.30: GRIVETANA
3.05: DIABLO DE ROUHET
3.40: BUN DORAN
On sheet
TY
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTtq9x3zgHurWJvpZKewBzRKqiL-9QC63kKca5guXEQeYfpFmkayYO4FOLXXeEpuUBxjCSCxrcCr_sz/pubhtml
Hi @vaigret and all.
In the yearly table above, you will see that @zadoc is in 3rd and @SidV79 4th despite @sidv79 showing less of a loss, as my table is sorted on Average P/L not Total P/L. They round at £0.25 each, but with all the decimals, @zadoc is slightly ahead.
I think it makes sense to do it by Average, as if, for example, someone had 400 selections and showed £99 loss and someone had 500 selections and showed £100 loss the guy who "did better" would clearly be the guy with the £100 loss, which is why I sort on average, as it resolves that issue.
This is your gig though Terry, and, as such, your call @vaigret, but thought it may be worth you clarifying what way you want to go before we get into December, as the placings are very close, and to save any "disputes" come 31st December.
We cant stop GRAHAM as he comes from behind to win another festival with a very good second day with 4 winners. LUCCIA EVENS, ZANZA 11/2, FIRST STREET 3-1 AND AMARILLO SKY 11/8. TERRY got second thanks to MCFABULOUS 2/1 to hold off the chasing crowd . ERIC LE MILOS 9/2 and MARK ZANZA.
Well if I wasnt certain i am now as GRAHAM has another profitable festival whilst the rest of us are in the red.
THEFALL ==== 315 Runners 54 Winners 261 Losers - £(82.11)
Please see Grahams comments above and please give your thoughts for next year, hopefully you are all going to participate again. However for this year and as we already have the 70% rule to qualify for the prizes and the prizes are only for 1st and second anyway I think going for averages or percentages to split people is not necessary. What it really comes down to is the real non runners and some people have the time/chance to change them at the last minute but some dont. For example me yesterday, I had 2 non runners but no chance to change them as I was out all day. I think others might not be able to change through work etc. Thats why I would prefer to stay as we are for next year as well and hopefully it would never be so close to matter anyway. THANKS Graham for bringing up though as it had never occurred to me it could be so close.
Terry
PS do you want me to try and get new people for next year through posts as we go into December.
We are also on again next Friday and Saturday for Tingle Creek
I have amended the sheet to order table by total profit not average and will do that going forward. It is very rare that it would make a difference unless there is a big disparity of the number of selections. (Using @thefall as an example who would be in second) were he included in the yearly league table this year.)
I too was surprised it was close enough to make a difference between @SidV79 and @zadoc at this stage.
The more the merrier if you want to try and get others, as long as they are prepared to commit to most of the races.
I am sure, like now, everyone would play in the right spirit, it is just possible that "new players" may lose interest if they get a bad start, and might not have the commitment of us current lot, so the missing two or three on the trot rule, would sort that out, if indeed it ever became an issue.
What do you think about increasing the 70% threshold, maybe even to 90%, or somewhere in between? People on a few weeks holiday will still be fine, etc.
My original 70%, back in the day, was based on using an average P/L for yearly, maybe set it higher if using total?
Just a thought, your call.
I was thinking something like, just one NAP, only 1 horse, every Saturday.
I can easily do the sheets for it. It would be different in as much as the punter can pick and choose just one horse from any meeting on the Saturday, so they can go for their real "best bet"
Just thinking out loud really. If it's too much then no problem.
Lets see how we go over next few weeks
I was hoping you were going to be up for another comp. I'll pm you and explain.
Terry