Very interesting, you have happening something like what I have in mind. I believe that essentially there are only a few key areas of difference in any system. Form (meaning events that have happened in the past), betting (meaning what people think in the now) and of course predictions (the selections that are going to happen in the future). This is all bound by the wagering methods.

I doubt that backing a tipsters 2nd selections is really a system based on my analogy above, however it might yield good results depending on the wagering method.

I also believe that a system may indeed have a high incidents of selecting winners and that you can still lose because of unsound wagering principles.

Be that as it may, a dynamic system appeals to me because it has the sense of amalgamating all the factors above (past, present & future) into one 'living' system that by its dynamic nature could be the source of some highly remarkable selections.

I wouldn't want my system to come up with every favourite (as was mentioned earlier by a poster), if that was all the system was yielding me, I might as well dump it and buy a race book with tips in it.

The dynamic system appeals to me because of the sense of taking the latest possible information and crunching it at speeds that humans can't. In this sense I definitely feel that I would have an advantage. I am not frowning on experience and gut feeling as recorded earlier but a computer takes the sentiment out and relies on pure data. There is an old saying, garbage in garbage out, an old programmers saying. It has the reverse sense also, meaning that the quality of your input will directly equate to your output, quality data in, quality selections out.

You still need to figure out how to back them, that's another part of the total program, but I sure wish I could hear more about your idea of a dynamic system, without revealing too much of course :-)

Tailwag