Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I have selected these races at random from the RP database. They are filtered as follows; Class Evaluation / Consistency / Betting.<br>Top flight non-hcp races!<br>All selections are positive in all three:
19/10/02 Newmarket 4.00 Class A Group 1 (11 ran)<br>Moon Ballad (2) @ 5/2F<br>Burning Sun (11) @ 5/1
19/10/02 Newmarket 3.25 Class A Group 1 (16 ran)<br>Al Jadeed (10) @ 7/1
4/10/02 Newmarket Class A Group 1 (6 ran)<br>Russian Rythm (2) @ 8/13F
3/10/02 Newmarket Class A Group 1 (10 ran)<br>Elusive City (3) @ 6/4F
5/5/02 1000 Guineas (17 ran)<br>Gossamer (8) @ 11/8F<br>Quartermoon (5) @ 9/1
4/5/02 2000 Guineas (22 ran)<br>Rock of Gibralta Won 9/1<br>Hawkwing (2) @ 6/4F<br>Naheef (14) @ 10/1
19/10/02 Newmarket 4.40 Class A Group 2 (11 ran)<br>Duty Paid (7) @ 6/1<br>Dailing Tone (4) @ 9/1
3/10/02 Newmarket 2.50 Class A Group 2 (9 ran)<br>Millenary (2) @ 9/4F<br>Storming Home (3) @ 5/1
17/8/02 Newbury 4.10 Class A Group 2 (7 ran)<br>Mubtaker Win @ 11/8F<br>Daliapour (4) @ 9/2
8/9/02 Kempton 3.50 Class A Listed Race (8 ran)<br>Sir Edwin Landseer Win @ 6/1<br>Hurricane Alan (2) @ 4/1<br>Ok Pal (8) @ 11/2
Summary of Results:<br>10 races / winners from races = 3 = 30% SR<br>Selections / 20 / winners from selections = 15% SR<br>LSP: if all selections are staked 1 point to win = -0.63<br>Favourite Selected: 7/10 = in 70% of races the favourite was selected.
I don’t know how representative these selections are, any ideas? anybody?<br>
13/11/02
1.30 Kelso<br>Moss Harvey W 4/11
SR = 4/8 = 50%<br>LSP = +0.3<br>*******************************************<br>Staking Plan Aim = 10 / .36 = 27.7<br>Profit/Loss Day: +10<br>Profit/Loss System: +40<br>System Points Staked: 158.53<br>ROI: +25%<br>*******************************************
(Edited by dave jay at 9:39 pm on Nov. 13, 2002)
hi darrel,<br>I’m self employed (engineering consultant) when I don’t work I go Pro. I’ve been doing this since 1986 and it works fine for me. The longest spell I had Pro was about a year, three years ago. This year I did it for about 4 months.<br>What you can expect will depend on what you are doing.
If your planning to have a lot of bets, then your mind set will have to be robust because the losers can do your confidence in, serial system user syndrome.
If your only having a few bets a week (recommended) then you have to be able to cope with the months were you don’t make a profit.
I would suggest that you set aside some money, say £1000 and use it over the christmas holidays and see how you feel if you lose it all!
12/11/02
2.25 Sedgefield<br>Inn Antique W 5/2
SR = 3/7 = 42%<br>LSP = -0.06<br>******************************************<br>Staking Plan Aim = 58.45 / 2.5 = 23.38<br>Profit/Loss Day: +58.45<br>Profit/Loss Sytsem: +30<br>System Points Staked: 130.83<br>ROI: +23%<br>*******************************************
(Edited by dave jay at 11:14 pm on Nov. 12, 2002)
VDW – Further Discussion<br>In answer to your comments.<br>1. I believe that there is too much data to go through to make a workable system here. A lot of the data required is buried in the statistics (Class). It’s difficult to retrieve enough data to assess any advantage that may be gained.
2. DGA – Pro-Punter doesn’t agree with VDW, it’s not that kind of program. DGA assesses each horse against the other and then makes it’s own book. It compares it’s own book with the tissue price and advises whether a value bet can be had in that race. It then gives the bet a ‘strength rating’, a good tool.
3. I have split the data on earlier post for presentation purposes. I also believe data handled in this way is easier to assess. I like to work out what advantage a statistic has, if any.
4. We abandoned the system because it was boring. The Staking Plan part of the equation was put together about 5 or 6 years after the selection method. I don’t use either, there’s no value there.
5. I think it was Mel Collier who said, ‘Anyone consistently betting at short prices, simply doesn’t understand.’ For me, anyone coming into racing should have that tattooed on the brain, it sums the whole game up!
6. I think this was an invention of the paper but there is good information to be had out of it, I agree with kersly. To expand further on that point, a little knowledge in the wrong hands. The way information is interpreted is more important than the information itself, in my view.
7. I have worked on this for years, on and off. Certain parts of this methodology can be an eye opener. Like where certain so called racing experts, who are in the know, get their information from.
8. This approach raises more questions than it answers. Like what constitutes a higher class race? Is it the highest class on the day / week / month / season?
9. Working as a syndicate helps and it’s not too difficult so long as there is a Leader. Everyone agrees that the Leader has the final say. Towards the end of our research every member had a few weeks copies of ‘Sporting Life’. Most things can be checked out in a few hours that way.
I’ll post up some examples later in the week.
11/11/02
12.45 Carlisle<br>Ar Muin Na Muice (2/5) X
SR = 2/6 = 33%<br>LSP = -2.56<br>*****************************************<br>Staking Plan Aim = 16.7 / .4 = 41.75<br>Profit/Loss Day: -41.75<br>Profit/Loss System: -28.45<br>System Points Staked: 107.45<br>ROI: -26%<br>****************************************
(Edited by dave jay at 11:49 am on Nov. 12, 2002)
I think we may have stimulated some debate here. I have printed off your posts and will respond in due course.
I intend to post up some examples for you and look forward to your valued opinions and suggestions.
9/11/02
2.05 Wincanton<br>Lord Nellsson (P12/1) X
SR = 2/5 = 40%<br>LSP = -1.56<br>******************************************<br>Staking Plan Aim = 15.4 / 12 = 1.3<br>Profit/Loss Day:  -1.3<br>Profit/Loss System: +13.3<br>System Points Staked: 65.7<br>ROI: 20%<br>********************************************
(Edited by dave jay at 4:23 pm on Nov. 9, 2002)
VDW Conclusions – Part Three.<br>Analysis of the Staking Plan……….and my final analysis of the how the bank works and what it represents. The staking plan being the key to the whole method.<br>As you rightly pointed out Robert the Staking Plan I had posted up earlier appears to be illogical. To the point of being almost meaningless (which you so kindly didn’t say), the stakes are low and the profits marginal. There is also no turnover of working Bank capital.<br>So to proceed from there……….<br>You are right of course to assume that you can calculate your average strike rate and SP and then calculate your stakes from that………..
This is the calculation for the above system.<br>It is worth noting that in reality prices will be much shorter than those shown in the examples.<br>For betting on two horses in the same race……<br>Add both fractions to one another and multiply the sum by the other horses fraction divisor.<br>So, example A<br>Horse A 2/1 = (2 + 1)*1 = 3<br>Horse B 3/1 = (3 + 1)*1 = 4<br>Stake<br>Horse A @ 2/1: 4 points to win, returns 2 x 4 = 8 – 3 = 5<br>Horse B @ 3/1: 3 points to win, returns 3 x 3 = 9 – 4 = 5<br>Odds, stakes = 7 points / to win = 5 points.<br>5/7 = .714 = true odds 8/11<br>Or, example B<br>Horse A 2/1 = (2 + 1)*2 = 6<br>Horse B 7/2 = (7 + 2)*1 = 9<br>Stake<br>Horse A @ 2/1: 9 points to win, returns 2 x 9 = 18 – 6 = 12<br>Horse B @ 7/2: 6 points to win, returns 3.5 x 6 = 21 – 9 = 12<br>Odds, stakes = 15 points / to win = 12 points.<br>12/15 = .8 = true odds 4/5
Staking Plan<br>The staking shown on my earlier post suits these prices, level stakes profit?, 10% recovery from the first loser.<br>The staking plan can also be used for betting favourites of a similar price as those shown in the examples, above.
Combined selections versus single selections.<br>(8/11 vs 8/11 (57.6%))<br>Two horse bets have an advantage over one horse bets and this can be expressed in the following manner.<br>One probability is generated by one chance of occurrence the other from two chances of occurrence. Putting it simply, this means that both things will occur the same amount of times but the probability generated by two chances will occur more consistently. In betting terms this means you will get shorter losing runs.<br>This is what convinces me that the system developed was correct, or a variation on the theme.
An 80% Strike Rate – And a Word of Warning.<br>The only way I know of achieving an 80% strike rate is by covering to win on a series of bets staked as above, which is not to be recommended by anyone to anyone.
There are some sharks out there selling systems that are based on this method. They are sold with a staking plan like the one I am about to show you. A friend of mine wrote a win/lose program based on 10,000 bets. Many hundreds of thousands of pounds were required to win £100 a day, as the stakes are on an exponential curve, meaning, multiplied by themselves and fractional divisors, in this case.
To achieve an 80 to 90% strike rate a series of three or four bets would be placed sequentially aiming to stop at a winner and win a fixed amount of profit, illustrated in Scenario One. Scenario Two is the VDW version of this staking plan.
Scenario One<br>Assuming you want to win £100 every day.<br>From the examples above.
Example A: points returned = 5<br>So, <br>Aim = £100 / 5 = £20<br>Horse A @ 2/1 Stake (4 x £20) £80<br>Horse B @ 3/1 Stake (3 x £20) £60<br>If either win £100 profit is returned.<br>If lose carry over losses.
Example B: points returned = 12<br>So, (aim £100 + losses £140)<br>£240 / 12 = £20<br>Horse A @ 2/1 = (9 x 20) = £180<br>Horse B @ 7/2 = (6 x 20) = £120<br>If either selection wins returns £240.<br>And so on ……………..don’t even consider this not ever!!
Scenario Two – VDW version of scenario one.<br>This assumes you want to stake £100 on every race and add 10% to stakes after every loser. In this case it is the stake which is fixed. The stake is divided by the ‘points to win total’ and not the ‘points returned total’.
Example A: points staked = 7<br>So,<br>Aim = £100/7 = £14<br>Horse A @ 2/1 Stake (4 x £14) £56<br>Horse B @ 3/1 Stake (3 x £14) £42.<br>If either selection wins £70 is returned.<br>Losses are not carried over in the scenario, £10 is added to the stakes for the next bet and you would not stop at a winner.
The VDW staking plan assumes that ALL bets will return 1/1 (even money). It also assumes that ALL bets will win 80% of the time. These figures are of course falsely claimed as demonstrated here. An 80% strike rate can only be be achieved if the selections are coupled and covered from bet to bet.
The Large Bank Method (LBM) is based on ‘Wave Theory’<br>Assumptions about results/returns are opinions and can be based on a series of 100 bets or so, which may or may not reflect the overall trend, which rolls out towards infinity. Probabilities of occurrence are totally random within their probability. For example a 60% win strike rate will generally produce 60 winning and 40 losing events. Over a series of 10 bets you would expect 4 losers and 6 winners, which would be quite correct. And at the same time completely wrong. This is because you can’t know beforehand how representative the 10 bets will be of the overall trend. The LBM using staking plans, allows a simplified cash flow. Where losing runs of 40 or so can be easily sustained. This method allows the probabilities to work out their proportions over time. It gives the mathematics respect, a point which is lost on many.
I won’t go any further here about LBM and staking plans, perhaps another thread should be started on the subject. I couldn’t get into Smartsig, so I don’t know if they talk about it there.
My Personal angle of attack.<br>I have tried to concentrate on the HOW’s rather than allude to vagaries like some people do on racing forms when discussing these kind of topics. They either don’t know or they won’t tell you anyway.
My betting has somewhat evolved since 1987 and VDW as a system has long been abandoned. The Hook for selling this system is ‘the philosophy of filters’ which is correct. Everything else is designed to lever hard earned cash out of your wallet. I don’t buy systems or books anymore, because when you sit quietly and listen very carefully you already know……………………..
(Edited by dave jay at 12:22 pm on Nov. 9, 2002)
VDW Conclussions – Part Two.<br>As I said earlier we had formed a syndicate to use the DGA Pro-Punter program. The syndicate was formed because of the lengthy process of manually loading the data required to perform the program operations. It would take an average of two to four hours to input one race. So the basic criteria for being a member was owning an Amstrad computer. Each person would be alloted a couple of races to input and this would give us at least a couple of good bets for the Saturday afternoon.
The nature of the program familiarised me with form reading. We retained the records and within three or four months had built, what we thought was a good source of data. It was against this background that we researched the VDW methodology, amongst other systems, over about a year.
I have made this quite a lengthy post so you can decide for yourself whether the decisions made were sound or not. I’m sure that I have only remembered the salient points. In addition, I have added my own further research for your perusal, as I feel a shorter response may be misunderstood.
Informations presented.<br>System Aim = 80% strike rate<br>Statistical Filters = Betting Forecast / Form Evaluation / Class Evaluation.<br>Suitability Filters = Race Type / Number of Runners.<br>Identification Markers = Days since last run.<br>Betting = Illogical Staking Plan.
Attempt One……<br>Working the system with the information presented.<br>Betting Forecast – Eliminate outsiders, captures 75 – 80% of the market. Eliminates a higher percentage of the field in Non-HCP’s than it does in HCP’s and higher class Non-HCP’s. We decided that this was how we should determine the number of all top selections from the check list. For example, if the betting forecast selects four horses and deletes four horses, only the top four for Form and Class would be considered.<br>Form Evaluation – in it’s own right, throws up winners. Bad in Non-HCP’s better in smaller field HCP’s.<br>Class Evaluation – Bad in lower class races. In HCP’s can push the selections up the weights. Major draw back, does identify horses coming up in class.
So, taking these filters and applying them in the proscribed VDW cross refferal method we arrived at these trends
Betting Forecast x Form Eval. x Class Eval. = Favourites<br>Betting Forecast x Form Eval. = Favourites and second Favourites.<br>Betting Forecast x Class Eval. = limited success, lack of data.<br>Form Eval. x Class Eval. = Short Priced Favourites.
Race Type and Number of Runners were ignored in the first pass. Doing this would allow an assessment of advantage when applied retrospectively.
We quickly realised that Class data was a bad filter. Not only was the lack of data not providing meaningful ratings any filter applied to it eliminated the longer priced horses it did throw up.<br>During this phase we were getting a strike rate of around 20 – 30% and no viable selection method. Days since last run made little or no difference between the longest and shortest number of days. Drawing a line at this we had a change of heart.
Attempt Two………..Modification of Data.<br>We decided to discard the Class Eval. Filter and days since last run, rightly or wrongly, and introduce two new filters.
We applied a Primary Filter – Number of Runners – limiting the size of field being considered to 6 to 15 runners.
Form Rating – not wanting to abandon class altogether and not being overly confident in our VDW form figures, we decided to bring newspaper form ratings into the equation. We figured that so long as they were form ratings and not speed ratings  we’d be okay. A minimum of 50% of the field should have a rating, to ensure they had any relevance.
So we set up another set of filters and repeated to process over again.
We were still not there, we were down to two horses being the optimum or should I say more likely route, but couldn’t get over 60% strike rate and then only in cetain types of races and with limited conditions.
Final System……..<br>Delete any race with less than 6 runners and more than 15.<br>Bet only in proper Non-HCP races.<br>Delete any race with a joint first or joint second favourite in the F-SP.<br>From the remaining races, select the forecast first and second favourite.<br>One or both selections must be in the select list for Form Evaluation.<br>One or both selections must be in the select list for Form Rating.<br>Combined SR = 60 -70%.
The syndicate research ended at this point and we agreed that this was the best we were going to get based on the data gathered. The system was abandoned because it only generated two or three bets a week. I believe that this is the VDW selection system. This invaluable research allowed me to go on further and reinforce my belief that this was it.
To be continued…………………<br>
8/11/02
2.30 Uttoxeter<br>The Fenman L (40/1)
SR = 2/4 = 50%<br>LSP = -0.26<br>*****************************************<br>Staking Plan Aim = 15 / 40 = 0.4<br>Profit Loss Day: -0.4<br>Profit Loss System: +14.6<br>System Points Staked: 64.4<br>ROI: + 22.7<br>*****************************************
(Edited by dave jay at 12:13 pm on Nov. 9, 2002)
Hi Kersly,<br>What are the exact rules you are applying here. I’ve looked through your previous postings and I’m not too sure what you are doing. I think I know, but I’m not sure. Like the system, good string of results!
7/11/02<br>3.40 Hereford
King Plato L 2/1
SR = 2/3 = 66%<br>LSP = -0.22<br>*****************************************<br>Staking Plan Aim = 10 / 2 = 5<br>Profit/Loss Day: -5<br>Profit/Loss System: +15<br>System Points Staked: 64<br>ROI: +23.4%<br>*****************************************
(Edited by dave jay at 4:15 pm on Nov. 7, 2002)
6/11/01
Nabb 1.50
Maousse Honor W 1/4
SR = 2/2 = 100%<br>LSP = +0.78<br>***************************************<br>Staking Plan Aim = 10/.25 = 40 points staked<br>Profit/Loss Day: +10<br>Profit Loss System: +20<br>System Points Staked: 59<br>ROI: +33%<br>**************************************
(Edited by dave jay at 6:14 pm on Nov. 6, 2002)
It all depends how many bets are required to generate your profit. Sometimes I bet seriously when I’m looking to make steady profit, in which case it’s all about turnover and margins. I’m happy with 5 points a week. Other times I go to the bookies with £100 and try and win £500, it all depends what your after.
