Absolutely agree. I have been using Horseracebase for a few years and the ability to test theories, try systems and also, play about creating ratings, is just so much fun.
I have adopted a slightly different approach, having one main system that produces around 900 selections a year across all codes which has, so far!, produced a profit to bsp.
Can heartily endorse your comments re Horseracebase, which, at the price, is very good value I think.
Enjoying reading your blogs, wishing you continued success.
Thanks for this, Andy. Without wanting to delve into your own system too much here(!), I'm assuming if it's producing so many qualifiers all year around it's a system driven by profile? I've looked at profile driven systems before, e.g. age, unexposed, pedigree, reliable trainer and jockey etc. I quite liked the idea, but gradually became uncomfortable with it.
To give the very general gist, it's linked to price & form. The original iteration produced less qualifiers and has been tweaked to gain more without loss in performance. I like the increased volume as it firms up the A/E figures giving more confidence & also more winners which is useful to me psychologicaly in inevitable losing runs. Recently had a plus 30% drawdown, not unusual of course.
Absolutely agree. I have been using Horseracebase for a few years and the ability to test theories, try systems and also, play about creating ratings, is just so much fun.
I have adopted a slightly different approach, having one main system that produces around 900 selections a year across all codes which has, so far!, produced a profit to bsp.
Can heartily endorse your comments re Horseracebase, which, at the price, is very good value I think.
Enjoying reading your blogs, wishing you continued success.
Andy
Thanks for this, Andy. Without wanting to delve into your own system too much here(!), I'm assuming if it's producing so many qualifiers all year around it's a system driven by profile? I've looked at profile driven systems before, e.g. age, unexposed, pedigree, reliable trainer and jockey etc. I quite liked the idea, but gradually became uncomfortable with it.
To give the very general gist, it's linked to price & form. The original iteration produced less qualifiers and has been tweaked to gain more without loss in performance. I like the increased volume as it firms up the A/E figures giving more confidence & also more winners which is useful to me psychologicaly in inevitable losing runs. Recently had a plus 30% drawdown, not unusual of course.