mathare
30th March 2005, 22:51
Remember this (and how could you forget it?):
there will not be more than 3 winning lays in a row
I have analysed Youngun's system and found the following:
SR: 73.27%
LLR: 18
LWR: 4
That's 4 winners in a row. Four is more than three, or at least it was when I was at school. But I left education over 6 years ago so maybe things have changed, I dunno.
The rest of my analysis is pretty much irrelevant for several reasons:
i) No rules for this system have been posted so other members cannot follow it without Youngun, who has wound a lot of people up and is unlikely to be welcomed back with open arms and treated as the messiah quite frankly.
ii) The results supplied are not dated, nor are horse names specified making verifying the results (something I try to do with every system I am asked to analyse as there is no point declaring something a success unless I can be sure that at least a random sample of the results are correct and that where possible I can check the selections did indeed meet the rules of the system) incredibly difficult.
iii) I have a year's worth of data but no more. For systems with as few bets as this one I would want several years worth of data before I would agree that the system was as good as proclaimed. When testing systems I refuse to draw any serious conclusions on less than 200 selections for a backing system and require well over 500 for a backing system.
Despite the rest of my analysis being irrelevant I will post some findings in the members area of the forum so the respected members of this forum can see the fruits of my labour.
there will not be more than 3 winning lays in a row
I have analysed Youngun's system and found the following:
SR: 73.27%
LLR: 18
LWR: 4
That's 4 winners in a row. Four is more than three, or at least it was when I was at school. But I left education over 6 years ago so maybe things have changed, I dunno.
The rest of my analysis is pretty much irrelevant for several reasons:
i) No rules for this system have been posted so other members cannot follow it without Youngun, who has wound a lot of people up and is unlikely to be welcomed back with open arms and treated as the messiah quite frankly.
ii) The results supplied are not dated, nor are horse names specified making verifying the results (something I try to do with every system I am asked to analyse as there is no point declaring something a success unless I can be sure that at least a random sample of the results are correct and that where possible I can check the selections did indeed meet the rules of the system) incredibly difficult.
iii) I have a year's worth of data but no more. For systems with as few bets as this one I would want several years worth of data before I would agree that the system was as good as proclaimed. When testing systems I refuse to draw any serious conclusions on less than 200 selections for a backing system and require well over 500 for a backing system.
Despite the rest of my analysis being irrelevant I will post some findings in the members area of the forum so the respected members of this forum can see the fruits of my labour.