- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I also specialise in sprints – maybe thats where it stems from then?
Class – isn’t something that I would figure into my calculations when assessing a horses chance in a handicap race. The horses at the top of the handicap are, according to the handicapper of highly ability than those towards the bottom – I wouldn’t consider them classier, just of higher ability.
I suppose you could determine Class as the overall strengths of a horse – intelligence etc… and this can sometimes have an effect on a result.
It is all about interpretations…… but trying to give a value for class would seem extremely difficult and the weight i’d attach to compared to others would be very very small.
Hensman,
From the post above, I hope I made clear that I don’t really try to evaluate what I would determine as class.
I’ve had more of think about this – and I suppose to try and make clear some of my thoughts regarding selection I should go into detail about individual horses and if you wish we can determine that as "Class" but I prefer to give it heading of "Personality"
This would include – my thoughts on an individual horse i.e. How genuine is the horse? (something akin to the Timeform Squiggle).
Jockeys and Trainers know their horses as well as anyone and some of their post race comments can be useful. Pre-Race comments don’t tend to give away a lot and sometimes can even misguide – so although I’ll read them – I can easily ignore if my evaluation clashes.
Aside from class/ability issue I feel it important to stress that although I do not use filters, I have strong opinions about certain factors and If a horse has extremely strong claims but as Pru says is drawn out in the river Dee at Chester I can easily discount it.
It is about the weight of factors and this can vary from race to race. To go into any race analysis with defined filters is a big mistake IMO. Every horse in a race should be evaluated for probability of winning. Some horses take very little time, some could take upto an hour depending how many previous races I have to view or notes read.
Sailing Shoes
I agree with you that it is the weight to be accorded the various factors that it important, and that it can vary from race to race. What surprises me is that you don’t include as one of those factors a conception of ability which allows you to discriminate between horses on that score.
For me, differential ability is one of the factors to be weighed up along with all the others, indeed I regard it as of prime importance. I am not suggesting that there is a "right" way to proceed in a race analysis, but one logical way is surely to begin with differences in ability and assess whether the other factors widen or reduce these. One can of course only work that way if one has a way of assessing ability in which one has confidence, but that is true of most of the factors.
I think the variables/filters argument is essentially sterile. Some questions can only be answered in graduated terms, while others have definite answers. IF one feels that a particular answer to one of the latter questions means a horse has no realistic chance, and one excludes it, no big deal, surely. Personally, I can only think of one question arising in the context of handicaps where a particular answer would be sufficient to make me exclude the horse: the answer 13 to the question what stall is the horse running from in this 5f race at Wolverhampton.
Hensman,
As I solely bet in sprint handicaps I believe the question of ability has already been defined by the official handicapper and as all horses are handicapped on this rating I see them all as equals.
Hensman,
I’ve posted my quick idea of analysis over in the lays and plays section.
Sailing Shoes,
Apart from not bring class into your assessment I can see how you work, and if it works for you fair play. As said before I don’t very often even look at sprints, this is because right or wrong I have decided class doesn’t play as big a part in these races.
Looking at what you do assess, course, distance, and running style, likely pace in a race, all this is very much the same as myself and others I talk to. The main difference between us is I wouldn’t look at a race of that class under any circumstance what ever the distance. This is for a couple of reasons, the first is I don’t like trying to 2nd guess trainers. Is this the real target, is it a prep for something else, etc. The 2nd reason I do believe the better horses conform to their profile far better.
Have to say this filter variable has got a little out of hand. I only use a couple of filters and to me they do need a yes or no answer. The main one being is this horse in the lowest five for consistency? Even this is bypassed on ocasions, if I can see a very good reason why it has failed. I do use a filter when looking at class in as much as horse has to achieved a worhwhile speed figure before it is consisdered but the actual s/f isn’t the important factor the class of race it is achieved in is. I don’t use a filter for things like only course and distance, age, wins on going, etc.
Pru,
Are you saying a horse with a good set of variables would still be a bet if it was drawn in the carpark in a sprint at Chester? Using your methods it would still have a theoretical chance of winning and its price could well be higher than its theoretical chances, but is it a sensible bet? I also still think most punters use variables as filters.
Be Lucky
Pru,
Are you saying a horse with a good set of variables would still be a bet if it was drawn in the carpark in a sprint at Chester? Using your methods it would still have a theoretical chance of winning and its price could well be higher than its theoretical chances, but is it a sensible bet?
Theoretically it might be. But that is the opposite of the point that I am making.
The point is that if you use filters something of small significance – such as a 1 lb advantage to 3-y-os over older horses in a given race – will be accorded the same weighting as something of great significance – such as a 15 lb disadvantage to a horse drawn wide at Chester.
Frankly, as guskennedy has implied, there are better things to be done with one’s time than to spell out these things painstakingly on an internet forum, so at this juncture I’ll take my leave.
Be lucky
A Question for Hensman
You stated the following
"In the March 1981 article the issue of form was covered (if one can call it that) in a single 1.5 line sentence which is (I think deliberately) capable of being interpreted in two quite different ways. The next para. invites one to choose the wrong way!"
In my copy of the Golden Years (and I presume others have a copy) the article to which you refer covers about 7 pages.(with no page numbers) I just wondered if you could point out more clearly where you think the one and a half lines are that cover the issue of form and the paragraph that invites you to choose the wrong way!
Thanks
Hi, Samson
This sentence seems to fit the bill.
Form is considered a major factor to winner-finding and what is form if it is not that one performance is better than another?
Cheers
IMP
Cheers seabird, I do have a shorter one
‘ imp ‘
but I can’t for the life of me remember the password or the email it’s associated with, so it remains in cyber-limbo!
Frankly, as guskennedy has implied, there are better things to be done with one’s time than to spell out these things painstakingly on an internet forum, so at this juncture I’ll take my leave.
Pru,
I can only say that is a great pity. I for one will certainly miss the input from both of you.
The point is that if you use filters something of small significance – such as a 1 lb advantage to 3-y-os over older horses in a given race – will be accorded the same weighting as something of great significance – such as a 15 lb disadvantage to a horse drawn wide at Chester.
Surely the above is only possible if you are treating race analysis like painting by numbers, and not using your brain?
Be Lucky
Hensman, Ima etc
Thank you
I will have to get back to you as I regarded other points just as important in that article re form. I will post them later as I have to deal with my bank this afternoon(HSBC not betting!)
Maggsy.
Firstly a terminology issue. There are no such odds as "1/3 on" .
A horse is either 1/3 or 3/1 on, which amounts to the same thing. Sorry to be pedantic, but this common mistake annoys me every time I see it.
Secondly, I believe that value can be found anywhere in a market both at the front and at the edges. I would further argue that it is easier to find amongst the outsiders for precisely the reason that people think as you do that big-priced horses "can’t win". They reinforce this view by being right most of the time. As anyone who has tried laying outsiders on Betfair for any length of time will tell you though, you don’t need to be wrong very often to incur serious losses ( the converse being that a low strike rate with outsiders produces a profit.) Mr Potts himself influenced my thinking on this many years ago when he coined the term the "Kitchi Koo principle" to suggest that if you have a valid reason for backing an outsider do not require ticks in all the boxes and make sure to back it, as the price makes up for the imperfections of its claims. The bulk of the profits I have made over the years have been from horses priced up as having little chance, who would very likely not be considered as bets by people following a system such as is being dicussed here.Carvillshill I’m not saying never back outsiders and I’m not saying value can’t be found at big prices. Pricewise has proven this over the years. I’m just saying that I prefer to bet at the front end of the market because I don’t like long losing runs for one thing.Also VDW is not a system with rigid rules it is a method or methods and as Mtoto and others have said its not limited to finding winners at the front end of the market, although this is where most of the selection will be.
Mtoto and Hensman I have been able to study some of the VDW examples , but it is very hard to get hold of some of the old form books nowadays they are like gold dust and you can’t even get them on Ebay or Amazon and they are the only books I’ve ever failed to find on those sites.I’ve wanted to study the Little Owl and Sunset Cristo races for some time now.Does any one have the information on these races (class in which they ran, the course they ran on,the pace and going, distances won or beaten by and most important, how they performed in the later stages of each race.)or know where I can find this info.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.