In my opinion, and I'm sorry to sound negative, any automated method of rating horses is doomed for failure. Does you automated system take into account that the form of a race run at slow pace is meaningless, and ignore it?mhorro wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:30 pmHi, Thanks for that certainly a eye opener. I normally bet around 6/1 or under. My method is based on the VDW Method ( Van Der wheil ). I automated these ratings by writing code to interrogate a database that contains all of the horse racing results across the world and is updated everyday. I then data mine using native SQL in stored procedures. It basically slices and dices he data for that day's declarations. I use it also to look for patterns i.e. weight, unexposed horses drop in class. I only back on Handicaps as I love punishment!!!!!!
When the gods are against you!!!!!!!
Mhorro, I just looked up the VDW method (I vaguely remember it from the days of the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book) - it's completely bonkers! You can't rate horses by such simplistic methods.
Would you conclude Sizing Europe had more class than Sprinter Sacre when they first met, simply because he's run in more valuable races?
If the Derby had two million added instead of one, would that make the winner any better, and unbeatable on ratings?
Would you conclude Sizing Europe had more class than Sprinter Sacre when they first met, simply because he's run in more valuable races?
If the Derby had two million added instead of one, would that make the winner any better, and unbeatable on ratings?
Anybody who has been into horseracing and populated any of the UK racing forums will know about the VDW method.Derek27 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:55 amMhorro, I just looked up the VDW method (I vaguely remember it from the days of the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book) - it's completely bonkers! You can't rate horses by such simplistic methods.
Would you conclude Sizing Europe had more class than Sprinter Sacre when they first met, simply because he's run in more valuable races?
If the Derby had two million added instead of one, would that make the winner any better, and unbeatable on ratings?
It was started by some letters to the old Sporting Chronicle and they were later reprinted in the Raceform Handicap Book Sports Forum page and thats where the interest came from. It is a "Platform" method where you create a numerical picture to see if there is a winner in the race. At least 2 sets of back up ratings are also recommended and some of the guys on forums have took this "simple" method and advanced the concepts much further.
From this there has also been around 7 or 8 booklets published through Tony Peach of Raceform around the method and even today you will find many who are still studying the example races found in these books. The originator of the method and the original letter was a Che Van Der Wheil , Nicknamed The Flying Dutchman who had apparently fought in WW2 ,and was now a professional gambler who took holidays in far flung exotic places from his winnings.
Some of the forum guys contacted Raceform and asked his whereabouts etc and to cut a long story short , after investigation it was found that this was a load of bollocks and the guy was a UK resident from Market Harborough , not named Che Van Der Wheil but Graeme Hall. One guy even went to the nursing home Mr Hall lives in now but i don't know if he was allowed to speak to him. There are still many who use this method to base bets on and some refuse to believe that bogus identity story. I think Mr Peach of Raceform made a good deal of money from the books though.
Even today this hocus pocus is still being marketed and sold to the gullible - see link
http://www.raceadvisor.co.uk/vdw-maximiser-pre-launch/
Thanks for bringing back old memories Bob. I remember the SCHB forum where people shared systems as the comedy section of the paper. My favourite was Electronic Ratings.
It involved adding up the last three form-figures for each horse to get a rating!
It was called electronic ratings because the guy who invented it needed a calculator to add three single-digit figures!!
It involved adding up the last three form-figures for each horse to get a rating!
It was called electronic ratings because the guy who invented it needed a calculator to add three single-digit figures!!
The VDW ratings are based on consistent form and class of race.
If a football team wins 10 matches on the bounce in the conference league the figures look impressive!
Now put that team against a premiership side that team is stepping up in class and thus the form figures mean nothing!!!!!
What is form if it not achieved in the right class?
Most people struggle with this!!!!
If a football team wins 10 matches on the bounce in the conference league the figures look impressive!
Now put that team against a premiership side that team is stepping up in class and thus the form figures mean nothing!!!!!
What is form if it not achieved in the right class?
Most people struggle with this!!!!
With respect Mhorro, I figured out form figures are irrelevant without considering the class of the races when I was 12-years-old, but by the time I was 14, I realised they are both completely irrelevant without considering a number of other factors.mhorro wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:18 pmThe VDW ratings are based on consistent form and class of race.
If a football team wins 10 matches on the bounce in the conference league the figures look impressive!
Now put that team against a premiership side that team is stepping up in class and thus the form figures mean nothing!!!!!
What is form if it not achieved in the right class?
Most people struggle with this!!!!
Do you remember Flagship Uberalles and Tresor De Mai finishing 1-2 in the Kingmaker at Warwick? They went on to finish 1-2 in the Arkle, which proves the prize money is irrelevant - it's the horses you race against that defines class.
You can't compare an up and coming novice to a 13-year-old former champion well past his best, by looking at average prize money won!
VDW ratings probably put Dream Ahead above Frankle in the Dewhurst stakes, and Canford Cliffs ahead of him in the Sussex stakes. Anyone with a bit of intelligence would ignore form figures and prize money won, and look at the way the horse races and the quality of the horses he beat. Does VDW take into account the ease and distance Frankle won the Royal Lodge Stakes with?
I've made money betting in the past, by studying all aspects of horse racing (form just being one of them) - it's difficult enough to make money betting when you take everything into consideration without restriction. If you restrict yourself to form figures, prize money won, and other daft variables without a proper understanding of horse racing, you don't have a cat in hell's chance of winning!!
Don't forget, VDW's method was invented in the days when most races weren't televised, the exchange didn't exist, there were only a handful of bookies and they didn't price up every race and had much larger overrounds. Most people would bet at SP, which was controlled by bookies so they could only guess what price they were getting. There wouldn't have been many professional gamblers at the time, and the 10% betting turnover tax would have made it near impossible for almost everyone to win anyway. They were the days when most gamblers (me included) were deluded into thinking we can win, and a 5/4 winner suddenly gives you the hope that you're on to a winning system.
An idiot like VDW couldn't possibly have won anything with methods like that. The 1980's was a time when many gamblers claimed to win, but now is a time when many gamblers can and do win - but you're not likely to by using 1980's methods.