- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If you want to knock something Pru and say it’s no good what do you suggest people do instead?
As I have always said: assess the abilities of horses individually in the specific context of the races they are running in; stop looking for crude and simple shortcuts; recognise that every horse has a theoretical probability of winning a race and try to assess that probability accurately, rather than "looking for the winner"; specialise, in order to make the workload manageable given your other time constraints; and plenty more besides.
That may seem a lot like hard work, but I managed it long before getting paid to do horseracing analysis and I don’t see why others with a bit of dedication can’t do likewise.
The other point is that class assessed on prizemoney per race won is proven as the best single indicator of class.
I don’t believe for a minute that is true in the UK. There are plenty of horses achieving fair form early in their careers who have won no prize money and others who have benefited from starting off on a plater’s mark who have won several thousand.
That’s fine Pru, but to someone who doesn’t know much about racing it doesn’t tell them where to start or how to do anything. The vdw process at least gives them a clue, crude as it is, but it’s a start.
Here’s a good starting point then: establish a way of assessing past performance accurately.
From this so much else follows – an appreciation of the trainers, jockeys, horses, courses, draw, and so on, and not least the ability to predict future performance more accurately.
Many people use form and time ratings, either their own or others. That’s what I favour, but there are potentially other ways of doing it.
The metrics do, however, need to be much less crude than those apparently suggested by VDW.
And you absolutely HAVE to avoid the sort of thinking that underpins the following, unless you are happy to treat betting as a hobby on which to throw away a bit of cash:
The method is based on narrowing the fields of the very best races to find the most likely winner in the race.
The first filter…Fair points Pru .. I think most punters just look at racing the same way as they do the lottery, once the couple of quid is on, it’s lost. It’s not a bad attitude, keeps you away from gambling addiction.
Back on the main board for a pasting lol
I was instrumental with Tony Peach in perpetuating the VDW legend many years ago. I ran a ‘basics of VDW’ thread profitably on TRF for some time not so long ago. Here is today’s Arc Trial that I knocked out in less than 5 minutes, without the necessary ‘subject to other considerations’ requirement:
The 4 factors checked were £ class, consistency, RPR, D. Mail Formcast
Stars
4 Papal Bull (scored using judgement values as 11)
3 Soapy Danger (7)
2 Halicarnassus (4)
2 Salford Mill (3)
2 Admiral’s Cruise (2)
1 Bauer (1)IMO it’s still a reasonable way to ‘narrow the field’ for the novice punter or those with little time to study form in detail.
Hi,
Pru,
I have read your comments on my statment (as shown below) and have to admit to being a little confused as to why you take acceptation to it
The method is based on narrowing the fields of the very best races to find the most likely winner in the race.
Taking the last part first, the only reason a race, any race is analysed surely is to find the most likely winner.
Using the best races only, this is because the best horses run in these races. I could be wrong but I find the better horses conform to their profile, and in most cases these horses will be trying to win the prize money.
Narrowing the field, while I accept all the runners have a theoretical chance of winning any race, some stand a much better chance than others. These are the horses the interest should be focused on.I do find your idea of a starting point interesting.
Here’s a good starting point then: establish a way of assessing past performance accurately.
From this so much else follows – an appreciation of the trainers, jockeys, horses, courses, draw, and so on, and not least the ability to predict future performance more accurately.
I still think you are falling into the trap of believing VDW actually worked in the manner set out in SIAO. As said before if the early examples are seriously explored you would find this to be incorrect. More than a few of those early selections would be passed over.
As for finding a way of assessing the worth of a past performance, I think VDW had one of the best, if not the best. It works just as well today as it did then (with a very small modification). As for your list of aspects that can then be used I think you will find VDW went into some detail on all of them apart perhaps for jockey. As for predicting future performaces I think VDW more than held his own.
I do agree on first glance the whole thing has been presented in a crude simplistic way. Whether or not that was down to VDW or other outside influences (Mr Peach) I’m not sure, but I do know if it hadn’t of been simplified some folk wouldn’t have made the money they did out of it.
Be Lucky
Hi Mtoto44,
I wasn’t taking exception to your remarks, just putting across my point of view.
My point of view is that you are categorically wrong to say:
the only reason a race, any race is analysed surely is to find the most likely winner.
Every horse in every race has some theoretical probability of winning and the job is to identify that more accurately than the market has.
I frequently, each and every day, back against the horse or the outcome I think is most likely. I would be a fool to do otherwise if a comparison of the odds with the probabilities suggested that that is the correct course of action.
In answer to "Formath", what fair odds do those assesments translate to? It would, obviously, be ludicrous just to back the top horse regardless of what odds were on offer.
When I used to follow systems like vdw I used to make a point of never backing on the favourite, even if it was top rated and never backing at odds bigger than around 8/1.
Using take out tye staking did away with the upper limit, but I still don’t back favourites.
Sorry about the baseless accusation of spam, I can see you are genuine.
I am with Pru here though- I think the nub of trying to be a winning punter is in finding inefficiencies in the market and having the experience to know when the odds offered are greater than the true odds. This for me is an instinctive process which improves with age and experience. It is also ever-changing, in that some factors which are mispriced won’t stay that way and lose their usefulness over time. Any form of analysis for me has to be dynamic, with new angles being sought all the time and I am instinctively against any rigid set of rules to try and help me "pick winners".
Like Pru, I found my greatest success came when I stopped trying to back the winner and started to back the price.I am with Pru here though- I think the nub of trying to be a winning punter is in finding inefficiencies in the market and having the experience to know when the odds offered are greater than the true odds. This for me is an instinctive process which improves with age and experience. It is also ever-changing, in that some factors which are mispriced won’t stay that way and lose their usefulness over time. Any form of analysis for me has to be dynamic, with new angles being sought all the time and I am instinctively against any rigid set of rules to try and help me "pick winners".
Like Pru, I found my greatest success came when I stopped trying to back the winner and started to back the price.There is absolutely nothing in VDW to stop you pricing up every horse in every race. It is naive to think that backing mispriced horses inevitably lead to profits – they still have to win sufficently often to do that. The whole point of the initial VDW sort was to put you amongst those winning horses. There is absolutely nothing in VDW to stop you assessing any and every nuance of form, dynamic or otherwise – absolutely nothing. There is absolutely nothing rigid in VDW application. If some people, after all this time, still think that the initial mechanical sort was the be all and end all of the method and not the starting point for some involved and detailed study, then again they absolutely have missed the point, but I doubt, from the comments made, if they have really even read the basics.
I remember having plenty of success in the late Nineties using a computer program called Compunter that had one module that was, the author said, based on VDW methods.
By restricting yourself to the best quality races, the program made consistent profits. I remember inputting form figures, total runs, total wins, win prizemoney and CD record. This was then turned into a rating and, from that rating, a value price calculated. It recommended bets when the value price was less than the forecast SP.
Sadly, the program’s author is no longer with us but I suppose this part of the program would still be relevant as it doesn’t ask for trainers and jockeys.
I’ll see if I can dig it out and put up a couple of selections for tomorrow.If robert’s last remark is directed at me, then I thought I made it clear that my recollection of VDW was from reading it originally nearly 30 years ago.
The arguments of many of the people who have tried to explain his methodology recently seem to be that the approach was always intended to be simple/simplistic – something backed up by the examples provided – something which you deny.
If it is indeed more sophisticated than it has been portrayed, then good for him.
It is naive to think that backing mispriced horses inevitably lead to profits
I don’t believe in "inevitability" in this uncertain Universe. But if a horse could be said to have, say, a 20% chance of winning a race and someone will offer you 10/1 about that happening then if you back the horse and repeat the exercise often then you will be exceedingly unlucky not to come out ahead.
Here’s the Compunter verdict on the Listed 4.40 at Ayr on Saturday:
Anna Pavlova Rating 138 Value price 10-3
Confidential Lady Rating 138 Value price 10-3
Ivy Creek Rating 134 Value price 9-2
Blythe Knight Rating 134 Value price 9-2
Championship Point Rating 128 Value price 13-2
Happy to put up others if there’s any call.Robert
Your argument is very much as VDW saw things. He once wrote: "People can talk about value bets and all the rest of it but it still boils down to backing more winners than losers. I see no point or satisfaction in backing a 6/1 shot because it is value if it finishes down the field". If one gets the selections right, the rest largely takes care of itself.
Pru,
I honestly think you haven’t bothered to go into VDW because you and many others have been put off by the crude presentation. It is all there, how to analyse a race. I agree racing has changed and there is far more information now. That should make it easier, but I do think far too many have decided as racing is complicated the answers also have to be complicated. For me the most difficult thing was sorting out how VDW really judged ability. Many tell me I have it wrong but I know VERY few "big" races are won by a horse that isn’t in my top four after the simple filter of consistency has been applied.
Carvillshill,
I’m glad you have decided there is no spam involved with my posts. Can I how try to explain there are NO fixed rules, or any form of rigidity in VDW?. I do agree it is very useful to have an edge, but for me the edge is looking at the factors VDW explained. I’m posting a contribution I posted on a VDW forum. The aim is to show VDW can be used in the way you, and Pru suggest looking for the mistake in the market and making money out of it. What I can’t do is back a horse to win just beacuse it is overpriced, when I can’t see how it can win. That doesn’t mean money can’t be made (at value prices) out of the situation.
Mtoto44
Member
Posts: 134
(15/9/07 15:47)
Reply | Edit
Re: 530 Donc 15-09-07
________________________________________
Don 5:30Metropolitan Man 1
Eddie Jock 2
The Illies 3
Rio Riva 4Metro Man, improving and dropping in class. Not sure if the straight 8f will suit, but has some good form on speed tracks. Think he is a possible place bet as I can see some doubts about the 2nd and 4th rated.
Eddie Jock Even with his Ascot win didn’t make the d/base so is here because of his Newmarket form. The class lifting him into 2nd place in this. Major doubts about the course as best form on stiff tracks.
The Illies, ticks all the boxes and is the only runner I would really call consistent. Has shown he can handle both types of course speed/power, straight or bend. The only reason I can see for running him is to make sure he doesn’t miss the cut for the Cambridgeshire. As he is my ante post bet for that race I can’t see him being beaten here.
Rio Riva while the straight course will suit the same can’t be said for the going. Can’t see it winning.C/f = The Illies, but the price stops me putting money down. The place price on MM looks fair, and that is where I’m going.
Be Lucky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.