Hi, S.B.

Glad you won with your method, especially with a 100% strike rate.

Today's selections:

Sun Coast
7/16

Orange
2/3, 10, 12, 13
4/3, 7, 9
5/15

Ballarat
5/5
7/11

Terang
2/2, 15
3/8, 11

Hobart
7/12
8/14, 15
9/10

Albany
1/9
2/7, 10
3/5
4/9
7/16
8/5, 8

Fortunately there were no "accidental" accidents today.

From the 25 selections there were 25 smiles for a profit of $127.48.

Hi Michaelg,

I'm a little concerned that you pulled the trigger too early on the T,C,D qualifiers being omitted.

You've made handsome profits thus far and my observation was merely based on 1 days results.

I think a comprehensive review of the T,C,D qualifiers is needed. My worry is based on there being so few qualifiers now compared to before the new rule and will it actually make a difference to the bottom line?

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

Since Michael stopped laying the T, D selections there have been 59 lays for 3 losses for a loss after comm of 5.99 laying to a liability of $11.
The jury is still out.

According to my records I began applying the T,D, & C (The Schmile) filters on Friday 8 Feb, but up to that time there was an overall total of 34 accidents for 16 of The Schmile accidents which is a worry.

The filter has been existent for the past three days. During this period there's been 72 selections for 70 smiles for a loss of $86. However, one of the accidents wasn't from a genuine selection. If I had identified this, then the method over the three days would be in profit of $247.

As there is doubt about the efficiency of the filter I now hope to look at the three days from Friday 8 to yesterday and see how the deleted (T, D and C) selections would have fared. When known, I will detail the result here.

michael,

You will need at least 1000 (or even better 2000) selections to make any sort of assumptions to these filters for this system. Your strike rate is about 98% so basing filters on a few days results is not the best idea.

Hi Michaelg,

I think it might be best to take Vortech's thinking in introducing the top 4 tatts filter where it reduced 50% of accidents for only a 13% reduction in selections.

My question is that the T,C,D filters, while being 16 of the 34 accidents may actually make money laying overall due to being overbet?

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

Hi, T.S.

I already omit the top 4 selections in Tatts/Unitab's rankings as recommended by one of the forumites - might even have been Vortech. And I also omit any selection rated between 96 and 100 Unitab points.

I have checked the last three day's results for any selections that had C, T or D in their form.

The results were not conclusive because of the relatively few selections. There were 33 selections for one accident for a break-even result. The accident was Saturday's Newcastle 6/6 whose price was surprisingly at single figures. I would expect at least one of the several filters to have eliminated it but unfortunately this was not so.

I don't have immediate records (would take too long to check them) to see if the filter was profitable over the entire term of the method, but because the method has been doing relatively well without the filter I will not apply it in the future. Hopefully I don't regret it.

I think it's probably best to continue as you have been until the T,C,D filter has more conclusive results as you've been doing admirably up until the last few days.

The law of averages will hopefully swing in your favour this week Michaelg!

Knock 'em outa tha' park!!!

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

Thanks, T.S.

Today's selections:

Wagga
3/2, 3, 6
4/10
8/6, 11

Ararat
1/6, 7, 8, 9, 11
3/15
5/11
7/12, 13, 14


Today's T, D, & C selections:

Wagga
8/6, 11