6th October 2012, 09:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,091
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord Greystoke
Interesting post, barny
I found it an interesting contribution in that you...
(1) put fwd the basis of a winning system
(2) then highlighted a "miserable" POT
(3) aluded to some potential via "the right filters"
(4) and posted the stats i.e. a large number of selections and few winners
(5) then you rejected your own system because it's "too close to the bone"
Are you able to explain:
a. how this is the basis of a winning system ?
b. why you have put fwd an argument that both confirms and denies the underlying premise, several times ??
Cheers LG
|
In answer to your points LG (1) the result of my database (2) Fact (3) Someone could use filters to make this more profitable (4) Yes, once again facts (5) Yes
a. Because it has 3 rules which someone could improve on b. I have the ability to see both sides of an argument ..... it keeps my eyes open to all possibilities ..... the possibility that I could be wrong, and that would cost me money !! |