Nanook,

thanks for the figures,

THE FIRST 3 LINES OF SP FOR HORSES THAT HADNT RACED WITHIN 21 DAYS REURNED A PROFIT!

THE FIRST 3 LINES OF SP FOR HORSES THAT HAD RACED WITHIN 21 DAYS DID NOT RETURN A PROFIT.

I REST MY CASE!




Marcus25,

yeah i understood the rule but i didnt get why the beaten favorite bit was included.



Sportz,

Thanks for the explination but it smacks of retro fitting to me,ie it wasnt based on what works best over a lengthy period of time but was introduced because a few good winners fitted the rule at the time of inclusion.

Yes, but I included the 21 days or less ONLY because it was a rule that I often used anyway, and deleting horses outside that range did seem to improve the situation in the test period, so why not.

It's only "retro fitting" if you introduce rules which you wouldn't normally use or which have no real logic behind them, purely because it makes the past figures look better.

This is meant only as constructive comment, I would have thought that the 21 day rule is self explanantory i.e.,. surely this relates to the horses fitness??
Why 21 days ?? .... why not 22 or 19 or 18, well I guess you just have to draw the line somewhere. Today I ruled out a place bet in PR2-2 Brockeys Ace purely on the 21 day rule (thankfully) but then missed PR4-5 Attadale on the same rule so there you go!