 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1
3rd February 2012, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The Two Best Comments Ever
TWOBETS - “When backfitting systems it is impossible (almost then) to isolate a particular input factor. You may think you are adding only "first up last start" runners for example. But in fact within that group you have a million other factors that may or may not be having an input on the result. Thus when you add or subtract any single input it actually affects the other input factors.....There, clear as a bell" Wesmip1 - "The fewer but more complex filters, which are not easily identifiable by most punters, in a system, the more chance of it repeating. 
|
|
#4
4th February 2012, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bank is the key!
If its large enough, any one filter alone can make you profit. The statement by Wesmip1. I struggle to see how a complex fliter to that of a simple filter has more chance of repeating itself. Don't complex fitlers like ratings and neurals etc. have other filters behind them?
|
|
#5
4th February 2012, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I tend to agree Vortech. I think if we replace "complex" with "esoteric" we'd be getting closer to Wesmips meaning. For mine it's every statement Hay Chee has made on here over the years. 
__________________
Pixie "It's worth remembering that profit isn't profit until it's spent off the racecourse." -- Crash Last edited by AngryPixie : 4th February 2012 at 11:40 AM.
|
|
#6
4th February 2012, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In context, I think he means something that is not obvious, and therefore has more clout. I see it to be a filter that has less chance of being subjected to the 'masses' using it and therefore diluting it ?!
Esoteric .... yup !
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
