- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Guskennedy
And your reasoned critique of VDW’s approach is …
Or are we seeing the "Wheldon" syndrome in action (assertion based on ignorance)?
As expected, assertion based on total ignorance. You should apply for a job at Raceform Update.
"Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash is king"
In regard to betting only a semi-truism as profitable betting is a low-margin ‘business’ therefore anyone astute enough to manage a long term profit -by whatever method – really should up the turnover (if they so wish) so enabling a worthwhile profit to be returned hence justifying the work/time involved. Which certainly does not mean looking for more (weaker) bets but certainly does mean upping stakes (if disposable bank allows)
Much like Hensman’s example of the 40s ‘pro’ who laid out a princely sum of £300 to return £106, hence making the venture worthwhile, but the ‘penny punter’ using the same strategy who would regard the meagre return as not worth the effort.
So by increasing turnover on a proven profitable method/system enables the bottom line, cash-in-the bank to grow in a worthwhile manner.
Regarding strike-rate: IMO the lower it is, the greater the likelihood that any profit you make is down to chance/luck, which presumably is what Peter May is implying with his hypothesis that only those methods/systems which generate 20%+ are worthy of serious investigation. My SR this decade is about 16% from 3000+ bets, win singles: head remains above water.
So in answer to Wallace’s question ‘what does success look like’: for any method/system, applied-VDW or whatever, I’d say no more than sufficient turnover to realise a level-stake profit you find worthwhile from a low margin business, generated from a long term, large sample of bets – to remove the possibilty of luck and enhance statistical significance, at a SR you can live with – high if you hate losing runs and/or have a limted bank, lower if you’re happy riding out losing runs and/or have a big bank.
Can I be the first then to come straight out and agree with Graham Wheldon?
Guskennedy,
Of course you may. That was/is the whole point of this thread. I notice you have been asked why you believe VDW is arrent nonsense and like GW you can’t or won’t answer that question. So can I ask when you read the VDW literature, what did you read that gave you that impression? Do you not agree a very large % of the better races are won by consistent (or improving ) horses, and the horse from the front of the forecast also win a large % of these races? Do you not think it is sensible to find away of judging a horses ability, and to find out if the horse can act in the condidtions of a race on the day?
All of this makes sense to me, but for you to be so adamant you must be able to point to the flaw.
While I can see why you think VDW was the biggest aftertimer. Can I ask do you think the same about everyone that writes a book giving examples of how they work? GW wrote a book using examples and to find his selections for the future you either had to pay him or study the examples. So did you study VDW’s examples, or just dismiss the whole thing out of hand as being too basic so it can’t possibly work, and base your logic on that?
Be Lucky
Drone
You wrote: "Which certainly does not mean looking for more (weaker) bets but certainly does mean upping stakes (if disposable bank allows)".
That certainly seems to have been Marvex’s approach. The suggestion is that doubled his stake once "100% profit is reached", ie when the initial bank had been doubled.
gus,
This discussion(about rational methods of finding betting opportunities) would(and perhaps, should) take place regardless of the existence of VDW.
Although this analogy is strained, Physics would still have developed without a Newton. People love to discuss and debate; hence a forum.
But let’s have reasoned argument, gus, and not the cries of the mob outside the forum.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.
Gus
Any author of any book about selection methods could be accused of after-timing, on the basis they have to use examples from the past where the result is known. That doesn’t render their ideas or the reasoning behind them as ‘tosh’.
I fail to see what is ‘tosh’ about an approach which points the reader towards horses which essentially have the ability to win a race (and measurements of such a factor are numerous), fit, fancied and in-form. It’s possible that such an approach may not find value selections, but then numerous discussions through this forum place value in the eye of the beholder.
Rob
As expected, assertion based on total ignorance.
You are totally ignorant as to that upon which my assertion is based.
GusKennedy
True. But charitably I preferred to think that your reply was based on ignorance rather the more serious matter of manners.
Just for the record, as this thread has run and run, I remain extremely unconvinced about the efficacy of VDW, partly perhaps because the attempt at explaining its methodology at the outset does not meet with my approval and little has been added since.
Narrowing the field down to the likeliest winner: NOT FOR ME.
Using "filters": NOT FOR ME.
Using form figures as a tool with which to assess specific ability and consistency: NOT FOR ME.
Concentrating only on higher-class races: NOT FOR ME.
Using average prize-money as a means of assessing specific class: NOT FOR ME.There are much more sophisticated approaches out there.
But if VDW does share some common ground with Benter-like analysis (many variables used to create an odds line) then that’s by no means bad, and I can see that there is something to be said for engaging people on a fairly simple level to begin with (the Mordin Argument as it were).
prufrock,
just out of interest what are the more sophisticated method? Being a novice Im intreagued
I am a form and time (including sectionals) man. I also try to assess the effect of the draw, the form of trainers, the influence of the course/distance/going on results and much more besides in as logically and statistically robust a manner as possible. And I use my eyes and my experience to form conclusions about horses’ abilities and capabilities from watching races.
But the most important difference is that I realise that all horses in all races have some sort of a theoretical chance of winning and the purpose of the exercise is to evaluate that more accurately than does the market and bet accordingly.
Bill Benter was the world’s most successful punter, using many variables (though often quite simple ones in themselves) and sophisticated software to bet huge sums into the pools in Hong Kong.
Others seem to have caught up with him, and in some cases overtaken him, but he seems to be regarded as the daddy of this kind of approach.
He did, however, use proper statistical procedures, such as logistical regression and weighting of variables rather than filters, and he was betting into a huge pool of money in which there were some marked inefficiencies (such as people backing lucky numbers etc).
Anecdotal evidence is that Benter started with only a handful of variables, worked his way up to over 100 at one point, but figured that more was not in fact better after a certain point and trimmed it back to a few dozen.
…he calculates a score for each horse based on the number of lengths it has lost by in past races, giving heavier weighting to more recent ones and taking into account the fact that horses tend to spread out more in long races.
I’d say that’s a slightly rudimentary form of what we would call handicapping, but it still sounds a good deal more sophisticated than using form figures alone.[/list]
I know someone who uses a similar approach in Australia, but it has a very large input from what we would recognise as tried-and-tested form and time handicapping procedures.
The comparison between VDW and Benter-like analysis was meant as a sort of compliment, incidentally, before anyone gets on my case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.