- This topic has 202 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
L33
The figures shown in the Erin for Prominent King and Beacon Light,were they the consistency ratings or a misprint or something else in your view ?
Mtoto,
consistent form is consistent form.
Running last of 10 against the same horses over the same conditions 3 times in a row is consistent form.
PD,
There wasn’t, in my mind at least, anything under-handed going on with the consistency ratings for the erin.
3rd last run – 8f – Rating 95
2nd last run – 8f – Rating 98
Last run – 10f – Rating 89If you took the best of it’s last two, in this case 95 + 98, you could say it had achieved an average rating of 96.5, say 97.
If it’s rating before each race was
110 ran to 95
106 ran to 98
then it’s average mark should have been 110+106 / 2 = 108, plus or minus 5lbs.In this little example the horse is running to 97 – 108 = -9lbs lower than its rating.
So, in these races, although the horse finished 2nd and 3rd, if we use the official btn lengths calculation this horse was beaten by a total of 4.8 lengths, on each of these two starts.
(1lb = 1.875 lengths @ 8f)Mtoto
so would you concur that the figures in golden years were correct,and that PK was 5,and BL 3
L33,
If you explained how you see consistent form we may start to get somewhere. I have explained how I see and use the first element of the equation. It works for me and it works for the examples. I’m happy I’m using consistent form,m but can you explain how you make Wayward Lad, Ekbalco, Soaf, and even Celtic Pleasure work your way?
Pipedreamer
That’s a little naughty.
It is obvious IF they are the c/rating they can’t be correct. However did VDW ever say they were? I think the only mistake is showing them in the first place. I think they are ranking for the consistent horses, and as such of no great importance.
Be Lucky
sorry L33/mtoto got mixed up with last posting.
Thanks for the reply L33/Mtoto,my own thoughts are that the consistency rating VDW advocated were not the finishing places in the respective horses last 3 runs,but I could be wrong.
If VDW allotted a 10 instead of a 3 for Decent Fellows last placing,then this would bring PK into the top 3 on consistency.
Cormack VDW for Dummies would make a great book. At the end of the penultimate chapter you should have the words “and now for the missing linkâ€
That is exactly what I was looking for garstonf – a definitive, objective answer.
Ok – we’re all clear on that one now – yes?
Consistent form, in the VDW context, is ‘purely and simply those horses that consistently perform better than the others as shown by their form figures’. And we can allocate numbers to these as illustrated by garstonf.
Ok let’s move on.
Ability
Ratings? Or what?
cormack,
Before you move on, the form figures need to be checked first before adding them up. For example, if a horse had form figures of ‘411’ and that fourth placing was last of 4 runners – beaten by a fair distance – then it would be rated as a ’10’, totalling ’12’ for its consistency rating. If it only had two runs under its belt then it was suggested, and this bit still makes me feel uneasy when I type it, that the last figure should be added to form its LTO placing, i.e. form= ’32’, becomes ‘322’, totalling 7 for its consistency rating.
The ability figure is calculated simply by dividing the total winning prize-money by its wins and then dividing by 100. This is obviously not suitable for 2 or 3-y-o’s because of there being insufficient data to form a reliable assessment. Remember Lamtarra? His only win, prior to the Derby, was an 8k 2-y-o event.
I would suggest using OR’s or RPR (unadjusted) ratings or whatever as a substitute for the normal ability rating with these types of races.
Although I think VDW’s approach of cutting down the contenders is somewhat flawed, I do beleive the basic Idea is of sound principles, that is to say using various columns of data to highlight the ‘contenders’ and do away with ‘pretenders’, leaving you with horses to further analyse through form lines ("subject to other conditions").
The main problem is deciding upon what data should be contained in these columns and why. I think statistical data is the key nowadays. I mean, it’s okay using things like prize money/wins to form one column of data if this is backed up by statistics that say the top 3 or 4 have a good strike-rate against the rest.
I know, statistically, in handicaps that the top 12lbs (OR) performs better than the next 12lbs and nearly twice as much as the remainder. So, this is one data column I will use for Hcp races.
VDW is close with the forecast-price group and I think he may have compiled is own statistics for this. But, I would improve on this by saying that 80% of winners come from what I call the ‘contenders’ range. That is, dividing the runners by 2 and using this as a cut-off point for the forecast. Example, 10 runners/2 = 5 (5/1), so any horse that is forecast at 5/1 or less in the race will be highlighted in the FP column.
One more thing, VDW’ers, please can we bin the thirty-year-old races and start discussing the bare bones of recent/future races so that people, new to VDW, can back-check the form and see where you guys are coming from? I’m just glad that I am not a newbie trying to decipher what’s going on in the main ‘Cryptology’, sorry, ‘VDW’ thread.
“The ability figure is calculated simply by adding the total winning prize-money by its wins and then dividing by 100“
Is that it? As simple as that.
Not sure what you mean by ‘adding the total prize money by it’s wins’ GL. Do you mean dividing the total prize moey by wins?
Isn’t using prize money somewhat arbitary? Nevertheless, if it works then it works.
cormack,
Apologies, I have amended the post – it now reads ‘dividing’ instead of ‘adding’.
Yes, it is as simple as that and how VDW explained it. But, having no stat’s to back up this data column at present, it’s not something I would use, personally.
GL
When calculating ability ratings use wins on the flat for flat racing and wins over jumps for n.h
We need to be looking for good consistant form not just consistant form.Its more than just adding up the form figures and concluding its a consistant horse. Take Geordieland for instance adding up his form figures would be 9, but that would’nt mean he has good consistant form.. We are looking for winners so look for consistant winners. Geordieland is a horse that does’nt like to get his head in front. No matter what the ratings say a horse like Geordieland would’nt carry my money. We need to be looking for horses that have the ability to get there heads in front when it counts.
Grand Lodge
It needs to be kept in mind that the "thirty-year-old" races you wish to "bin" were those that VDW brought to our attention when outlining his approach and anyone who wishes to understand it has no option but to study them. As this thread has made clear, there are notable differences of interpretation between VDWers and no "newbie" has any basis for concluding which, if any, accurately reflects how VDW worked.
is the ratings from profits from weights right by bj healy the 4th column in the little owl race and can the daily mail be substituted is there an add on as i once thought i would like this cleared up before i move on to vdw my races for the jumps hope to vdw my jumps races as the little owl race
class tells
CLASS and CONSISTENT FORM are vital factors and this
often confounds those who rely upon handicap or ratings alone(VDW’s Capitals)
I think maybe you are placing too much emphasis on ratings.
They have a value but should beused as a guide in
conjunction with other factorsGrand Lodge
It needs to be kept in mind that the "thirty-year-old" races you wish to "bin" were those that VDW brought to our attention when outlining his approach and anyone who wishes to understand it has no option but to study them. As this thread has made clear, there are notable differences of interpretation between VDWers and no "newbie" has any basis for concluding which, if any, accurately reflects how VDW worked.
That’s all very well, if you have the form books for those races, but most people do not and, therefore, cannot study the races in-depth to find out exactly how these contenders are weighed up against each other.
What is wrong with the ‘experts’ putting up a recent/future race for analysis? As I mentioned before, It would be far better to discuss these as the from is readily available for breaking down and explaining to newbies how a possible selection is arrived at. My view is that the experts of today are still no wiser to the method than people were thirty years ago, hence the need to be eternally turning over the same races from the same period.
GL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.