If a Salesman knocked on your door and offered the following; which would you be more tempered to buy. All products tested over 5 years

Product A: System with 12 rules; 60 Bets; Return of $80

Product B: System with 8 rules; 300 Bets; Return of $320

Product C: System with 4 rules; 2400 Bets; Return of $2420

Assume the rules have some logic.

Assuming the bet size is the same in all 3 products I would find Product A the most attractive

None. There is not enough information provided at all.

a) Not enough bets. Most likely backfitted.
b) Not enough bets. Likely to be backfitted. Profit too small.
c) profit too small. Profit likely to just be the result of random variance.

I'm trying to gather ideas around peoples thoughts on reducing profit on turnover over reducing filters

Another example
If you have 10,000 bets and made $1000 profit with 8 rules

Or if you had 25,000 bets and made $1000 profit with 6 rules.

Would you prefer the same return on investment with less rules or more interested in POT

Less is more.

Simplicity = less rules suggests the system has more soundness to it.

Complexity = more rules suggests backfitting, lack of foundation = certainty over the longer term

3 rules wins for me.

The selling point for an initial investment into a system with few rules & minimal / moderate POT (depending on your viewpoint) might be that I have a good chance of NOT loosing 75%+ of my wagers = ongoing 'investments' over the longer term -This being a challenge that 95%+ of punters have to contend with?

Throw in the entertainment = high POT systems for free OR do it the other way around.

Cheers LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

This Salesman would throw you a couple of balloons

$1000 profit on 25,000 bets is still with random variance for a system.

But based of what your trying to achieve its more of a balancing act. The profit in relation to the number of bets is important. Its relation to the number of rules is irrelvant. I could have a system that has 1 rule and make $1000 profit on 100K turnover but thats not a good thing. But also a $1000 profit on 100 selections may not be a good thing either if its based on 10 rules and looks at long shots.

People would also need to know

a) strike rate
b) average price of selections
c) average price of winners
d) where the odds are taken from (tab, betfair, etc).

Ok, so back into the sale inventives, if there was a option D, where let's say 100 prospective buyers are listed and handed over to this sales rep.
Out of 100, 20 may show interest, out of 20 5 may contact and of the 5, 1 may or may not buy system A,B, or C, or D/incentives
The rule is, cannot receive a chosen system freely, until a buyer from 100 names buys with actual money.
So if get 300 names, and 3 buyers, eventually i would have had a chance to score all 3 systems, correct?

Product C - might be a good base system on which to build more of my own.

Would get him to explain, present, sell C to me 1st and then ask him where do I sign, and when he gets out the pen... ask him to throw in Product A as a bonus (entertainment value given low no. of bets) Or NO DEAL.

You did ask?

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

PS to previous post....

PS if he was clever, salesman might already have this as an option for any 2 combinations of systems but offer the second 'bonus' at 50% to clinch the deal - condition being I sign up here and now (and ring 'the boss' in the appointment to get 'authorisation' for the 50% discount).

Hmmm.. I might use this one myself! But only if I have a very good 'system' to sell and my only objective is to help someone take immediate action for a positive outcome, as opposed to think about it, ponder, do nothing until someone comes along with a crap system and then fall for it = sign up, pay thru the nose for a lemon!

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB