One For Barny

[darkydog2002]

Follow for 5 Runs Only and from a spell.

1st 2 Runs = 00

3rd Run = 2 - 4

Bet next 2 Runs

I call this one "The Super Dooper Knock out Horses"

[Vortech]

Could look the goods for a good stayer fresh into the campaign and probably needs a few career starts.

Sometimes these horses early in the campaigns leading up to the target race can surprise.

[Lord Greystoke]

Hmmm.. a nice 2 step shuffle?

1. Can win = talent
2. Less favoured = value

1-2.. gold buckle my shoe

LG

PS last time 'is lordship had a pair of these, the missus knived one of em so had to bin the other... pretty much downhill from there!

[Vortech]

Might be why you miss those straight putts allowing for the break

[darkydog2002]

Its surprising that a post like Barnys can trigger such a system to develop.
The beauty of the Forum I suppose.

[Barny]

Not too good darky. Ist run shows a LOT of 27%, 2nd run shows a LOT of 6%, 3rd run shows a LOT of 34%. I'm unable to go back any further. Will have a look at Metro only, career starts of say 8 to 21 (the sarge's recommendation), SP $4 to $30, but it doesn't look promising although it sounded promising.

Will get back to you.

[Barny]

With the filters added ..... 1st run LOT 37%, 2nd run POT of 31%, 3rd run POT of 12%. The filters, logical ones, turned two of the runs, esp the 3rd run (a LOT of 34%) from a loss to a Profit !!!! I'll have a bit of a fiddle and get back to you. The 1st run showing a LOT is surely on the back of the 2nd to 4th placing at it's last start. What you've proposed here darky is not too dissimilar to my system, and you're showing a POT in at least 2 runs !!

[Barny]

Just concentrating on the 3rd run we've followed this horse after it's form of spell - zip - zip - placed 2nd to 4th ..... adding the filter must have run at Metro in it's previous run (stick to city class horses) increases the POT to 39%. So for the first two runs that we've followed darky's horse, we don't care how it ran or where it was placed.

I Like it ..... This concept is very promising indeed. I love it where traditional form is thrown out the window.

Well done darkydog2002 !!

[Barny]

Might be why you miss those straight putts allowing for the break
It's called "freezing over the putt" Vortech, now enough of that, just thinking about it gives me the shakes !!!!!, please don't take offence, but could I politely ask you to b-u-g-g-e-r off and stop tormenting me !! ;)

[Vortech]

Darky if you read between the lines you get an insight into Barnys magic filters!!!

Barny - playing golf off a handicap of 1 it all comes down to those putts. The key is to practice holding the putter with the left hand only. The right hand gives support only.

[Try Try Again]

Well done darkydog2002 and Barny,

It just goes to show that if we work together instead of "baiting" each other mountains can be moved!

So from the "rules" if Bolton (M7#5) runs 2nd to 4th tomorrow we would follow it for its next few runs. Its form is s00 so tomorrow would be its 3rd run from a spell and tomorrows run would be at a Metro track.

It's funny how sometimes the simplest rules can be so confusing to some people (me?).

OMG - only one more post and I'm going hit triple figures!

[SpeedyBen]

With the filters added ..... 1st run LOT 37%, 2nd run POT of 31%, 3rd run POT of 12%. The filters, logical ones, turned two of the runs, esp the 3rd run (a LOT of 34%) from a loss to a Profit !!!! I'll have a bit of a fiddle and get back to you. The 1st run showing a LOT is surely on the back of the 2nd to 4th placing at it's last start. What you've proposed here darky is not too dissimilar to my system, and you're showing a POT in at least 2 runs !!So, Barny, we apply the new rules and we lay it at its 4th run back and then back it at its 5th and 6th runs and Bob's your uncle.

[darkydog2002]

Try Try Again.
Yes thats it .Simple isn,t it?

Cheers.

[Barny]

OMG - only one more post and I'm going hit triple figures!
You hit triple figures 899 posts ago !!!

Note to self; double check anything / everything Try Try Again posts, esp anything to do with figures ...... sigh

[norisk]

lol, no flies on barny;)

[SpeedyBen]

Well done darkydog2002 and Barny,

It just goes to show that if we work together instead of "baiting" each other mountains can be moved!

So from the "rules" if Bolton (M7#5) runs 2nd to 4th tomorrow we would follow it for its next few runs. Its form is s00 so tomorrow would be its 3rd run from a spell and tomorrows run would be at a Metro track.

It's funny how sometimes the simplest rules can be so confusing to some people (me?).

OMG - only one more post and I'm going hit triple figures!Bolton has had 24 starts so, if I understand the rules, that would disqualify him even if he ran 2-4 tomorrow. Is that correct, Barny?

[Barny]

Bolton has had 24 starts so, if I understand the rules, that would disqualify him even if he ran 2-4 tomorrow. Is that correct, Barny?
All I did was put in a few filters to see if we could get darky's concept into profit. Darky's original system would have Bolton in if he ran 2-4 tomorrow, but with my restriction on career starts Bolton wouldn't be there.

[darkydog2002]

Thanks Barny.

[Try Try Again]

Here it is number 1000!

Barny you are absolutely right - as I said even the simplest things can trip a person up! So please double check my figures and feel free to pick me up on any mistakes - otherwise how am I going to learn.

Norisk - No flies on Barny because they're all on me!!

[darkydog2002]

Interestingly fellers whenever I,ve posted anything "outside the square" I,ve been given a "holiday".
Wonder how long I,ll get this time.?

[Barny]

This could be shot down as backfitting (but it's not), but I actually came up with this by mistake, an error in number of runs from a spell ..... but the theme of this thread is evident.


Rules
1st run back from a spell - anywhere
2nd run back from a spell - Fin between 2 and 9 over less than 1201m
3rd back from a spell - Fin between 2 and 9 over less than 1401m
4th run back from a spell - Fin anywhere over a distance of > 1400m
SP between $4 and $30
Career starts 8 to 21 (tks sarge)
Career wins >2
Metro horse

BTW Fin between 2 and 9 is one of my standard filters, so this is NOT backfitted. Career starts is one of sarge's good filters and again it's NOT backfitted. SP $4 to $30 as above, NOT backfitted. Metro horse weeds out the rubbish and is standard, NOT backfitted. Career wins >2 is standard, NOT backfitted ..... and they're not 5 of my 6 specials Vortech, some are tho'.

So we've got a horse that's had 4 runs this time in, increasing in distance, and we don't care where it finished first up, or at it's last start. There's no way I'm going to reveal the POT, but suffice to say it's good. AND it's consistent with what I posted in my system where I had a POT at all runs, then in a couple of darky's systems where the POT was OK / Decent when backing / following a horse a few runs in.

So, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but the concept of following a horse that's shown something, has improvement left in it, seems to have merit.

[Barny]

Runs since spell = 4
SP between $4 and $30
Career starts 8 to 21 (tks sarge)
Career wins >2
Metro horse

1st run back from a spell - <1201m
2nd run back crom a spell - < 1401m
3rd run back from a spell - > 1599m

So, there's no "form" (ie; finished 2nd, or 3rd beaten 2 lengths etc carried 54kgs, blah, blah, blah) - ONLY an increase in distance

4th run back from a spell ..... we don't care !!!!!!!!!! lol !!!! We just don't give a fat rats clacker !!!!!

And it shows a POT of 11% on a S/R of 15% ..... You mightn't like it, but there's no form involved. I DO like it, it's similar to my best system ..... and you can test this dudes !!!!!, and the place results are even better YOLO !!!!!!!

[Barny]

Sincere apologies to the Form Students and Ratings Disciples ..... NOT !!

Bwahahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) ;)

[mattio]

This could be shot down as backfitting (but it's not), but I actually came up with this by mistake, an error in number of runs from a spell ..... but the theme of this thread is evident.


Rules
1st run back from a spell - anywhere
2nd run back from a spell - Fin between 2 and 9 over less than 1201m
3rd back from a spell - Fin between 2 and 9 over less than 1401m
4th run back from a spell - Fin anywhere over a distance of > 1400m
SP between $4 and $30
Career starts 8 to 21 (tks sarge)
Career wins >2
Metro horse

BTW Fin between 2 and 9 is one of my standard filters, so this is NOT backfitted. Career starts is one of sarge's good filters and again it's NOT backfitted. SP $4 to $30 as above, NOT backfitted. Metro horse weeds out the rubbish and is standard, NOT backfitted. Career wins >2 is standard, NOT backfitted ..... and they're not 5 of my 6 specials Vortech, some are tho'.

So we've got a horse that's had 4 runs this time in, increasing in distance, and we don't care where it finished first up, or at it's last start. There's no way I'm going to reveal the POT, but suffice to say it's good. AND it's consistent with what I posted in my system where I had a POT at all runs, then in a couple of darky's systems where the POT was OK / Decent when backing / following a horse a few runs in.

So, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but the concept of following a horse that's shown something, has improvement left in it, seems to have merit.Sorry but I have to disagree with here Barny, all bar the Metro filter is backfitted regardless of whether you say they are one of your standard filters or not.

Before you jump up and down and get defensive probably 90% of all system filters are backfitted in some way and if it works for you then great but don't kid yourself by saying that those filters aren't "backfitted".

[Vortech]

Mattio - Can backfitting work long-term?

[darkydog2002]

Hi Barny,
All these little "Systemettes" are fun but I,ll still stick to form and ratings.

But in saying that and it is approaching Xmas after all I,ll add the "World Famous " to" Partys Plum Movers" on "Good TC and hope for a excellent result.

Ho Ho Ho

[mattio]

Good question Vortech - it depends on the type of filters and the extent of the backfitting. Backfitting in some form or another is present in ALL systems otherwise how else does a system get developed? You back test certain filters, analyse the results and make adjustments then you back test again - this is how a system is developed. I prefer to tailor the results to suit the filters as opposed to tailoring the filters to suit the results.

What I mean by that is working with filters that I know are quality filters (based on backtesting - there's that word again) and then making adjustments around that. What alot of people do which I believe is the wrong way to go is that they manupulate filters to suit their results and end up with filters of this nature:

- days last start 9-37 (no logic here but it suits the results)
- last start finish 2-9 (not knocking Barny specifically here but why look at a horse that finished 9th last start especially when you have no idea of the margins)
- win percentage 23-82 (again no logic here but it suits the results)

These are just a few examples but there are many more. If I were using these types of filters (and I do) I would go about it in this way:

- days last start 7-21 (or something of this nature, you know the horse is likely to have a good level of residual fitness and the days are a logical number)
- last start finish 1-3 or 4+ (this depends on the type of system I am doing, one that looks for consistent horses would be 1-3 and one to find value horses would be 4+ but I would generally use this in conjunction with a margins filter)
- win percentage 30-100 (this is far more logical and not tailored around results)

Again these are just a few examples but I believe it all comes down to the individual being honest with themselves about why they are including a certain filter. If there is no logic about a filter that adds value then I suggest it will fail longterm but if the filter has logic (real logic, not punter's logic) then I suggest it has a chance of working longterm.

Here is a system that I use, I have added a couple of extra filters but here are the base filters:

7 days to last start
No change in distance
No change in weight
No change in prizemoney
Same track as last start

Basically this system is looking at horses racing under similar conditions to last start backing up after 7 days. It is a simple system with simple and logical filters that finds some great value winners with an acceptable strike rate and average price winner around $10.

Just my thoughts on another issue to is the definition of "longterm". I don't test back any further than 2010 due to the changing nature of the industry and the distasterous effect of EI in 2007 which I believe still had consequences up until 2009 and even early in 2010. I have found that many systems have a drastic change in results when testing beyond 2010.

[evajb001]

Basically what mattio is saying is if say one of your filters is a horse must have a winning % above 23.37% then you've clearly backfitted to get the 'best' result. However if your filter is it has to be above 20% or 25% then thats not so bad as your using general numbers and not backfitting to a precise number.

[norisk]

pretty much the way I approach thing mattio, good post, if one cannot logically explain why a filter 'appears' to work, it's probably backfitting.

[evajb001]

EDIT: Which is why a lot of the systems posted on here aren't really worth 2 pinches of salt to be bluntly honest. A lot of them have been clearly backfitted when you have 10 filters that produce 70 selections since 2009 with a POT of 50%, blatant backfitting if you ask me.

Would much prefer something that has 5 filters with 1000 selections since 2009 and a POT of 30%. Obviously there are other things at play like strike rate that may adjust whether your comfortable with a system or not, but you get the drift.

Note: Not having a dig at Barny's system in this thread though, I think it has real merit, i'm just talking in general.

[mattio]

My post was not to attack Barny either as he does spark some good debate and has different views and ideas, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about the term "backfitting" and what constitutes backfitting and what doesn't.

[Vortech]

Thats a very good summary of the use of filters.

I think with a lot of data even going back past 2009 you can can a good feel for the strike rate of two variables.

For example - not knowing the stats but if in the last 2 years the favourites are winning at 35% but over the last 50 years favourites win at 33% one might think that with limited data the 35% is the common trend.

Some punters like to look over particular tracks and distances and see if particular running styles have an advantage from particular barriers and rail positions. If you only have 2 years of data you might only get 100 selections. Over 12 years you have 600 selections - giving you more of a idea long-term.

I suppose its a personal thing and what you are trying to achieve.

I think with Barny's approaches and the higher POT approach you would need more data to get a more realistic idea of the long term profit.

Anyhow - off to see if my $1000 propun horse gets me the cash today.

[darkydog2002]

Hi Vortech,
I,ll have a bet on it.
Thanks.

[Barny]

Sorry but I have to disagree with here Barny, all bar the Metro filter is backfitted regardless of whether you say they are one of your standard filters or not.

Before you jump up and down and get defensive probably 90% of all system filters are backfitted in some way and if it works for you then great but don't kid yourself by saying that those filters aren't "backfitted".Can't disagree mattio, any system filters, including Ratings could be classified as backfitted ..... That's why my favourite system is following a horse.

What's the 10% ????

[Barny]

Basically what mattio is saying is if say one of your filters is a horse must have a winning % above 23.37% then you've clearly backfitted to get the 'best' result. However if your filter is it has to be above 20% or 25% then thats not so bad as your using general numbers and not backfitting to a precise number.can't agree evajb001, you using "perception" to kid yourself that you're not backfitting.

[mattio]

Can't disagree mattio, any system filters, including Ratings could be classified as backfitted ..... That's why my favourite system is following a horse.

What's the 10% ????The 10% is just a number mate, its probably closer to 1% because every filter is essentually the result of a back test. What I would consider to be filters that fall in that category are things like Metro run last start, no claiming apprentices, winner at the track/distance, no first up horses. I try to develop systems that find good horses with good jockeys that are proven at the track and distance with very few surprises in the race. Unfortunatley I am still looking for the ideal system but I have a few that make a consistent profit so I can't complain.

I like your idea of following a horse, in fact there are horses that you can follow literally every start and they will make you a good profit - especially under certain conditions.

[darkydog2002]

Well Bolton ran nowhere.
Ah well another one might come up in a year or so eh Barn.

Cheers

[Vortech]

[QUOTE=darkydog2002]Well Bolton ran nowhere.
Ah well another one might come up in a year or so eh Barn.

Cheers[/QUOTE

A similar system I use DD you might like

conservatorium Ascot 5. At value worth a crack if your up like me for the day!

[Barny]

The 10% is just a number mate, its probably closer to 1% because every filter is essentually the result of a back test. What I would consider to be filters that fall in that category are things like Metro run last start, no claiming apprentices, winner at the track/distance, no first up horses. I try to develop systems that find good horses with good jockeys that are proven at the track and distance with very few surprises in the race.
mattio, You're just plain inconsistent when you suggest that some of my filters are backfitted (or whatever term you want), then you put up a couple of your own filters which are apparently not backfitted like track and distance winner. How is that particular filter different to me restricting my betting between $4 and $30 for instance ? There's no logic at all in what you say. My career runs of between 8 and 21 starts, I've been usuing for a ling, long time and it's designed to get a horse that may still have imporvement left in it ..... you "c" and "d" is designed to get a horse that can handle the track and distance, yet your filter is "pure" whereas mine is backfitted, and implied as useless ?? Geoff Murphy never bet on hids horses if they were less tha 4 / 1 ($5.00), because he knew with his S/R he could win this way. Ity's lucky for him he didn't know he was backfitting !?

..... and then you've got no first uppers !! Nope, no logic there at all mattio, you just reckong your filters are the bees knees, that's it.

[Barny]

mattio, I just ran your system

Last run Metro
Won "d" and "t"
No first uppers

Ran it for the last five runs, two categories that it's last run / 2nd last run / 3rd last run / 4th last run / 5th last run was either 1-4 placed or 4-24 placed. For the five runs the 1-4 placed show a LOSS of between 16% & 17%, quite consistent. for the 4-24 placed it show a LOSS of between 21% & 24%.

There's no coming back from there ......

Problem is mattio, that everyone else is on the same nags, have been doing so / making the same mistake for yonks, and will continue to do so. That's why those of us who chase divvies are smiling at those of you who look for Win S/R.

[Barny]

mattio, I note that you said you're still looking for the ideal system. "Is it possible that you're so close to the industry that your thinking is "blinkered" (pardon the pun!), and skewed to placement of horses, and optimising conditions for your horse to perform at it's best ..... that you've completely disregarded the notion that dividends are crucial, and the better dividends come from going against the crowd (within reason of course), and the lousy dividends come from following the crowd?"

[Vortech]

At the end of the day Mattio is making money. Thats the name of the game.

[mattio]

mattio, You're just plain inconsistent when you suggest that some of my filters are backfitted (or whatever term you want), then you put up a couple of your own filters which are apparently not backfitted like track and distance winner. How is that particular filter different to me restricting my betting between $4 and $30 for instance ? There's no logic at all in what you say. My career runs of between 8 and 21 starts, I've been usuing for a ling, long time and it's designed to get a horse that may still have imporvement left in it ..... you "c" and "d" is designed to get a horse that can handle the track and distance, yet your filter is "pure" whereas mine is backfitted, and implied as useless ?? Geoff Murphy never bet on hids horses if they were less tha 4 / 1 ($5.00), because he knew with his S/R he could win this way. Ity's lucky for him he didn't know he was backfitting !?

..... and then you've got no first uppers !! Nope, no logic there at all mattio, you just reckong your filters are the bees knees, that's it.Barny you can use whatever filters you want for as ling or as long as you want mate, like I said this post was not to have a go at your filters. My goal for the post was to make people aware that basically all filters are a result of some kind of backfitting and to say that a filter is not backfitted is not true because "backtesting" is how we come up with our filters.

As for my filters being the bees knees I am pretty sure that I never said that, they are logical and they work for me which is all that matters.......and I never once said any of them were "magical" either.

Let's look at your filter of $4 and $30.....why did you choose those numbers, why didn't you choose $5 and $25, or $4 and $20? Was it because you found that you got better results from that price bracket? That is fine, it works for you and I can't recall bagging it anywhere in my post.

Not betting in races with first up horses (or first starters) is one of the most logical filters around, there are so many possible surprises you can get from first up horses or first starters and since there are thousands of races each year I can pick and choose whatever races I like......it works for me and that is all that matters.

[mattio]

mattio, I just ran your system

Last run Metro
Won "d" and "t"
No first uppers

Ran it for the last five runs, two categories that it's last run / 2nd last run / 3rd last run / 4th last run / 5th last run was either 1-4 placed or 4-24 placed. For the five runs the 1-4 placed show a LOSS of between 16% & 17%, quite consistent. for the 4-24 placed it show a LOSS of between 21% & 24%.

There's no coming back from there ......

Problem is mattio, that everyone else is on the same nags, have been doing so / making the same mistake for yonks, and will continue to do so. That's why those of us who chase divvies are smiling at those of you who look for Win S/R.Haha, I like that you actually think those are the only filters I use and I never said I use them all in the same system. When you assume things Barny you just make an ass out of you and you :D

[Barny]

So, to sum up mattio, you've got logical filters that aren't backffited ...... can you actually hear what you're saying ??

[Barny]

Haha, I like that you actually think those are the only filters I use and I never said I use them all in the same system. When you assume things Barny you just make an ass out of you and you :DSo you only use logical filters that aren't backfitted. Examples you give are - not first up - "d" - "t" - Metro run last start. For starters, I don't for the life of me know how you can suggest "d" and "t" are not backfitted. They are part of historical data (like a lot of other filters) which we use to predict future performance .....

Your filters, you suggest represent about 1%, because as you say every other filter is a result of a back test. So to find your filters we have to look for similarities to "d" and "t" etc. Days last start ??, nah can't be as some horses back up, some need a couple of weeks off. It's too individualistic. Race Prizemoney - ??, Weight ??, Barrier - that's one of them for sure. So we're looking for at least another 2 maybe 3 filters to bring a LOT of 20% into a POT of 20% (it's gotta be that much), and filters that aren't backfitted.

The difference between filters that are backfitted, and mattio's filters that aren't backfitted is - mattio's perception of what backfitting really is. I'm actually on his side in this and having thought about what he's saying, it's exactly the same path as I'm trying to go down. I do have a few good systems, and I believe they're logical (yup they contain filters that are backfitted, but I don't change them), but I also see the sense in what mattio's trying to convey here.

[Barny]

At the end of the day Mattio is making money. Thats the name of the game.
Vortech, everyone wins the races, surely you know that.

[bernie]

Vortech, everyone wins the races, surely you know that.Or they make out they do.

[evajb001]

Barny, I don't think mattio is saying his aren't backfitted at all, he's saying the following:

If you have a bunch of data that your backtesting on that goes back say 5 years. You've added in some rules, such as the following:

Days Last Start - between (and inclusive) 5-24
Win Strike Rate - above 24.635%
Placing last start - 1
Placing 2nd last start - 5
Won at track 3 times
Won at distance 3 times

^^ Clearly the above is backfitting, your changing numbers to specifics to maximise your POT, which is great to show a high POT but the chance of that perfect storm repeating in the next 5 years is minimal at best.

Mattio (i think) is simply saying that your aim should be to have logical filters that aren't specified down to minute detail so that you avoid substantial backfitting. So in reference to the above example your filters may be this instead:

Days Last Start - between (and inclusive) 7-21 (logical as its ran on the same day previously, i.e. not starting on a saturday now and some random weekday previously)
Win Strike Rate - above 25% (obvious one, you can't backfit to a specific % its just illogical)
Placing last start - 1 (fine to leave as 1 if you want a last start winner, nothing wrong with this filter)
Placing 2nd last start - 3-x (instead of specifying it had to have finished 5th last start, it needs to be a range otherwise its again being too specific to your backfitting)
Won at track 3 times (you could possibly use this filter but i'd suggest saying won more then 3 times at track, as saying exactly 3 times is too specific again)
Won at distance 3 times (you could possibly use this filter but i'd suggest saying won more then 3 times at distance, as saying exactly 3 times is too specific again)

I think there is room to have maybe 1 filter that is more specific that gives you the edge, but as soon as you start tinkering took much its just over-backfitting too your data. I think thats all mattio is trying to get at Barny, he's not having a shot at you and neither am I, were just suggesting people are careful with how they approach creating a system.

[Barny]

evajb001, mattio picked me up on a few things, one the $4 to $30 SP. Geoff Murphy only backed his horses if they were better than $4. He figured that with his S/R he was sure to win. On this very forum, many suggest they don't bet under $4. I don't like to take short odds so $4 it is. The $30 seemed a fair cut off point too. But that wasn't good enough for mattio, this was backfitted says he. He doesn't "know" how I arrived at any of my filters or how long they have been tested and how they've been tested. One system shows a brilliant POT each and every year over 12 years in both Melb & Syd, it doesn't have many selections each year tho', so the naysayers on here will tell me it's unproven. The race type filter reduces the number of selections down quite dramatically. Another system has filters including 1-4 last 5 runs, > 2 runs since spell, SP $4 to $30 and a couple more filters ..... too many filters ?? I'm looking here for a lightly raced horse with good recent form with at least a couple of starts from a spell in the Metro Area. Don Scott says when you find a good young horse down in the weights you should bet heavily on it. This system is nothing more than putting one of Don Scotts favourite type of wagers on paper. Perhaps my best system is one that looks for overseas, interstate, NZ horses with a decent Win S/R. Mentioned this one quite a few times too and over the Spring Carnival.

mattio, I believe, as I've posted is too close to the action, and he's concentrating on giving his horses the best possible chance of winning without realising that it's the dividends that allow you to show a profit. The better divvis come from going against the crowd and the worse ones from following "won at track", "won at distance" ..... everyone is on those filters, have been for ages and will continue to do so. All that does is give you an overbet horse, no matter what other filters you put in.

[Vortech]

wesmip1 posted a good way to check the results of a system by luck or edge.

Its a good way to souce out the good from the bad filters in your system.

[mattio]

Barny, I don't think mattio is saying his aren't backfitted at all, he's saying the following:

If you have a bunch of data that your backtesting on that goes back say 5 years. You've added in some rules, such as the following:

Days Last Start - between (and inclusive) 5-24
Win Strike Rate - above 24.635%
Placing last start - 1
Placing 2nd last start - 5
Won at track 3 times
Won at distance 3 times

^^ Clearly the above is backfitting, your changing numbers to specifics to maximise your POT, which is great to show a high POT but the chance of that perfect storm repeating in the next 5 years is minimal at best.

Mattio (i think) is simply saying that your aim should be to have logical filters that aren't specified down to minute detail so that you avoid substantial backfitting. So in reference to the above example your filters may be this instead:

Days Last Start - between (and inclusive) 7-21 (logical as its ran on the same day previously, i.e. not starting on a saturday now and some random weekday previously)
Win Strike Rate - above 25% (obvious one, you can't backfit to a specific % its just illogical)
Placing last start - 1 (fine to leave as 1 if you want a last start winner, nothing wrong with this filter)
Placing 2nd last start - 3-x (instead of specifying it had to have finished 5th last start, it needs to be a range otherwise its again being too specific to your backfitting)
Won at track 3 times (you could possibly use this filter but i'd suggest saying won more then 3 times at track, as saying exactly 3 times is too specific again)
Won at distance 3 times (you could possibly use this filter but i'd suggest saying won more then 3 times at distance, as saying exactly 3 times is too specific again)

I think there is room to have maybe 1 filter that is more specific that gives you the edge, but as soon as you start tinkering took much its just over-backfitting too your data. I think thats all mattio is trying to get at Barny, he's not having a shot at you and neither am I, were just suggesting people are careful with how they approach creating a system.

Mate that is the general jist of what I was getting at, thanks for your support. Unfortunately there are people that always have to believe they know exactly what other people are thinking so that will be all I have to say on this topic - hopefully the information will be found to be useful by someone.

[TheSchmile]

The better divvis come from going against the crowd and the worse ones from following "won at track", "won at distance" ..... everyone is on those filters, have been for ages and will continue to do so. All that does is give you an overbet horse, no matter what other filters you put in.

Hi Barny,

some nice stuff in your post, however I received some 'terrible' divvies on the weekend from track and distance winners, $12 and $23 respectively.

Not all are overbet.

[Vortech]

Hi Barny,

some nice stuff in your post, however I received some 'terrible' divvies on the weekend from track and distance winners, $12 and $23 respectively.

Not all are overbet.
Barny - if you run every race on your database over the 12 years would get a loss of around 15%? not sure of the exact figure

Then using one filter of Won at Distance what is your LOT?
If its better than the result above would it mean you have an edge or is it still overbet?

[Barny]

Hi Barny,

some nice stuff in your post, however I received some 'terrible' divvies on the weekend from track and distance winners, $12 and $23 respectively.

Not all are overbet.
TheSchmile

"How do you know your $12 and $23 winners represented their true odds and were not overbet?"

.... semantics aside, you know what I'm getting at.

[evajb001]

Barny, I can't find anywhere in mattio's posts that he knocked your $4-$30 filter and personally I agree that its a fine filter. It's generalised backfitting with that filter, its not specific. What me and mattio are getting at is that it would be a less enticing filter if it was $4.75 - $29.56 because you'd backfitted it that way to increase the POT.

Your filters that you've mentioned in your post seem fine Barny, as myself and mattio were both saying (in the general sense) that filters shouldn't be specific down to decimils to increase POT, round numbers or ranges instead of specifics will mean your not backfitting too closely to something that is unlikely to repeat or at least repeat anytime soon.

Anyway I feel like my posts are going around in circles now so that enough from me.

[TheSchmile]

TheSchmile

"How do you know your $12 and $23 winners represented their true odds and were not overbet?"

.... semantics aside, you know what I'm getting at.
In short, I'm a genius Barny! ha ha :)

Sorry I do digress, a fair point you make.

On Sunday, I coupled a few 'Barny-type' factors into my minimum acceptable price. In the race with the $23 winner, the favourite was grossly overbet in my opinion and didn't run a place in a field with <9 runners.

The fav's profile:
It had a win SR of <20% and a place strike rate of <40%, was a sprinter and was running in a low class race.

I completely agree with you that one should look past the obvious when doing the form. If a horse has a 211 formline and opens at $2.50, chances are every mug in Aus will be aboard and the price will often come into unders. If the race is of low standard and the horse shows little sign of further improvement e.g. 5+ runs from a spell, this generally represents a good time to look outside the square and find a horse or two to beat the hotpot.

[rails run]

I completely agree with you that one should look past the obvious when doing the form...chances are every mug in Aus will be aboard and the price will often come into unders. BINGO TS! If you want to split from 'the herd' a logical place to start would not be an Open class race on Saturday. "Every mug" and bookie has this race firmly in focus and priced it perfectly. They have it down to a fine art.

Try playing when the mugs aren't concentrating and you can pick the $$$ notes off the floor in relative solitude.