No place2win.........pure coincidence.........this was the last thread that I was reading. I had considered stating this on a new thread but was too lazy. I now wish I had. Again, no offence intended to anyone.

While I don't agree with you about the systems being useless, the thought occurred to me, with all these "winning-profit turning" sytems around, how come anyone is losing money anymore?

Or am I mistaken and everyone is a winner?
Just curious.

Perhaps we should remember that these are backfitted systems and thus not proven to win. They are indicators at best I would have thought.

Only the real time betting can sort the wheat from chaff.

True, they are backfitted but since we do not have access to any "future" data, we have to make do with back fitting.

I have no problem at all with looking at past performance to predict future outcomes, I do it all the time but I draw the line at torturing data to submit and yield preconceived results.

to wit, if one slavishly follows the line of say "last start winner" regardless of the last race class and other parameters pertaining to that race, then that is "backfitting" and most of the time it will fail.

I think it's pretty good that people are having a go at systems.
As long as there is accurate data and logic to back it up.
Unfortunately amongst the decent efforts we have "try this" or systems made up with innaccurate data.
There's no hope of it making a profit.

This is not directed at P2W, just an observation on other threads.

The whole exercise is pointless if the data is wrong to start with or it's guess work, or there are two many irrational filters.

Is it not true that these days Banks are using expect systems with past data variables to issue future loans to consumers. This technology has stopped defaults dramatically. Much of the Australian data is however limited and bought from overseas. If you have enough data, there is no reason why backfiltering won't work. Many will disagree, but hey, opinions are opinions.

It is true that banks, insurance companies, advertising agencies, governments, ratings agencies, federal and state police all use data from relatively small sample sizes.

Scientists also use databases as part of their arsenal now.

I have seen many illogical and unfounded conclusions to the data they use.

But the major difference is they use this data to limit risk, rather than base all their profit on thought up filters.

Its funny how some folk use the word "Back fitting " as a derogatory word.

If someone put forward a system with a proven failure rate over the last 150 bets , would anyone want to put real money on it.?

I very much doubt it.

Back data is all we can go on to start with, because the future is not available.

One could argue that using rules like "must have run in last 7 days" as back fitting so as to show a profit.

Example
Neural std setting - Top selection
Must have run within 7 days.

These rules show an excellent profit according to the UB system checker.
If you can get it to work now.

Bhagwan,

The seven days rule is used by Read and Bartholemew in their ratings.
It's something that improves strike rate and POT, so it's logical.
It's also a well known fact among trainers that some horses do better with less time between runs, especially fully grown older types who otherwise can "train off".

Not intended to be derogatory by me Bhags. Backfitting is what pays all my bills.

I'm just saying a working system ain't a working system until it's done the real life test.