system or method

[mick56]

Some more controversy? Although i do pay attention to the indications provided by some stats,to me they are just one of several useful tools which can be used in our attempts to predict the outcome of a race,if i have good reason i will bet against a statistical probability.
I have a search engine which enables past form to be interrogated in many different ways,and these days backers are almost spoilt for choice with the commercially available stats and trends.
But looking at past results based on these is never enough for me i have to be able to reason why.
As just one of many examples i could highlight Course jockeys,at least these days % are given not just the number of wins,but what is the real relevance of these stats for those who fig prominently is this telling you that they actually ride the course better than others,if so why should this be,could it be rather that on balance they have been on horses with a better chance in thier races on that course,if so this may not continue to be the case and rather invalidates the use of the stat.
I dont no the answer but the point i am trying to make is they should IMO always be treated with some caution.

[barrelmaniac]

Yes mick, thats the thing with using stats for systems, the whole thing is constantly evolving, so even when there is a good working system it needs to be constantly monitored to make sure its ''behaving normally'' I tend to try review this on a weekly or fortnightly basis, when things look like they are moving out of the expected long term dataranges its time to panic and act accordingly, or put measures in place to keep tight reigns on it or to put a bank barrier on it.

[mick56]

Hi BM your above sums up nicely my apprehensions concerning systems,because to be operated the rules must be rigidly followed,and if you change the rules because of poor results then in effect you are starting over with a new system.

The stats or systematic part of my approach revolves around what i would call fluid patterns.However we all have our own little ways of gaining an edge and without these differences of opinion there would not be a market.

I have no doubt that some members make it pay via systems and they have my admiration but for some of the reasons i have mentioned this approach is not for me.

[Win2Win]

I review all my systems 2-4 times a year depending on what they are doing, but I never change any rules unless I specifically know what the problem is.

A number of my system that involve handicaps had to be changed about 2 years ago as the Jockey Club/BHB/BHA/NOBEADS kept meddling with the handicap rules to help the bookies make more money (allegedly :wink, although you have to be a PM with a history degree not to see that).

Adjusting a rule is not starting a new system. If I run a system for 8 years with good results, but find in the last 2 years some slippage, and so adjust the F/C rule from Max 8/1 to Max 13/2, it's the same system and if the slippage had been in place on day 1, 8 years ago then the Max would have been set at 13/2 then.

Racing evolves, but usually it takes 2-3 years for a new trend to appear, it doesn't happen overnight, so I don't agree with monitoring systems every few weeks.

[mick56]

.

A number of my system that involve handicaps had to be changed about 2 years ago as the Jockey Club/BHB/BHA/NOBEADS kept meddling with the handicap rules to help the bookies make more money (allegedly :wink, although you have to be a PM with a history degree not to see that).

Very interested your above could you expand your views on this.

[Win2Win]

About allegedly sleeping with the bookies? :D

They started fiddling in the mid-noughties (), by compressing handicaps in a new type of race, raising the bottom weight, seriously fiddling with lower quality horses, and the one which caused the most shift for stats, changing the qualifying rules.

You would have had: 4yo+ Rated 0-75
Now you get: 4yo+ Rated 61-75