Me (11-6 +4.74 YTD) & the "System" (7-14 -1.88 YTD) Wk 3

[lorinda]

If it flops terribly enough, it would be worth fading. It's not in that range yet.

Lori

By the time it's in that range, it will be due for a correction to near 50/50. Even systems that lose their applicability choose games at a 48-52% clip. There's not a chance I fade this thing at the rate it's going.

[lorinda]

What do you mean by a correction? Surely you don't mean that if it loses 10 in a row then it is "due" to win 10 in a row?

Lori

Not 10 in a row. But there's a decent chance it will accumulate back those 10 losses with 10 wins over the long-run if it is now a system with zero applicability. If it has negative applicability (in the range of 45-48%) then it's not due for any consistent winning, but I don't consider 10-18 ATS YTD a sign it's at that point.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Not 10 in a row. But there's a decent chance it will accumulate back those 10 losses with 10 wins over the long-run if it is now a system with zero applicability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me for being stupid here. It seems to me that you're saying that if I flipped a coin to make the picks, and it went 14-24 that it would, at some point, be favored to get ten extra wins than losses.

I can't see how this can be possible [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Lori

A system with aggregate zero applicability doesn't flip a coin each time. It contains some principles/trends that are applicable to successfully choosing games, others that are neutral (like flipping a coin), and others that have negative applicability. If among the 28 games it's chosen a large majority of these were chosen predominantly with negatively applicable principles, and there are an equal number of games chosen using both the positive and negative principles (ed: in the long run), then among the next 28 there is an increasing chance these games will be chosen using positive principles. Just to reiterate, I am assuming this system has zero applicability. I am not arguing for it otherwise.