24th March 2005, 07:37 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,415
|
|
I'm a dedicated system player.
I'm not a form analyst.
System players look at chunks of data and determine something that works longterm. Providing there is sufficient data to support the theory, one then tests it in realtime. There is no reason that the system should fall over.
UNLESS:
Reason 1. There was not enough data to begin with.
Reason 2. The rules were so tight or so many, that it gave improper results.
Reason 3. All the profit comes from one or two winners.
I'm amazed when I see systems with more than about 5 rules maximum.
To test the validity of any rule, simply apply it on it's own and see the difference - you'll soon see that half the rules imposed on systems are more about grinding out a profit, rather than seeking one. (retrofitting).
On the other hand we have the nitpickers (oops form analysts).
They tend to disect each race, each runner, each piece of garbled form and rate or pick the best contender.
They have a far greater understanding of the mechanics of racing, but the challenge is to get value. The problem being that the public favourite will more often be their top pick than not, otherwise their analysis is wrong! (in terms of longterm results).
An analyst may be influenced by other factors, but I believe has a greater chance of picking the winner of race A than the system player, but longterm the system player has a better chance of making a profit providing his data has enough substance to it.
Don't want to stir up trouble, it's just my view.
|