Systems, systems, there were never ...

[ruthlessimon]

was this a system or process? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/tr ... rading.asp

[Anna List]

was this a system or process? http://www.investopedia.com/articles/tr ... rading.asp

I'd say a mixture of a system and a method.

[neld0r]

would this per-chance be one of the systems from mr john duncan??

Yup, that's him!

I never used his other method (FCG) because that one didn't came with thousands of proven results (unlike ASP).

and found that with well filtered matches, both worked well. so yes, systems can and do work, but require an almost fanatical attention to detail and adherence to the plan!!

For like the first one hundred games I stuck to his filters 100%. Now that I've used his system for so long and have seen pretty much every scenario, I trade any game provided that the liquidity in the CS market is at least 2K. That's the one filter I never break.

[jimibt]

I never used his other method (FCG) because that one didn't came with thousands of proven results (unlike ASP).

the FCG system is really just a pumped up LTD methodology. All it entails really is a backup insurance on the 0-0 result in the CS market, with the LTD primed in the MO. Whilst I don't follow this as a system, I do have 2 LTD based rules sets that work well, as long as the selections are well researched and the exit options are fully explored.

A bit like life really, 90% of the effort in any system (imho) is dealing with the unexpected (or should i say, dealing in a structured manner with things going against the profitable plan). To this end, I have seen myself bail on many games where there have been no goals by either team after 70 minutes, only to see a goalfest in the final 15 mins. However, the alternative is that you stand to lose your entire stake (lay based, so needs careful consideration). Altho this is a specific to particular scenario, all systems are the same in terms of rigour and money management.

For like the first one hundred games I stuck to his filters 100%. Now that I've used his system for so long and have seen pretty much every scenario, I trade any game provided that the liquidity in the CS market is at least 2K. That's the one filter I never break.

As for the ASP system, I've tweaked the edges of this so far as to have made it a pretty different beast. The point being that it's still a structured system that relies on a database to drive game selection but also has firm boundaries on where the exit points are both in terms of profit and loss.

[Dublin_Flyer]

Some systems do work indeed, but it depends on the aspect of it that you're trying to have "your" edge on to make the money.

I took this last week off BF to chill and get my head together. A close friend from my late teens and early 20's was found hanging a couple of weeks ago.

awwwww.JPG

Not a penny on it, but sure that's life, or death. Or your mate taking the piss from beyond the crematorium, who knows!

[firlandsfarm]

Most people create a system using back testing which usually means they have found a set of statistical parameters to filter past results and make a profit but the past is no guarantee of the future as we see all over financial advertising.

My guess is most systems are created by firstly thinking of a set of basic rules and backtesting to see if there is anything in it and if it looks worth pursuing add some secondary filters to make it look even better. Then you say "hey, I've got as system, let's bet". The error with this is the rules have been taylored to fit the data! The way around this is to apply 2 rules when finding your system.

1. Split your data in half using nothing more complicated than every other race. That way you will have a completely random selection of race types, courses, distances etc. 'Create' your rules and fine tune it where you think best. then, and this is the test ... apply those rules to the other half of your data. If you still have a profit you may be onto something but there is still the risk that the rules fit the data by accident so you move onto rule 2

2. Write down a reason why each filter should give you an edge. Let's say one of your filters was "Beaten favourite last time out" ... why should that point to a possible winner this time? Will the trainer and owner want to make sure the horse performs better next time out feeling aggreived the horse was beaten last time as favourite? (I'm not suggesting this is true, just an example of why it may be true.) If you believe it then you may want to fine tune your filter by asking what happens if there are two beaten favourites in the same race and exclude them (reason obvious, there can only be one winner!).

Then when you have your system have a look at how it performs ... "Great, if I started this 5 years ago I would now be a millionaire" is not good enough! What if the £1,000 bank you started with fell to -£10,000 at some before recovering to £1,000,000. Could you have afforded such a losing streak and would you have stuck with it? Whenever I see a "look how great we are" I look for the high points and low points and calculate what the losing streak was, it may be hidden in the middle of the graph but that may have been the day you started! One final check I do is to break the past results down into calendar years to see how consistent it has been and plot a graph of a rolling time period equal to your patience with a failing system to see if there is a period when you would have thrown it in the bin!

And when you have found your system keep your mouth shut! Systems are based on past betting habits so any change in betting habits will distort the return. Be careful of buying an old system for that reason and search the internet to see if the system is already in the public domain. You may have invented a system somebody else discovered 5 years ago but the prices have not yet moved but are about to because it's become popular!

I enjoy looking for systems but then I'm a bit of a data maniac! In the words of `Hannibal' Smith ... I love it when a system comes together. Happy researching.

[Anna List]

Wise words Firlandsfarm.

Anna

[Anna List]

Ada Lovelace - genius, look her up on Wikipedia.

"The gambling led to her forming a syndicate with male friends, and an ambitious attempt in 1851 to create a mathematical model for successful large bets. This went disastrously wrong, leaving her thousands of pounds in debt to the syndicate, forcing her to admit it all to her husband." (Wikipedia)

She invented software!

Systems have been around for Centuries.

Hence the cynicism. It's nothing personal except for the usual trolls you get on any forum.

Good luck with your system.

Excellent program Kerberus. My thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Anna

[Dublin_Flyer]

Most people create a system using back testing which usually means they have found a set of statistical parameters to filter past results and make a profit but the past is no guarantee of the future as we see all over financial advertising.

My guess is most systems are created by firstly thinking of a set of basic rules and backtesting to see if there is anything in it and if it looks worth pursuing add some secondary filters to make it look even better. Then you say "hey, I've got as system, let's bet". The error with this is the rules have been taylored to fit the data! The way around this is to apply 2 rules when finding your system.

1. Split your data in half using nothing more complicated than every other race. That way you will have a completely random selection of race types, courses, distances etc. 'Create' your rules and fine tune it where you think best. then, and this is the test ... apply those rules to the other half of your data. If you still have a profit you may be onto something but there is still the risk that the rules fit the data by accident so you move onto rule 2

2. Write down a reason why each filter should give you an edge. Let's say one of your filters was "Beaten favourite last time out" ... why should that point to a possible winner this time? Will the trainer and owner want to make sure the horse performs better next time out feeling aggreived the horse was beaten last time as favourite? (I'm not suggesting this is true, just an example of why it may be true.) If you believe it then you may want to fine tune your filter by asking what happens if there are two beaten favourites in the same race and exclude them (reason obvious, there can only be one winner!).

Then when you have your system have a look at how it performs ... "Great, if I started this 5 years ago I would now be a millionaire" is not good enough! What if the £1,000 bank you started with fell to -£10,000 at some before recovering to £1,000,000. Could you have afforded such a losing streak and would you have stuck with it? Whenever I see a "look how great we are" I look for the high points and low points and calculate what the losing streak was, it may be hidden in the middle of the graph but that may have been the day you started! One final check I do is to break the past results down into calendar years to see how consistent it has been and plot a graph of a rolling time period equal to your patience with a failing system to see if there is a period when you would have thrown it in the bin!

And when you have found your system keep your mouth shut! Systems are based on past betting habits so any change in betting habits will distort the return. Be careful of buying an old system for that reason and search the internet to see if the system is already in the public domain. You may have invented a system somebody else discovered 5 years ago but the prices have not yet moved but are about to because it's become popular!

I enjoy looking for systems but then I'm a bit of a data maniac! In the words of `Hannibal' Smith ... I love it when a system comes together. Happy researching.

Well said Firlandsfarm,
The system I noted in my previous post is the well known US Bred runners at Southwell system (my bastardisation of it). Muqaared was another qualifying winner yesterday and Seeking Attention is another qualifier in the 1.55 today, 3 in a row would be a miracle akin to Labaik starting 2 races in a row! Hammer Guns win has corrupted the system now as it will overcompensate for many runners statistically and by ROI over the next 2-3 years (won again on Tuesday but wasn't a selection under the same (my) criteria) by the number of runners and price, but the odd high double digit winner covers the years bets on that system if they're all backed/traded equally.

Your reason 2 is the more interesting one regarding many systems in my opinion. Not in as far as people adding in filters, but people adding in exclusions because it makes sexy ROI figures......x-y days since last run, 1-3l winner or distance to winner last time out, distance 5f, 6f, 1m, 1m1f, 1m2f. Why not 7f? Oh because it's 2/48 over 7f. Yeah but why exclude 7f runners? Because it doesn't work over 7f at a particular track, or because it doesn't work with a valid reason? .....It just doesn't work.

Prime example of backfitting.

[kerberus]

Ooops, it was Halliday that suggested the programme, (thanks Halliday), and I missed it - busy chasing my own tail. Will catch after Chelters . Ada is fascinating. More so in the wider context of her backgroud/time/circumstances etc. Makes Jobs and Gates look like total Del Boys by comparison. She was dealing with stuff that was the stuff of dreams and she had the "vision" thing!

[firlandsfarm]

Your reason 2 is the more interesting one regarding many systems in my opinion. Not in as far as people adding in filters, but people adding in exclusions because it makes sexy ROI figures......x-y days since last run, 1-3l winner or distance to winner last time out, distance 5f, 6f, 1m, 1m1f, 1m2f. Why not 7f? Oh because it's 2/48 over 7f. Yeah but why exclude 7f runners? Because it doesn't work over 7f at a particular track, or because it doesn't work with a valid reason? .....It just doesn't work.

Prime example of backfitting.

Yep, you're quite right Dublin ... typical back fitting scenarios. But if I may clarify ... when I say 'filters' that includes both selections and exclusions in my book ... I use the term 'filter' as anything that impacts on the selections found. And the more detailed a system the more it's a backfit and not a system!

Another problem that system users face is they look at the selections for the day and say "nah, I don't fancy that one" in which case they are not following the system. Every 500/1 runner has (if the odds are true) a 500/1 chance of winning and if your system is right that's the one to back because it is the one with value!

I don't know the USA bred Southwell system you mentioned and my immediate thought under my Rule 2 was why Southwell? So I searched for the system and read that it's because it's a fibersand track, the same as they use in the USA ... so that makes sense. Rule 2 has been honoured.