Thanks for the reply LG and not to dismissing as a 'Try hard "

I have been a punter for a long time and have always had an interest in systems. Now, I realize and have read what Gary Crispe has stated that they are not a system and are a another helpful tool in our journey.

Now, I may be missing the point that you and others are trying to tell me. I appreciate all your efforts, so if I appear to still not " get it' please do not give up.

I have seen some value in them and I believed with my additional filters they were working well. But, when I realized how they fluctuated, it made me think why I was having some success when the goal posts kept shifting.

Then unfairly to R&S Neurals I was starting to think that they were like a coat tugger at the races giving ten different tips to ten different people at the races and asking for 10% of the winnings.

I just could not see where the consistency was. I know I can be a bit stubbon and thick at times but I am questioning how something could be useful when the orders keep changing.

However, if their was someway of removing some of the more widely fluctuating factors Maybe I could and will try to work around it.

I am also thinking that their are some factors that are inbuilt that do not appear in the selection criteria. eg. I having been playing around with it and changing things as ( garyf ) from here suggested.

I then put everything on an " O " and did not expect any result because, in my mind, the result should have been null and void. But that was not the case.

eg One random race on Nil settings had 4 625 9 (10) (11) 93718

Another had: 5 6 (12) (11) (10) 7 1 etc.

So, to jme, it looks like their are some basic criterai built in that we cannot adjust, so, if we get a scratching, jockey notificatiojn change, track condition changes or whatever variables, we cannot give our own assesment to reduce the variables that appear to fluctuate the outcomes.

In other words, my thinking is maybe we are not comparing apples with apples, so the results are final figures are worked out on can give us no confidence of repeatability because to me their is no one set defined standard that we can work off.

Probably, what I have written is as clear as mud. Yet despite this my system seems to muddle through it and where a few horses might change and I might miss one or two I am sure on the swings and round abouts I pick up others that had just a good a chance as well.

Hence my original thread " Looking for value "

Keep trying to help.. Thanks

Star