Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven
Richard,
I cleaned up the layout. Thank you very much for reporting this. This confirms some of what my own experience is, and that of several folks who seem reluctant to post it online.
One of the most important attributes of NewPace, IMO, is that it is automated - you push a button and 4 contenders appear. With the rest of RDSS and the Methodology, you have to push a few more buttons and use your brain to get the contenders. Doing so, at minimum, does not give you worse results. Then, with either approach, you begin making betting decisions.
Are you able to elaborate on the relative profitability of the 2 approaches to getting contenders, using a common betting strategy?
Thanks again for this work!
Ted
P.S. I moved this thread out of the Testing Forum
|
Hi Ted,
Can't go into as much detail as I'd like to due to circumstances, but this is a very important point you make that no one else seems to grasp. The great value of NP, if it works, is that it's automated. Therefore you can make many more bets than is possible with RDSS, therefore a greater net is possible with a lower ROI than RDSS. It is for this reason that RDSS can't really be tested. As Ted points out, someone is still making decisions - all the 'tests' I see here include filtering for odds and for other reasons depending on personal judgement - makes perfect sense if you're just handicapping, but it invalidates the results as a test. Also, and I don't mean to seem like I'm haranguing anyone - small samples are no better than chance. If you want to base your betting decisions on them that's your business, but don't expect them to hold up going forward. For those who aren't believers, I suggest a reading of Nassim Taleb's 'Fooled by Randomness'. One of the reasons I get annoyed with Dave is that he understands stuff like this perfectly well, but ignores it when selling handicapping products. To put sample size in perspective many blackjack games require a sample of 50k rounds to achieve a 95% confidence interval. Since you theoretically can have a much larger edge in handicapping the necessary sample is smaller, but still much larger than most people seem to believe.
Cheers,
B Jennet