- This topic has 202 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
L33,
In SIAO VDW clearly says….Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk (•*).
All the horses listed below fail because they are ranked outside the highest four. Their ranking is along side their names.
Love From Verona 9
Son Of Love 9
Prominent King 7
Little Nugget 7
Connaught Bridge 7
My Therape 6
Baronet 6
Mitchelstown 6
Lyric Dance 6
Battlement 6
Gaffer 5
Pragmatic 5
Drumlerry 5
Quickapenny 5Do you not agree?
Hensman,
My copy of Systems In My Racing seems to have been misplaced, so can I ask is the letter you are talking about the one VDW used as a foreward to J Bingham’s book or some thing else?
Be Lucky
Mtoto
No, although part of it seems to have been included in the back inside cover of the Bingham booklet "Be A Winner".
The relevant section of the "Systems in My Racing" letter is:
"When I first began to write for Sports Forum it was clear that to splash the whole lot in front of your readers [the letter was sent to Tony Peach] would be a pointless exercise and only by adding bits as time went by could it be hoped a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership would eventually see the light."
If that truly reflected what VDW did, it follows that the absence of any reference to the ability rating, for instance, in the very early examples (and, indeed, in the odd later one, too), or the fact that other pointers were added later, does not detract from the centrality of the "Spells it all out" article. Indeed I think it is difficult to interpret VDW’s 13/04/85 article, "The Missing Link", as other than a clear statement by VDW himself of the centrality of the "Spells it all out" one. There he wrote:
"After some time Tony Peach asked me to put everything together and this was done.
The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element had been chosen to fit into the method. Calculating consistent horses, ability ratings and everything else, providing you READ WHAT WAS THERE …
… A Brighton reader … displayed all the attributes of a bigotted loser. Complete lack of temperament and absolutely no idea what constitutes form or else he would have seen that in every, repeat every illustration the winner was the class/form horse. These were Little Owl 4/5, Sunset Cristo 5/1, Gaye Chance 11/1, and Kenlis 11/4."
the one where VDW ‘Spelt It All Out’
I wish someone here would spell it all out!!
I thought I was, cormack.
Anyway,
Some people have suggested that a horses’ strike-rate should be considered when calculating the probability factor. After all, the word (probability) is a mathematical question that ends with a statistical answer.
GL
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?
But there can’t be 4 of them, Cormack. VDW was referring to the 3 most consistent.
What he’s saying (IMO) is that according to his records if the 3 lowest consistency rates from the first 5/6 in the forecast are all 111, then there is only 1 chance in a 100 that subset of 3 won’t contain the winner.
This isn’t quite a crazy as it sounds. Although back in those days the handicapper did seem to give horses more chance to run up a sequence, I’d hazard a guess there were very few handicaps containing 3 horses that had all won their last 3 races. This means that most of his records for these instances would be from non handicaps and given his propensity for better class racing, more than likely 3yo+ group races. Is it that far fetched to suggest that if in these group races 3 of the first 5 favourites had all won their last 3 races then there would only be 1 case in 100 that one of them didn’t win.
Maybe somebody with the right database can run those figures through todays racing and see what comes out. My suspicion would be that it would be an extremely high percentage even if not hitting the 99% mark.
the one where VDW ‘Spelt It All Out’
I wish someone here would spell it all out!!
I thought I was, cormack.
Anyway,
Some people have suggested that a horses’ strike-rate should be considered when calculating the probability factor. After all, the word (probability) is a mathematical question that ends with a statistical answer.
GL
What are odds if not probability percentages? VDW made several references to ….. was a good thing but not at the price. In the SIAO letter I posted earlier he remarked that Little Owl’s true odds when calculated were 3/1 on. A very specific figure would you not agree? He also wrote ‘To a large extent the art of succesful punting is dependent on the ability to appraise odds and never go against them’.
It’s clear from his writings that VDW had a penchant for percentages and what are odds if not percentages?
Quote I posted earlier he remarked that Little Owl’s true odds when calculated were 3/1 on.
So how did he arrive at these odds/probabilities. Objectively or subjectively?
Cormack
Subjectively, irrespective of what he thought he was doing (there is no other way).
A mounted racing horse is a separate and unique life-form. The horse is the body, the trainer the brain, and the jockey the nervous system.
All horses have class, be it good, bad, or indifferent. Therefore the punter should see the necessity of discovering the true value of a horse’s ability. which in turn demands that the animals optimum conditions are also identified.
Class, its physical potential, is down to the animal
Form, its career, is down to the decision maker, the brain and the nervous system that transmits the message to the body.
Therefore form and class are not the same thing. They cannot live without each other but they are not interchangeable, not being of the same material whilst each has its own reason it needs the influence of its other part to have meaning.
The trainer, once he has his charge fit and fully grown, cannot change its class. Neither can the horse, (except in films made by Disney), influence on how its form reads indeed as a simple animal the concept is meaningless to him.
Form and class together tell you if the horse has been placed to win.
Consistency s a sub-group of form. A lot of winners are consistent, but there are too many inconsistent winners for consistency to be regarded as an essential prerequisite.
Class is an essential prerequisite for a horse to win as such it is useless to look for winners amongst consistent horses. It is no use looking for Butterfly nests just because they have wings.
A punter has to find the classiest animals first.
I’m struggling with this ‘probability’ variable.
Are we talking about the ‘probability’ of the horse replicating it’s best form/ability through evaluation of it’s record when viewed against the conditions of the race it now runs in (class, going, course, distance, jockey, fitness, etc)? If so do we apply a number to that?
Or are we talking about the probability (in terms of %’s or odds) of the horse winning. Hensman suggests that is a subjective judgement call.
perhaps a combination of both.
This one’s still cloudy for me.
Cormack15
I have on file a small pocketbook ‘VDW Update’ published in 1985, obtained at the time for a couple of first class stamps. It encapsulates in about 6 pages the basic methodology.
If it is of any assistance in aiding your understanding of VDW I would be more than happy to email you a copy if you PM an email address. The same goes for any other member who would like a copy.
Cormack15
I have on file a small pocketbook ‘VDW Update’ published in 1985, obtained at the time for a couple of first class stamps. It encapsulates in about 6 pages the basic methodology.
If it is of any assistance in aiding your understanding of VDW I would be more than happy to email you a copy if you PM an email address. The same goes for any other member who would like a copy.
Formath,
I have sent you a PM, cheers.
Crock,
You are correct and, I guess, the ‘probability’ part of the data-column should be/is answered by the horse featuring in the first 5/6 of the betting.
Cormack,
It might help to summarise what has been established so far:
Constant Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners
Constant/Consistent Form
The sum of the horses’ last three placings. Figures greater than 9 are scored at 10, as is F,P,U (discretion used here) and also placing last in the race. Again, discretion needs to be used here along with some cut-off point for distance beaten. It might be an idea to use the following formula:
1 length per runner. For example, if a horse came last of 5 runners then count it as ‘5’, if it placed no more than 5 lengths behind the winner and ’10 (last)’ if it did.
Ability
4-y-o+ = Winning prize-money/wins
2-y-o or 3-y-o = OR, SF, RPR or such
Capability
Is it capable of winning under the following conditions?:
1. Course
2. Distance
3. Going
4. Class
5. Today’s weight
6. Draw (if applicable)
7. Size of field
8. Days since last ran
9. Jockey
10. Both trainers and jockeys course/race-type stats not in the red:
Look under hurdles for hurdles, 2-y-o for 2-y-o, etc. Take careful note of 3-y-o+ races and, in particular, the age of the horses. Example, if there is a 3-y-o and a 4-y-o in the same race then look under the different age group columns respectively. Again, use discretion when determining the trainers and jockeys good/poor record. A ‘0-3’ is a ‘take it or leave it’ scenario, however, 0-5 is a ‘be cautious’ level and 0-10+ is a ‘best leave the selection alone’ scenario.Additional suggestions welcomed
Probability
In the first five or six of the betting (forecast/SP or both(?))GL
It might help to summarise what has been established so far:
It certainly does GL – thanks for that. Neatly encapsulated.
Which brings us to the hard work bit.
Taxi…..
Capability
Is it capable of winning under the following conditions?:
1. Course
2. Distance
3. Going
4. Class
Additional suggestions welcomedHas it performed well with today’s weight
There must have been a few good things over the last few days,surely the runner up in the dewhurst has marked its card.
Have to say I do find myself wondering what this thread is all about. I hope I’m wrong but I do get the feeling it will be used to mock VDW. This is what VDW is all about and it doesn’t work. When the final conclusions are arrived at the ONLY way to prove anything is to test it against the VDW examples, because I’m more than happy it won’t produce the goods or match his selections.
Hensman
I have read the article you refer to, and sorry to say I miss the point I think you are trying to make. That is if you are indeed making apoint. I can only assume you have read somewhere along the line I don’t accept the ability rating as later explained was the one VDW used in the early examples. Even after taking that into account I don’t see how anyone can argue the procedures as explained can find ALL of the early VDW selections, for that matter Pegwell Bay also fails as he was joint 5th bets on ability for his race. It clearly states….Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk (•*).
If this is done 14 selections are eliminated. End of story. It is also interesting that the Aldaniti and Saher selection cross check also eliminated at least the same 14 selections. I can accept that PB may have been an update to the selection method and he (VDW) was progressing his selection method for the general public. It is the first selections that interest me, the ones VDW put up before Mr Peach became involved, or the ones VDW showed after he cut the ties with said Mr Peach.
Crock
I think I agree with you about the three 111’s. VDW said ALL relevant horse were rated by two different methods. If this is so he could easily cut four or horses with these form figures down to a final three. Find it very hard to accept the 99% though, although three top rated horses all with those figures would be hard to beat.
L33,
One day you are going to have to explain why the fact I won’t back short priced horses is foolish. I won’t back horses like Short Skirt and New Approach so I will never have an 80% strike rate it is a simple as that. I’m not for one moment saying it isn’t possible for you or anyone else to achieve it, just I never will. Yesterday rather than risk my money on SS I backed a horse to place that I couldn’t see winning its race, (it finished 3rd) but it paid better for the place than SS did for the win.
Be Lucky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.