Is little Acorns genuine or a blag!?

Don't chase your losses, it doesn't work. You will eventually bust your bank.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kai
Posts: 4609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:21 pm
Location: Hogwarts, UK

Just pointing out the bleeding obvious, for their sake.

But that's good, fair enough, although my remarks were aimed more towards Dickie and other (future) lurkers who are considering buying these systems, should have specified that earlier. Apologies if it came across differently or if I inadvertently called you a lazy bum :)
DickieTheQuiche
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:15 pm

Atho55 wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:06 am
Dickie, when the original criteria was backtested against a lump of data it did not work so was tweaked until a positive outcome was returned.

Taking this new criteria and seeing how it actually does going forward is the next step. It has been running since 15th Aug which coincides with the last post on page 1 of the thread.


This is the criteria for GB


LA Criteria.jpg

It`s working at the moment but there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so.
Hi, and a genuine thanks for the reply on this...

I understand that these systems need to evolve and adapt going forward, that's obvious, an edge is only an edge for so long!!! I did a dissertation on logic many many (too many) moons ago and one thing I touched on briefly was "the gamblers fallacy!" It's called by many other things these days and I'm sure everyone here has heard of it? Basically take a series of results, select a desired outcome, create rules around that outcome and hey presto, you have yourself an edge (at least in the short term).
Taking this new criteria and seeing how it actually does going forward is the next step. It has been running since 15th Aug which coincides with the last post on page 1 of the thread.
How has it gone since the tweek?

Many Thanks in advance
DickieTheQuiche
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:15 pm

Kai wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:51 am
Atho55 wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:06 am
Taking this new criteria and seeing how it actually does going forward is the next step. It`s working at the moment but there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so.
Surely, if there is no "positive expectancy" the only logical next step is to just bin it.

There's people like Dickie here scouring the internet for reviews on this system and finding this thread because the website results weren't updates since June and they're wondering if the system still "works".

Well one obvious answer here is that the system does still works as intended, for the author, because YOU (the buyers) are the flipping system.

EDIT: You could maybe argue that you're purchasing the right to resume someone else's work and you may have a point to some extent, but that's also yet another conceptual dead end, if you have an aversion to (hard) work then how do you expect to reap any rewards in the first place.
It's ok Kai, my life now is scouring the internet since the kids all grew up and left home, It's quite sad really! :|
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

DickieTheQuiche wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:12 pm
Basically take a series of results, select a desired outcome, create rules around that outcome and hey presto, you have yourself an edge (at least in the short term).
Just me being a pedant as usual, the gambler's fallacy is about unrelated events. Eg the last 10 spins were red so it must be black next time etc. What you're describing is backfitting, picking just the winners from a set of data without re-testing your hypothesis on unseen data. A confirmation bias?

Anyway there's dozens of logical fallacies and cognative biases that try to get in our way :D
DickieTheQuiche
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:15 pm

ShaunWhite wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:02 pm
DickieTheQuiche wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:12 pm
Basically take a series of results, select a desired outcome, create rules around that outcome and hey presto, you have yourself an edge (at least in the short term).
Just me being a pedant as usual, the gambler's fallacy is about unrelated events. Eg the last 10 spins were red so it must be black next time etc. What you're describing is backfitting, picking just the winners from a set of data without re-testing your hypothesis on unseen data. A confirmation bias?

Anyway there's dozens of logical fallacies and cognative biases that try to get in our way :D
Just be be clear, any system regards horse racing inherently involves looking to the past as the only set of results and building a forecast from there. My point was that once that forecast modal breaks down, you'll look for a new set of variables to base future predictions on and so the story goes on...
I'm not knocking peoples attempts to find these patterns, infact i've made money doing just that, I was just pointing out the need to keep on keeping on.

And I thought the Little Acorns Site had run it's course until I heard an alteration to the formula a few posts up which was interesting to me.
Atho55
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:37 pm
Location: Hinckley, Leics

Fundamentally for a system to work the outcomes need to be favourable. If you look at the original criteria that did not seem to be the case although at the point of conception it could have been. Who knows. Making adjustments (tweaking) to the criteria reversed that trend over the same time period using the same data.


A comparison of the two moving forward from the 15th looks like the No of times each concept entered the market and the outcomes as a % of the total seem to be following the original analysis. The chart plots the £ returns over the same period.

LA Chart.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Atho55
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:37 pm
Location: Hinckley, Leics

Update

LA Update.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Crazyskier
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:36 pm

Atho55 wrote:
Wed Nov 16, 2022 8:46 am
Update


LA Update.jpg
Very interesting, Atho. Would you mind explaining the 'tweak' to the original strategy in more detail, please?

Thanks in advance,

CS
Atho55
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:37 pm
Location: Hinckley, Leics

The original criteria and the tweaked criteria are on the screenshots on the last post by me on page 1 of this thread. I ran the original criteria over 3yrs of data and concluded it did not appear to work within that time window. Tweaking the odds slightly could however turn it into something that might work. The latest update from Aug 15th till now represents the outcomes of both criteria going forwards rather than looking back into historical data albeit also on paper.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Some questions that some of the less experienced should be asking themselves if they find something similar...

1.Are you confident 253 dogs over 90 days is an adequate sample size?
2.Were the tweaks applied retrospectively, can you be sure it's not backfitted and what have you done to ensure that ?
3.Given that it's 3 dogs a day, do you feel it would scale sufficiently to make the effort worthwhile vs working on a stragegy that might select 100s a day.

No need to reply to me Athos, just trying to encourage critical thinking. The aim is always to disprove a stragegy rather than prove it before you open your wallet. But so often people see critical thinking, hard questions and rigour as being negative.
Atho55
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:37 pm
Location: Hinckley, Leics

Hi Shaun, I can answer your queries.

1. It`s GB horses only not dogs and unsure why you think otherwise. Re sample size it is what it is. Ideally it should be bigger, but it is at least doing some observation instead of moving from discovery to testing live on small stakes which seems to be the advice generally given.
2. I did the backfitting or tweaking to find a set of odds that worked, and they have remained the same since the 15th Aug. All I do is refresh the Pivot tables from the data in the database.
3. It`s called Little Acorns so I don`t think it was ever meant to have hundreds of bets per day.

It`s easy to increase the bet count by adjusting the criteria. Have others being observed based upon the same generic idea such as Lay Rank 2, Lay Rank 3 when the odds on the other ranks hit threshold values but generally did them out of curiosity more than anything else
User avatar
wearthefoxhat
Posts: 2853
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am

ShaunWhite wrote:
Wed Nov 16, 2022 12:18 pm
Some questions that some of the less experienced should be asking themselves if they find something similar...

1.Are you confident 253 dogs over 90 days is an adequate sample size?
2.Were the tweaks applied retrospectively, can you be sure it's not backfitted and what have you done to ensure that ?
3.Given that it's 3 dogs a day, do you feel it would scale sufficiently to make the effort worthwhile vs working on a stragegy that might select 100s a day.

No need to reply to me Athos, just trying to encourage critical thinking. The aim is always to disprove a stragegy rather than prove it before you open your wallet. But so often people see critical thinking, hard questions and rigour as being negative.
I think Atho5 is assessing horse racing at the moment. What you say though, is still valid either way.

The principle of laying a shorty with anticipated market competition, is still worth looking at, that's for sure. Not just a straight lay, but for the late market drift trades.
User avatar
wearthefoxhat
Posts: 2853
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am

Atho55 wrote:
Wed Nov 16, 2022 8:46 am
Update


LA Update.jpg
Nice work. ;)
Atho55
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:37 pm
Location: Hinckley, Leics

Thanks Fox. I was just having a nose at something you probably started. Was thinking about having a look at Dr Slicers footy strategy. Any pointers?
User avatar
wearthefoxhat
Posts: 2853
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am

Atho55 wrote:
Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:29 pm
Thanks Fox. I was just having a nose at something you probably started. Was thinking about having a look at Dr Slicers footy strategy. Any pointers?
I've got some old .pdf's somewhere and a spreadsheet from another forum. I'll get back to you,
Post Reply

Return to “Loss recovery systems and methods”