It's not the years in the database, it's the number of winners used for this system.
A case in point is the huge difference in Sydney results, and where would one be after jumping on Melbourne???
It seems that some people are happy to accept things without question or proof, just because other people do.
I have previously pointed out problems with the files you use, but unfortunately it has not been taken in the spirit in which this advice was offered, instead aspersions have been made as to the accuracy of my data.
I know my data is accurate, because I do a lot more than hit the "import" button and blindly take it for granted. My data goes through mechanical and manual interrogation on a regular basis to identify things such as:
- Sunline is listed as having no career prizemoney at one of her starts after winning numerous G1's.
- TAB numbers are incorrect in more races than I care to mention here.
- Races are missing or chopped off.
- Horses are listed as running in the wrong races etc etc etc.
Therefore anyone analysing data is going to get vastly different results to what is reality.
All this has been addressed in my database, so let's not delve into comparing who has the best without running the same analyses that go into making up an
accurate database.
Quote:
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.
|
The point is not that you have bolters in there, the problem is that only 4 of them make up the profit!
In essence, look at it this way - you are pinning your hopes on one horse per year to provide all the profit for that year - and a bolter at that.