you have said the word "value" a lot. But let's talk what your methodology is, just not the words. In summary, you've brought nothing to the table about value investing other than some untruths.
Okay, on my methodology. I have 4 different formulas that I use on 6 of the 10 market sectors (2 instances of 2 sectors each sharing 1 formula). I use stocks listed on the US stock exchanges with a minimum market cap of 200 million. I eliminate stocks that are very low volume because I want people to be able to move in and out of the stocks fairly easily. I eliminate various stocks in the financial sector merely because I have noticed those types of stocks tend to under-perform (Such as REIT's, diversified investments, and closed-end funds). My formulas includes some or all of: the price-to-earnings ratio, the price-to-free cash flow ratio, the price-to-sales ratio, and the price-to-book ratio. The sectors I pick from do well when using value investing and 5 of the 6 sectors have beat the market returns using regular sector returns over a period of more than 40 years. These 6 sectors also contain the top 3 (and one of the 2 sectors tied at 4th) when ranked by sector sharpe ratio.
According to the book, using value investing both significantly raises profits and the sharpe ratio. The sharpe ratio is a tool used for risk-assessment (just one among many that people might use). This is based on return and standard deviation. The standard deviation is not much different from the market in general, which is why the increase in expected return raises the sharpe ratio.
When looking at this, the book largely considers the information in deciles, which are groups of 10%. To make its case, it will often compare Decile 1(made up of the top 10%) to Decile 10 (made up of the bottom 10%). Occasionally, there will be charts showing all 10 deciles. While the individual ratios (such as the P/E ratio) are shown in deciles, the sector results are shown in quintiles (groups of 20%), likely because of the huge variances in sector size.
So anyways, the sector is compared against itself when considering what methods do and do not work for value investing for that sector (on pages 501 to 545 for any of you who decide to get the book). I basically went in, took the sector results, and made my formulas based off of that. However, I also kept an emphasis on how these stocks were doing when compared to all the other stocks. This combination of sector formulas and ranking the ratios based on the market as a whole is one of the big things about my process of stock selection.
Between this and what I have posted before, all that's missing is one of my remaining reasons for eliminating stocks and the exact formulas used, so I hope you are satisfied with this.