|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 28, 2010 10:01:00 GMT
Les, i note how you set your table out is very similar to Beppo's.
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 28, 2010 11:19:09 GMT
yes arkle i,ve spoken to you over on another board think to set it out that way helps see that browsers are bringing out a new book about beppo,s assessments will get it and see i,ll let people know how it is
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 28, 2010 12:37:20 GMT
Les, i received the book yesterday. For £15 you get 27 pages half of which Tony Peach is going over the same old thing again. So you are probably paying £15 for approx 12 pages that you may or may not have read before. I hope you enjoy the book but for what you are getting (unless there is something hidden within) the price is a bit naughty.
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 28, 2010 12:52:58 GMT
yes i would expect that any small change could make a difference so go for it ,
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 28, 2010 16:31:05 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? No. Don't forget, I only came up with that answer between your posts to keep the pot simmering! But I'm glad you got me thinking about it.
Hi Arkle - long time, no see. BC
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 11:20:02 GMT
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. Hi Makingitsowly, I have thought more about your answer "Weight of money", and like it even less than I did yesterday, for two reasons. 1. I don't see how it ties in with the statement: "Once you see it you will wonder how you missed it".2. I don't think the practicality of betting on weight of money is particularly easy. For example: You have a ten minute window to place your bet. It opens at 6/4. You wait two minutes. It moves to 13/8. Do you take that price now? Or wait a bit? It can still go either way can't it, so we'll wait two more minutes. It moves to 11/8. Better take that before it shortens any more. In the six remianing minutes, it goes out to 13/8, and then back to 6/4. We've all see that happen.
Personally, I think you have done exactly what JIB describes in the article you reprinted. You have spotted a trend (weight of money = warm, humid conditions) and assumed that was the deciding factor. The race form is available to everyone, and surprisingly, (tongue firmly in cheek), some non-VDWers are quite good at reading it too. In other words, weight of money became a factor because of the form. If I can, I always take an early price on my selections. Why? Because I find that the SP is almost always shorter.
I could be wrong - it has been known. Ahem. BC
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 13:02:01 GMT
Hi BC
On point 1 Im not sure how it does not fit with the statement made.I mean how can you not see what in hindsight was so glaringly obvious.He did say it was right there in front of us but not pointed out!!!
Anyway this does however raise an issue with my posts I had not previously considered.The issue being "why should anyone listen to me?".Truth is there has been so many "opinions" over the years,mine is but one of them.
Maybe your right and I am in danger of falling in to the same trap as others(as pointed out by JIB).Then again I have never seen ANY explanation of the method that envolved the process I used to eliminate possible errors and mis-understandings.Then it occured to me that I had not explained in my previous posts just HOW I had come to my conclusions.
So I will try now to explain what I should have in the first instance.
There are many trends that appear while trying to solve this.Most however end in dead ends or can be explained equally well with an alternative explanation.
One thing though is that the vast majority of explanations ONLY work with the specific examples that VDW gave.How many people then tryed to emulate what had been written with the application of said method.Most if not all who did,did so on modern races.It then fails and they blame the authour,the method or convince themselves that something was left out or missed.It does not seem to occur that they could have been wrong in thier first instance.Or that they should have been using the 30 year old method on 30 year old races!
This is what I did,using the information available from the libary.I know it is "back-fitting but,in this instance it is all we have.I followed trends until they failed in use or in my "assumptions that I am putting forward" did not.You see I have used the method on races that VDW did not quote in the literature and have been able to emulate the 80% stated.Attempts to use the un-edited version of the method on modern races however has only yielded just short of a 40% strike rate(small sample at present but no indication as to being able to achieve or maintain 80%,and I have no reason to believe this will change over time).
Sorry if at anytime I seem to be overly defensive of my "interpretation" but five luchtimes a week plus a half day on a saturday for six months is a lot of effort by anyones standard.I have followed all the trends I was able to find or already knew about to thier logical or factual ends and was eventually left with the "assumptions" that I am now putting forward.
These "assumptions" have allowed me to maintain VDWs SR at the time of racing where he would have applyed it.
Truth is though there will always be people that will convince themselves that they are right and others are wrong(I may even be one of them,who knows?)but,for me having viewed and used the evidence that was/is available I can say that without doubt(for me personally)I am happy that what I have is VDWs method.Its just a shame it no longer works with modern racing.Form analysis in its own right is "FAR" more profitable.That being said though I could not have read form in the way I do now had it not been for this investigation.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 14:33:19 GMT
Hi makingitslowly, On point 1 Im not sure how it does not fit with the statement made.I mean how can you not see what in hindsight was so glaringly obvious. He did say it was right there in front of us but not pointed out!!!Is that actually what he said? And what about the context? (From TUWOF pg 19)"The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element had been chosen to fit into the method. Calculating consistenet horses, ability ratings and everything else, providing you READ WHAT WAS THERE. The last in capitals because it was all there although a vital factor, call it the missing link if you like was not deliberately pointed out."When he says 'there', he is, to my mind, talking specifically about the SIAO article itself. Would you not agree? Weight of money is simply not 'there'. (From BTVDWW pg 8)"A little was left for you to complete, but all relevant factors were there to set up a second "numerical picture" providing you read what was said". He then gives two clues, which don't relate in any way to weight of money. He then goes on to outline the setting up of the second numerical picture. I don't feel you are being overly defensive. Carry on. Listen, you might be right. But as it is, I'm not convinced. Your time commitment, whilst commendable, will be no different to others who have gone through the examples. And they have arrived at different conclusions. I wrote a piece where I was convinced I'd got it. It's in the archives - see folder 9. I had examined the thing from a different, logical standpoint. IF G Hall (nudge, wink) found the key at that point, it does have to be one of those 8 possibilities for the reasons given. I just (probably, possibly, maybe, maybe not) picked the wrong one! ...which at the end of the day, is the real value of the VDW saga. BC
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 16:43:17 GMT
I thought I'd have a quick skim through folder 9, and Investor said this: "As regards the "key" it is all to do with odds and temperement and not to go against the odds". He used to come in for some stick. But personally, I thought he had a better grasp on things than most gave him credit for. Reading that, I think I was right. BC
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 17:11:45 GMT
Hi BC Im with you, with regards to the shortening of the odds not being the answer. Unless you really know the money is down it becomes a bit of a blind alley.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 17:13:46 GMT
Hi BC Im with you, with regards to the shortening of the odds not being the answer. Unless you really know the money is down it becomes a bit of a blind alley. What's your view Arkle? Is there a 'key'?
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 17:22:25 GMT
"To a large extent the art of successful punting is dependent upon the ability to appraise odds and never go against them".What does it actually mean "never go against the odds"? I mean, it's easy to say "don't go against the odds". But what does that mean. Does it mean only bet when you have a 51%+ chance of winning? It slips off the tongue easily enough. But have we ever thought about it in any depth? Has it been discussed anywhere before? B-the-question-mark-C
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 18:53:19 GMT
BC
It "IS" there in SIAO.Humour me and look again.Out of the races he broke down in an explanation only two were bets in his view.BOTH had shortened upon opening from the forcast price the others had not(I call it WOM Im sure VDW had his own term).This is a trend you will find amongst all VDWs bets as he declared them(Of course you need the newspapers of the day to prove this point,on all examples other than those in SIAO).
This is not G Hall's key.Which incidently was easier to assume and prove.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 18:54:20 GMT
Oh and if Investor thoght the "key" was to do with odds or temprament he was mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 19:07:43 GMT
Just had a quick look at folder 9 and no you dont mention it at all.
The way that led me straight to it was to look at G Hall himself.What type of punter,what type of bettor.
The answers there is......Novice and systems bettor.
So this was a system bettor with little experience.He would OBVIOUSLY be looking for "hard,fast rules" as in a system,something VDW later pulls him up on.He is looking for hard and fast rules though,I dont believe anyone can have any doubt of this part.
So we look at the examples that he would have been working from and find as many "hard,fast rules" as possible.We then apply these rules to other VDW confirmed selections to see if our "rule" shows up.
It did show up and only one.This with other bits VDW wrote then give us the second numerical.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 20:59:55 GMT
It "IS" there in SIAO.Humour me and look again.Out of the races he broke down in an explanation only two were bets in his view.BOTH had shortened upon opening from the forcast price the others had not(I call it WOM Im sure VDW had his own term).This is a trend you will find amongst all VDWs bets as he declared them(Of course you need the newspapers of the day to prove this point,on all examples other than those in SIAO). I think I'm going to have say, let's agree to disagree. Apart from the two reasons I gave earlier, I can think of three more as to why I don't like weight of money. 3. We are told to use the method in the best races. The best races carry many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds in betting money. Even with the owner & trainer having a big lump on, the impact in the Grand National or Derby for example, would be minimal, no? 4. "The sucessful punter evaluates unemotionally and with no thought of finding THE WINNER. His evaluation when complete will then tell him IF there is A WINNER in a race. At this stage he then evaluates the prospects before coming to a final conclusion". (Systematic Betting pg 4)So he evaluates. Then he evaluates. (ie, the first and second numerical pictures). I see no mention of the successful punter scrabbling around in the minutes before the off trying to keep his place in a betting queue, while waiting to see if the price contracts. Sorry Jason, I just don't see it. It doesn't sound "in keeping" with VDW's description. 5. "The spadework is all complete and it can be seen there is a possible winner for each race, but once again the odds must be weighed. Providing a reasonable price can be obtained, Little Owl will be taken because it is a racing certainty. Sunset Christo will also be taken as it is almost a certainty, but the rest will be left. Why? Go back to the beginning and you will find it all tied up with temperament and odds".(SIAO pg45)Three things on this one: a) The odds must be weighed - And how will he weigh the odds? By compiling his second numerical picture. b) VDW wants a "reasonable price" - not a contracted one. c) Little Owl WILL be taken (this is a decision made before the live betting market). I really do think that what you have spotted is a trend that comes as a reault of bettors generally spotting a good betting opportunity. So... are you going to tell us what you think it is, or are you going to let that carrot dangle, as so many carrot danglers have dangled before? ;D
Jason - you are a good guy. You've worked damn hard on this, and have offered to share it with no thought of reward. But could I suggest you let a couple of months go by. Let it all sink in. You have all the information. That's not going anywhere and you'll never have to go through it again as it's now all at your fingertips. What might change is your conclusions given the fulness of time. BC
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 21:01:09 GMT
Hi BC Im with you, with regards to the shortening of the odds not being the answer. Unless you really know the money is down it becomes a bit of a blind alley. What's your view Arkle? Is there a 'key'? BC If there is a key, then no i have not found it.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 29, 2010 21:02:28 GMT
I hope this does not come across as rude ...... Of course not If the figures VDW posted were based on what he had as facts from his own records over what period do you think he gathered his information. For example in 2009 there were ony two races in which there were 3 runners with 111 form figures, in fact one race had 4 and the other had 3, none of these 7 won! Using your minimum 66/67 to get to 99% with both races providing no winners we would need 132/134 to get to 99%. Based on 2009 that would take 66 years ;D
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 21:20:41 GMT
I think maybe your right mate.Although I doubt my conclusion will change,as to do so I would need to be using the method.My understanding of the method gives just under 40%SR and is not at adequate odds consistently to make that SR pay.
Mine is FAR more profitable than his is today(Now thats dangling a carrot lol).
Kevin
Judging by the mis-assumptions made by VDW within his own work leads me to think his research was a year or two at most,and more likely still is that it was someone else's work(I have my suspicions as to who's work but that is purely opinion and I can find no proof to prove either way).
G Hall's "key" was a winner or run against a previous winner within the last two runs.This leads to another(second) numerical picture that allows us to make selections along the lines of Roushayd.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 21:23:54 GMT
At least I hope we are all agreed Roushayd was not chosen just because of an improving speed figure!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 21:24:46 GMT
BC If there is a key, then no i have not found it. I found the key once. I jumped for joy. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the key to the privvy! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 21:37:28 GMT
"To a large extent the art of successful punting is dependent upon the ability to appraise odds and never go against them".What does it actually mean "never go against the odds"? I mean, it's easy to say "don't go against the odds". But what does that mean. Does it mean only bet when you have a 51%+ chance of winning? It slips off the tongue easily enough. But have we ever thought about it in any depth? Has it been discussed anywhere before? B-the-question-mark-C Appraise, to estimate the value= to have an opinion. Have you ever wondered why any horse could be at an opening show of 6/4. Why not 11/8 or 13/8. It is an educated opinion but it does not mean the opinion is right and it does not mean it is wrong, it is just an opinion. If you use a sporting paper as a guide and your horse is priced at 2/1 and the opening show is 7/4 what would you do. Take the 7/4 wait for the price to go in, go out, or wait untill just before the off and take the price it started at. You could even take a minimum of 5/1 per bet you stake. At the end of the day it's your opinion but your opinion does not mean the the horse will win or loose.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 29, 2010 21:39:59 GMT
Judging by the mis-assumptions made by VDW within his own work leads me to think his research was a year or two at most,and more likely still is that it was someone else's work(I have my suspicions as to who's work but that is purely opinion and I can find no proof to prove either way) Lets give the benefit of the doubt and say 5 years. I am going to check back over 2005-2010 and see how many races there were with at least 3 horses in with 111 form figures and se what percentage of them won. I will be surprised (a) if its any where near 99% and (b) that there are more than 60 races in that time frame.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 21:46:01 GMT
G Hall's "key" was a winner or run against a previous winner within the last two runs. That's a good thought. Whilst reading the books today (whilst supposed to be working at getting further behind) I stumbled on a paragraph that I can't see to find now. It was along the lines that there is good reason for the adage in racing that you shouldn't back a horse that hasn't won (or words to that effect).
By the way, I've thought of a sixth reason: "All these were achieved with the aid of nothing more than can be found each day in teh Sporting Chronicle". (TUWOF pg 12/13)No mention of the bookies chalk board. BC
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 29, 2010 21:50:09 GMT
"To a large extent the art of successful punting is dependent upon the ability to appraise odds and never go against them".What does it actually mean "never go against the odds"? I mean, it's easy to say "don't go against the odds". But what does that mean. Does it mean only bet when you have a 51%+ chance of winning? It slips off the tongue easily enough. But have we ever thought about it in any depth? Has it been discussed anywhere before? B-the-question-mark-C Appraise, to estimate the value= to have an opinion. Have you ever wondered why any horse could be at an opening show of 6/4. Why not 11/8 or 13/8. It is an educated opinion but it does not mean the opinion is right and it does not mean it is wrong, it is just an opinion. If you use a sporting paper as a guide and your horse is priced at 2/1 and the opening show is 7/4 what would you do. Take the 7/4 wait for the price to go in, go out, or wait untill just before the off and take the price it started at. You could even take a minimum of 5/1 per bet you stake. At the end of the day it's your opinion but your opinion does not mean the the horse will win or loose. But specifically "go AGAINST the odds". When are we going against the odds? Or... When are we going WITH the odds? What are we being told? I feel this may well be significant.
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 21:53:18 GMT
Makingitslowly, 40%+ that takes some doing. Could you please put some selections up.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 21:59:43 GMT
G Hall's "key" was a winner or run against a previous winner within the last two runs. That's a good thought. Whilst reading the books today (whilst supposed to be working at getting further behind) I stumbled on a paragraph that I can't see to find now. It was along the lines that there is good reason for the adage in racing that you shouldn't back a horse that hasn't won (or words to that effect).
By the way, I've thought of a sixth reason: "All these were achieved with the aid of nothing more than can be found each day in teh Sporting Chronicle". (TUWOF pg 12/13)No mention of the bookies chalk board. BC The quote in TUWOF that you mention I believe was to do with another method mate.I never researched this one but it had something to do with selections made BY the paper.Not sure though,where are Fulham and Mtoto when we need them? lol.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 22:07:01 GMT
Makingitslowly, 40%+ that takes some doing. Could you please put some selections up. I dont have the chance to get on day times much but I am hoping this will change very soon. Edit; Should have said my SR is just short of 37%.I didnt say my SR was better just my bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 22:07:02 GMT
BC If you go outside the parameters VDW set ie the betting etc etc( and know i do not know them all) then the odds are against you. It does not mean you can not go outside this zone, but unless you really know how to pinpoint an outsider it is safer to fish in the well stocked waters of the the 5/6 in the betting, but that is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 22:11:25 GMT
Makingitslowly, 40%+ that takes some doing. Could you please put some selections up. I dont have the chance to get on day times much but I am hoping this will change very soon. M You could post selections the evening before and then the results could be checked for price contraction.
|
|