The Basis of a Winning System ?????

[Barny]

Race Prizemoney > $49,999,
> 28 days since LS and
> 4 runs this time in


A POT ?? eh, but a miserable one ..... but none the less a POT of 1.4%. I'm sure you can build on it if you find the right filters.

BTW There were 3,190 seln's for 245 winners

Once again, I wouldn't use this systyem as it's running too close to the bone.

[Lord Greystoke]

Interesting post, barny

A quick look at today's major meetings using your approach...

Randwick
R5 NIL selections
R6 NIL
R7 NIL
R8 NIL

Flemington
R6 NIL selections
R7 NIL
R8 NIL
R9 NIL

I found it an interesting contribution in that you...
(1) put fwd the basis of a winning system
(2) then highlighted a "miserable" POT
(3) aluded to some potential via "the right filters"
(4) and posted the stats i.e. a large number of selections and few winners
(5) then you rejected your own system because it's "too close to the bone"

Are you able to explain:
a. how this is the basis of a winning system ?
b. why you have put fwd an argument that both confirms and denies the underlying premise, several times ??


Cheers LG

[Barny]

Interesting post, barny

I found it an interesting contribution in that you...
(1) put fwd the basis of a winning system
(2) then highlighted a "miserable" POT
(3) aluded to some potential via "the right filters"
(4) and posted the stats i.e. a large number of selections and few winners
(5) then you rejected your own system because it's "too close to the bone"

Are you able to explain:
a. how this is the basis of a winning system ?
b. why you have put fwd an argument that both confirms and denies the underlying premise, several times ??


Cheers LGIn answer to your points LG (1) the result of my database (2) Fact (3) Someone could use filters to make this more profitable (4) Yes, once again facts (5) Yes

a. Because it has 3 rules which someone could improve on b. I have the ability to see both sides of an argument ..... it keeps my eyes open to all possibilities ..... the possibility that I could be wrong, and that would cost me money !!

[Lord Greystoke]

In answer to your points LG

a. Because it has 3 rules which someone could improve on b. I have the ability to see both sides of an argument ..... it keeps my eyes open to all possibilities ..... the possibility that I could be wrong, and that would cost me money !!

OK - I can see how it all makes sense to you and justifies how you see both sides.

What I don't see is...
1. how this post is helpful to someone else who might read it
2. how someone else could improve on this approach?


Cheers LG

[Barny]

I see how it all makes sense to you and justifies how you see both sides.

What I don't get is...
1. how this post is helpful to someone else who might read it
2. how someone else could improve on this approach?

LG
In answer to your Questions 1. With a couple of additional filters they might improve on it, and you might note LG that one of the filters is an unpopular > 28 days (freshened up) 2 . Do some research and find a few filters that are in sync with the base filters.

BTW, my additional filters give this an 85.1% POT on few selections, which doesn't suit most as they're sceptical about future performance of a system that is based on substantailly less than 1,000 selections (for instance).

[Lord Greystoke]

BTW, my additional filters give this an 85.1% POT on few selections, which doesn't suit most as they're sceptical about future performance of a system that is based on substantailly less than 1,000 selections (for instance).

Once again - I see how this is helpful to you. Not to anyone else, however - especially if most of us are sceptical about this kind of approach, as you say. Will also be of limited value unless we are able to see what you see regards the additional filters, or at least a hint in the right direction with a little more detail so that one can then do some meaningful research.

Cheers LG


PS Didn't you say that there over 3,000 selections in your stats? Or were you referring to the low number of winners??

[Barny]

Once again - I see how this is helpful to you. Not to anyone else, however - especially if most of us are sceptical about this kind of approach, as you say. Will also be of limited value unless we are able to see what you see regards the additional filters, or at least a hint in the right direction with a little more detail so that one can then do some meaningful research.

Cheers LG


PS Didn't you say that there over 3,000 selections in your stats? Or were you referring to the low number of winners??
Other than mine LG, in recent times how many systems have you seen posted on here that show a POT ?? If you cannot think of any filters that are in sync with the base filters, or may be useful, then I suggest you do other things than try to put together a winning system of filters for testing. My original test showed there were 3,190 seln's. DYOR LG. Get a databse LG, then you'll not be asking for things to be handed to you on a sliver platter .....

[Lord Greystoke]

Again I say, it's an interesting post barny.

There are many profitable systems posted on here that show a decent POT - both past and present, however.

You might also note that the POT on some of these can be greatly enhanced, without always needing to scramble for additional filters. There are 2 concurrent threads running at present which might just lead to some substantial gains with some additional focus regards just the staking strategy, I feel. Threads which offer up the method, selections and stats on a daily basis for open discussion, exploration, examination etc

This might just be the very essence or attraction of this forum as I see it - regular input of new ideas or a twist on old ones, freely shared insights, mutual respect, a positive contribution where-ever possible without the need for any semblance of negativity and a touch of humanity here and there which is sadly lacking in the outside world too often, I feel.

Which is probably why I come here most days.

Regards your comments on me needing to get myself a database, do my own research or asking for something on 'a silver platter', being lazy happens to be the exact reverse of my own preferred style of thinking and doing, and also the negative flip side to the very best contributions I have seen on here to date (and there have been many)

Just my thoughts.


Cheers LG

[Barny]

[QUOTE=Lord Greystoke]There are many profitable systems posted on here that show a decent POT - both past and present, however.


[QUOTE]

You've asked me many questions and I've responded.

My turn.

Please post 4 systems from the past (I ask for 4 because that's how many I've posted recently) and I'll run them through my database and test them. TIA LG. I cannot test anything to do with newspaper polls or ratings etc ..... Just straight out data, and there's plenty to choose from LG, I'm sure you wont have a problem finding them.

[Lord Greystoke]

No problem barny - happy to address any questions from you where mutual respect has been established. Also happy to provide a blast from the past for starters, even though it's well past my bed time now...

1. Top Don Scott rated
2. Top CP
3. Top Neural (default)
4. > Barrier 5 (from memory)

The well-respected contributor suggested it might be the basis for a winning system at the time I seem to remember, and he gave it away freely (if somewhat 'unexpectedly'). Note that he included the key filters without deriding the rest of us for not having the mental fortitide or elbow grease to go away and search for vital information he had withheld!

Good night.

LG

PS It would seem that apart from yourself - others here have read, recorded and tested some of the 'winning systems' freely contributed. (My spreadsheet numbers north of 50 lines).

[Barny]

You didn't read my post correctly LG

"I cannot test anything to do with newspaper polls or ratings etc"

I think you'll find that a lot of the purely form based systems posted on here a while ago (a fair while ago) were from an extremely friendly database ...... they were pumped out like sausages and I couldn't get any of them into the profit, let alone the massive POT's that were claimed.

[UselessBettor]

Just a thought

Perhaps the systems LG talks about are profitable because those systems which are not able to be tested easily by everyone (those who buy software) do not have masses of people testing against them.

This is why I think personal ratings have a chance to get some good selections and make a profit if done correctly.

[UselessBettor]

I think you'll find that a lot of the purely form based systems posted on here a while ago (a fair while ago) were from an extremely friendly database ...... they were pumped out like sausages and I couldn't get any of them into the profit, let alone the massive POT's that were claimed.
Are you testing the same period? If not then perhaps the findings were valid for that point in time that they were tested. I can find profitable systems that worked today but may not work tomorrow.

Also it could be that they were profitable for an extended period of time but as showin in "Winning without Thinking" if there are trends which are profitable it is only a matter of time before others find them and the system loses its edge (odds start dropping but same strike rate).

An example of this would be the ratings for tatts. The 100 raters win a huge number of races but those ratings are so overrated that they are usually over bet.

[Lord Greystoke]

I think you'll find that a lot of the purely form based systems posted on here a while ago (a fair while ago) were from an extremely friendly database ...... they were pumped out like sausages and I couldn't get any of them into the profit, let alone the massive POT's that were claimed.

You do an injustice to one of the greatest thinkers / punters to have graced this forum to date. But you couldn't have knowingly done that unless you had come across this little gem from 'the horse's mouth'. Seems like you missed this one, it being one of his many great contributions here imho. This puzzles me given that I was under the impression from your rhetoric that you had noted all of the great 'winning systems' freely provided on here?

Not sure he would have enjoyed the reference to pumping out "sausages" either.

LG


PS Thanks for this and many other great contributions, Wesmip1

[Barny]

Your being mischevious. I was not referring to Wesmip1 LG, as he did not pump out systems like sausages.

I've read all the posters on here many times and know their work far more intimately than you possibly could.

Let's not go tit for tat, eh, it's grubby.

[Lord Greystoke]

Interesting point barny.

I think you may have missed the mark here, however - you have obviously not read wesmip1 as 'intimately' as I have.

LG

[Barny]

Interesting point barny.

I think you may have missed the mark here, however - you have obviously not read wesmip1 as 'intimately' as I have.

LG
YOU were the one who assumed it was he who pumped out systems like sausages LG, not me ..... sigh

[Lord Greystoke]

I've read all the posters on here many times and know their work far more intimately than you possibly could.



My point stands, barny.

There is no monopoly on 'intimate knowledge' in here. When you make an assumption as to what someone else has or hasn't read, recorded, tested on here.. you reveal a fundamental 'blind spot' and lack of respect for others.

Given that you have missed one of Wesmip1's finest contributions would seem to indicate that you have not read everything here, let alone the shortlist of highly respected contributors.

An end to this conversation now, perhaps?

LG

[Barny]

I think you'll find that a lot of the purely form based systems posted on here a while ago (a fair while ago) were from an extremely friendly database ...... they were pumped out like sausages and I couldn't get any of them into the profit, let alone the massive POT's that were claimed.
LG, how you can twist things is a great skill you have. Politics is calling you .....

No where did I mention wesmip1, nowhere. You used this posters name first time.

I've been posting systems that show a POT, which is the essence of this forum. The systems I've posted can be used as the basis of more productive system, or can be tested to see if the figures stand up.

There's just no point posting systems when I get canned by you and moeee as soon as it hits the board.