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 29, 2007 at 12:30 #117116
I’ll ask.
I thought it might carry a bit more clout than the anecdotal "I laid a book on Betfair for the best part of three years and found towards the end that I was tending to have the drifters on my side instead of an all-green book. My profits actually went up, provided I had the patience to wait for the windfalls."
September 29, 2007 at 15:50 #117129So your still not convinced that vdw is a good starting point Pru?
September 29, 2007 at 15:55 #117131As for VDW, this is a good starting point for beginners but is not a method for serious punters looking to earn a living from the game.
Hi,
Can I ask the number crunchers how they got on with the 3:40 at Ascot? This method that is outdated and of no real use came out with the winner. A flash in the pan well not for me, and others that use the method. Fair enough I only backed him for the place and others included him in their book, but everything you need is there to find the winners and/or to make a profit. A starting point I don’t think so, not if the time and trouble is taken to read what is written.
Be Lucky
September 29, 2007 at 16:27 #117136Did someone say VDW was an expert aftertimer?
September 29, 2007 at 16:39 #117142Mtoto
Those who followed the procedure shown in VDW’s "Spells it all out" article (28/3/81) have had a good day, with Candidato Roy the highest ability rated consistent horse (and what VDW later referred to as the class/form horse).
I wonder what Graham Wheldon tipped?
Wallace
As to after-timing, all any sceptic needs do is read the article, and the later one (18/4/81) which helps define the phrase "highly consistent horse", apply the simple arithmetic, and prove it for themselves.
Plus I’d bet £100 to an old penny that Candidato Roy will have been named as the class/form horse before the race on one or other VDW forum.
September 29, 2007 at 17:29 #117147OK where can we find these articles?
September 29, 2007 at 18:03 #117150So your still not convinced that vdw is a good starting point Pru?
Correct.
Like Wallace, however, I would like to know where to find the definitive description of VDW methodology. I am prepared to keep an open mind on the matter until I have read that.
September 29, 2007 at 18:26 #117151Wallace
I think they have been posted on the net, but I’m not sure where.
Unless someone can help with a url, the easiest way is to get a copy of a booklet "The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil", edited by Tony Peach, in which they are re-printed. It is quite widely available at around £8. They can also be read in the run of Sporting Chronicle Handicap Books, held in the British Library’s Humanities Reading Room (St Pancras, cental London).
September 29, 2007 at 19:03 #117156That’s the whole point Pru, there isn’t a definitive method written down, pretty much the same as there isn’t a definitely method for any other method in racing.
I think you have to work it out from the articles.
September 29, 2007 at 19:08 #117158Dave from what we have read on here it is a simple process with simple arithmetic and should easily be coded. I’ll get me programmer to do it if it can be written out in an idiot proof sequence.
September 29, 2007 at 19:35 #117162http://www.punters-paradise.com/forums/ … php?t=1470
May be a start.
It would be fair to say that I am even more unconvinced than before.
September 29, 2007 at 20:01 #117163It would be interesting Wallace if your programmer could do the class rating, it’s not something that I use but you always wonder if it does lose much?
September 29, 2007 at 21:07 #117175Wallace
The two basic ratings are simplicity themselves (at least for Flat races):
Ability: take the "Total win prize money" figure for the horse as shown in the Post’s form page (eg for Candidato Roy today the figure was £107,819), and divide by the number of races won times 100 (in CR’s case 4 x 100). Thus his rating was 270 (rounded, no need for decimal places).
Consistency: simply add last three placings, with 1-9 counting as the number and anything from 10 upwards counting as 10. Thus CR today had placings of 1,7,2 = a consistency rating of 10. There is a small complication in that VDW advised, where a horse finished a bad last, counting that as 10, even if there were fewer runners. But it is not a very common situation and basically I ignore it.
For consistency VDW said stick to the five lowest aggregates. In today’s race they were:
03 – Lovelace, Shevchenko
04 – Docofthebay
08 – Mac Gille Eoin
10 – Candidato Roy, Daneshillsundance, Mutanaseb
12 – Utmost RespectAll of these were consistent horses.
For the eight, the ability ratings were, in decending order:
270 – Candidato Roy
137 – Lovelace
107 – Utmost Respect
104 – Docofthebay
074 – Danehillsundance
065 – Shevchenko
063 – Mac Gille Eoin
055 – MutanasebSo from VDW’s perspective, Candidato Roy was the classiest of the consistent horses and is the one that should be considered first, then Lovelace, etc.
Those are only the starting processes of VDW’s basic method. From those eight he would have eliminated any horses who were not, in his idiosyncratic meaning of the term (this is "the missing link"), form horses. Among the eight, one was not a form horse: Mutanaseb ( poorer performance lto than on his penultimate run). So VDW would have evaluated in detail seven horses, in the following order:
270 – Candidato Roy
137 – Lovelace
107 – Utmost Respect
104 – Docofthebay
074 – Danehillsundance
065 – Shevchenko
063 – Mac Gille EoinHe assessed them in terms of capability (going, distance, course and weight). None of the seven scores a maximum, but in my view none gets eliminated, either:
Candidato Roy: distance and course fine; unproven on going, slight questionmark re weight (but only in respect of 1lb!)
Lovelace: distance, course and going fine; unproven with weight
Utmost Respect: going, course and weight fine, unproven over distance
Docofthebay: distance, course and weight fine, unproven on going
Danehillsundance: as Docofthebay
Shevchenko: as Docofthebay
Mac Gille Eoin: weight and course fine; unproven over distance and on going.It is worth noting that, while each was unproven on at least one aspect of capability, none could be said to have proven that it could not cope with that aspect. If, for example, a horse had had several runs over 7f and failed each time, but had won regularly over 5f and 6f, one would probably eliminate him on capability grounds.
Thus Candidato Roy emerges as the class/form horse (a term VDW used later in his writings), because from VDW’s perspective he was the consistent form horse, ok on capability considerations, with the highest ability (class) rating. In a race like this it is to my mind doubtful whether VDW would have viewed it as sensible to back only one, but it is inconceivable that, had he made a book on the race, he’d have left out the class/form horse.
September 30, 2007 at 00:33 #117189After the above I do, honestly, think I’ve “done my dough” on the £18.50 (including shipping) recently shelled out to browzers.com for “The Golden Years”.
Form figures as a precise measure of ability and consistency?
Prize-money as a measure of merit, rather than as a reflection of the fact that a horse happened to have raced in jurisdictions (UAE and RSA) in which races are better endowed?
“Candidato Roy: distance and course fine; unproven on going, slight questionmark re weight (but only in respect of 1lb!)”
In what respect was the course “fine”? The horse had never run at Ascot before. Indeed, the only time it had ever run in the UK was at Warwick, a course highly unlike Ascot in almost every significant respect.
Please explain, else my next internet purchase might as well be something by Mystic Meg.
September 30, 2007 at 00:40 #117190"From those eight he would have eliminated any horses who were not, in his idiosyncratic meaning of the term (this is "the missing link"), form horses"
Presumably you know what the missing link is then?
Your evaluation (after the event) I would agree with re a book. In a race of 23 runners over 7f , which these days I personally leave alone, part of the book is a horse carrying 9-7 in a competitive 23 runner race at a grade 1 track (let alone the effect of the draw and a possible splitting of the field). Unfortunately selecting a book with ‘a winner’ @ 50/1 does no one any favours. It only gives fuel to the aftertiming criticism of VDW and seems to suggest that the exponents of the method can make books including 50/1 winners. (whilst of course others who are not in the know can not).
I think an evaluation of an eight runner handicap (or something similar) may have taken people a little further with the methods and the balancing of class and form, more importantly at least kept them from the realms of fantasy, as they would probably see it!
September 30, 2007 at 00:49 #117191Please explain, else my next internet purchase might as well be something by Mystic Meg.
I’ve got to agree Pru,
You do appear to have done your dough on something sadly lacking in depth. I seriously doubt you’re going to find anything of use in the material.
The above post lacks any logic (not yours Samson!) and as such I fail to see how anyone can feel confident betting the selections.
The fact that the replies to this thread have been numerous, but another thread which contained some very decent discussion on selection process is left trailing in it’s wake is sad IMO
September 30, 2007 at 01:29 #117193I had the pleasure of reading Mtoto’s analysis of the 340Asc some hours before the off. I hope he will reproduce it here.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.