15th November 2005, 04:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 45
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwaz
Hi all,
I've spent the last 4 years following the horses seriously, spending countless amounts of hours on the computer and filling about 30 exercise books full of systems. Although it was fun I just don't have the time to do it anymore. Over the years I've come up with a few systems that have been quite successful so I'm going to put them on this thread. Here goes.
SYSTEM 1{snip****
SYSTEM 2{snip****
SYSTEM 3{snip****
These systems do need a bit of patience but can be rewarding. Best of luck
Cheers, Bigwaz
|
Firstly I respect the work (time) you have put in and thank you for sharing three of your systems with us. I can't help noticing that all three systems have a common element to them, and as I am a student of systems and have a belief that the ultimate system will only exist for a brief time due to the dynamic (changing) nature of the racing industry itself, which I have voiced several times on different threads, I am interested in pointing out to you the narrow scope of your systems.
The first and most obvious point that comes out of the (specifically the first two) is that you are using someone else's selections. Nothing wrong in that, I don't like reinventing the wheel any more than anyone else, and I am a big believer in reusable code. However the point is made that your system is dependant on selections and does not in itself create selections. Your third system does via criteria create selections if they exist.
What your three systems (I understand you have many more) do not do is step outside the narrow corridor you have set yourself up with. Is it because you don't have the time or the inclination that you don't create a system that evaluates every runner in every race? Their is value in every race, as has probably been said an infinite number of times, finding the winner is not the vital factor in that equation.
I have noticed since I arrived on this forum some two months ago that most published systems are dependant on a static state and a narrow set of conditions that must be met. By definition, if nothing else, what these systems do is reduce the possibility of value, and I am not so sure that wealth preservation is maintained abnormally highly to compensate for the skinny number of times most systems actually yield a betting proposition.
By way of an alternative I offer the dynamic state such as the volume of money being wagered at any given point prior to a race, to my mind this is almost obscene not to be taken into account in one's selection process. This of course implies that I factor a higher priority to dynamic influences than static (historical) influences. However saying that in track parlance, I would rather follow the money than trust the ************s tipping for the newspapers :-)
I recall another thread on this forum that discussed the difference between perceived 'smart' money and just money and to me, I believe that you can design filters that will match patterns that show the difference by and large.
Regardless of the 'quality' of the money, I can't understand why a system wouldn't want to incorporate that dynamic state into whatever other factors go into the system. To take that a little further, I can't fathom why when constructing a system, you wouldn't want to harness every single bit of information available to you. To my mind, it all goes into the mix to make up what racing is really all about, and might help.
I guess I am a chaos theorist rather than a simple devotee, in racing systems, keeping it simple might just equate to keeping you broke. These are just my thoughts in between races, as I sit at my desk :-)
Please don't flame me, I am a simple and fragile type!
Tailwag
(Woof)
|