- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi mulls74
I have heard of Compunter, could you tell me your experience of it.
Do you have the software and how is it to use etc…And what about this Compunter/VDW cross?
byefrom
carlisleps thanks 4 info Mtoto.
I used Compunter a lot in the nineties with solid success. It has various modules which go into varying levels of detail – some require just a few pieces of information, while the most detailed asked for about 25 inputs per horse.
Sadly, the programmer passed away a few years ago so the the program has not been updated for several years. It required updates because the trainer and jockey were taken into consideration for most modules.
One of the modules – the Class module – was, according to the author, inspired by the writings of VDW. This is a module that can still be used because it doesn’t involve trainers or jockeys so the lack of an update isn’t a problem.
The Class module is intended to be used on the better grade races, with the best results from Conditions Stakes, Listed and Group races on the Flat. I can’t say I used it on the jumps that much.
You enter each horse’s recent form figures, age, number of wins and total prizemoney. The software then calculates a rating and value price. It sounds very simple but the fact that it takes less than 5 minutes to evaluate a race is a real plus.
From such simple information, the program does very well and I made consistent profits until I moved away from daily betting. At that time (8-10 years ago), I did well using the Class module and the speed figures calculated by a colleague.The replies to this thread have been interesting as in as much no one has come straight out and agreed with Mr Wheldon VDW is nonsense. The main criticism is it is now out dated, and to basic to be of much use.
Of course both of these I have heard before. So can I ask how you think the changes in today’s racing has altered the general thinking behind VDW? While I do accept sponsorship has altered his basic measure of class, the fact that OR’s are now readily avalible away around that problem is easy enough to find. I also think the handicapper has tightened up the OR’s making it harder for horses to put a string of good form together. But does this really effect the two main elements of VDW class and form?
To the folk that think VDW is too basic (or crude) I can understand their thinking. It has been presented and made to look basic, I think to attract the general public of the time. However if it is studied I think most if not all of the facets needed for good race analysis is there. I do realise many how think it is basic have made up their minds and are very unlikley to revise their thinking as the only way this could be done is to go back and study the old early examples again. As this is very time consuming it is very unlikely to happen.
The folk that are using RPR, etc. to help a system work using VDW are on the right lines but are doomed to failure unless proper analyses of the most important factor in racing is carried out, the HORSE. Yes the trainer, and/or ratings are important but the really important thing is can this horse win this race under these conditions. Talking of ratings VDW used his own, or his ideas using other peoples rating. I have looked at every set of ratings I can find, but haven’t found any that would have Prominent King in front of Beacon Light, (that is if they are used in the conventual way) but I do think VDW did show how it works latter.
Anyway thanks for taking the time to give your views.
Be Lucky
I think the issue with VDW is that systemites tend to try to find a "missing link" whereupon pure number-crunching will provide a steady stream of winners and a sure-fire way to untold riches.
The reality is that what VDW shows us is more a methodology to find winners ie – narrow the field down to a list of credible contenders (using a "system" if you prefer) and then its good old-fashioned form-study to try to find the winner from your short-list.
Using methods and systems as discussed here what does success look like?
Is it a strike rate, level stake profit at SP or some other measure?
Peter Mays states in one of his books a strike rate of at least 20% is required before a method/system should be considered seriously.
So can I ask how you think the changes in today’s racing has altered the general thinking behind VDW?
.. that’s a good question that deserves an answer.
As all race analysis is subjective, you can only really give your own opinion on such things. I would answer it in this way .. if I were to take 20 factors which effected a horses performance, or influence a horses chances of winning, in a negative and postive way and I allotted points to the positive factors by rank. So the top rank got 5 pts, second 3, 3 = 2, 4 = 1 .. and then I put these together into a score, for each runner. I then normalise these out to 100%. I then use a model to transform these score into prices. Am I still following VDW ?? The answer has to be yes, but the method has developed beyond the pencils and paper.Using methods and systems as discussed here what does success look like?
Is it a strike rate, level stake profit at SP or some other measure?
Peter Mays states in one of his books a strike rate of at least 20% is required before a method/system should be considered seriously.
Brilliant question Wallace, I’m not sure of the answer.
Really pleasantly surprised that VDW can still generate so much discussion.
The idea that bare form figures can lead to the winner is obviously much too basic but with the added class factor the situation becomes much more viable.
The problem is trying to evaluate and give a number to class.
I’m sorry that our own AP Racing hasn’t contributed to this thread, if I remember correctly he had, and probably still has, some valuable views on class.
I read in, I think, one of his books, but I may be confusing him with Nick Mordin!
that class would enable a 12f. horse to win in sprint races providing that the horses it was running against were of much inferior class, or something like that. (sorry Alan if I am misquoting you, this is from memory), food for thought, in my opinion.After over 40 years of searching for the Holy Grail, and obviously looking in the wrong locations, I have come to the conclusion that number-crunching is no longer for me.
I now build up a stable of horses, that I see running and feel that have the potential to improve and win races, and specialize on the races that those horses run in. Get to know as much about those horses as I can, and go from there.
Using the excellent Horse Alert service provided by the Easy Odds site, I get an email whenever they run. A look then at the races they are running in and the opponents that they are running against, and away you go!
It means that I don’t have to slog through card upon card of moderate horses.
It suits me, sir!
Colin
Dave,
A very good answer. I might be able to add a little to it.
The model you describe may owe something to VDW, yet it is a rational approach that any problem solver might use if they were given the task of finding winners at odds which should produce a profit.
I don’t know for sure, but I think there must be forty or fifty individuals and syndicates who are currently using this approach routinely and systematically, mostly with the help of computer programs. There are also perhaps a few hundred others who do the same sort of analysis less rigorously and intermittently. A few tipping businesses have also been founded using this model.
I suppose we can call these VDW methods because most people interested in systems will know what kind of analysis is being carried out.
The analysis has been extended since VDW’s day to include more factors that might affect race results, so VDW’s original work is now out of date, although his basic ideas are not.If there is such a thing as the ‘missing link’ it is probably something to do with information that analysts cannot access from published sources, or ‘inside information’. Although most of us cannot get this valuable information directly, we can observe it indirectly by looking at unexpected or unexplained variations in market prices(odds).
My own feeling is that any rational model has to build in some way of dealing with market prices which cannot be explained rationally, either in terms of form or public preferences. This is difficult because it can lead to unsatisfactory(from a statistical point of view) practices of using prices to predict prices. However, I’m sure some people have done this using mathematical techniques.
One final point. Most analysts process the same information so they are likely to alight on the same horses as viable betting opportunities. My own observations of price movements close to the off confirm that this is the case.
Wallace,
Surely, success is long term profits using whatever method of betting is used.
As to levels of profit, it depends on whether one takes a business approach or a hobbyist approach. A business needs a return to cover all overheads, expenses and opportunity costs while a hobbyist might be happy not to lose more than is reasonable measured against the entertainment value of the hobby.
Mtoto
Your question about what has changed that calls into question VDW’s general approach reminded me of the "Only Fools and Horses" episode where the roadsweeper, Trigger, commented that his broom had lasted for twenty years. Del was impressed ’til Trigger added that in that time he’s had five new broomheads and three new handles.
For me, what you refer to as the "general thinking" behind VDW is balancing class and form in the context of capability and probability, and to my mind nothing has happened over the near 30 years since VDW first wrote to the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book to call that into question. But while the "general thinking" seems to me to be spot on, of itself it doesn’t get one anywhere. To turn it into a profitable approach to race analysis requires the four elements to be broken down into practicalities. And here I think there have been changes in racing which impact on how that is best done.
Take class. I read with interest one member’s assertion that the VDW way of assessing class – win prize money divided by number of wins – is the proven best. Well, not in my view. It very probably was the best when VDW first wrote, but the explosion of sponsorship since has to my mind much distorted that as a measure. I think one needs continuously to test the continuimg efficacy of how VDW put aspects of his thinking into practice, and to be prepared to adapt.
A good example is time/speed. VDW advised using speed figures as a check on the ability of relatively lightly raced horses, including those without a win, and his selection of the Guineas winner, To-Agori-Mou, a horse with a very low win prize money based ability rating, shows that aspect of his approach in action. But there is a considerable difference between the Form Book speed ratings VDW used (adjusted by the compilers to a standard weight) and the Form Book speed ratings today (which take no direct account of weight). We can’t simply assume that the current ratings will work in the same way as those of VDW’s day.
The "Trigger" issue is how far can one change the ways in which VDW put issues like class and form into practice and still regard oneself as a VDWer? And I suggest that it is really a question of no significance. Although VDW was the first to articulate the essence of winner finding in the way he did in a popular publication, as I’ve noted on a previous post he was writing in the same vein as a number of earlier analysts, mainly in the US but also Marvex in the UK. Thus while like quite a few others I am grateful to VDW for showing me an intellectually satisfying way of thinking about race analysis, and in that sense regard myself as a VDWer, that is a matter of historical chance – I read VDW first.
Wallace
You ask what does success look like. I suggest the answer lies in terms of reliability and durability. A profit, even at level stakes, is not in itself sufficient – a 33/1 winner will show a decent level stakes profit in a series of 25 bets, even if the only winner, but how realistic is it to get a 33/1 winner in every series of 25 bets?. Nor is a high strike rate sufficient – using RacingSystemBuilder anyone can find systems with sky high strike rates that show no real profit. Success is being able to achieve, year in year out, a reliable proportion of winners from one’s bets, showing a decent profit.
What constitutes decent? Here I would suggest that Marvex helps us more than VDW. In his "Assessment of Form", Marvex detailed the first week’s activity of his first syndicate. Six winning races out of eight – all bets "books" of between 2 and 4 horses – and a profit of around 15%. None of the bets paid more than about 5/6 on. But his argument is that that kind of safe betting is sustainable. Another example he gives is of a professional he knew who bet place only on the Tote. He laid out £300 at one meeting (six bets of £50) and walked away with £106 profit (big money in the late 1940s). His point was that the ordinary punter, perhaps betting 10/- in old money (50p nowadays) following the same strategy would have made just over £1, and would probably not think the effort worthwhile, though the return would have been the same 35% as the professional’s.
Hensman a winning system must be tested for luck and the results must be statistically significant. There are loads of ways to do that. The Marvex example is a good one.
Artemis, I agree what what you have said there. To me what make a system a vdw system or not is this,
Does it create a ranking?
Does it pull together many pieces of data to create that ranking order?
If the answer is yes to both then it is a vdw method.Am I still following VDW ?? The answer has to be yes, but the method has developed beyond the pencils and paper.
Dave J,
May I humbly suggest VDW has always been more than a pencils and paper method. At least I think it was.
Wallace,
I can only agree with Peter May. If needed I could work out my strike rate, here I take it you are talking about winners only. What I do know is the % of my bets that show a profit, and that is the only thing that counts to me. Strike rate = ego, and you can’t spend it! My bets are a mixture of win and place, place only, and the occasional lay. As no bet is ever struck at SP I have no idea where I stand with that.
Hensman,
in that sense regard myself as a VDWer, that is a matter of historical chance – I read VDW first.
While the above statement maybe correct for you, it doesn’t hold true for me. I have read many articles on racing, and for me VDW is head and shoulders above anything I have read.
You mention Trigger and his broom, the broom, the tool, isn’t the important factor. The important aspect of VDW is the technique of using the tool.
Be Lucky
Mtoto44, I don’t understand your SR = ego comment.
SR is one measure of success, how many winning bets/horses/lays as a percentage of the total. Peter May’s comment was in the context of finding winners and I think he is correct. If a system/method produces a base SR of 20% then it is worth investigating to see how to maximize a profit from it.
What percentage of your bets show a profit?
I am genuinely interested to test what level of success contributors to this thread consider acceptable.
Mtoto, I don’t see how vdw could be anything but pencils and paper when it first appeared. Nothing wrong with that but the method has evolved, almost beyond recognition.
I’m with you Wallace .. my own take on what is acceptable is roughly in line with what you would expect from the market.
If the favourite wins 27% of races then I would expect the same from my top rated, if the combined first and second favourite wins 50% of the time, then I would expect the same from my first and second rated. I don’t believe that you can beat the market by that much but a profit of 15% would be more than enough.Mtoto44, I don’t understand your SR = ego comment.
Wallace,
To me strike rate like turnover in business isn’t important, the profit is the only really important thing to look at.
As said before some of my bets don’t look to find the first past the post, so strike rated as most look at it doesn’t come into it. 70% of my bets return a profit, the way I look at it is to return a profit a bet has to be a winning bet even if the horse didn’t actually win.
Dave J
I don’t see how vdw could be anything but pencils and paper when it first appeared.
I suppose it depends what you mean by pencils and paper, I take that to mean a painting by numbers procedure. Can I ask why you think the method has evolved and what is that based on.
If the procedures set out in SIAO ( the way most look at VDW) are followed to the letter, 37% of the first examples fail as they are not in the four on ability. That is IF that ability rating was used. One quick example is Baronet, he was selected in front of two horses that had lower consistency rating and higher ability ratings, and they also complied to the forecast requirements, how/why? It was always more than a simple system.
Be Lucky
Can I ask why you think the method has evolved and what is that based on.
The method of ranking horses has evolved imo, because it is easy to get lots of accurate data. I don’t think about the actual examples in the literature but the methodology behind it. As Artemis said earlier, the most successful syndicates in the world use a similar ploy. They are probably better at it than we are because they have better data and bigger pools to bet into. Just my opinion.
The replies to this thread have been interesting as in as much no one has come straight out and agreed with Mr Wheldon VDW is nonsense.
Can I be the first then to come straight out and agree with Graham Wheldon? The whole VDW thing is arrant nonsense. I remember reading his tosh in the Handicap Book in the late seventies when I was relatively new to the game. The truth soon dawned. We didn’t even know the word then but the man was the biggest aftertimer ever. Like Colin, I’m surprised he can generate a discussion of such length after all this time. Unlike Colin, my surprise isn’t pleasant.
that class would enable a 12f. horse to win in sprint races providing that the horses it was running against were of much inferior class, or something like that. (sorry Alan if I am misquoting you, this is from memory), food for thought, in my opinion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.