Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
This system is not even worth an opinion. The only thing I am curious about is what logic does the author of this system use for "grouping" program numbers and then comparing the groups. This seems to be the foundation and key to this system yet the author gives no explanation of why he does this which gives the system even less validity than zero validity it already has.
|
Funny, but your Less than Zero comment brought back memories of a simple system I devised over my lunch break many years ago. I called it, Plus, Minus, Zero as in (
+, -, 0). I gave all the horses, a +, -,or 0 for each handicapping factor, such as recency, form, class, speed, gains in stretch, distance, early spd. and weight. May have missed a few like jockey, post, etc. Then just add up all the pluses and I had my contenders.
The contenders may have looked like: one with 5+'s, two with 3+'s, one with 2+'s, the rest with high numbers of -'s, and 0's. I seem to remember all the rules fitting on a 3x5 card.
If you think about this Never Plan system, it's often going to zero in on two or three of the lowest ML's, so it's going to hit fairly often. By breaking the ML's up into four different group's, it's shuffling some random numbers into play, thus not always landing on the lowest ML, or even the 2nd lowest ML, but will get to the 3rd or 4th ML quite often. Someone on here recently quoted that the 4 lowest ML's usually hit about 80% of the time historically.
