[QUOTE=Wunfluova]Jacfin, it's no good just checking Crash's published selections - they might not tell the true story!! (in no way suggesting anything deliberate, just perhaps a shade of carelessness at the end of a working day)

Nothing wrong with this. You were NOT accused of cooking the books.
Either a horse is a selection or it isn't based on the rules.
So please stick to the issue.
Is Wunfluova correct or not correct in pointing out whether or not some horses were or were not selections?

Moderator.

ALL Selections are based on the rules.
Wunfluova claims the system has made a 'massive loss' [earlier post] over the time it has been running. My results and another poster who has checked them, agreed with my system results [approx 33% profit] and obviously based on selections that passed the rules.

I would tolerate that my figures might be slightly out depending on the TAB results used, but 'massive loss' implies total skull-duggery and basically lying and incredible 'creative accounting' for a system that my Grandmother could check the results on. She would also note any horses that didn't pass the rules.

Obviously, between my 33% profit and Wunfluova's 'massive loss' implies his rules for this system have nothing to do with my system's rules. 'Not accused of cooking the books' ? I'd call it innuendo saying exactly that as his observations and my results are a massive devide.

As far as I'm concerned this thread of mine is now closed, at least for me. Any more systems I come up with I'll keep to myself. Why bother?

[post no.13] System totals then were:
Win out 137 Win in 168.20 Profit 31.20
Place out 137 Place in 163.10 Profit 26.10
-------------------------------------
[since post No.13] System totals to Tues.22nd:
win out 43 in 70.10 profit 27.10
place out 43 in 69.40 profit 26.40
-------------------------------------
Total win out 180 in 238.30 profit 58.30
Total place out 180 in 237.60 profit 57.60
Total E/W out 360 in 475.90 profit 115.90

Roughly 33% profit for any bet covering 180 bets.



A massive divide with Wunfluova's 'massive loss' conclusion, that could not be based on the 'odd' horse passing or not passing the rules. so his innuendo is?

It is your prerogative not to reply to the following, about whether these horses were or were not selections, which I have copied below, so I have now locked the thread.

As a moderator I am not prepared for a forum dispute to escalate over what is simply a matter of fact - either horses were or were not selections.

===================================

Wunfluova posted:

Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following :

26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)

28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)

3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)

4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)

7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)

AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of :

26th March - Bunbury 5/5, Chelt 2/6, Sand 3/8, Sand 6/16

You asked me to address some claims, please allow me to address the claims:

You wrote: "Had you checked the actual fields for the system's final rules you might have made adjustments to your figures for the following" :

"26/3 Chelt 6/9 Pl $15-20 (doesn't qualify - greater than 21 days and greater than $51)". The 21 day rule didn't exist then [only a recent rule change]. However, it WAS over the price, but $39 3 min to jump and bet in advance of that. Mistake granted. [minuss $15-20p from my place results]

"28/3 Rock 7/9 Pl $9-90 (doesn't qualify - 3 in race)" False: 3 in a race was an original rule, 2 in a race was not a new rule at that time and only recent this month.The rule had been backfitted to where it did not apply.

"3/4 Grafton 7/13 W $9-20 Pl $2-60 (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt.)" OK, .5kg over. Mistake granted [Minus $9.20w and $2.50p from my results]

"4/4 M Valley 5/1 W $12-50 dead heat (doesn't qualify - not on min. wt. - Tab no. 1 should have been a big clue!)". False: No.1 was on 64kg. All other horses where on 63kg. and it was not a dead heat [4,12,7].

"7/4 Port Macq 5/10 Pl $10-20 (doesn't qualify - slow track)" .False, I had included wet tracks by the 7/4.

"AND you might have adjusted for missed selections along the lines of" :

"26th March - Bunbury 5/5" [False:no winning claim ever made,the horse didn't place], "Chelt 2/6" [False: the horse was on min. and was 3rd up $4.50p], "Sand 3/8" [False: horse never placed and was on min], Sand 6/16 [False: Horse never placed and was on min.].

Anyone is capable of checking these results. Please do.

What the above shows is that everyone is capable of making mistakes,. In this instance, a heck of a lot more than me. I made 2 mistakes, The writer of the above made 7.

New [adjusted] totals after subtracting 2 mistakes;
Win profit $49
Place profit $39.90
E/W profit $88.90

Where is that 'massive' loss the writer claimed?

NOW the thread is closed as far as I'm concerned.