I'd better not be answering too many questions because there might be functions that I simply haven't come across. Ask the developer.

I'd better not be answering too many questions because there might be functions that I simply haven't come across. Ask the developer.

O.k Barny, thanks for answering the questions you did . Thanks Vortech for the rundown on the Bet Selector program as well.

I suppose it's a a bit of a conundrum that the more people that use these databases the more the info becomes commonplace and you're competing against each other to find an edge, info being, it seems, the key commodity to turning a quid

Hi Peter,
I'm the developer of the database.
If you have any questions, either ask here or feel free to email me at racestats at hotmail.com. I'll answer any queries you have with no obligation to buy.

Briefly, it is a system tester with closing TAB prices and dividends.
While there are no ratings in the database, perhaps it's best attribute is highlighting what doesn't work, saving many wasted bets.

I disagree, there's far too many combinations of filters for the marketplace to be overwhelmed and hence the horse to be well under the odds as a result. Also, punters, being mugs have made the same mistakes since the year dot, and will continue to do so. CP statement that it's best attribute is highlighting what doesn't work, is exactly what I've found too.

I have found a nice few systems, with few bets, that are not all purely mechanical because 1) they give a horse a run or two after being selected (and this incorporates one of Don Scott's major axioms (as I've interpreted it)) and 2) I look for horses from NZ, o'seas (& up to 3 preps here) with a few filters to get rid of those targetting Melb Cup for instance, and interstate horses.

So, the database can be used in conjunction with any method of selection.

And they don't continue do they Vortech ?? ..... Some do tho'. If they've been consistent over 10+ years, been consistent in every state when conditions are right (class of race), even though the bets are few if the logic is there, they'll continue to perform.

If the rules are not backfittered and there is some logic they probably can continue.

No reason why a system with a 50% POT with 1-2 bets per week can't make profit in theory.
At the same time a 10% POT with 30 bets per week making profit can also continue.

This is up to the individual and neither approach is right or wrong.

Vortech, I'm glad you're posting. I like a debate on theory. I don't see anything wrong with "backfitting", whatever it's called, massaging filters to suit an outcome ..... because if it's over a long enough period then the correct / decent / profitable filters will eventually be isolated. I actually / niavely believe that you can have the most stooopid of filters in there for starters, and time will eliminate them as having any influence in finding a decent S/R / healthy div. I've tested systems that work in Vic and don't work in NSW, this is a common occurance, and wierd too. I've concluded that the handicapping class systems between the states contributes to the vast difference in results. Who knows ?? ..... I know I don't on this issue. Any thoughts Vortech ??

A couple of my good systems, (the ones that don't win 'coz I'm confused about POT & ROI, cannot win, won't hold up, have too few selections etc) are based on lightly raced horses. One selection method I have which isn't a mechanical system, and which I've posted on here, is based around lightly raced horses. I've read a lot of Don Scott in recent times, and one of his maxims (my choice of words) is to bet heavily on lightly raced horses, obviously other conditions being met, but he did say just that. I find this encouraging, as it has been after the development of my selection methods that I've encountered his writings. Sort of encourages me enough to know I'm in the right territory having confirmed that DS thought the same 30 years ago, adds a bit of longetivity to the concept. Also a few posts on here regarding the number of selections (sampling etc) have been encouraging too, not that I needed any confirmation in this area.

Do me a favour Vortech. Go to one of your 10% POT systems and slooooowly flick through the results in chronological order. If you don't get the heebie jeebies at the runs of outs between winners I'll be Santa at the Propun Xmas shindig. And you're going to be putting real moolah into this too. Ya need balls of steel in this caper. It's easy enough reading bhagwans stats regarding runs of outs, but it's a whole different ball game when there's real cash on the table. It's like standing over a two foot putt when you've got the yips ..... :)

I'll have a think about your comments and review tonight.

I'm not quite yet convinced that the time principle is enough to have confidence over a system if you don't yet have enough bets. Would be interested to see how your 50% POT systems go in the calender 2013 year.

Are you expecting your systems to continue at 50%POT?

I suppose my betting style is around having minimal ups and downs with profit margins each day. This doesn't excite most punters.

One comment I did hear in the media was around the success of 3yr old horses racing in open class against the older horses in the country with wins and then coming to the city to race against horses of the same age.

PS: Those putts just might get a little harder with the removal of the long-putter

[QUOTE=Barny]Vortech, I'm glad you're posting. I like a debate on theory. I don't see anything wrong with "backfitting", whatever it's called, massaging filters to suit an outcome ..... because if it's over a long enough period then the correct / decent / profitable filters will eventually be isolated.


If you have a system which shows a profit over 12 years of the following

Horses with TAB 2, 4 and 7
Brisbane races over 1050m
Saturday only
Good track
Field size of 14

Over 12 years showed a profit of 53%POT

Would this continue?