21st March 2004, 03:08 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,426
|
|
Quote:
On 2004-03-20 20:22, markallan wrote:
i think that 6 months data is irrelevant. any thing can happen within that 6 month period. i prefer to use a minimum of 5 years to determine if something is going to work. this way you have looked at many thousands of selections and many, many thousands of horses. what i do agree with is your pattern of checking. i use 1997 to 2002 as my basis data for checking my concepts. if it has worked at say a 15% profit, then i check how that idea worked over the full year of 2003. if it still stacks up over that 12 month period...then i think i may be on to something.
markallan
|
markallan,
Obviously the more data you have access to, the better - a lot of people don't have 5 years data to work with, so I think becareful was giving a minimum criteria.
One thing I've been using is looking at how filters perform over various systems.
If a filter only works or improves things for one system but not another, then perhaps the increase in strike rate or POT comes from somewhere else.
One thing I have noticed, is that obvious filters and criteria do not boost POT as every "Harry" with a formguide can use this strategy. For example horses that won their last start are far less value than horses that were beaten by less than a length, similarly horses that ran a place are far less value (in general) rhan horses that ran 4th or 5th but beaten by less than 2 lengths etc.
|