Home › Forums › Archive Topics › Systems › VDW
- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by GeorgeJ.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 30, 2007 at 05:48 #117194
Lets be clear about the above.
Mtoto referred to having identified Candidato Roy as a selection by his understanding of VDW. I have merely demonstrated the basic numerics by which anyone reasonably well versed in the VDW approach would have reached a shortlist of the field in which not only would Candidato Roy have been included but would have demanded attention by virtue of having, within that shortlist, the highest ability rating.
The demonstration shows how VDW sought to balance class and form (naively, some may think). He identified those horses he thought were consistent form horses and, within these, picked the best that was ok on capability. Whether, if he was analysing races today, he would be using the same "tools" as in the late 1970s (ie win prize money divided by number of races won for class) we don’t know, but that was what he used then.
While one member is on record on this thread as saying he thinks that way of assessing class is the proven best, personally I am among those who take a different view. But let’s remember how that independent figure the Official Handicapper saw things: highest class horse in the race – Lovelace (OR 109). Second highest class: why Candidato Roy and Mine (both 105). So in this case at least the winner was very near the top of two class measures based on quite different numerics.
Just as a horse at or near the top of the handicap doesn’t always win, so a horse at or near the top of VDW’s ability rating ranking doesn’t always win – and only the barmy would expect them to do as that it only one dimension. (Shevchenko has a good pedigree as a striker but judging by what I saw last night on Match of the Day he is currently sorely out of form and was taken off early in the second half.) But it is one dimension, and VDW’s work, if studied, shows not only what the other important elements are (form and capability in particular) but gives one a start on how to put them into practice.
September 30, 2007 at 08:07 #117206The very lowest basis upon which I’d EVER be convinced about the merits or demerits of a particular system would be to listen to AFTERTIMING on the results it produces. I could come up with a plethora of ‘systems’ upon which I could spin a semi-convincing argument and which would throw up the odd big priced winner. Wouldn’t mean they are good systems though.
I’m concerned that this thread is being built up by several individuals into no more than a clever attempt at steering people to a commercial system and/or other sites (eg Jongringo’s last post and also I think they have been posted on the net, but I’m not sure where). If it continues in that vein then the thread will be pruned (there is some interesting stuff on it admittedly and I will leave that on).
No gratuitous references to other forums please and no spamming commercial systems. I would suggest that if members feel they have a good system they start posting analysis/results (PRE-RACE) in the systems section of the site. Then we’ll see how good is it!
Sorry if I’ve mis-judged this one.
September 30, 2007 at 08:51 #117208JohnG,
The real reason the 3:40 at Ascot was mentioned was in response to the folk who keep saying the method(s) are out dated, or to crude to succeed today.
Hensman has shown how the bare figures are arrived at, and that is fair enough. Pru has raised a few of the doubts I have about the worth of those figures. What he, and no one else can deny is they did narrow the field to include the winner. How many using commercial or well known ratings could have achieved that?
As I have stated previously I don’t use the ability rating shown by VDW (and the one shown by Hensman) in fact until it was pointed out on the VDW forum I didn’t realise the ranking order of that ability rating. I use a rating I think VDW used and one I think is stronger in the logic stakes. In saying that it is just another facit that was picked up by taking the time and effort to read and understand VDW’s thinking.
I did think by bring this race to everyones attention it not only showed that VDW worked in the HARDEST of all types of races a large field hcp at a top class meeting. It also showed value winners can be found without number crunching (and theories) all it takes is a little knowhow.
To those who have mention aftertiming, I wouldn’t have mentioned the race unless I was happy I could prove my assesment was made before the race. I don’t really see the point of putting up the assessment of this race now as I have put up other races again from the major hcps at top meetings. I can only assume ( based on remarks made on this thread) some folk haven’t bothered to read them if they still think VDW is just a system. However some maybe interested to see my top rated four on ability, Please note races won and prize money plays no part in this rating …
Candidato Roy 1
Lovelace 2
Mutanaseb 3
Utmost Respect 4Be Lucky
September 30, 2007 at 09:25 #117211Equally it could be argued that Candidato Roy was a ‘freak’ winner whose only hope of emerging triumphant was to race on favourable ground. In as much as that could well be argued to have been the case then it renders any basking in self congratulatory glory at having highlighted such a winner no more valid than getting the lottery up and thinking that you have therefore developed a systematic methodology at cracking it.
In order to establish whether your system (and I’d strongly suggest any systematic method of reaching a selection can quite properly be labelled a ‘system’) has any legs Mtoto let’s have a put up or shut up exercise. Top three handicaps (by prizemoney value to winner) for the next 4 Saturdays. You produce your ratings and post them on the Systems section of this site, along with accompanying text highlighting ONE selection along with suggested stake, not narrowing the field down to half a dozen, and we’ll see how things look with a larger sample.
What do you say?
September 30, 2007 at 09:39 #117214But let’s remember how that independent figure the Official Handicapper saw things: highest class horse in the race – Lovelace (OR 109). Second highest class: why Candidato Roy and Mine (both 105).
For crying out loud, the BHA Handicapper effectively thought that all the horses in the race had an equal chance, with their differentials in class being offset by the differentials in weight.
Apologies for posting a link to a discussion about this on another site, cormack. It was the first thing that came up when I Googled it, and the VDW-ers were playing coy about the way they go about things at the time.
I feel a bit like I’ve been accosted by the Moonies.
September 30, 2007 at 10:03 #117220"I seriously doubt you’re going to find anything of use in the material".
Sailing Shoes there is an awful lot in the booklet the Golden Years, whether you want to try and use the methods or not. So I would not see it as a waste of money. I have all, as I see it, relevant VDW booklets and frequently look back over them.
Cormack, it is a method not a system.
I think that Hensman was showing the mechanics of the method as to how a field could be reduced through consistency and ability (One aspect of class). My point was that it would have been better to have chosen a race with say 8 runners and a winner at moderate odds, rather than with the 3-40 Ascot. The reason being that members would presume that books can be made with winners at astronomical odds and of course it was given after the race (hence fuelling after timing jibes). Nowhere does Hensman say that a bet was struck or a book made for that matter, just that the winner would have to be included if one were to do so.
Anyway it seems Mtoto had put up the winner in a short list before the event, so it seems that Hensman was not too short of the mark in showing their short list and how it was achieved.September 30, 2007 at 10:31 #117224Mtoto44
Member
Posts: 141
(29/9/07 14:20)
Reply | EditRe: Saturday 29th September 2007 My understanding is the 48 hour decs were brought in to make racing a more sellable product. I don’t quite see how this works when punters can spend hours going through a race only for it to be decimated by non runners. Not only can your selection be pulled out but the whole shape of a race altered.
Ascot 3:40
Candidato Roy 1
Lovelace 2
Mutanaseb 3
Utmost Respect 4Candidato Roy a surprising top rated, Jack Sullivan was the original top rated until his withdrawl. Although CR is now the top rated it is using completly different form lines than the ones used for JC. he is also a very hard horse to weigh up only having one run in Britain. Also have no idea about the draw at this stage. The only thing that stops me just putting a line through him is the jockey/trainer, both could have different options. I am toying with a place bet here, but only a small one and it won’t be used in the place doubles.
Lovelace, improving young horse. Course, distance, and going should suit, in fact he has handled everything that has been put in front of him. As he runs up with the pace that shouldn’t be a problem. He looks like a true group horse running in a hcp and more importantly over the right distance.
Mutanaseb, while slightly sub standard last race could be put down to the going it could just have easily been the stiff straight course. His best form has been round a bend. Can’t see him being good enough to win this.
Utmost Respect although he won the consolation race last week I have used his figures from the race before that as I make it the better performance. Although I had him top rated to win that, he didn’t figure very well in the big race proper. He is young enough to improve but I do have him with a lot to find with Lovelace, and he also has the distance to cope with.Lovelace = c/f and a bet win and place. Candidato Roy is worth a SMALL place only bet.
Edited by: Mtoto44 at: 29/9/07 14:23
Cormack,
You mean like the above, note the date and time? Can I ask why you think I would allow you or anyone else to dictate which races I bet in? Can I also ask why you think I would want to play you’re game? If you read my letter to the RFU I think you will find I have no wish to prove anything. As stated before my only reason for highlighting the 3:40 was in response to impression VDW is/was outdated.
I only came on here to try to get an idea how some of the more intelligent punters view VDW.
Its your house and I respect that. If you think this thread is unworthy of a place here take it down. If you decide to cull it all I ask is you leave some of the more sensible answers up. Please try to judge those on their worth and not by the authors name and supposed worth in the racing media.
I have nothing to sell, my only aim was to try and counteract some of the absolute bilge spewed out by so called racing journalists and pundits.
Be Lucky all
September 30, 2007 at 10:33 #117225Cormack
The site I have seen where the basic VDW letters can be viewed was a free one. My purpose in mentioning it was merely, if anyone else had the url, is that it would afford a chance for those wanting to read the article to which I made reference to do so for free. The only other free source I know is the British Library, but that is only useful if one lives or works in London.
Prufrock
You miss the point. Ask the Official Handicapper before yesterday’s race which in his opinion was the best horse in the field, and he’d reply Lovelace, then Candidato Roy and Mine, etc etc. But that is NOT the same question as asking him which in his opinion was the most likely winner. The only aspect that he controls is weight, and if weight was the only consideration by and large there would be no betting on handicaps, because as you rightly say on that single criterion the Handicapper does his best to equalize chances. But he has no control over whether a horse is currently in form or not, whether it is running over its best distance or not, whether it will like the going or not, whether it will act on the course or not, etc etc. All these factors need to be taken fully into account, and the whole object of VDW’s approach was to show that "it is the balance between class, form and the other factors [by which he meant capability and probability] which shows the good things".
September 30, 2007 at 10:40 #117226I feel a bit like I’ve been accosted by the Moonies.
I’d say it’s more like the Jehovah’s Witnesses turning up on your doorstep on a Sunday morning, Pru.
You’ll never win this argument. My advice: give up.
September 30, 2007 at 11:31 #117234Cormack,
Whilst you have only my word to reassure you that I am not involved in some merchandising exercise there are, I imagine, others amongst the formidable membership of this forum who have known me for several years since the internet reached my part of the jungle, and who can attest to my impartiality.
My interest in posting was that VDW was being accused of being an aftertimers playground. Whilst that may be the case for other fora and other contributors it would be a grave injustice lo let anyone go under the impression that Mtoto was a charlatan.
September 30, 2007 at 11:50 #117238When I checked a few minutes ago, Strategic Mount and John Terry were non runners in the 3.10 Ascot, and Persian Express in the 4.55. If any more come out, the following may need adjustment, but if not the consistent horses, in decending order of ability rating, in the two handicaps are:
3.10
136 – Lundy’s Lane
096 – All The Good
092 – Rampallion
087 – Before You Go
086 – Millville
081 – Mikao
068 – Mustajed
047 – Ladies Best
047 – Prince Sabaah4.55
244 – Pentecost
102 – Prince Of Thebes
071 – Kinsya
067 – River Tiber
052 – SamarindaThe ONLY significance attaching to these two lists is that, for VDW’s basic method, these are the horses which would be further evaluated to see if any (or any combination) warrant backing. VDW never claimed that these lists always contained the winners; only that a high proportion of winners come from those horses in such lists that stand up to scrutiny in terms of whether they are in form and on capability grounds.
September 30, 2007 at 11:55 #117240Prufrock
You miss the point. Ask the Official Handicapper before yesterday’s race which in his opinion was the best horse in the field, and he’d reply Lovelace, then Candidato Roy and Mine, etc etc.
And you reckon that I have missed the point!!!
How can you quote an individual like the Official Handicapper and then ignore completely the basic premise of his work?
He would maintain that “class” or ability should only be viewed in context, and that in the context of a handicap it should not be a consideration.
At least your form figures and prize-money calculations – crazy though they are – have some sort of internal consistency in that they don’t try to borrow respectability from a credible outside source.
September 30, 2007 at 12:16 #117242‘He would maintain that “class” or ability should only be viewed in context, and that in the context of a handicap it should not be a consideration.’
Prufrock,
Am I correct in understanding that you think that class should not be considered in a hcp?
September 30, 2007 at 12:29 #117244Prufrock
Might I suggest that you talk to one of the Official Handicappers? I have, over the years, and they are generally speaking very friendly and forthcoming.
September 30, 2007 at 12:35 #117246Let it go, Pru.
September 30, 2007 at 13:22 #117248Hensman, without wishing to appear as if dropping names, I trained three of them how to handicap in the first place.
I will, gus, I will.
September 30, 2007 at 13:32 #117250Ok Guys (girls?) – sorry if I appear a bit heavy-handed. It’s just that the thread was shaping up as though the next thing that was about to appear was a link to a site where – ‘You too can back 50/1 winners’
For what it’s worth (not a lot) I’d suggest that there are a large number of ways of coming up with a list of 9 horses in a race which contain a large proportion of winners.
And…finally – [i:36paccvm]”it is the balance between class, form and the other factors [by which he meant capability and probability] which shows the good things” [/i:36paccvm]- surely that is the basis for ANY selection process worth it’s salt.
Snake oil if you ask me.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.