VDW for DUMMIES

[Mtoto44]

First of all, the adding up of the form figures is basically for the consistency data-column.

GL,

Fair enough but where is the form data-column? The ability rating most use only covers the winning form. I know you don’t want to talk about the old examples but do you realise many of VDW selections were well down the ability rankings? To be selections he must have though they had the form to win. What would be the point of giving a formula if it wasn’t to sort out the race? The hard work element is the final result of working the formula and keeping records, etc.

Be Lucky

[grand lodge]

If all that was involved was adding up form figures then I’d agree with you. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that VDW didn’t choose the word ‘consistency’ rather ‘consistent form’ in his equation suggests that there is far more to the term than adding up form figures!

Nobody was saying that’s all there is to it, crock, and I am just quoting his initial method of evaluating consistent form – as outlined in the book. An explanation of each part of the method is all people on here are asking and, remember, cryptology is out!

Regards
GL

[grand lodge]

Fair enough but where is the form data-column? The ability rating most use only covers the winning form. I know you don’t want to talk about the old examples but do you realise many of VDW selections were well down the ability rankings? To be selections he must have though they had the form to win. What would be the point of giving a formula if it wasn’t to sort out the race? The hard work element is the final result of working the formula and keeping records, etc.

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto, the form-data is part of the ‘hard work’ section – in which you have to race-read in order to evaluate this. The ability rating is just that, its race-winning ability.

As I have mentioned before, the ‘ability’ column, like most methodical/system rules out there, really needs to be substantiated by statistical data and, until the day we have this at our disposal, I would not recommend using it as part of the elimination/selection process.

GL

[Hensman]

I think the first time VDW gave his formula was in letter reprinted as item 20 of "The Golden Years". If that letter was correctly reprinted (and I’ve not checked it against the relevant SCHB) it is interesting that the first term was "Constant Form" not, as I think always afterwards put, "Consistent Form".

Even if correctly reprinted from the SCHB, we have no way of knowing whether "Constant" was what VDW originally wrote and intended to write; what he wrote by mistake, when he meant "consistent"; or what someone at the SCHB misread and set up as "Constant". But "Constant" and "Consistent" don’t mean quite the same thing, and one would, I think, be hard pressed to argue that all VDW’s selections exhibited "Constant Form".

[cormack15]

Whoa there guys – you’re racing ahead of yourselves again – Remember this thread is ‘VDW for DUMMIES’

So far we’ve established the criteria for consistent form. We were looking at ability – which I think we’ve cracked (at least as far as us dummies are concerned).

Next – ‘Capability’

What is that all about?

[grand lodge]

Whoa there guys – you’re racing ahead of yourselves again – Remember this thread is ‘VDW for DUMMIES’

So far we’ve established the criteria for consistent form. We were looking at ability – which I think we’ve cracked (at least as far as us dummies are concerned).

Next – ‘Capability’

What is that all about?

Hi cormack,

Nice to have someone back who is a bit earthed.

This, I’m afraid (depending on whether you like hard work or not), is one of the factors that is taken care of in the ‘hard work’ part of the equation.

First of all, you will have to get your race-reading hat on and weigh up its previous form. The following questions, amongst many others, need to be asked:

1. Has it won or placed well under similar or better conditions in any of its races before? How far you go back into the horses form is down to your discretion.

2. In any of its last three races, has it shown it was fit by placing/winning or did it fade out under strong pressure at the closing stages? You have to weigh up the distance, class and going of these events in order to conclude whether or not it was unsuited to the race or was out of form.

3. What sort of odds did it go off at, compared to today, which jockey was riding and who is riding today and how does the jockey get on with the horse, is it a first-time apprentice on board (ooh, perish the thought)?

3. Does both the trainer and jockey’s course/race-type stat’s hold up at this meeting?

This is, obviously, just scratching the surface and, I’m sure, others would like to offer up some criteria for the check-boxes.

[Crock]

Cormack,

If all you are interested in at this stage is the basic numerics he spelled out then perhaps the following letter penned to the SCHB may help. I’m afraid I’ve no idea how to get the tables to ‘line up’. Perhaps you can edit my post to set them out?

There is a ‘chunk’ missing from this cut&paste which involved another race on the card. No idea why, but it will still give you the basic numerics that are being discussed.

————————————————————————————————————

Racing is a highly complex subject, full of controversy and abounding in aspects amenable to infinite interpretation. And it is a world where aspirations of millions is to find that pot of gold which will surely come when the infallible system falls into their lap!

Few ever reach their goal, not because it is unattainable but because they lack temperament and unwittingly stack the odds against themselves.
Every day huge sums of money are thrown away by the hoards who haphazardly select a horse from this meeting or that .

Not content with irrational selection they further put the odds against themselves by coupling a number of horses in multiple bets. It may seem like fun to dream of a fabulous windfall, but I warrant it creates considerable frustration.

Little wonder is the common belief that only the bookmaker can win in the end. This I know to be untrue, but success can only come by putting aside compulsive gambling ways and making a new beginning using logical and positive methods.

Initially it means coming to terms with yourself and creating that indispensable asset, temperament. When you can view the situation completely without emotion and making judgment on real evidence something comes to the fore. Intuition, know how, mentor call it what you will, the fact remains without it two plus two will make three, five or what have you, but seldom four as it should.

To a large extent the art of successful punting is dependent upon the ability to appraise odds and never go against them. This does not mean never taking an odds on price which is something completely different.
If the true calculated odds are 3-1 on and you can strike a wager at 6-4 on it is a value bet. A single factor, time, form, class, etc, will not achieve consistent results. Many rely heavily upon ratings, but there can be a high degree of variation between compilers. You might assume, and probably expect the official ratings and Phil Bull’s much respected Timeform to show a high degree of uniformity, but this is not the case.

Take just one example, the two Derby winners -and you can’t get better class than that-Henbit and Blakeney. The official figures show the latter to be 8lb superior, but Timeform go completely opposite making Henbit 7lb better. Over a stone difference which makes nonsense of calculations.
Conclusion…..regard ratings only as a guide in association with other factors.

Form can be misleading.

Form, even though consistent, can mislead if taken alone when the horse is running against others with greater ability. Class which in my view is a major factor, can throw you of course if the horse is out of form, so to establish a reliable measure a combination of elements must be used to achieve consistent results. To find elements which can be combined and used methodically requires considerable thought and each must be logical. There are numerous ways to approach the problem of winner finding methodically and the one which I demonstrate has proved highly successful and consistent for a considerable number of years. Each element was selected after a great deal of research and when used as intended will place the odds strongly in the backers’ favour.
Form is considered a major factor to winner-finding and what is form if it is not that one performance is better than another?
Horses who consistently perform better than others should then command interest. My own extensive surveys show that a horse winning three races in a row is likely to extend the sequence by a further victory at a ratio of one to three. Expressed as a percentage it is 33%, considerably better than 2% which is the representative odds of a horse that has failed to reach the hunt on its last three outings.

Consistent horses win races and to illustrate I will give some examples which show percentage wins next time out from various form combinations…..111 33%, 121 32%, 131 29%, 141 26%, 122 30%, 313 24%, 214 24%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
The figures show beyond reasonable doubt that consistent form does have an important part to play. If there are three horses each having won their last three races the figures indicate that it is almost certain one of them should win 33%+33%+33%=99%. Only about one chance in a hundred that the winner will come from elsewhere, so it would be going against the odds to select any other horse.

First 5 in betting
Taking all races other figures show that 83% of winners come from the first five quotes in the betting forecast. This also shows that selecting a horse which does not appear in this range is again tantamount to going against the odds. The only exception I make to this is when a highly consistent horse fails to show in this area of the forecast.
It may be that the horse is outclassed in the present company but a check should always be made.
The combination of these two factors narrows the field to an area which consistently produces a high percentage of winners. Calculating the three most consistent horses by adding together the last three form placing’s from the first five (non handicaps) and the first six (handicaps) center attention where it is positively alive with winners.
When making these calculations it is necessary to use a little judgment. Basically it is a simple addition of the last three form lacing’s, but it does happen that a horse may have had only one or two outings.
In such cases assume that it would have performed at the same standard as its last form placing, i.e., a horse placed fourth and third would be considered to have run into third place once more giving a total of ten.
Other factors in the assessment will either support it or show it to be over compensated.
Form figures should be taken to the ninth place at par value but beyond this calculate it as 10 i.e., 3-16-4 =17 (3+10+4). Horses shown as last should be given an assessment of 10 for this performance but do let common sense prevail. If it is last of 7 beaten five lengths there is a world of difference to one last of 20 beaten out of sight. Also use discretion in the case of a highly consistent horse that suddenly puts in, what might seem at first, a bad one. It could have been put into a race where it had no chance which is not the same as if it had blown its top.
If the former is the case, common sense should show how to deal with the situation.
This is a methodical approach not a systematic one, so observe intelligent judgment.
A third factor which will further assist putting the odds in the backers favour is appraisal of the spoils involved. Figures show it can confidently be expected that a horse with the right qualifications will seldom fail to carry of the prize when it is big enough. Selecting races for application of the various factors must be methodical as well.

The basic method is to select the race from each card having the highest prize money but for obvious reasons it would not be wise to use a novice hurdle full of nondescript animals.
It often happens that other races on a card will lend themselves to this method especially at the principal meeting but endeavor to keep as far as possible to the upper limits. Moving away from the basic principle starts to put the odds against you.
Attention is going to be centered on the better class races, so it must follow that the better class horses should be looked for. There are many conflicting views as to what class really is and I have heard some strange definitions. I believe it is more realistic to base class on what a horse has actually done in public not by any other means.
Class should be defined as ability and to assess the merit of one against the other, it becomes necessary to compile a rating.
This can quickly and easily be done by considering the prize money won to date in hundreds of pounds and dividing it by the number of races won. For example a horse has won eight races worth a total of £20,000 (200 hundreds) so to find it’s ability rating divide 200 by 8 which equals 25. This rating gives one of the most reliable assessments of a horse but always remember it must be used as a guide in conjunction with other factors.
It can be used methodically as the basic factor and when all other elements line up in support the horse concerned is seldom beaten. This point will be shown in an illustrated race, but always keep in mind it is a rating and as such, can and will prove false if used incorrectly.

To complete the working platform it is useful to have another measure giving some indication of the various horses chances in the present situation and which will assist in confirming other data. This can be time, handicap ratings, form ratings etc. but always keep in mind they are a guide. I use two sets of ratings which are compiled on different lines so that I may judge the reliability of the figures but this is not essential.
This whole concept may seem complex and beyond the capabilities of many, but in fact it is extremely simple and becomes quick and easy to perform providing it is done methodically. Taken step by step and starting with the principal meeting the agenda is:
1. Select the most valuable race on the card.
2. Consider next most valuable race.
3. Select most valuable race from other cards.
4. Rate entire fields for ability.
5. Select most consistent from the first 5 or 6 in the forecast.
6. Apply selected rating method to entire fields.

To illustrate the whole procedure I will demonstrate using the weekend cards for Saturday, March 7, 1981.

Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and the three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk (*)

1.45 Haydock
Previous Form Horse Ability Most Consistent Rating Rating
11F/111 Little Owl 36* 3* 65 90
1/21211 Wayward Lad 23* 4* 52 64
22/1324 Fairy King 10 9* 53 75
1111UL Mr.Kidd 13* 12 34 59

Forecast: Evens Wayward Lad, 5/4 Little Owl, 14 Fairy King, 20 Mr.Kidd

At this stage do not make any automatic assumptions. The required data has been put together and it is now necessary to establish if any of the three probable’s have good claims for support. Always start appraisal by looking at the horse with the highest ability rating and check how it balances with the other data.
In this race everything is straightforward . Little Owl has the highest ability rating and there is nothing in the other elements to suggest any upset, indeed all evidence shows it ought to be a good thing . To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and most important how they performed in the later stages of each race.

When you have followed the method for some time it is easy to turn back to your records concerning a given horse and it will help to balance respective performances.

This race clearly shows that Little Owl is a racing certainty and when the true odds are calculated a price better than 3/1 on would represent value. Wayward Lad is obviously a false forecast favorite and if it were to remain so on course the chance of a very fine bet would be there.
Little Owl Won 4/5
Many racing certainties start at much better odds than this.

HAYDOCK 2.15
PREVIOUS FORM HORSE ABILITY MOST CONSISTENT RATING RATING
31111P Tragus 24* 3* 57 85
L11/P/42 King or Country 19* 7* 52 82
231111 Sunset Cristo 24* 3* 61 90
218U23 The Vintner 23* – 53 84
133/4U6 Fair View 25* 13 51 80
41L21F Bobjob 12 13 53 84
211F21 Bregawn 18 – 51 83
513512 The Engineer 13 8* 54 86

Forecast: 7/2 King or Country, 9/2 Tragus, 11/2 Bobjob, 6 Sunset Cristo, 7 The Engineer, Fair View, 12 Bregawn, 14 The Vintner

Fair View with the highest ability rating is not at present consistent and the other data does not give any boost. Tragus made a mess of things and weakened to 12th in it’s last race and was then pulled up before the 14th which tells it’s own story.
Sunset Cristo, a close joint second on ability, super consistent and other data lends support. The form is impressive and note not only how it ran but what it had behind it, Silver Buck, Another Captain etc. The Engineer does not have the ability to gain the upper hand on the run in if it got into the hunt in the closing stages and King or Country does not have anything going for it.
Another case of a false forecast favorite so Sunset Cristo should be a good bet.
Sunset Cristo Won 5/1

MARKET RASEN 2.00
PREVIOUS FORM HORSE ABILITY MOST CONSISTENT RATING RATING
3/23231 KENLIS 11* 6* 65 88
2F1P11 MASTER BRUTUS 10* 3* 41 80
133653 BROWN BARMAN 9* OFF COURSE TOO LONG
123784 MAGIC TIPP 8 19 42 86
222133 GREENWAYS 12* 7* 60 85
L413L2 TURK 9* 15 41 83
5L/3443 SILBERTO 9* 11 39 72
5U4248 GAME LADDIE 11* – 40 79
LL85/66 DALKET 10* – 35 61

Forecast: 2 Kenlis, 9/4 Master Brutus, 4 Magic Tipp, 6 Turk, 13/2 Greenways, 12 Silberto, 16 Brown Barman, 25 others.

This procedure shows Kenlis to be a good thing but note how the relative ability of the whole field is like a blanket. Also note the penultimate race of Turk, last of seven, made no show and beaten out of sight. Calculate the performance as ten when totting up previous form figures. So far this is the only genuine forecast favorite.
Kenlis Won 11/4

The spade work is all complete and it can be seen there is a possible winner for each race but once again the odds must be weighed.
Providing a reasonable price can be obtained Little Owl will be taken because it is a racing certainty.
Sunset Cristo will also be taken as it is almost a certainty.
Remember it is all tied up with temperament and odds.

[L33]

Mtoto,

VDW’s basic numerical picture, which you choose not to use as set out, is the platform for EVERYTHING he writes about. As he expands his method with examples such as Pegwell Bay and Roushayd the basic picture is still the foundation. Depending on how the competitors finish it will pinpoint those that are ‘on the boil’. Not everything that made up the numerical pictures was revealed, indeed he told us so; some of it was left for the reader to work out, and it is crucial that they do.

Recent form is most important and therefore the last 3 runs (normally all that’s required), along with the Ability Rating of every horse, are used to see if the race holds a winner within it.

I am not for one moment suggesting that form from further back in a horses career is not part of the VDW method, but I’m talking about the establishment of consistent form that can only be assessed by delving in to a horses most recent form.

In practice the problem is approached from a different angle. All the information is collated prior to racing, and a study of the results at the end of the day shows if any have shown well, in view of how the race finished i.e who won and who was beaten. They are then noted, and watched.

Of course, those finishing close behind a ‘good thing’, and the ‘good thing’ itself are always noted (Pegwell Bay, Ile de Chypre, Vouchsafe). It is then waiting to see what happens next with them and how they are placed.

[goodlife]

On the subject of capability, when reading through the form of whichever horse you may be considering, ask yourself " does this horse really want to win? Has it shown that it has the " bottle" when the chips are down?" Every year there are touted horses who, while placing in high-class races, never quite get their head in front. Two extremes spring to mind, both trained by A.O’Brien.
Giant’s Causeway who, to me at any rate, embodied exactly what sort of horse you should be looking for.
All My Loving, who even somone as capable as O’Brien just has not been able to work the oracle with.

[Pompete]

Oh no….The Ballybolye Mafia will soon be on your case Goodlife…

Crock, thanks for reproducing that letter, very interesting. Any idea of when during the time-line of letters/articles it was published?

[quadrilla]

New member – just order a few VDW books.

I just maybe brave enough to post a contribution.

Facinating thread – main reason for joining. Keep it going.

Q

[goodlife]

Welcome to the fray,Quadrilla : javascript:emoticon(‘:)’)
Smile

[nagwa]

win, , stated..in his reply to hotform,..
1, how can you tell the class horse in the race..?
2,when is it at its peak?
3,how many horses are worth considering in the race?
4, how can you tell when the horse is poised?
answer them and you a long way ahead of the field..

van der wheil, replied to wins letter by saying..he can answer..all the four questions..

3rd letter..form cycle worth a ride.. class and form cycles are what racing is about..any vdwers offer advice on how to combine class and form..

[Mtoto44]

VDW’s basic numerical picture, which you choose not to use as set out, is the platform for EVERYTHING he writes about.

L33.

I suppose it depends on what one uses as his basic numerical picture, before that statment becomes fact. As far as I’m concerned I use the numerical picture as shown in the first example the Erin. Apart from telling me I’m wrong I can’t see much in the way of explaination from your side. As this is so I take it you work on the basics as set out in SIAO ( the oringinal VDW for Dummies).

It is all very well talking about VDW expanding on his methods how about looking at what went first? If the basics in SIAO are used as presented 14 of the 38 examples shown before the article FAIL to be found using it, including the first one.

I rate every horse for ability, I use the c/rating, in fact I use the whole formula as SET out in the same order.

I’m more than happy the methods work, although I will never have a win strike rate of 80% +. This is down to me as I can’t bring myself to back ANY short priced horse to win. I would rather back a horse to be placed, often at better prices than can be achieved for a win.

Be Lucky

[goodlife]

L33

VDW’s basic numerical picture, which you choose not to use as set out, is the platform for EVERYTHING he writes about. As he expands his method with examples such as Pegwell Bay and Roushayd the basic picture is still the foundation. Depending on how the competitors finish it will pinpoint those that are ‘on the boil’. Not everything that made up the numerical pictures was revealed, indeed he told us so; some of it was left for the reader to work out, and it is crucial that they do.

Hearing what you say. I recall a letter to Sports Forum a few years ago (pre-Wheldon) in which the writer had claimed to have sorted out the method and was achieving a strike-rate of 80%+(Sorry,Grand Lodge!)
The writer commented that he was surprised that VDW had revealed as much as he did about his method and that he (the writer of the letter) would certainly have hesitated to do so.
It seems that working out the second numerical picture goes a long way to solving the mystery.

[Hensman]

Mtoto

I think that by picking up L33’s phrase "VDW’s basic numerical picture" you put your finger on the nub of the issue from the Dummies’ perspective, as arguably he (VDW) gave several: those in the Erin letter and SIAO article being but two. It will be interesting to learn which L33 means and, if the SIAO one (which I assumed when I first read his post), his response to your view that "14 of the 38 examples shown before the article FAIL to be found using it, including the first one".

[garstonf]

This thread is going too fast to keep up.
Below are the ability ratings for the previous races.

4/1 33340-3 St Petersburg______17*__20
9/2 1230-0 Prince Gabriel______22__10
5/1 0202-12 Celtic Pleasure______5*__42 W7/2F
6/1 012320- Lucent____________12*__30
8/1 434034- Town and Country___17*__19
10/1 others
Note this is a handicap so we should be taking the first 6 in the betting.

7/2 1112-41 Alexanda the Great__7*__11
4/1 134011- Move Off__________8*__52
5/1 2420-12 Battlement________8*__10 W9/2
6/1 0310-02 Lochranza_________15__11
8/1 020-214 Autumn Glow_______7*__7
10/1 others
Note this is a handicap so we should be taking the first 6 in the betting.

Sorry, I did not do the race for Strombolus but for info
22111F Strombolus_____3 W7/1
I did note he was not in the forecast in the Birmingham Evening Mail.

6/4 423221- Rifle Brigade___5*__7 W5/2
2/1 01100-0 Alaskan Prince__18*__21
4/1 1400-00 King Pearl_____23__15
10/1 00404- Deep Profile__15*__0
12/1 055200- Gardenia Press__20__0
5 runner handicap

11/4 01343-0 Fluellen___9*__24
4/1 41023-1 Orchestra__6*__31 W6/1
5/1 204210- Sporting Yankee__13__139
6/1 044112- Fools Mate___4*__23
8/1 02034-2 Limone_____9*__52

5/2 213-3 Gypsy Dancer___7*__?
4/1 21111-1 Derrylin_____3*__38 W4/1
5/1 31-2 Newski_____6*__12
6/1 01- Double Form___8__28
13/2 111- Weth Nan__3*__26

I would appreciate it if someone could give me the details of Gypsy Dancer’s 2-y-o win. Also if any of the above differs from the Sporting Life.
Note also I have added a * to Gypsy Dancer to include it as one of the 3 most consistent.

[Author]

Posts