29th September 2005, 09:34 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 45
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by darkydog2002
Couldn't agree more on keeping it simple.
In my experience complicated methods invariably lead to short priced favourites.
Cheers.
darky.
|
That's an interesting point. I would assume that the more factors you have in your system, the more you eliminate contenders and end up with fewer selections and usually short priced favourites. However, on the other hand, if you were mindful of having a wide range on each factor that would permit a greater number of selections at possibly higher prices. it seems that the range or scope of each factor should be wider than I first thought.
For example; say a horse has not won in its last 4 starts, added to the other criteria in the system, would yield a certain result. If you widen that factor to say a horse has not won in its last 8 starts, you would have the effect of altering your number of selections i.e. increase your choices. Naturally this works in both directions.
So, the point from the thread in recent replies would best be summarised like this: Keep the number of factors down to a minimum (simple), and of those selected factors, have a wider range so that you permit a greater number of selections through at potentially higher prices than always churning out the short priced favourites.
Thanks
Tailwag
|