- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Dave Jay,
I’d suggest watching races, something that was impossible for the majority of punters when this stuff was first debated.
Just the same as if I was going to bet on football, I’d watch as many matches as possible – ditto cricket, tennis, snooker, rugby, etc etc.
The form book is one (or two) opinion(s) proffered by other people – why not form your own opinion?
If I understood the posts yesterday correctly, Lundy Lane was highlighted as a ‘consistent’ horse. Fairly laughable description given his last win was more than two years ago, unless a consistent professional loser is what you’re seeking.
I know all I need to know about Lundy Lane because I’ve watched his races – I don’t need to search through the form book or check out his prize money (most of which was gained by being placed, not by winning).
AP
I believe Mr Potts has hit the nail regarding why systems or methods or whatever you want to call them will ultimately fail. The key to race selection is not back fitting results i.e. RSB or similar, it is a simple task of watching as much racing as possible, form conclusions from that about the race or individual horses and take those forward into future assessments.
By searching for methods/systems IMO you are missing the most important part – the horses themselves.
Dave Jay
I think value is relative.If I think a horse should be 1/3 on and its
10/11 on its a value bet.If I think it should be 100/1 and its 40/1 then its not value imo.I think there is value at the front end of the market(1/3- 10/1) but there is value at other prices just does not happen as often.I think you have to get the right balance between picking winners and finding value.Why does it have to be one or the other.I don’t think VDW was just about picking winners. I think he priced up horses.Maybe not the whole race, but just the logical contenders.I try to evaluate a race with out looking at the Racing Post forecast because as you say Dave its only one persons opinion.I agree with most things VDW said , but I disagree with his staking plan. Although even this could work if a very high strike rate was achieved because the losing runs would only be short.Thanks for the reply AP .. at least you didn’t suggest someone go and buy a book ..
It’s quite interesting that there are about 4 new members on this thread who have never posted before and some of the pro’s AP, Pru, Wallace and Gus .. who have joined in the debate, which as a regular contributor I have found interesting, if only to measure the level of contempt.
IMO it is important for the forum that debates like these happen, it’s good when there are polarised views and opinions that break out into civilised slanging matches. A bit like when I signed up to the forum 5 years ago.
Just to get it clear in my mind about what’s the best way to start off then;
1. VDW methods as stated in the literature
2. Watch as much racing as you can
3. Benter type models
4. Handicapping (form/speed)I was just doing the list there and there’s no collateral form merchants, is that old chestnut finally dead?
There are many ways to win at this game and watching alot of racing and forming your own opinion is one.Each to his own. I don’t think theres one way thats best.everyone has to find whats best for them, but VDW is not back fitted. I use RSB to do research not to back fit systems because this is skating on thin ice espiecally if dealing with only small sample sizes.
I know all I need to know about Lundy Lane because I’ve watched his races
APRacing,
In your opinion is a blind person condemned to be a losing punter?
Is racing analysis immune to intellect?
Is the secret to racing confined to visual perception?
If a punter goes racing depending solely on his eyesight, its one dimentional character will leave him handicapped
As far as I know Alan Potts works in a methodical manner. He only bets in high class races only at certain Grade 1 courses, uses speed figures and looks at the draw alog with other factors. Which sounds like a methodical approach to me.
Be Methodical
pro’s AP, Pru, Wallace and Gus
While I have seen AP and Pru on the television as racing pundits, and in the case of AP read a couple of his books, and articles in Odds On I don’t think I have heard of the other gentlemen. What I do wonder if these four meet and had a discussion would they all agree on the same things? Unless AP has changed his mind, reading some of his articles I didn’t get the impression he would agree on class, and value (or backing a horse just because it was over priced) Apologies AP if I have misunderstood.
While I do agree watching as many races as possible is one way, but first you have to learn what you are watching. Most folk have to work and that isn’t really an option. I video the races and have never used the videos on the RP or ATR sites so I can’t comment on those. I also agree forming your own opinion about a race or/and a horse is very important, but that is one of the reasons I take very little notice of the market. Why bother to form an opinion if it is only going to be swayed because others don’t agree with you?
As for Gus joining in the debate I don’t consider his effort can be called joining in. Pru did have a go but it was all very half hearted. When he did mention factors he looks for when assessing a race I was slightly disapointed to find they are very much the same as mine. But for what ever reason he dismisses VDW for being crude and simplstic, think he just fell into the Peach trap. This is too clever lets dumb it down for the general public.
Just to get it clear in my mind about what’s the best way to start off then;
1. VDW methods as stated in the literature, but study the examples, and concentrate on what was written BEFORE Mr Peach started dictating/suggesting what should be written. Read Systematic Betting with an open mind.
2. Watch as much racing as you can, after you have some idea what you are really looking at. Try to work out how you expect the race to be run. Use the mute button and then see if you watched the same race as the commentator.
3. Benter type models if this means use filters (variables if you wish to look clever) fair enough. The rest forget it only works with a small pool of horse running on similar tracks. The main trust of the method has nothing to do with serious race reading, and seems to be all about numbers
4. Handicapping (form/speed) but put your own (or someone elses proven) slant on them.Be Lucky
Benter type models if this means use filters (variables if you wish to look clever)
Sighs…
Again half-heartedly, there is a world of difference between using variables and using filters. The latter – whereby horses are ruled out if they don’t meet certain criteria, regardless of how strong their claims are in other areas – are used by the lazy or those with little time. Craig Thake is their pin-up boy.
Using filters essentially says that the variables in use are of equivalent significance. A "trends" man may maintain that a horse meets 4 of the 5 requirements to win the race and therefore is a strong contender, but what if the one requirement it does not fulfill far outweighs the others in terms of significance?
It had three previous runs (tick), placed in two of them (tick), carries 9-00 or more (tick) and is returning from a break of no more than 36 days (tick). Problem is it is drawn out in the car park in a sprint race at Chester and might as well not turn up.
If you use variables you accord different weighting to different factors and a horse will not be ruled out just because it does not conform fully to one, or even more than one, of them.
The binomial "does it qualify, or does it not (and if it does not exclude it)" may be a starting point a la Postdata but no-one should pretend that it is in any way sophisticated.
Using filters essentially says that the variables in use are of equivalent significance. A "trends" man may maintain that a horse meets 4 of the 5 requirements to win the race and therefore is a strong contender, but what if the one requirement it does not fulfill far outweighs the others in terms of significance?
It had three previous runs (tick), placed in two of them (tick), carries 9-00 or more (tick) and is returning from a break of no more than 36 days (tick). Problem is it is drawn out in the car park in a sprint race at Chester and might as well not turn up.
Pru,
With this example are you saying without using a filter your variable will somehow know the problems of a high draw at Chester? I don’t think so it surely would need to be asked to eliminate/down value the high draw? So what is the variable doing in this case a filter can’t? When talking about filters/variables I only looking at a few basics I would rather trust my brain to sort the finer points. Benter is just number crunching, little to do with proper race analyses. After reading the journalist in my daily I think he must follow this method, so can I ask is it the latest fashion with racing journalists? Crunch a few numbers and then try to rubbish what you don’t understand. Although in your case I would say you only don’t understand it beacuse you haven’t looked at it in detail.
Be Lucky
Johngringo
You ask: "Is racing analysis immune to intellect?
Having read a post on another forum about the supposed impact on horses’ performance of the phase of the moon, I do wonder!
But seriously, the four approaches Dave has listed in what I’m sure he regards as no more than a preliminary taxonomy all require some thought, as does the "trends" approach that seems in vogue with one or two prominent writers/tipsters.
Rather than the kind of assertive, "its rubbish", response Mtoto has had from some, much more fruitful would be explanations of alternatives. I give two examples:
McCormack, commenting on the summary of VDW’s approach as the balancing of class and form in the context of capability and probability, said, in effect, that it the essence of all approaches, and by implication suggested the thought contained nothing new. Yet it is clear from other posts that what McCormick regards as a truism is no such thing, and class, for example, has been described as irrelevant in relation to handicaps. But none of the critics of VDW have so far described in any detail what they regard as the theoretical basis for selecting winners, still less how that basis can be put into practice. It may, of course, be that those who have been members here for much longer than some of us have covered all that long ago on other threads. But some reference to such threads, or brief reprises of the salient points on this one, would have been interesting;
Sailing Shoes distinguished class and ability, and thereby brought into the open a cause of misunderstanding with VDWers who use them as synonyms. He went on to say "I suppose you could determine Class as the overall strengths of a horse – intelligence etc… and this can sometimes have an effect on a result." It would have been even more interesting had he specified all the elements he sees in "class", over and above "ability", apart from "intelligence", and how he goes about assessing or measuring them. In my professional life I am concerned with the measurement of individuals’ capability at work – which might, crudely, be regarded as IQ testing. I have no idea how I would go about assessing that in horses. Perhaps by watching races, as recommended by some. But what do I look for re "intelligence", and how do I know that what I am seeing in action is the horse’s "intelligence" rather than the jockey’s skill?
As is perfectly evident, some regard the VDW approach as ridiculously simplistic – and maybe one or two of those actually know enough about it to have a reasonable basis for making their comments. But I have at least shown a willingness to try to explain both its conceptual underpinning and how it is put into practice in the here and now of analysing a race, correcting some straightforward misunderstandings such as Maggsy’s that a horse, to be considered, had to be in the first six of the forecast. If those favouring some of the other approaches listed by Dave were also prepared to go into specifics, we’d have a potentially exciting thread in which approaches could be viewed side by side.
Morning all, Great thread, New to your forum,
MTOTO wrote at the start of thread.(So in short the question is what do you think of VDW, and what is that answer based on? )
In my view it is an exelent way of winner finding winners for me, After buying what i could on his writings I read and read could make very little of it and shoved the lot away for a while,I joined a forum mainley dedicated to VDW asked a lot of questions got a lot of good answers, then re armed myself with the books again spent ages going round in circuls and doing my head in which I am sure it has done the same to a lot of you,
I tend to stick with the top stakes race at the better meetings but do look at the top prize at the lower meetings
I am still unable to find the winner of the race in most cases as I feel sure this happened to VDW but by making a book and useing a staking plan as he suggested I do O/K and am quite sattisfied with my lot,A piece of good advice I got was to paper trade for a while and try to see HOW THAT HORSE BECAME TO BE THE WINNER OF THAT RACE!!!
also I do only tend to stick with the top 4/5 in the betting as this area is alive with winners as we know,
One other thing that bothers me is when T Peach reproduced his writings how much did he leave out, I am aware that in one of the books reprinted it was abridged and wonder how much of the missing link was abridged.
Did VDW spell it all out to SCHB was it then all spelt out to us the purchasers of the books.
Great thread. LUCKHensman,
I think that everyone here will agree that except for the odd fluke horses do not win races by accident.
Accepting that it follows that there must be reasons for a horse winning.
I believe that each punter will be best served if he sets out to discover those reasons. And at this point the excercise requires intellect.
VDW made it quite clear that as the best horse in the race is the likeliest winner it is absolutely fundamental to understand the concept of ‘class’.
Starting here each in his own fashion will discover an idiosyncrartic approach to class and an equally unique method to measure it. Personally I think that any carefully thought out approach is valid as none of them is perfect and no one has a monopoly on the theory. Indeed all the VDWers I currently correspond with have different approaches to measuring class and distinctly different betting tactics.
In flat racing there are approximately 100lbs of class between a G1 winner and a banded plodder. Within that 100lbs of class a multi billion pound industry lives and flourishes providing the livelyhood for thousands. Of course class is the single most vital component in racing. And without the employment of intellect to understand it no one is going to survive for very long in such a vast and complex structure.
So what is the variable doing in this case a filter can’t?
it is quantifying the effect and not simply regarding it as a Yes/No proposition.
As for Gus joining in the debate I don’t consider his effort can be called joining in.
That’s fair comment. I value my sanity too much to join in.
Johngringo
"I think that everyone here will agree that except for the odd fluke horses do not win races by accident."
I’d like to think you are right about that, but judging by some posts I suspect "everyone" may be too sweeping.
I agree with the rest of your comments.
Johnboyirish
Tony Peach certainly abridged some of the material he included in "The Golden Years of VDW", and the full letters are to be found in his most recent (and otherwise, in my view, useless) booklet. But the ones he abridged seem to be not those by VDW, but by others raising points to which VDW responded. I can’t say that I have checked every single contribution by VDW included in the "Golden Years" (or the later "Ultimate Wheil of Fortune") against the originals in the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book, but those I have checked were fully and faithfully reproduced.
VDW never spelt out what he meant by "the missing link", but the clear implication in his 13 April 1985 article is that it was something included, but not drawn to particular attention, in the March 1981 "Spells it all out" article. I believe it to be his way of judging whether a horse was a form horse. Some think that that is covered by consistency, but that is clearly wrong (18 January 1986 article refers). In the March 1981 article the issue of form was covered (if one can call it that) in a single 1.5 line sentence which is (I think deliberately) capable of being interpreted in two quite different ways. The next para. invites one to choose the wrong way! It is almost as if VDW couldn’t quite bring himself to share all his thinking – which is fair enough as probably few of us do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.