Crash/Moderators,

I wasn't going to reply further on this subject but feel I need to correct Crash's lack of comprehension of what I have posted. I will make a few points and this will be my last post on the matter.

******************************************

Firstly, I never used the words "massive loss". Crash, you appear to have injected this phrase into your posts on several occasions for dramatic effect.

My actual words were "This system is throwing up some nice priced winners but long term will prove a substantial loser"

I thought I had corrected my error in my latest post when I said "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"

- Crash, you have obviously decided to ignore this correction.

**********************************************

Also, my previous post was directed to jacfin where I said :

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

and also :

"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"

- Crash, you also appear to have conveniently overlooked this part of my post when you 'corrected some of my mistakes' at the beginning of this thread.

***********************************

As regards the following part of my post as corrected by your good self :

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

"26th March - Bunbury 5/5" [False:no winning claim ever made,the horse didn't place], "Chelt 2/6" [False: the horse was on min. and was 3rd up $4.50p], "Sand 3/8" [False: horse never placed and was on min], Sand 6/16 [False: Horse never placed and was on min.].

- You have totally missed the point. These were four actual system selections that were missed from your selections on just the first day of your results.

My "etc, etc...." was meant to convey that there were more actual qualifiers that you failed to include in your results on other days that I considered it pointless to list.

I hope you can appreciate the implication of 'missed bets' (whether winning or losing) from your results summary.

So you don't have to go searching the other thread - these were your posted selections from the first day of system operations :

Bunbry
7/13 x
8/10 x
CHELTENHAM PARK
5/4 [$1.80p]
6/9,10,11 [9 $15.20p]
7/8 x
8/10 x
IPSWICH
4/4 x
5/8 x
7/9,14 [14 $3.40p]
SANDOWN-HILLSIDE
6/15 $30.80w $7.50p

You will notice that none of my above four mentioned horses (which you have confirmed by your corrections to be system qualifiers) appear in your results above, as posted.

************************************

This is part of my previous post with your 'corrections' added, and again you have totally missed the boat :

"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!)". False: No.1 was on 64kg. All other horses where on 63kg. and it was not a dead heat [4,12,7].

The 4/4 above refers to the date, 4th April, and has nothing to do with the race or horse number. Your return serve of :

"False: No.1 was on 64kg. All other horses where on 63kg. and it was not a dead heat [4,12,7]."

- is referring to race 4 whereas the horse I actually referred to was number 1 in race 5 on 4th April - hence - "4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat "

- this was not a result 'manufactured' by me but was extracted from your results posting of this days results as follows:

MOONEE VALLEY
5/1 $12.50 [dead heat] $6.20p

-This was your reported system result for this race - I was trying (in vain it appears) to suggest that the top weight in race 5, Tab no. 1 could hardly have been a system qualifier as it obviously fails the qualification of being on the minimum weight!

*****************************************

If I missed the part in the long thread where you decided to include slow and heavy tracks in the system rules after starting off with :

1. Good or Dead tracks only

- then I sincerely apologise for my error.

That is all I have to say on this matter.

Regards,
Wunfluova.