SYSTEM TEST

[lcm123]

I tested this system for about 2 weeks, but due to work commitments I neglected the testing. For the 2 week test it scored a 58% strike rate (I know that the length of testing isn't worth crap, but I think it might have potential...maybe just hopeful. For the two week test it had 12 selections for 7 wins. If someone could test the system on ther "computer system testers" I would appreciate it.

Anyway here it is...I also added tomorrows selections, but not for betting, but only to see how they go.

1. Distance 1000 to 1300mtr's
2. Horse must be in the first (2) two highest AVERAGE prize money
3. System to be used only on Monday to Friday...no Wkd races
4. Tab number 1 to 6 only...no higher unless there are scratchings in the first six runners...eg: Horse 1 and 2 scratched...then horses 7 and 8 are considered.
5. Last start no longer than 14 day's ago
6. Last start finish position no higher than 5th.
7. Last start finish margin no more than 3 lengths
8. Age of horse not older than 5 years of age
9. Barrier 1 to 8

Selections for Thursday 04/10/07
Never heard of Narrogin and Charleville and don't know if it will work there, because only tested Oz tracks in the 2 week trial. I included the selections just to see how it will go, ok. Also for those that might not know how to get the average prize money...you simply divide the total career starts with the total prize money...eg: Total prize money is $100,000 and horse has had 20 total starts $100,000 divide by 20 = $5000 A/p.

Geelong
R7 #6 Notnowcato

Narrogin
R5 #3 Beachy's world

Charleville
R4 #1 Buckbeak
R5 #2 Twinjar
R7 #6 Hayil bee lee

[wesmip1]

Tested it and it didn't look too promising ...

For starters there are too many rules which means it won't hold up longer term. You need to come up with systems that have a maximum of 5 rules. Less if possible.

Oh it returned a loss of 18%... might be worth laying the selections...

Good luck

[westman]

....there are too many rules which means it won't hold up longer term.....


Would appreciate some elaboration please??

[lcm123]

Ok...thanks wesmip1.

[wesmip1]

Would appreciate some elaboration please?? Westman,

It is my view that systems that contain more than 5-6 rules are specifically backfitted to old data. Backfitted systems will not work longer term in my opinion. I admit sometimes they do hold up but this is the exception rather than the rule.

And also why come up with something so restrictive when it is possible to find consistent profitable systems with only 3-5 rules.

Good Luck.

[Chrome Prince]

It is my view that systems that contain more than 5-6 rules are specifically backfitted to old data.
And also why come up with something so restrictive when it is possible to find consistent profitable systems with only 3-5 rules.


I couldn't agree more.
The less rules you have, the stronger the system and more likely the viability.

[Grand Armee]

I couldn't agree more.
The less rules you have, the stronger the system and more likely the viability.
On that, here's a system that therefore must win bucketloads, and it's really easy to apply!!!

RULES:

1 - Potential bet must be a horse.


That's it!!!

[waggamick]

On that, here's a system that therefore must win bucketloads, and it's really easy to apply!!!

RULES:

1 - Potential bet must be a horse.


That's it!!!Too narrow GA..rules out geldings, colts, mares and fillies.
Then again?

[partypooper]

On that, here's a system that therefore must win bucketloads, and it's really easy to apply!!!

RULES:

1 - Potential bet must be a horse.


That's it!!!

2 - only include winners

[crash]

1 rule or 50, won't hold up for any system.

Prove me wrong :-))

[wesmip1]

crash,

I have lots of systems that produce consistent profits. When I say consistent I mean that it is in profit at least 10 out of 12 months a year (and also overall in profit).

Also it must be consistent in 2 years of test data that were NOT used to construct the system.

Its not that hard to find profitable systems that hold up over time... It is just most people don't have the data to test it against.

BTW a good example of a system that is working consistenly is Chrome Princes system. I believe Chromes (who did share it) has held up for many months now. Chrome would be better to answer how long though.

Good Luck

[El Gordo]

I couldn't agree more.
The less rules you have, the stronger the system and more likely the viability.

don't agree [based on my experience]

[crash]

crash,

I have lots of systems that produce consistent profits. When I say consistent I mean that it is in profit at least 10 out of 12 months a year (and also overall in profit).

Also it must be consistent in 2 years of test data that were NOT used to construct the system.

Its not that hard to find profitable systems that hold up over time... It is just most people don't have the data to test it against.

BTW a good example of a system that is working consistently is Chrome Princes system. I believe Chromes (who did share it) has held up for many months now. Chrome would be better to answer how long though.

Good Luck

Yep, everyone has profitable systems that hold up, what I'm saying is I've never seen one here and I don't believe in the theory that if it's printed here it will be nicked and sold or followed by too many punters, killing prices. At the first run of outs everyone jumps off and drifts to yet another system.

Years ago I put a system up here that held up for almost 2 yrs. but after an initial and early run of outs, everyone jumped off it. It did fall over in the end though. Blowed if I know why.