- This topic has 202 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How do you measure the +/- 5Ibs Dave? This lot have a got an answer for everything that none agree on…
Cormack
You say, as an aside, "assuming hard work is a given".
What I think is not properly understood is the hard work that has to be put in to understand the approach: in assembling the raw materials (Form Books a start but obviously not sufficient), in applying oneself to studying the texts and some examples to reach provisional operational interpretations, in testing those interpretations on more and more examples and very often to have to go back and re-think, etc etc. And all with no certainty of a successful outcome.
It is against that background that the reality of expecting detailed answers to the questions you pose needs to be reflected upon.
Cormack say —
Btw, I’ve been told at least ten times now that VDW is NOT a system!)
so howzabout making a new board called METHODS
IMP,
You remain, as ever, a remarkable intellect.
Subtlety is the garment of the wise.
Well done and thank you!
How do you measure the +/- 5Ibs Dave? This lot have a got an answer for everything that none agree on…
.. or a straight answer to a simple question apparently.I would suggest you would look at whatever rating you are using, as a part of your assessment and work out your beaten lengths formula from there. Be that weight, time or something else.
I just put up 5lbs as a value, you could say 7lbs or 10lbs … consistent application being the key. Each horses own rating needs to be relative to itself and not to the other horses it is racing against. To do this type of assessment you need to hold the pre-race rating as a constant and measure the deviation from that.
How do you measure the +/- 5Ibs Dave? This lot have a got an answer for everything that none agree on…
.. or a straight answer to a simple question apparently.I would suggest you would look at whatever rating you are using, as a part of your assessment and work out your beaten lengths formula from there. Be that weight, time or something else.
I just put up 5lbs as a value, you could say 7lbs or 10lbs … consistent application being the key. Each horses own rating needs to be relative to itself and not to the other horses it is racing against. To do this type of assessment you need to hold the pre-race rating as a constant and measure the deviation from that.
Dave,
VDW once used the phrase ‘observe intelligent judgement’. I like that phrase as to me it sums up the difference between a method and a system.
Regarding your idea of using ratings as a guide to consistency. What about the miler that the trainer has somewhere near it’s peak and he decides to get a 10 furlong run in to build up his stamina before going for the big day. Would you expect the horse to run to within 5lb over the wrong trip?
One thing VDW has given me is a greater appreciation of how good trainers place their horses to bring them on and there are many permutations.
I wouldnt expect it to run over the wrong trip in three of it’s last three runs, no.
Hensman – I hear what you say re- the hard work and appreciate that aspect. However, I guess what I’m trying to get at is what is different about the VDW approach compared to the approach many on here would adopt (including myself) where the 5 holy grails of the VDW formula would be taken into account as part of our standard approach to race analysis. That’s why I would like to go through it element by element to see what it is about the approach that can add value. I’m trying to get past the smoke and mirrors to see what is really there.
So… anyone among the VDW discisples prepared to put some kind of objective figures/comments on what you mean by ‘consistent form’?
Or, in other words, can anyone define ‘consistent form’ in objective terms?
I wouldnt expect it to run over the wrong trip in three of it’s last three runs, no.
Dave,
I didn’t mean in all 3 of it’s last runs. If you are using ratings as a guide, let’s say we had the following scenario for a proven miler:
3rd last run – 8f – Rating 95
2nd last run – 8f – Rating 98
Last run – 10f – Rating 89Would you say the horse was ‘inconsistent’ because of it’s ratings dip of more than 5lb last time?
Personally I’d be much more interested in what it did and against what in that 10f race. For instance did it hit the front at the mile post in that race and then fade away etc.
Consistent form
As said before consistency is a separate issue to form. Why consistent horses? I think because it is an easily to measure factor that holds good today, and still helps narrow the field. I think it impossible to argue with the stats consisent horse win more races than inconsistent horses. I think VDW was quite explicit when he talked about consistency, it was the last three form figures added together. Simply that, although many would have you believe he used other methods when talking about consistency. Position in past markets is one that is often thrown up.
Form, many seem to work on is the horse in form, does the horse have progressive form, etc. I think it is, does the horse have the form to compete with the competition in this race?
How important is this first element? If you are using the consistency/basic method logic tells you a horse needs to be consistent, or it wouldn’t be considered in the first place. However no horse is ever backed just because it is consistent, ALL the facets of the formula are required to be in place.
Be Lucky
As said before consistency is a separate issue to form.
Mtoto,
Consistency isn’t and can’t be a separate issue to form. It is consistent form that we are assessing!I agree that it’s a different issue to measuring the strength of form but you can’t disassociate form from consistency completely.
VDW said consistent form + ability etc etc
He didn’t say consistency + form + ability etc etcMtoto,
“It would seem the object of the exercise was lost, which is a pity and a waste of my efforts – because had it been understood it would have carried readers a long way.â€
Quote from L33 – “Form represents a degree of achievement. That achievement, VDW stated, should be consistent and proved this with statistics that, disregarding all other factors, consistent horses win more races. ‘Consistent form’ is as simple as that; there is nothing hidden in this element of the equation, just how it is viewed.”
OK – But that still doesn’t answer the question about how you evaluate consistency.
Mtoto suggests “it was the last three form figures added together“. Is that it? Do we take the last three runs and look for variation? What is acceptable variation (+- 5 lbs as dave Jay suggests)?
I recall that you started your VDW studies with Systematic Betting? Perhaps it is you then that studied the earlier letters and examples with preconceived ideas.
L33,
You are quite correct with the above statement. The difference is I couldn’t make sense of the early examples using the methods and thinking others were putting foreward to solve them. I was being ask to accept things I couldn’t see the logic in i.e. Beacon Light was a non form horse because he couldn’t beat Sea Pigeon giving him weight on a course and going that didn’t suit. So I decided to try the lessons shown in SB and they worked they solved the early example including those shown by Mr Hall
Reading your consistent form piece I have to say I find myself in agreement with you Form represents a degree of achievement. What I can’t see is VDW showed us how he looked at consistency and then gave stats confirming his views, he also said these stats were based on the bare figures as you say DISREGARDING all other factors. The way I’m reading post (and Crock’s) you are saying the form has to be consistent and/or progressive, now it may just be me but I think more than a few of his selection didn’t comply to that thinking. I have seen it said on occasions that form is good enough to be considered consistent, but that is after the fact because VDW made the horse the selection.
Cormack
I think the idea is to look for consistent horses THEN look for its best ever performance and use that to measure its chances in the race being considered. Form and class are interwoven.
Be Lucky
Cormack
I think the idea is to look for consistent horses THEN look for its best ever performance and use that to measure its chances in the race being considered. Form and class are interwoven.
Mtoto,
Why did VDW find it necessary to lay out the form as he did in the Pegwell Bay and Roushayd drafts hinting that there was more than one numerical picture?
The consistency ratings had already been calculated for each horse, it was a matter then of studying the form of all taking particular note of…
Why did VDW find it necessary to lay out the form as he did in the Pegwell Bay and Roushayd drafts hinting that there was more than one numerical picture?
L33,
Was it the form or the class VDW was trying to show in these examples? As with all these example the tendancy is to take what you want from them to prove the already preconceived ideas. With Pegwell Bay VDW states………From the three most consistent ratings (first numerical picture), the three highest ability ratings are.
Wait a minute how are the four horses listed the three most consistent? Warner For Leisure has a rating of six were as Bishops Yarn has a seven, ok WFL isn’t in the forecast but there again neither is BY.
The consistency ratings had already been calculated for each horse, it was a matter then of studying the form of all taking particular note of…
Doesn’t the above prove my point? Consistency and form are two different things and that’s what I’m saying you caluclate the c/r and THEN look at the form.
Be Lucky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.