Hi UselessBettor,

Are you going to follow up on your points.?

Cheers

Michal - Some very good points made and some elements I haven't consider. Thankyou for sharing with all

Hi,

I just had a read of this and the first thing that stick in my mind is that to go for a year without making a new peak with your bankroll would be way too frustrating for 99.9% of people to handle I think. That's a long time to wait before you start seeing new profits hit the account, no matter what the eventual end result may potentially be. Maybe that's just my mentality and view on it but i'm sure there are others that agree.

I've only just started managing to make a small sustained profit in the last 2 months on a small amount of money so don't have much to add. But after what Paul discussed in my thread and looking at the maths behind it the max bank drawdown in terms of % is what I believe to be one of the most important aspects. Without an understanding of what this either has been while paper testing or is likely to be when betting then I just don't understand how you could comfortably set a staking amount.

I'd be interested in reading about the points UB raised although no pressure on him, I'm sure I could google and find some information.

It's probably the selection part that I'm struggling with the most now, although I'm working on it and making some inroads.

Always happy to read anything that goes into a bit of depth rather than some threads that just list selections etc. Maybe we can build on the info in this thread from a few posters?

Hi Josh,

That is the point of the piece, most people do give up in frustration EVEN WHEN the method delivers profit longterm. I follow your post on the other thread and you like may here do have a method that uses multiple strategies. If one of your strategies had a year off while the others didn't you would make money. However what you would do with that system determines whether you would participate in the profits that system had a potential to generate. Thats always the issue, we don't see what is coming, and its this that unhinges people. I too would like to read more in regards to how others look at viability.

Easier on the head (and wallet) with a portfolio of different systems Michal?

Cheers LG

Hi LG,

Diversity is one of the cornerstones of financial management. Providing that all your interests don't all go south at the same time. Which could happen even if your methods are all profitable long term. This is where the bank management comes into play. Investments should be structured in such a way that your bank (and head) should survive, but that assumes that you actually have a profitable long term method. I think that many people convince themselves that they do not and give up. At the same time I acknowledge that the other side of the coin is how long do you throw good money after bad before you eliminate a method. This brings us back to the start and what people want to know, how can you measure/ascertain that a system is profitable long term and how do you manage the investments and your emotions.

Michal - To follow up on this this good thread can I seek some explanation from you on the following

I've been testing a new particular system and have the following outcomes.

Test Period: 2009 to 2011
5251 Bets - Profit $353.00 on NSW Tab

2nd Phrase of testing for 2012 - 13
2012 Shows a $400 loss
2013 Shows a $150 Profit ... back on track

Is there anything else system developers should be using to test the long-term profitable of a particular system. In this case... would you sack or back.

What other variables should be under consideration apart from sample size

Regards

Hi Vortech,

Its a tuff call. For a system to implode so badly in a single year, there may be issues at play that you may be not aware. One of them is the dynamic of the form or ratings that make up that system. Has there been a change in the form or ratings algorithm ? Might your data be compromised in that year ? Missing results? Is the number of selections smaller?

Does your result rely on a few long shots? While these are OK to rely on (if you can handle the run of outs) there is no guarantee you will get another one. Remember longshot winners are a market mistake, the market is getting smarter so it makes fewer mistakes and while Fluke horses win at great odds all the time and will continue to do so, the ones that do so based on some sort of predictable form/rating pattern have their odds reducing.

Look at only the losers in the 2 samples, it may be that the same patterns lose and it is only that there are more of these in that year and eliminating them improves your result across the board.

It may be that there are too many unintentional bets, that is bets that fall outside of your intended filter range of the original sample, as explained in the article on our website.

The decision to keep or sack is not one for me to make, there are other good threads here that look at other things that may help you make that decision.

The best guide is logic, is your system logical? Then large sample size, however it must be in relation to the test period. 2000 selections in 12 years is the same as 166 bets a year. Please don't make a mistake thinking that in such a situation 2000 selection means anything. Your numbers look OK as I believe that if you can find 2-3 bets a day with a system and make profit then you might be well onto an actual system.

Looking at the dividends distribution is also important. Where is your profit coming from and can you handle that? Waiting for a 'system saving' longshot may take you outside your comfort zone.

Understand that a system will have an AVERAGE result dynamic that is a long term indication of the system performance however the daily results of any system is almost random. It is only long term that the system returns to its true performance. Best illustrated with the coin toss, 50-50 longterm and anything from between 0 -100 when you take a random sample size. The complexity of horse racing however means that the randomness is far more prevalent then we all would like. The above why we always give our strike rate results for longterm (all our) data sample. This is the ONLY true and honest measure that cannot be manipulated.

Hope this helps

Thankyou very much Michal

I'll do some analysis and let you know the results.

Happy New Year Michal and all other punters!

After looking into the information of this system it would appear that the largest dividend plays a sufficient part in the overall profit and sustainability of the system.

But what has me confused is how can such a system deliver 5000 bets and not be sustainable over another 5000 bets.

The principles of the system whether logic or not would cancelled out by the large sample size.

I would like to share the rules to this particular system with you personally if you have any available time to review and give your thoughts.

Please note I don't actually bet with this system. My logic is now let the more knowledgeable horseplayers out there do the work for me and then following there selections.