If you want to know if a system has a long term genuine chance of winning then you need to calculate the archie (chi-square) score.

I have systems which have had 700 bets and are up by 20% but the archie score was very low meaning that luck had a lot to do with the results. And sure enough the next 700 bets showed a huge loss.

If you are going to be serious about betting a system then do the calcs and see what you come up with. If the archie score is anywhere under 5 then you need more results to work out whether the system is worth following OR the system is showing a result which is based on luck.

My current cutoff points for any systems I use is an archie score of at least 5 and at least 200 bets in the live test period (not back fitted data).

Just thought I would mention that the archie score shows whether the results were due to luck. If you have an archie score higher then 5 and the system is showing a loss then its confirming that the system will never make a profit.

Good Luck

Well I guess I just have to bet for another 120 bets or so and get back to you.

Which is what I guessed would happen (i.e. no positive input from anyone to improve the theory) By the way how do you calculate the archie score?

See you in 18 months !!

Hi Sundance Kid if anyone can improve your system then you are going to have less bets!!

Sorry - I meant expand -

how to tell how many races the horse has had this prep?

strike rate of 17% or better?

Hi Mr Quaddie -

I take the x in the form line as a spell and any run after that
is "this preparation"

Strike rate percentage is low as some horses hit form and win
a few even though their strike rate has been ordinary up to then.
I think the late Don Scott mentioned in his book "Winning More"
that the average horse wins one in seven - I though 1 in six
would do me as a cut off point.
Feel feel to post again tonite - Ill be up for a while watching
Everton win

Cheers

G'day Sundance,

Congrats on your success thus far. An 80% pot is an excellent result. Just out of curiosity, can you share how many selections your system has had since you started tracking it? Also, what is your win strike rate and average price per winner? And what were the prices of your 3 highest priced winners?

I noticed that you don't include NSW in your list of states to consider. Do you have any ideas why your system doesn't work there? The only reason I ask is, if you can understand why, then maybe you will learn something that might help you with any future systems.

Do you know if track conditions have any influence on your selections? I'd suggest that wetter tracks tend to generate more inconsistent results than drier ones, and that restricting your selections to Good and Dead tracks only might increase your strike rate.

If you want to widen your selection method up a little, maybe you could get rid of the "last start winner" rule, and just stick with your "won 2 of the last 3 races this prep" rule. Doing this would help generate more selections for you.

Also, are you sure the distance rule is relevant? It just seems a little strange to me that your system would be successful within the 1,000 - 1,200m parameters and not so at 1,300m. Maybe you could get rid of this rule and end up with many more selections? Even if those qualifiers in races greater than 1,200m only returned 25% pot instead of 80%, the extra selections would help to further build your bank. Maybe you could just bet a little less on them than your original selections.

Oh and how sure are you about the "must have had 5 race starts" rule? Just an idea, but maybe you could just say "no 2yo races."

Anyway, that's all for now. Good luck with your system mate.

__________________
...time held me green and dying, though I sang in my chains like the sea. - Dylan Thomas

Gday Silver and Sand -

Youve raised a lot of points and Im appreciative of your help/support.
I will endeavour to answer in detail some time Monday afternoon

Adios

Silver_and_sand,

1000m to 1200m races are more truly run than higher distances, so results are based more consistently on past form, rather than suitable race pace being encountered for a runner in longer races.

Well I won't bail out and not make an effort to help, but like it has already been said here, improvements often mean less bets. If more rules [filters] are put in to improve SR, that's what will happen.
The only way to improve the system is to experiment with changes to rules. One change at a time to see the effect.

So as I understand it, the system requires a horse that has had 5 starts [6th up], won it's last start and won another. That's 2 wins well into a horse's current prep. of say 8 races. Most trainers would be very happy with that and unless the horse is something special, to expect 3 wins from an 8 start prep. is a bit over-optimistic but that is what your system is looking for, another win?
The system rules in this area don't seem to make a lot of sense to me anyway. For starters, a last start win is going to guarantee a low starting price and more weight, unless the horse is stepping up in grade a fair bit.

Most trainers set a horse [depending on age usually] to win 3rd, 4th,or 5th up because that is where peak fitness will be, especially in sprint races. From then on the horse's fitness is mostly downhill. Not always but mostly. Your selections kick in at the 6th race [?]. This is an area I think the system could be improved. Perhaps targeting 4th. or 5th. up rather than 6th. up.