Crash and Feathers, good morning. This is a continuing problem with ANY system containing PP prices, ratings, tipster polls and the like (ie Unitab Picks and late mail) in their rules. But especially for systems trying to select "firmers" These assessments often differ from one another and are not CONSISTENT within themselves. The person assessing the PP odds may vary from week to week, even if it's in the same paper or on the same web-site. They may be in a hurry and not give their full attention or else HAND THE JOB TO THE OFFICE BOY. Thus, the punter is forced to depend on an inconsistent source, wondering why he's winning one week and not the next..
For example, that longish-priced one that Crash and w924 (their systems!) agreed on last Saturday, Foxy Tyra, may have fitted both using the Sydney papers and TAB but not the Qld etc etc (it didn't). Using anything like polls, expected odds and what-have-you puts you or me in the position of being "told" (one way or the other) how to direct our money by a multitude of (often) disagreeing "experts", who may NOT be experts. Likewise opening TAB odds: which TAB is the "best" guide? Is the "big money" using Unitab one day and Supertab the next??
This won't be a problem, while you're generally winning BUT as soon as the losers start appearing and you notice that some other ratings or odds-framer or TAB would've been "right" then the temptation to switch (or use them all) will grow. Soon enough the temptation to jiggle it a bit further will appear, (what about accepting 60% PP odds??) and so on. This is why there is a "system" for every factor known, both good and bad. The only consistent winning methods are those which have "fundamental" priciples underlying them, and which can be utilized without taking "the word" or "stated opinions" of others into account. My advice: avoid anything to do with PP odds, except (maybe) when looking for overs not UNDERS.. Cheers.