|
Post by BC on Nov 26, 2010 10:10:27 GMT
ok on a more serious note and a question the older raceform updates ,did the piece at the bottom of a race in the results section now called the synopsis ,was it called ON REFLECTION at one time ie checking your mirrors? Morning Les, I have no idea about 'On Reflection' in Raceform. But I think what Vincent meant by checking your mirrors is to look at the one thing you said you don't look at. You said: "i did not go into wither it had beat a better ability horse or not or was just beaten by a better ability horse"I say - that is exactly what you need to do. Ask Walter what he thinks. BC
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 26, 2010 16:36:46 GMT
so a horse that won lto is a form horse a horse that was placed 2/3rd lto and was beaten by a good ability horse/horses lto can sometimes be the form horse
and when you marry the 2 parts of the method
[1] the top ability,consistency,lto class of race, speed rating,handicap rating
[2]check form by ability rating beaten or won down to one,two or three horses
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 26, 2010 17:50:29 GMT
so a horse that won lto is a form horse a horse that was placed 2/3rd lto and was beaten by a good ability horse/horses lto can sometimes be the form horse and when you marry the 2 parts of the method [1] the top ability,consistency,lto class of race, speed rating,handicap rating [2]check form by ability rating beaten or won down to one,two or three horses I'm not going to pretend I know it all. I don't. What I do believe is that the best way to measure the class of the horses in the race is to see what other horses they have been competing against. Of course, it is sometimes a bit subjective, but if you can get a reliable way of doing that, then you can find the class horse. I don't think the ability rating is, necessarily, the best way of doing that. And it's time-consuming and boring to do, if you're looking at any number of races. I think the G board threw up a lot of red herrings. A form horse is simply a horse in form surely, no? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 26, 2010 18:19:24 GMT
ok i,ll say the opposite horses that won poor ability races there form maybe suspect
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 26, 2010 18:41:19 GMT
ok i,ll say the opposite horses that won poor ability races there form maybe suspect Well, when you say " poor ability races", what makes it a poor ability race? If you mean the size of the prize money won, then you may be missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 26, 2010 19:32:33 GMT
no i mean that the race won was against horses of poor ability
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 26, 2010 19:39:36 GMT
no i mean that the race won was against horses of poor ability OK, question: What makes them horses of poor ability?
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 26, 2010 20:03:07 GMT
by vdw, horses that have WON little prize money not my fav way of doing things
horses that have NOT ran a race in a fast time
horses that have NOT achieved good official handicap ratings
as ranked to other horses in the race
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 26, 2010 20:59:53 GMT
by vdw, horses that have WON little prize money not my fav way of doing things Agreed. OK, that sounds like a good basis to work on. I'd say trying to guage horses against each other is a knack rather than something that can be set out in a set of rules - well, that's my take on it anyway. I think as you look into the form of each horse, perhaps in the light you've written, you'll begin to get a feel for when a horse is a class apart. I use the race grade, but in a general way, not just on the horse, but on the horses it has competed against in the past to get a feel for its' general grade. I think I've mentioned that to you before. Perhaps using OR's might be a better way. BC
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 26, 2010 22:18:18 GMT
Evening all.
The first thing people should have spotted when directed back to the beginning,is the fact that VDW was NOT offering the forum his method/s.He was looking for an exchange of idea's.This is more relevant than people realise.
If you were returning to the beginning,its because you couldn't make something fit.So some may say this should have set alarm bells ringing.
Now I am not saying the whole thing was a crock because it was not but,there are some glaring errors in what was written and in the assumptions then made and as a result people should have asked mre questions.Not so much as to the method/s worth but as to the intentions of the author(remember back to the beginning?)
The main reason that this has been shrouded in mystery for the last 30 years is caused by people who en-camp themselves on one side of the fence or the other.Thier "fixed" views over time became as widely read as VDW if not more so.As a result other people started to accept these "opinions" as "facts" and failed to research facts for themselves.
Here is a post copyed from UKBT by Garstonf-
The sole reason I joined this forum was to ask a question about this very same method. My question is this. Has anybody identified the 6 horses VDW selected for the National Hunt season which returned many times the national average annual wage? The national average was about 4.6k in 1979. VDW’s letter was published in May, 1979 so I assumed the 6 were from that present season which had just finished i.e. 1978-79. The first step I took to answer the question was to list the 155 horses that achieved a speed figure of 80+ during the 1977-78 Season, then using the index noted the last 2 placings of each horse. This resulted in 19 horses with the required placings of 12, 13, 21 and 31. Of these 19, only 3 were placed 2nd or 3rd first time out in 1978-79. These were; Young Arthur 2nd in a Handicap Chase who went on to finish 3rd, 4th, U, and 2nd; Tidal Wave 3rd in a Handicap Hurdle who went on to finish unplaced 7 times. The other horse was Major Thompson who finished 2nd in a Non Handicap Hurdle. This one did win 4 races later at 8/13F but doesn’t count as a Handicapper. Having no joy there the next step was to list the 127 horses from the 1977-78 index with the required placings 12, 13, etc. 27 of these finished 2nd or 3rd first time out in 1978-79, 17 were in handicaps and only 6 of these 17 finished 2nd first time out which was VDW’s preference. The 6 were Levatine (best sf prev season 69), Mermoney (best sf prev season 66), Rough And Tumble (sf 63), Sharpferbeds (sf 51), Unruly Sun (no sf), Young Arthur (sf 93). Levatine did not race again in 78-79, Mermoney won next time out at 9/4, Rough And Tumble won 2 races later at 9/2, Sharpferbeds was out first 3 in 2 subsequent outings, Unruly Sun won 2 races later at 7/1, Young Arthur no wins in 4 as mentioned above. Basically if some of these were in VDW’s 6 then what was all the nonsense about a sf of 80+. The question still remains: What were VDW’s 6 horses?
Now here is someone that has done his homework,and if anyone cares to try this for themselves they will come up with the same question at the end,as there were no qualifiers from the given criteria at the given time.
Now no doubt the believers will at some point see this post and we will get the "You have to look at it in the correct way" speech.Well I believe I have because I have used what was said and suggested by VDW himself on the material he would have had available to him at the time.
Ive not attempted to make this fit todays racing,Ive done what everyone "should" have done.I went back to the beginning.
Now I am not claiming to know it all,but if they are honest then niether does anyone else.We cant say what was or was not a bet for VDW anymore than we say what time he visited the bathroom each day.What we can do is use the information that HE and HE ALONE made available to us.
First things first though.What was a man with an 80% strike rate looking to obtain in an exchange of ideas?I mean seriously what did he think people had that would compare to his claims?
The thing is when we view the times between early letters we can actually see that VDWs wild claims are not commented on much and definitely do not "set the page alight".That is UNTIL G Hall mentions a supply of winners and mentions a "key".Every good fire needs a spark and here was VDWs.It did not come however for OVER SIX MONTHS(makes you wonder about the validity or even identity of this particular person-nudge,nudge,wink,wink).
Now if you read those first couple of letter exchanges you will(or should)come up with this question-
"One thing puzzles me though, if the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term."
Now I can understand that when these letters were printed people were under the impression this guy was Dutch(even though the spelling was German!),So there may have been some king of language barrier causing the at times confusing and conflicting statements.Today however we know that this guy was not foreign,so what can we assume from this little nugget?Well to answer my own question we need first to understand VDWs mistake.
In the article "Spells It All Out"(Now referred to as SIOA),VDW again mentions his combined form figures(Although some figures are now different to previously stated,although the explanation is made apparent below).He makes such a mess of his explanation though that led to people making the wrong assumption to begin with.You see these were not probabilities as assumed but instead FACTS.These numbers are from his own experience.He has not added the percentages of the last three placings to obtain the 99%, 98% and so on.If they were added then in the case of 3-3-4 the four would be 32% but he gives figures of 112 26% and 211 27%.Truth is,as we know these figures would be and are much lower today.These figures are what gave VDW his 80%SR though(or another way to phrase it would be "made him believe it was attainable" hence why the request for an exchange of ideas.VDW was looking for a missing link himself maybe?Worth asking I believe!).The only way someone could have come up with "facts" was to have marked off the most consistent from the forcast everyday recording the findings.
Now the minimum requirements in this example to achieve 99% is 67 occurences of which 66 need to be winners.So using these figures as a base we can work out the other variables.
You need 66 wins from 67 occurrences 99%, 65 from 66 98%, 64 from 67 96%, 63 from 66 95%, 60 from 67 90%, 49 from 67 73%, 11 from 66 17%. Add them all together and you have 378 wins from 466 occurrences which equals 81%.
It is my belief that VDW never meant to have to explain his method.He was hoping that someone would give him the missing piece.You see as JIB(John In Brazil) once said VDW was trying to mix oil with water.
Here John says it so much better than me-
My view on why the VDW writings remain unresolved after 30 years is that the writer tries to mix oil and water.
He introduces the reason why a horse wins the race then tries to resolve that with a statistical approach when in reality one has no relation whatsoever to the other.
VDW reminds me of one of those pioneer scientists from history, who having made an astute observation, ultimately drew the wrong conclusions from it.
An example that illustrates this contention is 'malaria', a disease from which I have had much inconvienience.
Early scientists noted that this disease was common to warm, humid climates and consequently, but wrongly assumed that the disease was airborne, baptising it with the name we know today. As a result of this erroneous conclusion dwellers of these climates spent their lives walking about with masks over their mouths in the vain hope that they would avoid contamination.
It never occured to the scientists that the mosquito needed a hot and humid climate to proliferate and was the vector responsible for the transmission of the disease.
So is VDW's mistake.
He spotted that it was the class horse that usually won the race, providing that it was fit an 'on', but he chose to look for the 'class' using statistics.
It may well be that the class horse is in the first six in the betting but it doesn't have to be. Just because bats and butterflies have wings doesn't mean to say they are birds. The class horse has class, its position in the betting is totally irrelevant, just as its last three finishing positions are.
A horse has a career, that career has to be developed by training, a racehorse doesn't just exist as a ready wrapped, immutable machine. When the trainer is happy that he has got as far as he can with it he will then look for an opportunity to win with it. He will look to find a race where the class of his horse is going to be better than its rivals. Statistics have nothing to do with this decision making process though they may arise as a consequence of it.
It is no use looking for class from predefined areas that in reality have nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of class.
It is no use hoping that by applying rules, such as 'must have shown improved form in its last three runs', that you are wielding the net that will catch the fish when the true nature of class demonstrates that it cannot be constrained by such bonds.
To get anywhere with these methods a student must first understand VDW's mistake.
There will be more to follow but thats been some typing lol.I will cover some possibly over looked factors in respect of the CR and AR as well as some other bits and pieces.
Now its your turn to get interactive before tomorrow..........
"Once you see it you will wonder how you missed it".
This is in relation to the SIAO article.If I were to say its in the "odds" would someone spot it,before I post it.
See you tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 27, 2010 14:48:49 GMT
Hi Jason, John's article is superb. I remember reading that when it was first posted. I'm pretty sure it will be in the VDW archive somewhere. "Once you see it you will wonder how you missed it". This is in relation to the SIAO article.If I were to say its in the "odds" would someone spot it,before I post it. I think it's fair to say that if we haven't spotted it after all these years, we aren't going to spot it in between your posts. ;D But go on, I'll be game for a laugh... Referring to "odds", towards the beginning of the SIAO article, VDW says: "Few ever reach their goal, not because it is unobtainable, but because they unwittingly stack the odds heavily against themselves."and... "...they further put the odds against themselves by coupling a number of horses in multiple bets."and "To a large extent the art of successful punting is dependent upon the ability to appraise odds and never go against them".What to make of this? Well, it strikes me that if someone wants an 80% strike rate, they must only bet when the "true odds" (not the odds available) are 80% in their favour, i.e. 1/5. Short-priced favourites might be one way of finding selections that fit that criteria. Dutching selections might be another. BC
And this for Les. When going through the books for the above, I stumbled over this, and thought it might help, given our recent discussion: "You should not need to be reminded that the class against which a horse runs is not the same as the class of race of race in which they compete. Most will be acquainted with the idea of looking for horses which are dropped in class. Often this is a race offering less prize money, but not necessarily so. The quality of the horses engaged is more to the point... (BTVDWW pg 5) "BC
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 27, 2010 17:04:45 GMT
He has not added the percentages of the last three placings to obtain the 99%, 98% and so on.If they were added then in the case of 3-3-4 the four would be 32% but he gives figures of 112 26% and 211 27%. But VDW also gave 121 as being 32% so in that case 111=33% 111=33% 121=32% 33+33+32 =98%
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 27, 2010 17:18:16 GMT
As an aside thes are the percentages I got when checking over two years worth of resuts Form | Wins | Lost | Total | S/R | 111 | 99 | 338 | 437 | 22.65% | 121 | 67 | 257 | 324 | 20.68% | 221 | 76 | 245 | 321 | 23.68% | 321 | 58 | 230 | 288 | 20.14% | 132 | 33 | 165 | 198 | 16.67% | 313 | 37 | 168 | 205 | 18.05% | 213 | 40 | 226 | 266 | 15.04% | 214 | 25 | 165 | 190 | 13.16% | 204 | 6 | 79 | 85 | 7.06% | 302 | 4 | 83 | 87 | 4.60% | 404 | 5 | 101 | 106 | 4.72% | 0 | 964 | 15531 | 16495 | 5.84% |
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 17:21:32 GMT
He has not added the percentages of the last three placings to obtain the 99%, 98% and so on.If they were added then in the case of 3-3-4 the four would be 32% but he gives figures of 112 26% and 211 27%. But VDW also gave 121 as being 32% so in that case 111=33% 111=33% 121=32% 33+33+32 =98% They were not added together as can be seen from the example.They there for could ONLY have come from his own records of the events.Think about it 211=27% yet 112=26%.How has the same numerical anomaly produced two different figures?The only way it can happen is if there is another variable not mentioned which negates the ability to use simple addition to arrive at the answer.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 17:24:07 GMT
As an aside thes are the percentages I got when checking over two years worth of resuts Form | Wins | Lost | Total | S/R | 111 | 99 | 338 | 437 | 22.65% | 121 | 67 | 257 | 324 | 20.68% | 221 | 76 | 245 | 321 | 23.68% | 321 | 58 | 230 | 288 | 20.14% | 132 | 33 | 165 | 198 | 16.67% | 313 | 37 | 168 | 205 | 18.05% | 213 | 40 | 226 | 266 | 15.04% | 214 | 25 | 165 | 190 | 13.16% | 204 | 6 | 79 | 85 | 7.06% | 302 | 4 | 83 | 87 | 4.60% | 404 | 5 | 101 | 106 | 4.72% | 0 | 964 | 15531 | 16495 | 5.84% |
Are these recent figures(sorry not checked any I just assumed they would be lower now as a result of the obvious changes in racing).
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 17:30:23 GMT
BC Im afraid you maybe hugely disappointed in the actual answer.
Weight of money was once a good indicator of a contacts money going down.The selections in SIAO were so because thier prices shortened from forcast to opening.
Now you can see why I did not understand the way it is coverted among some.These days it would not be of any use in this context as traders and larger numbers of bettors can distort prices for many reasons.Of course 30+ years ago it was very different.
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 27, 2010 17:35:24 GMT
i always thought that vdw had percentages for every column in his appraisal
ability and consistency getting the bulk of the percentages
say ability and consistency getting 60% lto class and ratings the rest
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 17:48:07 GMT
If memory serves me correctly Les it was person called Marchwood that first set about an evaluation that way.
The hardest parts of uncovering anything to do with VDW is cutting through the things that were in fact other peoples work rather than VDWs.
I must say though Im glad Ive done it as Ive learnt heaps and its dramaticly improved my betting.Lets face it most of us dont want to attempt to read a form book when we are starting out it looks confusing to say the least,VDW gave us a different incentive so to speak and as a result we learnt to read it.
If the figures above from Kevin are recent I would say the SR is now around the 37-40% mark(as a rough guess).
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 27, 2010 18:10:52 GMT
6.50 wolves
hidden glory.......30%+15%+20%+17%=82%
top hadicap rating=30% consistency= 18 so 33-18=15% top split second=20% mail rating top =20% so hidden glory = 82 pts once you have all the horses you can get prices from there
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 27, 2010 18:27:16 GMT
BC Im afraid you maybe hugely disappointed in the actual answer. I won't be. Don't you think you may be falling into the same trap that John describes? Just because you've found a trend that fits, doesn't necessarily make it the answer. I've been there - done that. ;D Weight of money could be the answer. But is no more or less likely than the answer I posted, (imo), as we can't actually know for certain what he meant. Stacking the odds in your favour does, to me, seem more likely. If you bet when you've only got a 30% chance of winning will never result in an 80% SR. The ONLY way of getting an 80% SR over any period is to bet when you think the real odds should be 1/5. Bookmakers make mistakes, but not many, and probably not by much either. So for someone to think they can pick out 3/1, 5/1 and 6/1 singles and have any chance of them winning 80% of the time is, shall we say, unlikley.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 18:42:48 GMT
BC have you used what ever means you do to estimate actual odds against all of the selections he gave?Bets and non-bets to check if it fits?
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 27, 2010 19:02:32 GMT
when vdw said take the 3 most consistent from the first 5/6 in the betting was it from his own odds?
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 19:37:19 GMT
No it would have been a newspaper forcast and from his examples we can tell it was not always the same one.
Here are the figures he gave in relation to the CR-
111: 33% 121: 32% 131: 29% 141: 26% 122: 30% 313: 24% 214: 24% 404: 5% 000: 2%
111: 33% 121: 32% 221: 31% 321: 29% 132: 26% 313: 24% 213: 25% 214: 24% 204: 8% 302: 8% 404: 5% 000: 2%
If we use his method of adding the figures together, two groups emerge:
3-7: 24-33% 15-30: 2-8%
So we should be sticking to 7 and lower as a general rule.
Also his examples showed that we should discount those with a declining form line,instead opting for those with an improving form line(Fauloon with the highest ability has conflict with other ratings and form not exciting." amongst others).
The AR was not explained clearly either.This had more relevance to past performance as appossed to actualy rating the field.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 27, 2010 20:53:22 GMT
Are these recent figures(sorry not checked any I just assumed they would be lower now as a result of the obvious changes in racing). Yes, they were from a two year period within the last three years from my own records. I might have a look at running them again using Raceform Interactive.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 27, 2010 21:01:57 GMT
They were not added together as can be seen from the example.They there for could ONLY have come from his own records of the events. Think about it 211=27% yet 112=26%.How has the same numerical anomaly produced two different figures? Well perhaps 112 is showinga downturn in form compared against 211. Although adding the individual numbers gives you 4 in both cases I think it is wrong to think that they will both end up with the same strike rate next time out.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 21:59:18 GMT
They were not added together as can be seen from the example.They there for could ONLY have come from his own records of the events. Think about it 211=27% yet 112=26%.How has the same numerical anomaly produced two different figures? Well perhaps 112 is showinga downturn in form compared against 211. Although adding the individual numbers gives you 4 in both cases I think it is wrong to think that they will both end up with the same strike rate next time out. Your absolutely correct in that they would not and should not have the same SR.This is exactly why the figures could not be straight added up.There is no mathmatical addition that is capable of taking care of this aspect of the equation.Addition of percentages can ONLY see the 4 in both cases.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 27, 2010 22:00:36 GMT
Hence why I see these figures as facts(his own or somebody else's)not probabilities.
Allowing ourselves to see these as facts allows us to then work out the expected SR(the maths coincide with VDWs claim).
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 27, 2010 22:43:32 GMT
How do you think VDW would have dealt with a race where there were 4 horses with form figs of 111? Would there be a 132% chance that one of them would win it?
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 28, 2010 9:22:24 GMT
No it would have been a newspaper forcast and from his examples we can tell it was not always the same one. Here are the figures he gave in relation to the CR- 111: 33% 121: 32% 131: 29% 141: 26% 122: 30% 313: 24% 214: 24% 404: 5% 000: 2% 111: 33% 121: 32% 221: 31% 321: 29% 132: 26% 313: 24% 213: 25% 214: 24% 204: 8% 302: 8% 404: 5% 000: 2% If we use his method of adding the figures together, two groups emerge: 3-7: 24-33% 15-30: 2-8% So we should be sticking to 7 and lower as a general rule. Also his examples showed that we should discount those with a declining form line,instead opting for those with an improving form line(Fauloon with the highest ability has conflict with other ratings and form not exciting." amongst others). The AR was not explained clearly either.This had more relevance to past performance as appossed to actualy rating the field. Hi Makingitslowly. This may help, when VDW was talking about Roushayd he quoted. With horse racing how then do we assess the class element? He then goes on to say, everything is best viewed in a simple form and an easy way to present class as a rating is to divide the penalty value by 100. He then quotes WHEN I REFER TO A HORSE BEING RAISED OR DROPPED IN CLASS I AM MEASURING IT AGAINST A RATING ARRIVED AT IN THIS MANNER
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 28, 2010 9:35:08 GMT
How do you think VDW would have dealt with a race where there were 4 horses with form figs of 111? Would there be a 132% chance that one of them would win it? Obviously there would not be a 132% chance of anything.Maybe the written word is not clear but I keep saying these are not probabilities and the percentage you state proves this.This was one of VDWs most glaring errors but even those trying to ridicule him were making the same mistake as him by doing so. I hope this does not come across as rude but,I will atempt a very simple example to illustrate the point I am making and that I think you are missing. Two people,we will call them Peter and Paul,are flipping coins,both wanting "heads". Peter flips the coin 100 times and has heads 50 times=50%SR Paul flips the coin 100 times and has heads 50 times=50%SR The above would not likely be as exact in the real world but for the example you understand. So by the maths used to combine the four horse's that you used above we just need these two guys to flip thier coins 100 times each at the same time to achieve 100%SR! My maths on the other hand still has the answer as 50%SR. Now do you see the flaw? Peter's flip has NOTHING to do with Paul's flip.Just as Horse A has nothing to do with horse's B,C and D.
|
|