- This topic has 202 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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 59Not sure about anything else but doesn’t it make you yearn for 1981?
Excellent thread. Warming to it now.
Firstly – is this statement logical?
"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."
Capability then. Is it simply a form rating? (Very basically).
Right then.
Consistent form = add up last three form figs as per guideline
Ability = divide ’00’s prize money by number of wins
Capability = use a couple of ratingsI feel I am beginning to get somewhere.
OK – ‘Probability’?
What is it, how do we get objective about it and what does VDW have to say on the matter?Crock – great post with the article. Very interesting stuff.
For younger horses VDW suggested using the best speed figure as a merit rating to be used in conjunction with the ability rating. I have added these to the relevant races below.
6/4 423221- Rifle Brigade____5*___7__52 W5/2
2/1 01100-0 Alaskan Prince__18*__21__57
4/1 1400-00 King Pearl______23__15__54
10/1 00404- Deep Profile_____15*__0__29
12/1 055200- Gardenia Press__20__0__15
5 runner handicap5/2 __213-3 Gypsy Dancer___7*___?__72
4/1 21111-1 Derrylin________3*__38__88 W4/1
5/1 ___31-2 Newski_________6*__12__67
6/1 ____01- Double Form_____8__28__60
13/2 __111- Weth Nan_______3*__26__79Cormack
"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."
That nonsense, if true, would surely make My Way De Solzen in this year’s Arkle the non value bet of all time!
correct me if i,m wrong but the 33% for 111 is to win again in any of it,s next 3 outings the mistake if it is a mistake seems to get repeated a lot
OK – ‘Probability’?
What is it, how do we get objective about it and what does VDW have to say on the matter?1. Can the horse handle the distance, going, course, class
2. In formMy suggested additions:
1. Right jockey on board
2. Trainer and jockey stat’s all stand up – when I mention this it always reminds me of a few years ago when a bloke carrying 5k in a plastic bag, being interviewed on TV by Big Mac, was boasting how he backed the Fav successfully on its last two outings and was going for third-time-lucky with the whole 5K. I checked the trainer race stat’s before the off. -33 was his record! You can imagine what happened to the fav and the poor guy with his plastic bag.GL
Classtells no its 33% for its next race. I ran this through RSB some years ago and for jumps it comes back spot on 33%.
Cormack alot more to it than just compile a couple of ratings. Tony peach thought capability was about an individuals capability to operate the method , but VDW corrected him and said it was the horse being capable of performing under the conditions for example going, distance, weight,draw,course.
The probabilty part is the hardest to understand imo.I think it covers everything not in the first 3 parts.Partly to do with not going against the odds.VDW talks about the 3 probables and he did a great deal of research that went into each part of the method.Probabilty also includes luck. Thats why theres no such thing as a cert in racing . As Mtoto said you still need look in running to get a winner even when everything else looks right.
Maggsy
On the line of thinking set out in the quote Cormack has given:
Fair Along 111
+
Jack The Giant 111
+
Lennon 111
= 99%
Therefore My Way De Solzen (the easy winner)
+ 9 others
= 1%.
Backing a (less than) 1% chance at 7/2 (MYDS’s sp) would be madness.
But of course the VDW line of thinking here is tosh. If followed, it would mean that if there were four horses who had all won their last three races, the winner was certain to come from the four, ie any other runners had, literally, no chance. Common sense, never mind any knowledge of statistics, tells one that cannot possibly be true.
But of course the VDW line of thinking here is tosh. If followed, it would mean that if there were four horses who had all won their last three races, the winner was certain to come from the four, ie any other runners had, literally, no chance. Common sense, never mind any knowledge of statistics, tells one that cannot possibly be true.
Hensman,
Given this was the 1981 and pre-dates RSB, Flatstats etc and the commercial database software we take for granted today I think it fairly self obvious that these were from VDW’s own records. Indeed, VDW confirms as much when he says ‘from my own extensive surveys…’.
Given that, I think it highly likely he was talking about the 3 most consistent horses from the forecast area in the (better class) races he studied. The statement would therefore include the 3 most consistent, not 4, 5 or any other number.
Crock
I’m not criticising the individual percentages, which I don’t have reason to doubt were the figures his surveys generated, but the notion they can be added to give a probability figure for an individual race in the way VDW implies.
The 33% next time out strike rate of ‘111’ form horses may well be correct.
The notion that if there are three of them in a particular race they have a 99% of winning that race is nonsense.
What would the % chance of them winning be if there were 4 of them in the race?
Hensman,
The basic numerical picture I’m referring to is indeed the one where VDW ‘Spelt It All Out’.
Mtoto,
How about explaining in detail why, by using the consistency rating and ability rating, 14 examples fail?
Also, your comments regarding 80%+ strike rate I think are foolish, and demonstrates that you are missing vital parts of the method.
L33
Thanks for clarifying that.
I agree with you, and suspect that some don’t take VDW’s letter of February 1996, reprinted in "Systems in My Racing" (p. 6), sufficiently into account.
the one where VDW ‘Spelt It All Out’
I wish someone here would spell it all out!!
Come on guys – let’s have some more meat on this ‘Probability’ element of the magical equation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.