I have been looking at another neural system which is based on a previous one, which after two months had a break-even result for Place betting. From last Friday I added a further rule, and from then to yesterday the results are quite encouraging.

There have been 18 selections.
11 selections have won, totalling $49.80 (QLD TAB divvies).
15 selections have placed, totalling $27.90.

There are three selections today. Hopefully it won't be a victim of the Shifting Sands Syndrome, there's only one way to find out...

Ipswich R3 no.2 - Extreme Danger
Belmont R4 no.1 - Expedition
Darwin R4 no.2 - Razzotano.

The thing I found with neurals is it is easy to come up with winning figures over short runs [chance], it's another thing altogether to show a profit from any settings over a long period of bets. I chased many promising setting and some performed quite well for even a few months, but all eventually disappeared down a rat hole of hopelessness.

After awhile, a psychosis can develop from too much nuralism [nuralmademebrokia]. It's has reportedly accounted for whole swathes of once blissfully contented punters over the years, who caught the bug of trying to turn lead into gold by juggling 'magic' nural settings.

Speaking from experience, I agree with you 100% after having tested a million different neural methods. But there's an old saying "where there's life, there's hope". My "hope" (maybe misguided?) is that whoever coined that saying found his pot-of-gold with the neurals.

Not sure who coined it Michael but apparantly it was "preserved" by Erasmus who died in 1536 so possibly neurals were in their infancy when this expression was coined Still, as far as a money making proposition goes I tend to agree with Crash - the nuerals still are in their infancy.
KV

Hi, KV.

Someone a few years ago, it my have been on this forum, had/has a large data base and said using the default settings that the top selection had the same strike rate as faves. I've never forgotten this, and if the results still hold true that would mean that the loss using default settings would not be as great as backing every fave. Based on this, I'm assuming that there must be some merit with the neurals, maybe not much but I'm hoping.

As previously stated, I've looked at uncountable methods but have yet to discover a profitable method. But I'll never know if I don't try. And there are so many combinations, and even more when combined with non-neural factors that it might just be possible. And despite the disappointments it is a challenge and can be enjoyable if expectations are not too high.

Was it Erasmus? Pity it was'nt a suicide bomber.

I have collected the neurals for a while now and there are very few combinations that show a profit over 7 months data.

BUT combine a good combination that seems to make sense (which only loses 5% over 7 months betting every race) with a few filters .. for example ran in last 15 days, inside barrier, Field size restriction, starts at a certain price, placed 3 starts, etc, etc, etc, and it suddenly turns into a very good system (or several good systems). These filters were just an example ...

Even using the default settings will give you a good enough profit when used in conjunction with other free ratings and an extra filter.

Good Luck.