27th November 2006, 10:32 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 243
|
|
As someone who has an understanding of statistics, a betting system purely based on automatic selection rules that has shown a profit after 435 bets has a better chance of succeeding long term, that is over thousands of bets, than a betting system that has shown a profit after just a paltry 51 bets.
Does it matter that the 435 bets are spread over three months or two years? I think not. Is the second method statistically better because the 51 bets are spread over nine months? I think not.
In addition, in the second and preferred example given below, I would know that it is a statistical fluke, as making hundreds of per cent profit in a negative expectations game in markets of 120%, which betting on horses is, is IMPOSSIBLE over the long term.
Mr. Logic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wesmip1
I just thought I would post an example on how important consistency is in system development. Here is an example of a bad system :
Month 1 : 177 Bets with a Profit 20%
Month 2 : 133 Bets with a Profit 25%
Month 3 : 125 Bets with a Profit 22%
From here a lot of people would start betting the system
Month 4 : 115 bets Loss of 5%
Month 5 : 126 bets Loss of 4%
Month 6 : 110 bets Profit of 15%
Month 7 : 150 bets Loss 50%
Month 8 : 117 bets Loss 30%
Month 9 : 105 bets loss 40%
Alternatively I also have a system that does the following :
Month 1 : 5 bets with a Profit 400%
Month 2 : 7 bets with a Profit 300%
Month 3 : 9 bets with a Profit 122%
Month 4 : 3 bets with a Profit 105%
Month 5 : 5 bets Loss of 4%
Month 6 : 5 bets with a Profit 240%
Month 7 : 6 bets with a Profit 350%
Month 8 : 4 bets with a Profit 100%
Month 9 : 5 bets with a Profit 520%
I prefer to use this system altought it doesn't have many bets becasue it is more consistent on the results. ie 8 months in profit out of 9 whereas the other is only profitable 4 out of 9 months.
I would say you need a minimum of 2 years testing before you can declare a system consisitent.
Good Luck.
|
|