Oh one other thing I forgot to mention. If you can also add how many winners and how many placed horses you had at the bottom of your selection. I have pasted mine as an example below:
If everyone uses this as a template, it will make it much easier when checking and collating all the scores.
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : Hi Vaigret. I have just had a quick glance at your original post, and all seems correct (via a glancing eye only). Good job following the process! Going forward can you also put your over all scores at the bottom of your original post. Some tricky races for us all today. Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
I'll be home soon and check mine plus do the others not checked. the reason I never posted my odds until the latest was selected was to make it easier for me to check my points. Posted by MICKYBLUE
That would be AWESOME Mickey if you don't mind doing/checking the others.
For the ones that haven't done theirs, if you could copy/paste their selections and try to get it as close to my template above, that'd be great!
When you do that, make it clear who's selections they are.
and apologies to graham if this puts a cat amonst the pigeons and has been thought of already or is not possible. The reason I say this is I certainly think Graham and the rest of you are working like hell on this, I am the smallest stakeholder and I certainly haven't got the time to enter the removals league let alone run it but today seemed to produce a flaw with the removers logic as it stands.
I have noticed the removals are based on removing a certain number of horses in each race surely this is flawed in two ways. Firstly because two horses had to be removed from each race eminent just went out of our selections and we would have gone down when if based on my idea below it might not have been. Secondly surely the final perm should be based on our more fancied horses in each race and not a predetermined number in each race.
My bright idea :-
The number of horses to be removed should be a number for a day not each race. Eg if Graham has narrowed the fields down to 49 horses in blue and we want a perm containing say 34 horses the removers should look at getting rid of fifteen overall and the perm decided from there. For example Race 1 - 9 selections in blue Race 2 - 8 selections Race 3 -7 selections Race 4- 6 selections Race 5 - 10 selections Race 6 -9 selections
After the removers give their 15 the perm could like this Race 1 - 8 selections Race 2 - 6 selections Race 3- 4 selections Race 4- 5 selections Race 5- 4 selections Race 6- 7 selections
In other words the removers think that race 1 is hard to get rid of horses from those selected but Race 5 is easy to knock ones out of.
I certainly found it hard to knock horses out from some races today but there were others it was easy to knock out. Also I lost points on the last two races because I didnt study them so hard and if there had been other people who did that we might have missed winners in the last races. My suggestion would mean I would only chuck out horses that I was as certain as poss that they should be removed rather than removing them just for the sake of getting to an already predetermined number of horse per each race.
As i said only a thought and the people who have really worked hard on this might have thought this through already , if they had my apols and good lluck to us all.
Hi All and apologies to graham if this puts a cat amonst the pigeons and has been thought of already or is not possible. The reason I say this is I certainly think Graham and the rest of you are working like hell on this, I am the smallest stakeholder and I certainly haven't got the time to enter the removals league let alone run it but today seemed to produce a flaw with the removers logic as it stands. I have noticed the removals are based on removing a certain number of horses in each race surely this is flawed in two ways. Firstly because two horses had to be removed from each race eminent just went out of our selections and we would have gone down when if based on my idea below it might not have been. Secondly surely the final perm should be based on our more fancied horses in each race and not a predetermined number in each race. My bright idea :- The number of horses to be removed should be a number for a day not each race. Eg if Graham has narrowed the fields down to 49 horses in blue and we want a perm containing say 34 horses the removers should look at getting rid of fifteen overall and the perm decided from there. For example Race 1 - 9 selections in blue Race 2 - 8 selections Race 3 -7 selections Race 4- 6 selections Race 5 - 10 selections Race 6 -9 selections After the removers give their 15 the perm could like this Race 1 - 8 selections Race 2 - 6 selections Race 3- 4 selections Race 4- 5 selections Race 5- 4 selections Race 6- 7 selections In other words the removers think that race 1 is hard to get rid of horses from those selected but Race 5 is easy to knock ones out of. I certainly found it hard to knock horses out from some races today but there were others it was easy to knock out. Also I lost points on the last two races because I didnt study them so hard and if there had been other people who did that we might have missed winners in the last races. My suggestion would mean I would only chuck out horses that I was as certain as poss that they should be removed rather than removing them just for the sake of getting to an already predetermined number of horse per each race. As i said only a thought and the people who have really worked hard on this might have thought this through already , if they had my apols and good lluck to us all. Terry Posted by vaigret
Hi, thanks for this Vaigret.
That was pretty much how we did it to start with tbh.
I gave people much more flexibility than I did on this occasion.
Remember however, I am not going to remove ALL of the suggestions, just those most picked. I also have an idea of the size of the perm I wanted to do, and I wanted to make it tough in some races purposely to put people in a tight spot, as practice.
I also did it this way, as I was thinking "Placepot" and a smaller perm, as it was not the Jackpot meeting.
I think for go live a HYBRID is the answer. I will say something like remove 12 horses in total, but at least 3 from each of LEGS 3 and LEG 5 say (the big handicaps for example)
I just chose from a practise point of view to make it tough rather than optimal, to force people to remove horses that were not just the outsiders.
However, I very much agree with your thought process here and feel a Hybrid is the solution.
Cheers,
G
P.S. It doesn't matter if you have 1 share or 100 shares, if your thought process/suggestion has merit, I will listen. TY for the feedback. I am glad you came forward with this, and I completely understand why you brought it up as it has much merit. It is well thought out feedback like this that will help us to succeed. It is a useful reminder for me, to make sure that I don't "tie people's hands" too tightly.
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : Hi, thanks for this Vaigret. That was pretty much how we did it to start with tbh. I gave people much more flexibility than I did on this occasion. Remember however, I am not going to remove ALL of the suggestions, just those most picked. I also have an idea of the size of the perm I wanted to do, and I wanted to make it tough in some races purposely to put people in a tight spot, as practice. I also did it this way, as I was thinking "Placepot" and a smaller perm, as it was not the Jackpot meeting. I think for go live a HYBRID is the answer. I will say something like remove 12 horses in total, but at least 3 from each of LEGS 3 and LEG 5 say (the big handicaps for example) I just chose from a practise point of view to make it tough rather than optimal, to force people to remove horses that were not just the outsiders. However, I very much agree with your thought process here and feel a Hybrid is the solution. Cheers, G P.S. It doesn't matter if you have 1 share or 100 shares, if your thought process/suggestion has merit, I will listen. TY for the feedback. I am glad you came forward with this, and I completely understand why you brought it up as it has much merit. It is well thought out feedback like this that will help us to succeed. It is a useful reminder for me, to make sure that I don't "tie people's hands" too tightly. Posted by StayOrGo
Graham
thanks for your positivity , we are in capable hands and all looks good.
and thanks to all your team for their hard work. Bring it on
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : Hi MK, I agree with your totals. Great removals in the form of Larchmont Lad and War Decree btw. Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
cheers graham,
glad i got there in the end,hope u understand where i went wrong,was not about from early this morning to late afternoon so just went straight onto sporting life results and took sp prices from there to do points as i did not read all thread.
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : cheers graham, glad i got there in the end,hope u understand where i went wrong,was not about from early this morning to late afternoon so just went straight onto sporting life results and took sp prices from there to do points as i did not read all thread. cheers dean Posted by mkgunner
Yes no problem Dean, easily done, although you understand my reasoning for wanting to use the LATEST column right?
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : Yes no problem Dean, easily done, although you understand my reasoning for wanting to use the LATEST column right? Posted by StayOrGo
To be fair to MK I did exactly the same thing, I corrected after reading through the thread, but yes Graham your reasoning makes perfect sense to me.
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : Yes no problem Dean, easily done, although you understand my reasoning for wanting to use the LATEST column right? Posted by StayOrGo
yeah all understood,am i right ur from st neots graham?im up there tomorrow night at the rafa club huntingdonn rd,near u?
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : yeah all understood,am i right ur from st neots graham?im up there tomorrow night at the rafa club huntingdonn rd,near u? Posted by mkgunner
I have just move from St Neots a couple of years ago. I live near the Tesco/Cineworld complex in Huntingdon.
I used to live in Eynesbury, St Neots, just off Carnavon Road. (Spelt wrong)
In Response to Re: PLACEPOT AND JACKPOT REMOVERS NEWMARKET THURS 20TH APRIL 2017 : I have just move from St Neots a couple of years ago. I live near the Tesco/Cineworld complex in Huntingdon. I used to live in Eynesbury, St Neots, just off Carnavon Road. (Spelt wrong) Posted by StayOrGo
yeah i know it,my missus use to live in cromwell rd
There is a bit of confusion here, and your way may be best, but the way I have been recording it to date is to NOT count the winners as PLACED as well, hence in my template I state:
I HAD ONE WINNER AND FOUR OTHER PLACED HORSES FROM 12 SELECTIONS
I added the word OTHER for clarity (So really I had 5 places, but I am not counting the winner as placed in the statement above)
Now that I have decided to go with that way of recording, can you please amend the statements at the bottom and NOT count the winner as a placed horse.
Hi Micky, thx for doing these. There is a bit of confusion here, and your way may be best, but the way I have been recording it to date is to NOT count the winners as PLACED as well, hence in my template I state: I HAD ONE WINNER AND FOUR OTHER PLACED HORSES FROM 12 SELECTIONS I added the word OTHER for clarity (So really I had 5 places, but I am not counting the winner as placed in the statement above) Now that I have decided to go with that way of recording, can you please amend the statements at the bottom and NOT count the winner as a placed horse. Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
Hi Micky, if you could please post on here when you have done the above for the players who's cards you have marked and your own.
As per my comments to Micky. For recording purposes this will count as 1 winner and 3 places not 4 places as I am not counting the winner in placed totals.
Comments
1:50: 04 CASTLEACRE 9/1 JP: 3PTS PP: 3PTS
04 GLOBETROTTER 10/1 JP: 3PTS PP: 3PTS
JACKPOT TOTAL: 35 PTS
PLACEPOT TOTAL: - 5PTS
I HAD ONE WINNER AND FOUR OTHER PLACED HORSES FROM 12 SELECTIONS
For the ones that haven't done theirs, if you could copy/paste their selections and try to get it as close to my template above, that'd be great!
When you do that, make it clear who's selections they are.
TVM indeed.
G
and apologies to graham if this puts a cat amonst the pigeons and has been thought of already or is not possible. The reason I say this is I certainly think Graham and the rest of you are working like hell on this, I am the smallest stakeholder and I certainly haven't got the time to enter the removals league let alone run it but today seemed to produce a flaw with the removers logic as it stands.
I have noticed the removals are based on removing a certain number of horses in each race surely this is flawed in two ways. Firstly because two horses had to be removed from each race eminent just went out of our selections and we would have gone down when if based on my idea below it might not have been. Secondly surely the final perm should be based on our more fancied horses in each race and not a predetermined number in each race.
My bright idea :-
The number of horses to be removed should be a number for a day not each race. Eg if Graham has narrowed the fields down to 49 horses in blue and we want a perm containing say 34 horses the removers should look at getting rid of fifteen overall and the perm decided from there.
For example
Race 1 - 9 selections in blue
Race 2 - 8 selections
Race 3 -7 selections
Race 4- 6 selections
Race 5 - 10 selections
Race 6 -9 selections
After the removers give their 15 the perm could like this
Race 1 - 8 selections
Race 2 - 6 selections
Race 3- 4 selections
Race 4- 5 selections
Race 5- 4 selections
Race 6- 7 selections
In other words the removers think that race 1 is hard to get rid of horses from those selected but Race 5 is easy to knock ones out of.
I certainly found it hard to knock horses out from some races today but there were others it was easy to knock out. Also I lost points on the last two races because I didnt study them so hard and if there had been other people who did that we might have missed winners in the last races. My suggestion would mean I would only chuck out horses that I was as certain as poss that they should be removed rather than removing them just for the sake of getting to an already predetermined number of horse per each race.
As i said only a thought and the people who have really worked hard on this might have thought this through already , if they had my apols and good lluck to us all.
Terry
thanks for your positivity , we are in capable hands and all looks good.
and thanks to all your team for their hard work. Bring it on
Thanks again.
Graham
STAYORGO's 20/04/2017 removals are:
1:50: 04 CASTLEACRE 9/1 JP: 3PTS PP: 3PTS
04 GLOBETROTTER 10/1 JP: 3PTS PP: 3PTS
JACKPOT TOTAL: 35 PTS
PLACEPOT TOTAL: - 5PTS
STAYORGO HAD ONE WINNER AND FOUR OTHER PLACED HORSES FROM 12 SELECTIONS
Cheers,
G
I used to live in Eynesbury, St Neots, just off Carnavon Road. (Spelt wrong)
There is a bit of confusion here, and your way may be best, but the way I have been recording it to date is to NOT count the winners as PLACED as well, hence in my template I state:
I HAD ONE WINNER AND FOUR OTHER PLACED HORSES FROM 12 SELECTIONS
I added the word OTHER for clarity (So really I had 5 places, but I am not counting the winner as placed in the statement above)
Now that I have decided to go with that way of recording, can you please amend the statements at the bottom and NOT count the winner as a placed horse.
Cheers,
G
I will then update the over all standings.
Cheers,
G
Cheers,
G