|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 22:16:36 GMT
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. Ah!You mean the VDW ones.I was planning on stating the method in its entirety so others could have a go themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Nov 29, 2010 22:18:40 GMT
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. In 5 years of racing from 1/1/2005 to 31/12/2009 there were just 6 races with 3 horses having form figs of 111, only one of them won. I can't see why the results would have changed so dramatically over 30 years and therefore I have to question the premise that the 333 figures are from records of FACT kept by VDW and therefore believe he got to them by adding the individual percentages as clarified by Peach in The Golden Years
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 29, 2010 22:31:09 GMT
check your mirrors, whats in the mirror sf strongly fancied is the horse strongly fancied by connections
just a thought
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 22:45:48 GMT
M You could post selections the evening before and then the results could be checked for price contraction. Ah!You mean the VDW ones.I was planning on stating the method in its entirety so others could have a go themselves. M, may i ask, if the method you are planning to reveal in its entirety is VDW why is the % strike rate less then 40% and not 80% +
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 22:53:56 GMT
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. In 5 years of racing form 1/1/2005 to 31/12/2009 there were just 6 races with 3 horses having form figs of 111, only one of them won. I can't see why the results would have changed so dramatically over 30 years and therefore I have to question the premise that the 333 figures are from records of FACT kept by VDW and therefore believe he got to them by adding the individual percentages as clarified by Peach in The Golden Years If those figures are probabilities as appossed to facts then a lot of people(me included)have egg on thier face for giving this anytime let alone 30 years.His maths was flawed from the outset,that is why we/I have to assume them as facts or there is literally nothing to investigate. Truth is even if Im wrong with my assumptions the method could not work to the same degree that it did as racing has changed.As your research is already showing you. As BC pointed out we could "all" be falling in to the trap JIB warned us of.The fact we search for an answer says,that we believe there is an answer to be found,maybe there is not and never was!
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Nov 29, 2010 22:58:18 GMT
Ah!You mean the VDW ones.I was planning on stating the method in its entirety so others could have a go themselves. M, may i ask, if the method you are planning to reveal in its entirety is VDW why is the % strike rate less then 40% and not 80% + Racing changed mate and VDW was not about to update the method.There are more than double the number of races run now as appossed to VDWs day.VDW himself mentioned that the more bets we place the more unlikely it will become to make a profit. Or as mentioned above we are chasing something that never existed to begin with.We just made certain parts fit becuse we NEED to believe in the dream!!!
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 23:09:07 GMT
M In what way do you think racing has changed.
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 29, 2010 23:12:43 GMT
M Do you believe in the dream.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 30, 2010 9:52:09 GMT
Or as mentioned above we are chasing something that never existed to begin with.We just made certain parts fit becuse we NEED to believe in the dream!!! The thought had occurred to me.
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 30, 2010 10:41:37 GMT
BC We go up, we go down, it's called life and nothing is perfect. Take the parts you do understand and use them to the best of your own ability, otherwise there are to many trees in the woods. Remember your strike rate around this time last year and with proffit i seem to recall. Ten years ago was that just a dream. VDW told us to think positive, positive, positive(which i know is hard to do for all of us) followed by the Richard Branson paragraph. If someone tells you it can not be done because they can not do it, does not mean that you can not do it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 30, 2010 11:02:02 GMT
BC We go up, we go down, it's called life and nothing is perfect. Take the parts you do understand and use them to the best of your own ability, otherwise there are to many trees in the woods. Remember your strike rate around this time last year and with proffit i seem to recall. Ten years ago was that just a dream. VDW told us to think positive, positive, positive(which i know is hard to do for all of us) followed by the Richard Branson paragraph. If someone tells you it can not be done because they can not do it, does not mean that you can not do it yourself. Thanks for the encouragement Arkle, and that's nice of you to remember. I'm quite happy with things, and I know when I do get back into it, I will continue where I left off. I was simply using my mirrors! ;D I think my last question really is a cracker, and I don't think we've answered it yet. Although at least you had a go. You were getting 40%SR with dutches a good prices - how's that going?
|
|
|
Post by diabolo on Nov 30, 2010 11:26:01 GMT
where are Fulham and Mtoto when we need them? lol. Fulham is watching over us like a Guardian Angel. By way of a heads-up, the latest post on his blog is of some relevance! It's good to see life in this thread and some very interesting points are being made. Quite apart from the "G Hall Key", is there such a thing as a "G Hall Key Race"? I ask only because I have heard it mentioned but cannot see it.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 30, 2010 11:47:30 GMT
Fulham is watching over us like a Guardian Angel. By way of a heads-up, the latest post on his blog is of some relevance! Just read it - excellent. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, you did kick it all off - so well done for that. That sounds like a phrase by Formath aka ProBet aka Jack aka AC aka Jackform to me! When you next see him, see if you can get a straight answer to that question. And pass on my regards. I suspect it is VDW's the best races of the day with a twist of orange.
|
|
|
Post by Les on Nov 30, 2010 12:00:22 GMT
always thought that a g hall key race was one with enough form to evaluate from enough horses ie dont bother if a lot of duck eggs
|
|
|
Post by Arkle55 on Nov 30, 2010 17:54:13 GMT
BC We go up, we go down, it's called life and nothing is perfect. Take the parts you do understand and use them to the best of your own ability, otherwise there are to many trees in the woods. Remember your strike rate around this time last year and with proffit i seem to recall. Ten years ago was that just a dream. VDW told us to think positive, positive, positive(which i know is hard to do for all of us) followed by the Richard Branson paragraph. If someone tells you it can not be done because they can not do it, does not mean that you can not do it yourself. Thanks for the encouragement Arkle, and that's nice of you to remember. I'm quite happy with things, and I know when I do get back into it, I will continue where I left off. I was simply using my mirrors! ;D I think my last question really is a cracker, and I don't think we've answered it yet. Although at least you had a go. You were getting 40%SR with dutches a good prices - how's that going? BC With regards to your question, im afraid im not the best when it comes to putting words in the right contex. There are lots of other posters on the various forums including yourself who explain there thinking so much more clearly. With regards to my strike rate, the one's posted on Reoms forum and some on Skyracks forum, there has been a few winners but not as good as when posting on your forum.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Nov 30, 2010 18:30:25 GMT
BC With regards to your question, im afraid im not the best when it comes to putting words in the right contex. There are lots of other posters on the various forums including yourself who explain there thinking so much more clearly. The more you try, the better you'll get. Obviously down to the quality of the forum! ;D (no offence intended - only joking)
|
|
|
Post by diabolo on Dec 1, 2010 14:39:15 GMT
That sounds like a phrase by Formath aka ProBet aka Jack aka AC aka Jackform to me! lol ... spot on! But I think I may have heard someone else mention it too. Or maybe not? always thought that a g hall key race was one with enough form to evaluate from enough horses ie dont bother if a lot of duck eggs I was thinking broadly in terms of Kevin THFC's 3 x 111 investigation re VDW's 99% (which may or may not be dodgy maths) and then extending that concept to any race where three or more horses showed significant consistency by being placed three times. Having reconstructed the racecards for the G Hall races I can only say that there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest they might be "key races". It's clearly not an idea that VDW specifically expounded although he did (or apparently did) like to reduce the field to three "probables". I still don't know how he found the probables though ..... nudge anyone?
|
|
|
Post by BC on Dec 1, 2010 19:35:18 GMT
The quote in TUWOF that you mention I believe was to do with another method mate. Nearly missed that in the flurry of activity. Good point, I think you're right. I'll just have to make do with the other five.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Dec 4, 2010 12:19:58 GMT
That sounds like a phrase by Formath aka ProBet aka Jack aka AC aka Jackform to me! lol ... spot on! But I think I may have heard someone else mention it too. Or maybe not? always thought that a g hall key race was one with enough form to evaluate from enough horses ie dont bother if a lot of duck eggs I was thinking broadly in terms of Kevin THFC's 3 x 111 investigation re VDW's 99% (which may or may not be dodgy maths) and then extending that concept to any race where three or more horses showed significant consistency by being placed three times. Having reconstructed the racecards for the G Hall races I can only say that there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest they might be "key races". It's clearly not an idea that VDW specifically expounded although he did (or apparently did) like to reduce the field to three "probables". I still don't know how he found the probables though ..... nudge anyone? Which may or may not be dodgy maths? Sorry D but that is either a statement of insult to me or stupidity on your part,or a combination of both.Sorry if that offends but I see no other way to view it. You seriously believe then that when two people flip the coins and get 50%SR each that then together they can achieve 100%?Because that is what VDW is saying if his figures are indeed probabilities. Im shocked no one can see this.School was a long time ago for me as it may have been for some of you but,seriously this is BASIC maths that a twelve year old should clearly understand. You CANNOT just add together two figurse of probability that have no bearing on one another. Just because(as in VDWs figures)a horse has a 33% chance of winning next time out,does not mean three of them combine thier chances to get 99%.One horse's 33% chance of winning next time out has NO BEARING STATISTICLY on another horse with a 33% chance of winning next time out.These two figures are operating independently of each other as in the coin flipping example I gave you(I used that example to show you all just how ridiculous the statement was). I am now starting to understand what others meant about how VDW threads can be somewhat frustrating.I mean seriously if people cannot see something as glaringly obvious as this then it is not really any wonder that other parts have eluded people for the last 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by makingitslowly on Dec 4, 2010 12:40:40 GMT
Just as an added part to my last post.
If horse A has a 33% chance of winning NTO
It also has a 67% chance of losing NTO
So we now have;
33%+33%+33%=99% chance of a win
AND
67%+67%+67%=201% chance of a loss
PLEEAAASSSSEE tell me someone else can see the problem with the maths lol.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Dec 4, 2010 14:21:16 GMT
Of course we can see the problem with the maths. It is a glaring mistake from VDW but I am sure it is a mistake and his 99% was not some other measure. From the figures I put up earlier you can see that there were very few races with 3 runners that had 111 form figs so I do not see how he could obtain 99% from his own records as I think you believe.
|
|
|
Post by Walter Pidgeon on Dec 4, 2010 14:33:09 GMT
BC if you can reclaim a thread from vdw archives on xxxxxnamed (Barney) there are more modern day percentages on there provided by Guest as well as a few other interesting posts.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Dec 4, 2010 16:34:45 GMT
BC if you can reclaim a thread from vdw archives on xxxxx named (Barney) there are more modern day percentages on there provided by Guest as well as a few other interesting posts. The problem is there is no search facility. And to add one would take a bit of work, and how many use it? One for the future methinks. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by garstonf on Dec 8, 2010 14:16:12 GMT
Kevin
It is true that the last three form-figure percentages are not what they used to be. Statistician gives figures in his ‘Racing To Win’ book printed in 1987, based “on a full year of racing, Flat and jumps”, that are very similar to VDW’s. So it is safe to assume that VDW’s figures were through research, which I’m sure you would accept. What you are taking exception to (understandingly so) is the combined figures. Here are the questions that should be asked: Where can I find races with the figures 3-3-3? Answer; Top class races, Royal Ascot, Cheltenham etc, 2-y-o races and Novice hurdles. Don’t forget a horse with a single win last time out has a consistency rating of 3, as does a horse with the following figures; 1F or even 11F1, also 1-11. So searching for just 111 will not give you the required results. Next question: Where can I find races with the figures 16-18-30? Answer; Maidens and low class races. Now the questions and answers above could be a reasonable case for accepting VDW’s combined figures as the result of research. What is hard to swallow is the 99% success rate of 3-3-3, 98% 3-3-4 etc. So what is the minimum amount of consistency 3 horses needed to produce these results? Well if you look at my figures that M has kindly reproduced you will see it is 67 x 3 for the 3-3-3 plus 66 x 2 for the 3-3-4 plus 67 for the 3-4-5. That’s a mere 400 horses with a consistency rating of 3. Anyone up for the challenge? There are of course other issues with these statistics. Where there are five horses in the first 5 of the betting forecast with a consistency rating of 3 i.e. 3-3-3-3-3 then any of these winning is a victory for the stat. The same can be said for 3-3-4-4-4, where any of the 4’s winning makes it a victory. Also consider 16-18-30. On average (according to VDW) higher than 83% of these races are won by a horse with the form-figure 000 (or just 0 or 00), which brings me to my final point. It’s funny how we as readers pick up on things that are not meant to be the issue i.e. the ACTUAL percentages. The whole point of VDW’s letter was to confirm his statement that consistent horses win a high percentage of races (as opposed to non consistent horses).
|
|
|
Post by Les on Dec 8, 2010 17:39:01 GMT
a question to any vdwers,when vdw said he only took the first 5/6 in the betting with consistent horses who fall outside the market leaders,but what consistency value 8 or under?
|
|
|
Post by BC on Dec 8, 2010 18:16:54 GMT
a question to any vdwers,when vdw said he only took the first 5/6 in the betting with consistent horses who fall outside the market leaders,but what consistency value 8 or under? I do think that if members want to progress with the VDW method, they need to forget the specifics of what he wrote, but rather, look at the principles of what he wrote. Adding up form figues for a consistency rating and prize money for an ability rating isn't, in my opinion, the way forward. Surely if these fora have proved one thing over the years, that is it! These may, possibly, get you looking at the right shortlist of horses, but you'll still need to analyse the form. So why not just analyse the form and forget the painting by numbers. B - I'm in that sort of mood tonight - C
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Dec 8, 2010 18:38:08 GMT
These may, possibly, get you looking at the right shortlist of horses, but you'll still need to analyse the form. So why not just analyse the form and forget the painting by numbers. Hopefully the painting by numbers allows you to concentrate on the right horses whose form needs to be studied rather than having to do a full analysis on every runner - but perhaps thats where I am going wrong and maybe I should be analysing every runner fully rather than the shortlist I come up with
|
|
|
Post by Les on Dec 8, 2010 18:51:18 GMT
o well i,ll go with 8 then bc pmsl
|
|
|
Post by Kevin THFC on Dec 8, 2010 19:06:15 GMT
Hi Garstonf, Welcome to the forum Don’t forget a horse with a single win last time out has a consistency rating of 3, as does a horse with the following figures; 1F or even 11F1, also 1-11. Obviously I agree with your above regarding how a consistency rating of 3 can be achieved. But, VDW does clearly states in SIAO that "If there are three horses in a race each having won their three last races, the figures indicate that it is almost certain that one of them should win, 33% + 33% + 33% =99%" From my figures posted earlier only one out of six qualifying races was won, although a ridiculously low sample, albeit it they came from a 5 year period, it is nowhere near 99%. Allowing for the fact that on modern racing my figures show 111 winning 22.65%, which in VDW's way would equate to 68% rather than 99%, we are still a long way out. To sum up ;D I do not believe that VDW got his 333 = 99% from actual results and that he simply made a mathematical error when trying to prove a point.
|
|
|
Post by BC on Dec 9, 2010 3:31:52 GMT
o well i,ll go with 8 then bc pmsl Seven is the perfect number. ;D
Hi GarstonF Welcome back.
|
|