In post #22 of wareagle's system thread, how did you go back to past years' data to recover lines and outcomes?
I am curious if week by week one looked at all the parlay pairs that fit wareagle's 33% condition, sorted them in descending order by the gap between the spread and the total, then played only the top 25% or top 50% of those how it would fair over a long period of time.
My thinking is that if wareagle's "system" is just something that found a correlation between hitting one of your parlay pairs at higher than 50%, then maybe if one took the most extreme of these (I'm guessing top extreme) the variables would be even more strongly correlated. Of course, I could be wrong and it might be the bottom 25% or 50% of the aforementioned list that produces a stronger correlation (and hence better results).
If I knew how you back tested these things, I culd run my own experiments and report on them.
Just a thought.
I am curious if week by week one looked at all the parlay pairs that fit wareagle's 33% condition, sorted them in descending order by the gap between the spread and the total, then played only the top 25% or top 50% of those how it would fair over a long period of time.
My thinking is that if wareagle's "system" is just something that found a correlation between hitting one of your parlay pairs at higher than 50%, then maybe if one took the most extreme of these (I'm guessing top extreme) the variables would be even more strongly correlated. Of course, I could be wrong and it might be the bottom 25% or 50% of the aforementioned list that produces a stronger correlation (and hence better results).
If I knew how you back tested these things, I culd run my own experiments and report on them.
Just a thought.
