I checked Crash's published selections from the start to last Wed and then worked them out for myself and bet on them after that. My figures are similar to his.

Could be a good idea. You are to be congratulated for this little gem.

Thanks jacfin, hope you make plenty more on it and doesn't bomb out anytime soon. Good luck to anyone else following the system too.

CANTERBURY [heavy 9] ?
The selections there were [before price assessment]:
3/8 [9.90w 4.20p]
4/7,8,9
5/7
6/11

Sticking with your wet track theory. It improved the system.

It's nice to now only see posts discussing the actual system and its results.

Yes, very pleasing , particularly as the two selns in CY4 ( No 7 was not on the minimum ) ran 1st and 3rd.
I'm also pleased to see the posts getting back on topic.

I'm pleased to see it back on topic too. One accounting mistake and the thread became ablaze but not about the system. With almost 4,000 hits on the thread, I really didn't want to abandon it, as obviously a heck of a lot of punters were getting something out of it. Good for them. Ironicaly, I have seen more prices drift than firm.

A few winners today [Unitab]:
$9.90w
$7.30w
$4.50w
$4.00w
and 3 bets still to go at Ascot;
7/7
8/12,14

Cheers.

We are keeping a close watch now. Also don't forget to press that red triangle should any post break the Forum Terms of Use.

Thank you.

Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!! :) (in no way suggesting anything deliberate, just perhaps a shade of carelessness at the end of a working day)

Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following :

26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)

28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)

3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)

4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)

7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)

AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of :

26th March - Bunbury 5/5, Chelt 2/6, Sand 3/8, Sand 6/16

etc, etc...

Having said all that I do understand that some of the above only became non selections after Crash added to or amended several rules - so some of these were true selections at time of writing but need to be adjusted for if you want an accurate assessment of the final system. If you don't want to bother with these sort of details then go with what you have got.

Previously I posted that I expected this system to be a substantial loser long term. I have had another look at it and the figures are not nearly as bad as I first thought. Will probably show a loss but would benefit from further pruning.

Couple of comments :

- this would be a very low strike rate system and if followed to the letter will try the patience of all but the most dedicated (and well organised) of systemites.

- it's easy enough doing this analysis post race but in practice using something like an arbitrary $51 cut off is going to drive you crazy in the long run. e.g. you let one go because its $56 at the jump but it then comes out and wins the race after firming up to $48 after final pools are calculated.

Not meaning to have a go at Crash as he has obviously taken a lot of time in checking and posting the results in good faith but just trying to point out the need to check everything out for yourself before getting too carried away.

Wunfluova said: "Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!!"

Creative accounting on my part [again] I suppose?

I'm NOT cooking the books. This system's results are easy to check [already checked and agreed with by another poster] from day one and I don't appreciate the innuendo [again] of misrepresenting the results of this system.