Jumping for profit

[CharlesBarkley]

In my win2win account it names a certain horse in the 5.50 at Worcester as a selection but I didn't think this would qualify due the rule about distance beaten LTO. Also would the following qualify as selections; sedge 7:30, worc 6:50. Thanks

[mathare]

According to my data source the 5.50 qualifies.

And the others won't qualify either according my data source

[CharlesBarkley]

Have the rules changed then, the selection pulled up last time and why don't the others qualify please

[Laf]

I use Racing Post for this and I have qualifiers in the 5.50, 6.50 and 7.30.

[TheGoodGuy]

Charles,

Just to clarify a couple of points:

5.50 Worcester
Can you check which version of the Jumping for Profit system you are running the rules from. It should be version 2 (released March 2008).
Open the ebook & on the first page under the JUMPING FOR PROFIT title it should show as Version 2 released March 2008, in red.

7.30 Sedgefield
You are right on this one. The qualifier I assume you have identified SHOULD be a qualifier.
The data source that is used for Auto-Sys can be a little unreliable at times. This is why the Auto-Sys software didn't pick up this qualifier.

6.50 Worcester
This one depends on which data source you run your rules from.
Where system rules require you to check Forecast Favourite tables.......this info differs between different publications, ie Racing Post, Sporting Life etc.
If you run your system rules from the Racing Post you will sometimes find anomalies between its qualifiers & the qualifiers that Auto-Sys picks out, as Auto-Sys no longer uses the RP as its source.

In this case if you have used the RP then, yes, you will have correctly identified a qualifier.

[CharlesBarkley]

Thanks. I dont have the updated version yet

[TheGoodGuy]

If you go to your membership page & download the Jumping for Profit ebook again from there, I believe you should get the updated version.

[Street cry]

Really you should use rp prices as that's what RSB uses

[mathare]

But the RP site can't be easily parsed to get that data since they recoded it

[Street cry]

I appreciate that Mat and wasn't a dig at "auto sys" i was meaning that if one is doing it by hand then the most accurate way to hope to replicate the past is to use the RP.

[mathare]

I appreciate that Mat and wasn't a dig at "auto sys" i was meaning that if one is doing it by hand then the most accurate way to hope to replicate the past is to use the RP.

Fair enough, and aye, you're right. Manually one should really use the RP as it's the most accurate and reliable source so it's a shame it's programmatically almost impossible to get data out of it now

[jonahjones]

Fair enough, and aye, you're right. Manually one should really use the RP as it's the most accurate and reliable source so it's a shame it's programmatically almost impossible to get data out of it now

I think that Auto-Sys is a fantastic concept Mat. It is such a pity that the data cannot be extracted from the new-look RP website.

Not least because it would prevent me having to get up at 5.30am every day to manually select the qualifiers!

[mathare]

I think that Auto-Sys is a fantastic concept Mat. It is such a pity that the data cannot be extracted from the new-look RP website.

Not least because it would prevent me having to get up at 5.30am every day to manually select the qualifiers!

The data source Auto-Sys uses isn't that bad really, it certainly does a job. And having discussed it with Keith it was felt that while it was better to use the RP the differences between using the RP and this other source long-term are marginal so the time saving offered by Auto-Sys outweighs any potential downside of using a sub-optimal data source.