Critical review of Dreamweavers is more than welcome. Before addressing some of the more specific objections allow me to point out the following.

For the 52 months under review Dreamweavers recorded a loss (over 5 units) in 18 months only, Adel lost -15 units in 2004, Bris lost -6 units in 2003, Melb lost -21 units in 2001 and -3 units in 2002. The majority of venues (including Sydney) in the majority of years recorded profit. Every year since 2001 ended in profit the worst being 2004 of +63 units PoT 18%.

Sydney lost but it was at least honourable at LoT 12% on selections >20/1 ( a subset that normally record a LoT between 25-30%).

My results go back to July 01 - thats over 4 years ago. If I accessed data from 10 years ago criticism might be rightfully made that the data was 'no longer relevant'. For the time being I'll continue to work with what I have got happy in the knowledge that the integrity of my DB is widely accepted and used everyday by many many active punters.

The 400 metre +/- objection surprises me the most. If the rule was reversed so that only select those starting beyond the 400 metre+/- threshold then I think we could seriously entertain the criticism that the rule was 'illogical'. On the contrary, it is surley extreme for a horse to race beyond 400 metres +/- (first uppers excepted) and makes perfect logical sense to eliminate such extremes from further consideration.

I plucked the min career starts at 10 so that it would corelate with the min WIN% 10%. There were three winners in the 10-15 career starts band for a loss of -138 units. I should have chosen minimum 16 starts!!

There were no wins for 40 career starts recording a loss of -27 units. I should have made it a maximum of 39 starts!! Experience tells you horses have an expired by date and the line needs to be drawn where??? Where they stop winning - so 40, 39 or whereever you think but go out and draw the line. (If I said max career starts of 39 there would have been a riot)

In answer to the longer priced winners criticism I shake my head in dismay. This is deliberately a long priced winning system where all rules, all results, and all warts are revealed for all to see. If we didn't have a few bolters in the mix we wouldn't have a system to start with. We got rid of three 100/1 pops (180 units of profit down the drain) by the < 100/1 rule. Besides, using the price filter >20/1 and < 40/1 results in:

races 674
bets 810
win 37
P/L 206 units
PoT 25.5%

I agree it would be preferable to have more than 57 winners - I read somewhere once that 100 was needed. The LLS is 96 - a long psychological stretch even for p57 to bear.

But what about minimum - 2.0 kg rule?? Surely that's where the mystery or lack of logic applies but it has failed to get a mention.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$