10th December 2012, 08:53 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 259
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vortech
[QUOTE=aussielongboat]re why so many:
these are separate approaches or systems that I monitor. e.g 1 such systems is choosing last start winners when there is only 1 LSW in the race.
in isolation it does not work but with some tweaking it may improve- so I might try 5 or 6 tweaks or combinations of tweaks - they will become 5 or 6 systems/approaches with their own POT and SR that i will monitor and so on it goes to where no i have about 180 such combination or filters etc.
they have to be easy to monitor and easy to develop.
Hi Aussieboat - When you pick an approach like above where you take LS Winners with only one LSW and test against various other variables. I understand your testing into three batches. Do you start by testing over the 1st batch of years. If the POT shows promise, run the same system for the next period of years and so on.....
|
yes that's it - the key thing is that you cannot massage it on the 2nd or 3rd sets of data - if you do that you are data fitting.
data fitting IMHO never really works
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vortech
[QUOTE=aussielongboat]
Also lets say your period 2 of testing shows a POT of 25% in the 4 years of testing. A loss of 8% in year one, 56% POT in year two, loss of 18% in year three and a lost of 5% in the fourth year. Are you happy with a system producing a profit in 1 out of 4 years?
Sorry for all the questions
|
probably not as i could imagine the Run of outs would be a big number in there somewhere.
also 1 in 4 means there was probably 1 -2 LS winners in y2 somewhere.
however in more detail - it would depend on the ongoing SRs, the place POT and whether in Y2 there was a few or only one LS winner that bumped up the POT.
i also like to look for winning months greater than 7/12
the higher the winning months % - the higher my confidence.
i am always looking for consistency as i feel that if that exists the results are more likely to be repeated.
|