- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Can I suggest "class" being defined as = the grade of race a horse has shown that he/she can run well in.
Colin
Artemis, your statement…
"I think there is a situation where a horse can win a low grade race carrying a big weight, earn a certain rating and then fail to run to that rating in a higher grade carrying a low weight. This is because the horse cannot run any faster regardless of what weight it is carrying, so cannot compete in the higher grade. That apart, the handicap rating seems a fairly accurate gauge of a horse’s ability or class."
This is precisely why I don’t take much account of weight carried when assessing performances. I think all races run over a season can probably be grouped into five bands of ability/class/rank/handicap or whatever name these are given. When you consider the range of handicap ratings is about 90 to 100 pounds dividing this into 5 groups is easy and believable for all practical purposes.
If you look at horses not in the first 6 in the betting and consistant ie with a rating of 6 or less you get 64 wins from 1490 4.3% 38%loss according to RSB. I realise there is more to consistancy than just adding form figures together , but these results are not very encouraging for those wanting to bet outside the top 6 in the betting which in my experience is going against the odds.Candidato Roy had a form figure rating of 10 which is even worse than the figures I ran through RSB. As I understand the 3 probables have to be in the top 3 rated on consistancy. I don’t know if that would include Candidto Roy because I did not look at the race in any detail because I tend to keep away from large fields.
His class figure comes from winning in Nad El Sheba so I would downgrade that anyway because foreign form tends not to be as good unless it comes from Ireland or France and certain other races. Since then his form has not been as good and was going from class 50 to 930 which was a big jump up after being dropped to class 50 and not being able to win. I realise that the class of horse in a race is not the same as the class of the race , but even so its hard to see how any one could say that VDW would have picked Candidato Roy.Wallace,
I think most handicappers deal with weight on an exact basis, although they would readily accept that in a tight handicap it will not make that much difference because horses perform within a range of about 8lbs of their ability (+ or – about 4lbs) provided they have suitable ground conditions, optimum distance, get a clear run and a decent ride in a fairly run race(decent pace).
Unsuitable ground, wrong distance, interference, a poorly judged ride or a false pace can stretch this to -20lbs, perhaps more.
So, using weight, handicappers rely on average performances, knowing that over a season most horses will run to a rating close to their best given optimum conditions.
Those of us who use ratings assume that each horse will run up to its best unless we have good reason for thinking otherwise, although we know that only a few horses in each race will do so.
I know this isn’t a strong argument for being precise with weight calculations, but what’s the alternative, and is it better than adopting the above approach?
If you look at horses not in the first 6 in the betting and consistant ie with a rating of 6 or less you get 64 wins from 1490 4.3% 38%loss according to RSB.
Maggsy,
For the above figures to make any sense in Saturdays race the question fed into RSB would/should include the class/ability factor. While I do agree about being doubtful about the prize money abroad, I would point out I didn’t use this when I made him the class horse. There is a VDW example were he shows how this is done.
Of course it can never be proven but I’m quite happy that Candidato Roy would have been seriously considered by VDW and been included in any bet type he decided appropriate, book, place, or e/w bet.
I did note Pru pointed out Warwick was a very different type of course to Ascot, and I completly agree. The logic behind backing him at Ascot was perhaps the reason he was sold and brought to Britain was to find a very different type of course than those he had been running on straight and stiff! The trainer and jockey were also very interesting but the only reason he came to my attention was his place in the class ranking, although a second place in them would still have had me looking very hard at him.
Be Lucky
Maggsy
The RSB figures you quote demonstrate why VDW said he only rarely went outside the first six in the betting forecast (handicaps). And of course when he did include such a horse for detailed consideration it would not become a selection if it failed on his other criteria.
I’ve just run this through RSB again and although I can’t use class ratings I have used
other ratings and this does show a profit when conbined with consistancy even though outside the first 6 in the betting. As you say Hensman it does not happen often so the sample is small, but it does seem to show that VDW was right again and remember this was before we had computers do to the research. 
Maggsy
In one of the letters reprinted in "The Golden Years of Van der Wheil" a correspondent, not VDW, reported the results of a survey of 486 races, checking how many winners came from the first five in the forecasts of three different newspapers.
That must have taken several evenings to compile. These days, courtesy of the excellent RSB, we can analyse 20 years Flat data in a minute or so. That’s real progress.
Hensman/Magsy .. this is where I draw the line in supporting the vdw system as such.
There’s nothing wrong and plenty right with drawing up categories by rank and then making your assessmens from there. For me that is vdw type assessment.
Looking at the fsp as a basis for any system assessment is a complete waste of time. Your assessment should lead you to your own fsp which is as valid as anyone else’s, if your a million miles away from the market you are doing something wrong or you are very good, rich, etc ..
Take RSB for example, they use an average of the racing post and the sporting life to come up with their fsp, or so I am lead to believe. This means that you wont see any of the prices they quote in any paper unless it’s by coincidence. Then there’s the whole problem of how each of the sources of data come up with their prices, they are only opinions and these opinions and methods change over time.
The reason that people use the fsp in systems is because of the percieved fav/longshot bias, you will get more winners at the front end of the market but it is much harder to find value and long term profits.
IMO, you have to get away from trying to find winners and try to find the best value horse. Selective systems that try and pin point winners don’t work, over a period of time.
IMO, you have to get away from trying to find winners and try to find the best value horse. Selective systems that try and pin point winners don’t work, over a period of time.
Dave J,
Surely to make any real sense the above statment should read, You have to find winners that are running at value prices. Backing a horse JUST because it is a value price doesn’t work over any time period. If you have applied whatever rating you use and then applied the common sense guide lines, going, etc. to your list. For a start if that list contains one or more of the short end of the market AND your selection is above those horses are you then not on your way to a value bet? Even if it isn’t higher in the list but close on the ratings then it could also be a value bet.
Maggsy,
I hope that is another fallacy put to bed. VDW showed six examples where the horse wasn’t in the required position in the forecast ( seven if you count Little Nugget). He also said class is the king pin without it nothing else counts, but even with it the other important factors are needed. Consistency is just a filter and it judges nothing apart from basic consistency. Form is something else again, perhaps VDW would have been better served by not heading the formula with consistent/form. It seems to confuse as it appears to have done with Pru if he thinks consistency has anything to do with judging ability.
Be Lucky
I do hope this thread can be kept going for a week or two yet. It’s very entertaining.
I particularly like the poster that earnestly debates methodology and the meaning of class in great detail, then ends every post with ‘Be Lucky’.
AP
What would you suggest as a good starting point AP ?
Backing a horse JUST because it is a value price doesn’t work over any time period
.. any horse that does have better odds than its chance of winning is a bet.
Dave
I have been illustrating the initial steps in VDW’s basic approach. They offer an objective (ie rule-bound) basis for identifying a pool within the field that mostly, though certainly not always, includes the winner. If that was all VDW offered us it would be a system: those who followed the rules would all end up with the same pool of horses.
But VDW was at pains to say that his was a method, not a system, and that was because going from the pool of horses identified by the basic numerics to deciding whether there is a bet requires the exercise of a great deal of judgement. VDW’s letters help here, but the main source for getting to grips with the issues of form, capability and probability that need to be judged are the numerous examples he gave.
And later VDW went beyond his basic approach and showed how, under the right circumstances, one can bet outside the constraints of the basic method pool. But one needs to know what one is doing, and those with less experience, if they wish to follow VDW’s approach at all, are best advised to work within the basic numerics.
In my own race analyses I don’t use any betting forecast. Basically I do what, from his posts, Mtoto seems to do: work out whether there is a horse (or horses) that will probably win, and only if there is look at the price. Not what anyone forecasts it might be, but what it actually is (whether for an individual horse or a book) on Betfair. Provided I regard it as fair (within the context of my strike rate), I bet. As I’m only interested in individual horses or books of horses which in my view will probably win (in the true sense of probable) I have no interest in the prices of the large majority of the field.
AP,
The "be lucky" is just wishing you all well. I’m sure you must know even after the hard work is done we all need that little bit of luck.
Mtoto in the 88 Arc drove that home to me. An opening a split second earlier and he would have been home and dry.
Be Lucky
I do hope this thread can be kept going for a week or two yet. It’s very entertaining.
AP
I don’t think there is any doubt this thread will continue for at least another week, there seems to be a lot of new blood willing to discuss something called VDW. I’m not sure if it’s new or not.
I think this VDW stuff is a bit too much like a religion or secret groups with funny handshakes. Include me out please.
I do hope this thread can be kept going for a week or two yet. It’s very entertaining.
I particularly like the poster that earnestly debates methodology and the meaning of class in great detail, then ends every post with ‘Be Lucky’.
AP
Alan
You want entertaining, you should try the VDW thread on the Gummyracing forum. Gone on for years and hundreds of pages….ooh and two parts!
Rob
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.