Is it fair to say that the more filters you add the less selections you get?
Is it fair to say the lower the number of bets per annum the higher the pot?
Is the problem not the pot but the turnover??

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Yes

Generally true but depends on backfitting, etc.

No.

If you have fewer bets with a better strike rate and pot you can have larger bets with confidence.

This is all assuming you have a proven system that has been tested live and you are confident in the selections making a profit.

Ok I have a backfitted system

It was backfitted and designed around sensible rules..
It doesn't have a lot of selections..

Let's say it's back fitted over two years of data. Year one shows 28% POT with a s/r of 32.4%. Year two shows 42% POT with a s/r of 33.3%. The profit over two years is 6.5 times the largest dividend.

When broken into equal time amounts five show profit, and three show a loss however one loss is within one unit.

Without going into amount of selections but assessing on the fact it's a two year study. Yes backfitted but if was designed two years ago and applied the same results would have been achieved...

Basically I want to have a educated punt and I'm looking for someone to tell me why this would be a bad idea???


Winner winner chicken dinner!

I would say this is incorrect, the higher amount of bets you have makes for a more stable outcome.

I would rather have 500 bets a week with 10% sr for a 10% pot then have 20 bets a week with 40% sr with 100% pot

__________________
One Drive

"If the corporates are treating you poorly , just go elsewhere."
"If they need you , they will soon find out."
"If you need them , you will soon find out." --moeee
_______________________________________________

I,m with you Shaun.The overall profit comes from the turnover.

Re too many filters.The more filters one has the LOWER the overall price will be.

Cheers
darky

So 6.5 times largest div = profit

Over what number of bets would one think this to be quite stable, or promising?

No one wants to tell me it's a bad idea?

Valid points made. Largest div $7.4 shortest $2. Another point with this system is to back at the right price. So basically odds on look on.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Not knocking any system or anyone that makes a constant profit, just saying what i feel a better from what you said.

__________________
One Drive

"If the corporates are treating you poorly , just go elsewhere."
"If they need you , they will soon find out."
"If you need them , you will soon find out." --moeee
_______________________________________________

As most of you know I,m a multi-bettor but if I was betting 1 horse a race I would consider getting an asessed price market -( Don Scott or Daily wizard online being the best) and Only bet the horse if I could get their asessed price or better.
Some professionals only bet if they can double the asessed price
Why? A very professional punter has looked closely at the particular race.
and it only takes a minute or so to check.

I,d be somewhat concerned with the tip if they had it asessed 20/1 - 100/1

Cheers
darky

So does anyone want to comment on my comments? Before I start investing?

Winner winner chicken dinner!