Agree Mark.

It seems that most are resigned to the fact that winning using a system is impossible.
It's very possible provided several criteria are met.

a)The rules are logical and apply equally to several systems.
(hypothetical example: eliminate horses drawn worse than barrier 10....if this improves the strike rate and POT in completely seperate systems, then it's got legs, if not then you are probably curve fitting).

b)Your sample size and number of bets are huge.
The greater the sample size and number of bets you have as an example, the more likely the same trends will follow.
I've seen some posts saying things like 134 bets 29 winners - means little or nothing to me.Basing future bets on minimal stats like this is asking for trouble.

Felicity:

Punters Choice do some good work, but they are not the Grail as some seem to think.
Firstly, they monitor only about 10% of the actual services out there. Also they have monitored many systems which still show a profit after 10 years, so I don't know how you arrived at your conclusion.

Your 80/20 rule I use only it's the other way around...I'll run a system for 6 months and then compare it over a different 12 months, then 2 years, then 4 years.

As to never finding a system that wins more than a couple of months - you aren't looking hard enough :grin:


[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-12-15 23:48 ]

Interesting thread.

Applying rules that produced winners in the past to horses running in the future is problematic. The horses change as do conditions. Every three or four years we are dealing with all new runners [not exactly but you get my drift] that have contibuted nothing to the results from the past. This fact may help to explain why some systems drop off apart from the usual too many players argument.

I have never used public systems and among the few I do use most still eventualy fall over. Constant re-invention is required. Any system that has worked in the past then failed, still has the potential to work again when future condt. mirror [or nearly] it's past working parameters. Knowing when that might be is the problem. Better to re-invent.
My new systems go straight into play without checking past results using smallish bets which grow if the system performs. If the system is based on sound principals it won't take your leg off. So why not play it and see what happens ?

There is still one system that has stood the test of time that works and that is good old fashioned handicapping. It seems that it is becomming less and less popular due to the application required to turn it into a winning 'system'. It does have the advantage of lasting a lifetime and improving with age as a reward for the personal application required. I can understand why though through time restrictions etc. hadicapping is not everyone's cup of tea.

Cheers.



[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-16 07:53 ]

Totally agree with CP in that it is possible to win using systems. The rules to my system are relatively straight forward and logical, but have not changed since day 1. I think it would be a matter to analyse each rule to dtermine appropriateness to current racing conditions.

FELICITY.Agree wholeheartedly on commercial systems.You,d do better with Rogers golden and platinum pin systems.
Cheers.
Darky.

PS. I didn't say that "I" don't believe that systems can work, I said that MOST of the contributors to this forum seem to think so. Therefore I'm glad that Bhagwan and others have proven it, as it gives hope to the rest of us!!

PPS. I AM winning, not a lot but I AM wining.

Well, which is it??? WINNING or WINING??? :grin:

Party

I wasn't having a go at you, look at the times our posts went in, almost the same, and yours wasn't there when I was typing.
I was referring to the newcomer.

I must say that nearly all the commercial systems one has to pay ,from a certain published magazine , have fallen over once put through my data, even when placed over the period that they say it was tested over ,so what does that tell you?

__________________
Cheers.

It tells me they are the low ******** I have always said they are.

Preying on people that usually can't afford it, and offering a down payment on a credit card and paid off over some months from the same card.

If I had been in a desperate situation when paying them for all different systems and then losing what I did on those systems I probably would have necked myself.

Actually it would be interesting if that has ever happened.

Cheers

Useful discussion in this thread. My two cents:

I've given up on entirely mechanical systems. I see all "systems" as selection tools and nothing more. I look for systems that throw up a good volume of selections and then I consider the selections in the context of each particular race.

The best "system" is the sound judgement that comes from watching lots and lots and lots of races and learning the races to stay out of and learning what is a good bet and what is not. Nothing can replace that. You must, in my opinion, consider the *context of the race* - purely mechanical systems will fail or draw back to break even.

There are inherent problems in and limitations to predicting the future from the past. The basic problem is that every race - every race! - is a totally unique event. There has never, ever been a race like it before and never will be again. Every Melbourne Cup is a totally unique event, regardless of the family resemblances between all the unique events labelled "Melbourne Cup".

This is why systems should be tested on live races and why, even then, judgement is necessary. It is also why testing a system on 20,000 races may be meaningless - because we are not betting on 20,000 races but on this particular race, and it is a unique event with unique factors.

Often my major system will indicate a good selection but I look at the race and think better of it. I'm getting better at this, I reckon. Same with the commercial system I purchased once. Look at the race. Nice selection, but no.

As for why systems prosper and then collapse as if they were shareware and expired after 28 days, I don't know, but it is an observable thing. I have no idea. Pluto going retrograde in Sagittarius?

But it doesn't happen to all systems. I pulled a little money-spinner from the drawer the other day and dusted it off. Two years ago it was running at a small profit before I got bored. Checking recent weeks, it's still making money. Not much, but consistent. No change in the strike pattern.

What factors make for a consistent system? What factors are eratic long term?

Cheers

Hermes