Hi, and a genuine thanks for the reply on this...Atho55 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:06 amDickie, 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.
How has it gone since the tweek?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.
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!Kai wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:51 amSurely, 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.
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?DickieTheQuiche wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:12 pmBasically 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 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...ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:02 pmJust 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?DickieTheQuiche wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:12 pmBasically 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).
Anyway there's dozens of logical fallacies and cognative biases that try to get in our way
I think Atho5 is assessing horse racing at the moment. What you say though, is still valid either way.ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 12:18 pmSome 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.
