Michael Clarke's 4-Point Strategy
As little as possible !
50 points loss
Not more than 10
@michael-clarke thank you for the reply 🙂 Am I right in thinking that based on a 50 point loss starting to make yo a bit uncomfortable, if we're averaging 7 selections a day, and one point a selection. A losing run of a seven days would be you maximum comfort zone?
If so we're going to need to find around a 20% strike rate, or higher, method, which gives lots of scope.
49 losers in a row would certainly make me feel uncomfortable !
I don't really look at winners and losers, I tend to look at profit. If a system hits a losing patch of 5O points based on LSP then I would probably drop that system.
I think starting from a point of using the strong VDW races is a good base approach. We can use the Win race and the best scores each day are also set in the Daily Digest. From there we can look at the risk, and how to focus down on the strongest runners from the shortlist.
Let me know your thoughts on the approach and if building out from there would suit you.
I'll have a bash at this. I've had a look at the video and to be honest it's all a bit too subjective for my liking.
I've had a quick look at today's best race, the 2.45 at Sandown. Of the top 4 only one horse has BF odds higher the VW odds, PYLEDRIVER at 36 v VW at 11.16. Does this indicate that it is good value.
@michael-clarke I know you prefer fully rule based. The reason I tend to stay away from that is that, in my experience, it's a much longer journey to profits than subjective for most people because the brain can spot things quickly which can take a long time to find a way to uncover systematically.
Having said that, if we can get a subjective based approach working, it can be easier to then implement more rules later on based on the way you're subjectively choosing the horses.
I'm sure you'll also enjoy the system builder when it's released.
In terms of the VDW Odds, when highlighted green it indicates that there is a possible value based on VDW Scores alone. Please note these are not full tissues like the PR Odds. I wouldn't recommend making a decision on whether to bet purely based on this, it should be used as an indication only. Today's example worked out well, showing there was value, more importantly though did you consider anything else when looking at the top four VDW runners?
I used to use my judgement when backing horses and always lost money. Since I started using strict rules I have made money.
The same applies to investing in the stock market, a lot of people use their gut feelings and lose money, a systematic approach is much more effective.
I didn't have a look at the top 4 VDW ratings, with so many ratings available it would take me far too long.
@michael-clarke fair enough, we're all different 🙂 In that case, I think it would make sense to do something a bit different. Let's start with taking a set of race conditions, and then start working on more fixed rules to find an angle?
Thanks Michael. I'll persevere with the VDW for the time being, I'll look at the standard race-card for the last year and see if I can develop a system from this data.
I have done a quick analysis of VDW statistics for the last 2 flat seasons and the initial analysis has produced unexpected results.
Ranks 1-4, AE 0.998, BSP loss £-534.
Ranks 5-7, AE 0.963, BSP loss £-2,217.
Ranks 8-22, AE of 1.059, BSP profit £663.
All returns after deducting 2% commission.
This indicates that the lower ratings are the best areas to find a profit, which does appear counter intuitive. Is there any logic to this?
I think the logic is that the ratings pick up the very things the market factors in. They probably correlate closely with strike rate and higher ratings therefore over-bet generally. Lower ratings as a consequence go 'against the crowd' and are generally under-bet but with a correspondingly lower strike rate.
Ranks 1 to 4 with an A/E of 0.998 are a good starting point. Try going against the crowd and remove those top ranked by some other rating(s), market favourite for one.
Thanks Andrew. I assume that choosing horses randomly would give an AE of 1.00 so ranks 1 to 4 don't appear to offer any particular edge.
Eliminating the market favourite reduces the AE to 0.980.
Is it not a better idea to start with those ranked 8 to 22? Invariably these will be in larger fields with a lower strike rate but the sample size is over 30,000 so I assume that there is some statistical significance to this.
Alternatively the favourite has an AE of 1.018 so would this not be a better starting point than the VDW ranked 1-4. Top ranked VDW is 0.989.