So, how about this... Let's say that based on 3 months of data you come up with a system based on 3 factors; A, B and C. They could be anything such as last start winner within 7 days over less than 1400m, or any other oft talked about criteria. This is just an example, but lets say that A, B and C give you 300 selections in the 3 months with a win SR of 20% and a POT of 6%.

Then you notice that 50 of those selections had a maiden as there last start and only 5 of those backed up to win. So you add the filter that last start can't have been a maiden. You now have a win SR of 22% and a POT of 8%.

Then you notice that there were 50 of those selections that were ranked 7th or worse for place SR and only 5 of those won again. So you add a filter to consider only those ranked in the top 6 for place stike rate. You now have a Win SR of 25% and a POT of 10%, say.

Then you notice that there were 30 of those remaining selections with a win SR of less than 15%, of which only 4 won again. Add a filter that only considers horses with a win SR greater than 15%. You now have a win SR of 27% and a POT of 11%.

Then you notice that there are a further 30 selections that are outside the top 4 for neural ranking, of which only 5 won. Add a filter that only considers the top 4 neural ranked horses. You now have a win SR of 29% and a POT of 13%.

Then you notice that of the remaining 140 selections there are a further 25 that have a UniTAB rating of less than 95, of which only 5 won. Add a filter that only considers only horses rated more than 94. You now have a win SR of 31% and a POT of 14%.

Then, in a moment of inspiration, you notice that there are 20 of the remaining selections with a pre-post price of $6 or more. of which only 3 won. Filter them out and you have a win SR of 35% and a POT of 15%.

Then, in a moment akin to something that could only have been experienced before in human history by the likes of Newton, Tesla, or Eistein, you notice that there are 14 of the remaining selections that ran from barrier 11 or higher, NONE OF WHICH WON. Add a filter to consider only horses running from barrier 10 and lower.

You are left with 81 selections over 3 months and a win SR of 41% and a POT of 19%. BUT, you have 10 filters, most of which have been fitted to the existing historical data. Backfitting?

BUT, you have also only selected criteria that hones in on the best chances given your original starting point.

Yes, it's true that you are also honing in on the favourites, but with the confidence of a 41% SR...

Yes, it's true that 81 selections over 3 months isn't a lot of action, but it's hardly non-repeatable...

Can any of the more experienced punters offer comments on the above method?