Chrome,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you last point [not rule, but point] is a lot of unsubstantiated crock and your first rule even more so, instigated by system sellers: 'we have tested this system over thousands of past races and our 70% POT stands up to scrutiny".

But I'll agree to disagree if you like on your assertions. The onus of proof is on you of course, as it is your claim [statement actually]. Special pleading won't do the job either:-)

You wrote.

"Criteria for a winning mechanical system....
1. Must be tested over thousands of bets
2. Must have very few rules
3. The profit must come from more than a couple of longshots.
Get all three points and you have a winning mechanical system" End Quote.


Re: Rule 1: A mathematical result based on a past paradigm of events is not equal to a mathematical result for a future paradigm of events
where large numbers of variables are in voled in both results [if we could test thousands of future bets with the same rules].
Racing is one such area where those large numbers of variables are present.
Actually [as any Uni. maths student would tell you, the greater the test number of bets, years, whatever, the greater the different outcome will be to the eventual future result. The greater the variables, the more extreme the error. So you may as well test over the last 20 races.

"The more an incorrect myth is repeated [rule 1], the more it will be believed by more and more people regardless. Even if even the world's leading mathematicians would disagree" [not sure who said that, but I have always remembered it].

I await your proof :-)

Cheers Chrome.