Patrick Veitch

Nott is the wrong interviewer for him to give much away either. Doesn't press the guest much as wants to be pally with them

Part 1 is up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnQhuug0J4

The best explanation of the Monty Hall problem I've seen (even more extensive than the one I posted what seems like decades ago).

It's up

https://starsportsbet.co.uk/bettingpeople-patrick-veitch/

Sad to say to baffling for me cars goats front doors and gameshows.

hope you  enjoy it.

Regards

Ronnie.

Patrick can talk did Simon get a word in.

I struggled through his book a few years ago. The first part covering going into hiding to evade the criminal he later testified against was a good read. The later part was basically a journal listing the exponential winnings building up, lost me and seemed like many other racing books I read in the 70/80's. In particular the suggestion that picking winners involved staying up night after night but the journal indicated a lot of the big bets were on unraced 2yo's.

The first part of the interview was good though. Hopefully it might be insightful as the parts progress. Thanks for the heads up.

The book was poor....very poor. I will listen to the interviews , and hope for the best.

Speaking of books from 70's and 80's it would have been good to have heard interviews with Stewart Simpson  but he just seemed to disappear of the face of the earth.

@Storm Alert -- I had the opposite response to the Veitch book and found the racing stuff interesting but the gangster escape left me cold.

So far (only part one, obviously) it reminds me of the Terry Ramsden interview in this series, insofar as the interviewee has decided in advance what he wants to say and Simon Nott is just there to aim the camera.

Just listened to the first part , after my criticism of the book which i read about 4 years ago. Very impressed so far , and in particular interested in the psyche of gamblers and the gambling firms , that he has briefly touched on. Looking forward to the rest of it.

Watched first 10 mins, did the guy pick the car or the goat?

Ramruna..spot on. Ramsden, sadly, played up to the popular image which had been portrayed of him during his heyday. Waste of an interview opportunity.

Not watched Veitch and will not do so now I know he is apparently peddling the old adage of what is behind three doors and then what is behind two of them...I first heard that in 1986 on a logic course!!

This kind of thing is often the issue with these interviews. Simon does a great job in sourcing these people but doesn't know how to probe a bit deeper using open questions. May not be his fault because I suspect a lot of those being interviewed set the agenda before agreeing to be seen.

That's correct as far as the Terry Ramsden video went, I wrote three pages of questions and wasn't allowed to ask any of them, Terry's way or the highway, but I think he's going to tell his story on a much bigger platform, we decided it would be great to hear his stories anyway, I enjoyed talking to him. Apart from actually saying how he picks his winners, which is understandable, Patrick is quite candid as the interview progresses. I suppose I do want to get 'pally' with my interviewees as Flemenstar says. The #BettingPeople series was never designed to be confrontational, it's a positive thing with people I/we respect - I don't have the ability or desire to be Paxman. I do appreciate you guys taking the time to watch and discuss the videos, I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.

Get Tim Brown on asap.  He will call a spade a spade.

Appreciate your response, Simon.

I really like the interview series and I do see Veitch trying to offer useful info.

You did not secure an interview with Barney Curley, did you? I suppose the Branson figure is Terry Ramsden.

To me, the gambler head and shoulders above the others is Andrew Black. After all, we're all posting on his platform. Please get his story.

Not watched Veitch and will not do so now I know he is apparently peddling the old adage of what is behind three doors and then what is behind two of them...I first heard that in 1986 on a logic course!!

Please don't let that put you off watching, The Knight. Veitch has a spin on the "Monty Hall problem" that is relevant to the betfair/gambling jungle. What he says..it's not black and white.

I am more interested in why someone would chose the username 'wingerwanger' then only post 7 times in 15 years!

Simon, if you can get Nick Mordin on I will personally give you 100 quid.

Will do now you have said that, united...

Veitch's point on the Monty Hall (3 doors) problem that most people miss is that the answer depends crucially on what the host already knows before he opens the empty door (and his motivation). He widens that out into betting (tbh the analogy does not really fit but you can see what he is saying).

Part 2 is up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePob-EHY1s

Different Gravy - I have no idea about ‘Winger Wanger’ ha ha what was I thinking. I’m baffled too. I suppose I have wasted too much time on twitter so neglected this forum.

If anyone can point me in the direction of Mordin I’d love to talk to him.

Part 2 well worth a watch.
have a good day
regards

Ronnie.

The Monty Hall Problem he discusses in depth could have been condensed into a few sentences instead of half the part one interview. As Ramruma comments the crux of the matter is whether the host always opens a door and if so does it always have a goat behind it. The contestant would have to play the game many times to know that.

Relating the problem to sports betting is difficult as bet-by-bet punters cannot answer because they don’t know the true probabilities. The best they can aim for is does does the entity offering the bet have more or less knowledge about the subject bet than the person placing the bet? I have always worked on the basis that bookmakers despite employing many people are offering hundreds of bets where as I can concentrate on only a few each day so might have better information for certain bets based on experience/knowledge. So basically applying what he said about TFW & RPW. With patience these factors crop up in Racing & Football.

When I first heard of the Monty Hall problem way back in 1986, it was presented that the host always knew what was behind each door and would thus always leave the prize behind one of the two remaining doors. But the contestant did not know that. (Be no good as a game show if the prize was removed beforehand! If the prize was removed, who would care what door of the remaining two was chosen?)

Hence, I cannot see how Veitch is now presenting this problem? He seems to be saying that the odds about choosing the right door for the prize are influenced by the host. So, comparing this to racing, is he saying that a punter is at a disadvantage because he/she would generally not know what the trainer or owner might know about the horse's fitness and well being? In other words, the trainer is the host and the punter the contestant?

I will listen to the interview again tonight after returning from Notts but my immediate feeling is that Veitch is trying to be a bit too clever in using the Monty Hall problem. It was originally presented to me as a logic issue and not a betting one - although odds were used to try to prove the solution.

There was a rumour that during those three (blissful) months that gaze absent from the forum, he was trying to solve the Monty Hall with a herd of goats and a spreadsheet. He would have been back sooner - but his bedsit has only got one door.

There's an explanation at https://brilliant.org/wiki/monty-hall-problem/ . If you stick to the bit under "Possible outcomes" it is straightforward to see how the 2/3 1/3 rather than 50/50 comes in . Well done if you can follow the Bayes Theorem bit.
As it says further down that relies on the fact that Monty was always guaranteed to open a door with a goat behind it, regardless of what door you picked initially.
If Monty randomly opened a door we did not pick and it contained a goat. What is the probability that our first pick is correct, regardless of which specific door we picked? The answer turns out to be 50/50

Re the Monty Hall.... It is obvious the host knows where the car is and therefore leaves that door in the final choice. Far be it from me to question Mr. Veitch but he is loooking for something that is not there. Imagine 100 doors and the host ensures the car is in the final two...would the contestant not switch ? Of course he would, and the same mathematical logic applies for three doors.
Anyway the only info I require from Veitch is how he keeps his youthful looks...worth more than any racing system(to me at least)

No, it is not obvious. When this first did the rounds, Americans tended to say 2/3 vs 1/3 and Britons said 50/50 because the Americans were familiar with the programme and Brits were going off the information in the question. This is because they made different assumptions about the host's knowledge.

Where Veitch goes further is in suggesting that even if the host does know, maybe there are various reasons he might be playing silly beggars on any particular occasion.

And then he relates it back to racing. Listen to the interview. If you can't spare 10 minutes, listen at double speed.

The thing I remember about Patrick Veitch is that he bought a house in York off a friend of my dad for cash.  Not any old house, but the "2nd nicest house in the whole of York" in my dad's words

when I say cash I mean no need for a mortgage

The classic Monty Hall problem is 2/3 1/3 because the contestant chooses first.  The host's knowledge is irrelevant

It's only relevant if subsequently the host sometimes chooses not to open a door, but in the game show they always opened a door

I actually had a similar situation in a Fantasy Darts competition at the World Championship.  I was leading and there was only one person who could catch me and they could only catch me if they went for a different selection from me.  Therefore I picked the outsider, thinking that they'd assume I'd pick the favourite.  I was right since they did pick the outsider.  The Favourite won

Absolutely brilliant. Top man. Uber intelligent. Young punters can learn loads from.him

Ramruna..."Where Veitch goes further is in suggesting that even if the host does know, maybe there are various reasons he might be playing silly beggars on any particular occasion."

Why would the host play silly beggars on a game show where the broadcaster offers a car as the star prize ? So your final scene would have the contestant hold or switch and end up with a goat...then the host opens the rejected key and the player had zero chance of the car because the final choice was 2 goats ?  You(and Veitch, and I did watch)are suggesting something that is not being asked. The assumption surely is that the whole point of a game show is that the contestant can win a car and that the host will always open a door with a goat. I have never heard it suggested that the host chooses a random key without knowing what was behind the two remaining doors.

On silly beggars, watch the interview. On the question of the host's knowledge, look at what @Manoleeds wrote earlier or work out the maths from the two different assumptions on the host's knowledge. If you just dogmatically say that one or other answer is right then you are making an assumption that is not included in the problem as classically stated.

Or just forget it because it is only a small part of what Veitch talks about.

Patrick v will watch it next week , he started off on premium rate when it first started off the likes of martin julian who was far superior, then was overtaken by better tippers and decided to bow out of that , signed for winning line that was a suprise, finished with them, then owned horses where i suggest he did very well, not a good tipster but the kid done well imo

Your not got going to get much out of him at all. Much money can be made out concealed ownership. When was the last time you seen a horse run under the PV name?

Not going to list names but as an older example I do not think Mrs A Shone was shifting the exchange price by points five minutes before the off.

Part 3 is up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtP_6EI0oEQ

Last attempt Ramruna ! Manoleeds link actually confirms the original premise of the problem....

"The host, Monty Hall, picks one of the other doors, which he knows has a goat behind it, and opens it, showing you the goat. (You know, by the rules of the game, that Monty will always reveal a goat."

Therefore the options of Hall being a "silly beggar" or the final choice facing the contestant  being 2 goats, simply did not exist.
Only if Hall was unaware of the content of his discarded choice would the 50/50 become a factor. Which it clearly didn't...at least on the original game show which is what Veitch was quoting.

Yes. We agree that if the host does know, as in the game show, it is 2/3 vs 1/3. And we also agree that if the host does not know, then it is 50/50.

As the problem is usually stated, it is left ambiguous whether the host knows or not. That is why it tends to produce the 2/3 vs 1/3 in America from people familiar with the actual show, and 50/50 over here where people went off the question.

Patrick Veitch points out some less likely possibilities where the host knows and deliberately stitching up the contestant. He does that in order to make a separate point. Watch the interview.

In part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtP_6EI0oEQ Veitch talks about old coups and, more interestingly, offers a defence of bookies blocking punters and how and why his views have changed.

Will watch it again, as my reaction was surprise. When I first heard the problem it was explained with the host knowing.

WALOFS, As was his book ( which I gave away to another Forum member ). !!!

"if Hall was unaware of the content of his discarded choice" it could have been the damn car he was revealing!  It doesn't change the odds to 50/50 under any circumstances unless he picks a goat before the contestant making it a choice of two, which isn't the point of the show.  Only if it's at his discretion whether he opens a door or not does it change the odds.  But that wouldn't make it a fixed percentage as you'd be entering the realms of show history and game play psychology.  For example: Am I the type of contestant the shows producers would like to win or loose?  Is he not choosing to open a door because he wants me to win and to stick with my first choice?  Or is he choosing to open a door with a goat, because I have the car already and I am the type of contestant the show's producers would like to lose?

I suppose going back to the Game show there is a distinction if he actually knows where the car is or rather doesn't know but is told by a producer which remaining door to open.  If the latter it's clearly 2/3rds by switching.  If the former, then if the contestant was a body language expert who could read Monty Hall, or if Monty Hall was a master manipulator who could influence an easily influenced contestant, then you could argue the probabilities range from 0% to 100%.  But it's never 50/50

Going back to the fantasy darts.  Going into the final the only way second place (who is assured of 2nd place whatever the result) can catch the leader is if they pick a different player from the leader.  If the final was a 50/50 affair than 2nd place only has a 25% chance of winning.  50% that he picks a different player, then 50% that player then wins.  If you were in 2nd place what odds would you want the final to be to maximize your chances of winning?

Was his 100-1 winner Folkestone 24Apr07?     https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/601746/exponential/form

If anyone knows thanks!

Clydebank..."I suppose going back to the Game show there is a distinction if he actually knows where the car is or rather doesn't know but is told by a producer which remaining door to open."

But this is no grey area is it ? The original game show actually called for Hall to discard a goat each and every time. Therefore he naturally knows the content of all 3 boxes including the contestant's pick. If he has picked the car then Hall knows that and knows that the other 2 are both goats. As for the producer whispering into his earpiece, that is introducing a hypothetical, because it has never been stated that the host is being guided and doesn't know what both the other 2 boxes contain. Because (as I posted in bold above) the aim of the game is to eliminate a goat thus making the contestant's final choice a 50/50 chance of winning the car. However that has absolutely no impact on the initial question "should the contestant switch?" Clear ?

Watched all 3 Ramruma, still think he is wrong to compare betting with the Monty Hall. His overall point however is correct, examine all possibilities. Monty's task however was defined by there being NO other possibilities.
Veitch is a great talker and I liked his openness. However at the end of the day he knows that all the work he puts in can never produce another Exponential. Inside info from stables has always greatly assisted the profits he makes.  He has yet to make that clear.

Trident,

No, it was Nottingham as a 2-y-old, second start of his career.

@Trident -- Exponential at Nottingham 16/8/04.
https://www.racingpost.com/results/40/nottingham/2004-08-16/356476

Thanks all

Part 4 is up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI8Cf1PK9pU

Part 4 includes the prospect of Tote taking over business from bookmakers. Smaller margins and big punters can get on even if they cannot take a price.

Veitch entering the bloodstock market is reminiscent of Phil Bull.

Veitch on the state of racing: the fixture list is too big; the importance of seasons

Excluding the goats and doors which is above my pay grade, I think the guy talks a lot of sense from a well informed experienced perspective

..... Pity he never put any of it into his Book. !

He half apologies for his book, acknowledging it to be embarrassingly boastful, in pt3.

I remember thinking him pretty dislikeable from the book - his minions had to refer to Veitch as the "commander" or some such s**t. Most gambling biographies end up trying to convince the reader either that the subject is living a dream life of fast cars/women or engaged in good works somewhere in, say, Africa; Veitch spends the last couple of pages claiming both. He's a changed man now.

Good listen that, shows a lot more personality than he gave off in print.

Only things that really stuck from his book was pulling a student who turned into a good looking newsreader (easy), and telling Dandy how a horse he didn't own should be ridden (maybe, but love to have seen the resulting kick off, especially if it was in a racecourse bar).

But also, from his book, returning to a betting shop where a minion had been quarried, to tell the proud betting shop manager that he would have his shop targeted. Veitch's character note: hate is his fuel.

Says he's changed now but I'm not sure how much you can do that on your own; I couldn't wish to be Patrick Veitch.

Part 5, the last part, is up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9LFi4-dGZE

Anybody on here put on for Patrick over the years i have known 3 who have 2 of them did very well out of him the other ended up skint. i also new a coral worker who many many years ago was on 5pound a point to accept the bets off a couple of Patricks putter oners and before anybody asks the answer is no.

hope you are all well.
have a good day.
regards
Ronnie.

SimonNott
@SimonNott
·
29 Apr
Patrick Veitch has graciously agreed to do a follow-up interview, he’ll be taking questions from twitter. Any questions you might have for him, please post them under this thread. Deadline 5pm Tuesday #BettingPeople

Simon Nott's blog includes a discussion of objections to Veitch.

The group of people that appeared to get the needle the most were those who also make a living from horseracing, exchange traders and arbitrage players. Skilful people who appear to make a very comfortable living backing and laying on the exchanges to secure an eventually risk-free profit.

I won’t name the accounts, they are respected people in their fields, but was surprised at the voracity of their ire. Words including ‘cheat’ and ‘robbed’ were scattered around in tweets calling foul at some of the gambles Patrick Veitch was involved with.
https://starsportsbet.co.uk/simon-nott-they-know/

Simon Nott has uploaded a bonus q&a with Patrick Veitch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVhjNoyCmcQ

Interesting thoughts on the maths of different each-way terms. Boring thoughts on roads and weather.

"Boring thoughts on roads and weather." True but Simon asked the question and that was his honest answer .

@manoleeds It shows,IMO, that he thinks outside the box. I like listening to him because for me he talks a lot of sense. Whether I can implement it is another matter.

Patrick Veitch q&a part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOC0KxFYMCs

Part 3 of the Patrick Veitch q&a is up at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg9g7bt9mg4