Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KennyVictor
I guess of all of us you would be the most qualified to make a set of rules like this. I wonder if you could quantify them at all. I realise the number of bets must depend on the size of the divvy etc but I would like to see some figures. How many bets for what average price using how many rules would you say would guarantee a system is going to keep winning.
Aside from the obvious benefits of knowing your answer to this question I've always seen backfitting as a fun project to try to undertake and a few figures would give a target to aim at. Like is it possible to devise a system that would win over a thousand bets just using the letters of the horses names as a silly example.
Come to think of it a good example of retrofitting like that would serve as a good lesson to would be system creators to show how easy it is to fool yourself into thinking you have a winning system.
KV
|
Hi KV,
I am not sure about qualfied, but thanks for the compliment.
I have studied system viability over many years, and the rules are something that emerged after studying WHY systems fall over.
In fact there are many systems which can be turned into winning ones, with a little tweaking.
Firstly you have have to ditch the rules which have no logical basis other than snaring longshots.
Then you have to apply rules which have a logical basis and don't just throw one or two longshots.
Admittedly, with any system, the profits come from a small number of winners.
If the small number of winners are very long prices, then you are relying on horses with very little winning chance and are bound to not repeat, as the same horses are not running over the next set of bets.
To quantify the rules, if you want a system with a very good chance of not falling over, deduct at least 1% of the winners which are the longest price, very few systems can withstand this deduction and inevitably fail anyway.
If a system can withstand this sort of deduction, chances are it will hold up in the future, but of course there is no guarantee. It is about increasing your chances of maintaining success.
I cannot really supply exact ratios and figures, because every system throws different patterns and strike rates and average dividends.
But I can give you an example:
One of my (many) systems
Selections: 612
Winners: 299
Strike Rate: 48.86%
Profit: $56.60
POT: 9.25%
Average Dividend: $2.24
Now let's dissect this...
1. There are not thousands of bets to qualify this system, which means I cannot be confident of a future profit, BUT these are the reasons it works....
1. All the horses are well supported in the market.
2. The profit does not come from a handful of longshots
3. I started following this system around three years ago, and consistently tested in real time with real bets, and it has held up well with only very small bad runs.
4. It always bounces back after a loss (to date).
5. Before testing in real time, I ran a system test over 12 months, then a seperate test over the previous 12 months, then I contacted someone with a very large database going back to the 1980's to test it on those races independently, he also confirmed consistent profit.
6. The MAXIMUM win dividend is $2.90, divide that by the profit and you have 19.5 longshots
making up the profit.
This summarises how this system is viable in short.