You asked me to address some claims but then closed the thread so I couldn't do so. In fairness and considering the amount of work I put into the thread, please allow me to address the claims:

You wrote: "Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following" :

"26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)". The 21 day rule didn't exist then [only a recent rule change]. However, it WAS over the price, but $39 3 min to jump. Mistake granted. [minuss $15-20p from my place results]

"28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)" False: 3 in a race was an original rule, 2 in a race was not a new rule at that time and only recent this month.The rule had been backfitted to where it did not apply.

"3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)" OK, .5kg over. Mistake granted [Minus $9.20w and $2.50p from my results]

"4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)". False: No.1 was on 64kg. All other horses where on 63kg. and it was not a dead heat [4,12,7].

"7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)" .False, I had included wet tracks by the 7/4.

"AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of" :

"26th March - Bunbury 5/5" [False:no winning claim ever made,the horse didn't place], "Chelt 2/6" [False: the horse was on min. and was 3rd up $4.50p], "Sand 3/8" [False: horse never placed and was on min], Sand 6/16 [False: Horse never placed and was on min.].

Anyone is capable of checking these results. Please do.

What the above shows is that anyone is capable of making mistakes,. In this instance, a heck of a lot more than me. I made 2 mistakes, The writer of the above made 7.

New [adjusted] totals after subtracting 2 mistakes;
Win profit $49
Place profit $39.90
E/W profit $88.90

Now where is that 'massive' loss the writer claimed?

I have opened the thread, so you can post that. Then the thread will be closed. However it was you, Crash who also wrote:

"As far as I'm concerned this thread of mine is now closed."

In addition, Moderator 3 just pointed out the factual information that you appeared not to respond to and so closed the thread.

Let's face it. It's impossible on a forum and not much point trying to discuss a betting system when people can't even accept among themselves what are and what are not the selections.

Point taken, but maybe forumites should read whole threads to check rules and adjustment to rules and not just the last couple of pages [if that] before making serious claims about accounting.

Crash/Moderators,

I wasn't going to reply further on this subject but feel I need to correct Crash's lack of comprehension of what I have posted. I will make a few points and this will be my last post on the matter.

******************************************

Firstly, I never used the words "massive loss". Crash, you appear to have injected this phrase into your posts on several occasions for dramatic effect.

My actual words were "This system is throwing up some nice priced winners but long term will prove a substantial loser"

I thought I had corrected my error in my latest post when I said "Previously I posted that I expected this system to be a substantial loser long term. I have had another look at it and the figures are not nearly as bad as I first thought. Will probably show a loss but would benefit from further pruning"

- Crash, you have obviously decided to ignore this correction.

**********************************************

Also, my previous post was directed to jacfin where I said :

"Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following "

and also :

"Having said all that I do understand that some of the above only became non selections after Crash added to or amended several rules - so some of these were true selections at time of writing but need to be adjusted for if you want an accurate assessment of the final system. If you don't want to bother with these sort of details then go with what you have got"

- Crash, you also appear to have conveniently overlooked this part of my post when you 'corrected some of my mistakes' at the beginning of this thread.

***********************************

As regards the following part of my post as corrected by your good self :

"AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of" :

"26th March - Bunbury 5/5" [False:no winning claim ever made,the horse didn't place], "Chelt 2/6" [False: the horse was on min. and was 3rd up $4.50p], "Sand 3/8" [False: horse never placed and was on min], Sand 6/16 [False: Horse never placed and was on min.].

- You have totally missed the point. These were four actual system selections that were missed from your selections on just the first day of your results.

My "etc, etc...." was meant to convey that there were more actual qualifiers that you failed to include in your results on other days that I considered it pointless to list.

I hope you can appreciate the implication of 'missed bets' (whether winning or losing) from your results summary.

So you don't have to go searching the other thread - these were your posted selections from the first day of system operations :

Bunbry
7/13 x
8/10 x
CHELTENHAM PARK
5/4 [$1.80p]
6/9,10,11 [9 $15.20p]
7/8 x
8/10 x
IPSWICH
4/4 x
5/8 x
7/9,14 [14 $3.40p]
SANDOWN-HILLSIDE
6/15 $30.80w $7.50p

You will notice that none of my above four mentioned horses (which you have confirmed by your corrections to be system qualifiers) appear in your results above, as posted.

************************************

This is part of my previous post with your 'corrections' added, and again you have totally missed the boat :

"4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)". False: No.1 was on 64kg. All other horses where on 63kg. and it was not a dead heat [4,12,7].

The 4/4 above refers to the date, 4th April, and has nothing to do with the race or horse number. Your return serve of :

"False: No.1 was on 64kg. All other horses where on 63kg. and it was not a dead heat [4,12,7]."

- is referring to race 4 whereas the horse I actually referred to was number 1 in race 5 on 4th April - hence - "4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat "

- this was not a result 'manufactured' by me but was extracted from your results posting of this days results as follows:

MOONEE VALLEY
5/1 $12.50 [dead heat] $6.20p

-This was your reported system result for this race - I was trying (in vain it appears) to suggest that the top weight in race 5, Tab no. 1 could hardly have been a system qualifier as it obviously fails the qualification of being on the minimum weight!

*****************************************

If I missed the part in the long thread where you decided to include slow and heavy tracks in the system rules after starting off with :

1. Good or Dead tracks only

- then I sincerely apologise for my error.

That is all I have to say on this matter.

Regards,
Wunfluova.

Crash
Would you mind emailing me at jacfin at mail dot nu plse.
I'd like to keep in touch on the system's results.

Wunfluova,

Sorry, but with all due respect I'm not going to bother going through your post point by point [could go on for ever]. Needless to say, I'll let the system stand on it's merits and to be fair, your above points justified or not. I'm not perfect and yes, I do make mistakes.

In the original thread I put up a 'Simple win and place system'. It was an evolving system, not a mistake free and perfect selection exercise, nor was it meant to be an eventual cent by cent accounting wrangle.

Everyone who has been using the system will all come up with different personal results due to their own mistakes or which TAB they use etc. etc. So I really think this argument is a bit academic and also in danger of becoming a bit of a floor show for readers [probably already has].

We all make mistakes, I think we can both agree on that and leave it at that.

Cheers. and good luck in your punting.

Crash.

Crash,

I think it maybe an idea to give the revised system rules for a final time for those that want to follow your system. Let people work out for themselves what is and what isn't a selection.

Na, the system thread is closed. There is enough there for them to work on it for themselves :-)

Crash - Why do you allow these total xxxxxxxx to get in the way when it looks as though so many people enjoy your daily contributions - climb over,under,through them, take your pick - why not type in CAPITAL letters;

'Anyone wishing to seek out mistakes in any of my contributions - go ahead -
make my day ! '
'Anyone lucky enough to have crystal balls and therefore able to suggest that any of my systems won't work short - medium, or long term - go ahead make my xxxxxxx day '.

Kind Regards.

1. Shouting is not permitted.

2. Maybe you are fortunate the forum software has censored some words as any use of profanities which are seen when posted including the "f" word, even if implied, automatically incurs a suspension.