You didn't read my post correctly LG

"I cannot test anything to do with newspaper polls or ratings etc"

I think you'll find that a lot of the purely form based systems posted on here a while ago (a fair while ago) were from an extremely friendly database ...... they were pumped out like sausages and I couldn't get any of them into the profit, let alone the massive POT's that were claimed.

Just a thought

Perhaps the systems LG talks about are profitable because those systems which are not able to be tested easily by everyone (those who buy software) do not have masses of people testing against them.

This is why I think personal ratings have a chance to get some good selections and make a profit if done correctly.

Are you testing the same period? If not then perhaps the findings were valid for that point in time that they were tested. I can find profitable systems that worked today but may not work tomorrow.

Also it could be that they were profitable for an extended period of time but as showin in "Winning without Thinking" if there are trends which are profitable it is only a matter of time before others find them and the system loses its edge (odds start dropping but same strike rate).

An example of this would be the ratings for tatts. The 100 raters win a huge number of races but those ratings are so overrated that they are usually over bet.

You do an injustice to one of the greatest thinkers / punters to have graced this forum to date. But you couldn't have knowingly done that unless you had come across this little gem from 'the horse's mouth'. Seems like you missed this one, it being one of his many great contributions here imho. This puzzles me given that I was under the impression from your rhetoric that you had noted all of the great 'winning systems' freely provided on here?

Not sure he would have enjoyed the reference to pumping out "sausages" either.

LG


PS Thanks for this and many other great contributions, Wesmip1

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

Your being mischevious. I was not referring to Wesmip1 LG, as he did not pump out systems like sausages.

I've read all the posters on here many times and know their work far more intimately than you possibly could.

Let's not go tit for tat, eh, it's grubby.

Interesting point barny.

I think you may have missed the mark here, however - you have obviously not read wesmip1 as 'intimately' as I have.

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

YOU were the one who assumed it was he who pumped out systems like sausages LG, not me ..... sigh

My point stands, barny.

There is no monopoly on 'intimate knowledge' in here. When you make an assumption as to what someone else has or hasn't read, recorded, tested on here.. you reveal a fundamental 'blind spot' and lack of respect for others.

Given that you have missed one of Wesmip1's finest contributions would seem to indicate that you have not read everything here, let alone the shortlist of highly respected contributors.

An end to this conversation now, perhaps?

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

LG, how you can twist things is a great skill you have. Politics is calling you .....

No where did I mention wesmip1, nowhere. You used this posters name first time.

I've been posting systems that show a POT, which is the essence of this forum. The systems I've posted can be used as the basis of more productive system, or can be tested to see if the figures stand up.

There's just no point posting systems when I get canned by you and moeee as soon as it hits the board.