Not sure if this is on the banned list or not. If it is then the Mods can delete it.

because of the uncertainty with the Neurals and them changing like the wind, I have to look for another starting point.

I think with the success i was having with the Neurals is more down to my filters then the neurals themselves because a few checks tells me that my selection more often comes through regardless of the order in the neurals.

I just needed a starting point to reduce my workload and to look outside the most fancied and look for value. I thought I had it with the Neurals but with them changing obviously not.

If somebody can come up with another starting point that is easy to get great, otherwise I will have to go from 1 to the end in race book order.

The qld tab rating service is a possibility but I have to reorganize the numbers myself. Not difficult but just another chore to add valuable time to an already time consuming system

Star

Star,
You are missing the nowse in them neurals if you leave them behind IMO,
Irrespective of how they might / can move around from day to day.

Here is the essence of them, as noted by Gary Crispe...

The neural factor analysis is NOT a system.

It takes the traditional class/weight correlation algorithm, adds a new race time algorithm and then integrates the other peripheral elements like jockey, trainer, course, distance, barrier to give a final list of weightings for the main chances.

This final listing depends of course on the users preference of the algorithms (Preference Scale ) and should serve as a very helpful guide to punters desiring to "fine" a field down to the main chances for closer examination.

Note the last para,
1. a very helpful guide / filter ie can be useful alongside your system/method for picking winners
2. you will still need to do some work to match-mould them to your own style ie no-one can do this for you, but yourself.

As with most good things in life (yes, that includes the punt for some), it's less about what you have in your hands or size of bank at the end,
More about the journey= who you become & what you learn along the way!

It saddened me to hear of late that one of the finest minds when it comes to an appreciation - understanding - application of the N's has sadly passed.

Have learned heaps from him however and his conversations live on for me, and those diligent enough to dig deep enough to find them?

Just my thoughts.

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

Thanks for the reply LG and not to dismissing as a 'Try hard "

I have been a punter for a long time and have always had an interest in systems. Now, I realize and have read what Gary Crispe has stated that they are not a system and are a another helpful tool in our journey.

Now, I may be missing the point that you and others are trying to tell me. I appreciate all your efforts, so if I appear to still not " get it' please do not give up.

I have seen some value in them and I believed with my additional filters they were working well. But, when I realized how they fluctuated, it made me think why I was having some success when the goal posts kept shifting.

Then unfairly to R&S Neurals I was starting to think that they were like a coat tugger at the races giving ten different tips to ten different people at the races and asking for 10% of the winnings.

I just could not see where the consistency was. I know I can be a bit stubbon and thick at times but I am questioning how something could be useful when the orders keep changing.

However, if their was someway of removing some of the more widely fluctuating factors Maybe I could and will try to work around it.

I am also thinking that their are some factors that are inbuilt that do not appear in the selection criteria. eg. I having been playing around with it and changing things as ( garyf ) from here suggested.

I then put everything on an " O " and did not expect any result because, in my mind, the result should have been null and void. But that was not the case.

eg One random race on Nil settings had 4 625 9 (10) (11) 93718

Another had: 5 6 (12) (11) (10) 7 1 etc.

So, to jme, it looks like their are some basic criterai built in that we cannot adjust, so, if we get a scratching, jockey notificatiojn change, track condition changes or whatever variables, we cannot give our own assesment to reduce the variables that appear to fluctuate the outcomes.

In other words, my thinking is maybe we are not comparing apples with apples, so the results are final figures are worked out on can give us no confidence of repeatability because to me their is no one set defined standard that we can work off.

Probably, what I have written is as clear as mud. Yet despite this my system seems to muddle through it and where a few horses might change and I might miss one or two I am sure on the swings and round abouts I pick up others that had just a good a chance as well.

Hence my original thread " Looking for value "

Keep trying to help.. Thanks

Star