A Myth poo-pood re; large number of selections required
 

Wisdom suggests that you need many selections to prove a system, and I believe this theory has been generally accepted.

IF your base filter, eg; A Win S/R%, attracts a large amount of selections, then I believe this is good enough. How can one get 1,000 selections for a decent system, you'd have to go back 20 or 30 years in some cases, and racing will have changed so much that the systems is probs useless today anyway.

I disagree with those who contend that you need a large number of selections for your system to "prove it".

I believe you do need a large number of selections for your BASE filter only.

There needs to be a strong NEXUS between your BASE filter and all other filters, and the stronger the better. And one could then deduce that because all filters have a strong NEXUS to the base filter, and a strong NEXUS between all other filters, then the huge number of selections for the BASE filter could be "claimed" by the other filters.

Try this out.

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthr...ystem+data+base

Some good advice there

shaun, I hadn't seen that post, thank you muchly.

That's going straight to the "pool room" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hermes and I could have a decent discussion on one of his filters ie; days since last start. I think a previous poster jacfin would be on my side too. Days since last start - a MTYH which has been busted on here with factual evidence. Not to say it isn't useful within the correct set of rules, and it complements those rules, but on it's own, it's of no use at all, at all.

did you know Chris Wallers last start winners have a 21% strike rate. Mind you the loss is still 15%. However, when they backup after 7 days the pot turns into 41%.

One from the crypt!

Where is this man Hermes now?

I have something he might want to test.

LG