- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
maggsy,
I understand what you are now saying in fact I (and your RSB stats) proved the very obvious point with the example, but the actual point you are avoiding is that VDW himself did not at all qualify his statement about the 3 (111) s – as written by himself, it came to 99% in any race. Only you have introduced the word "average".
VDW "I stated that consistent horses win a high percentage of races and now present a few form figures from my own extensive surveys. Disregarding ALL factors other than the last 3 placings my figures show percentage wins next time. 111 (33%) ….000 (2%). My own combined figures from the 3 most consistent produce 3-3-3 (99%) … 16-18-30 (17%)"
You are adding on your own interpretations based on other parts of his articles and are not disregarding "ALL" other factors. You also have not recognised here that the VDW class/form method as stated by VDW is for high prize races at the main meetings – so these by definition include the relatively more competitive races such as at Cheltenham. There are already enough people making things up that are simply not there without adding to those who never read the articles in the first place.
It showed really that VDW did not understand how a book was made or what probability means when you have to take account of the number of qualifiers with an attribute as being quite different from the number of race winners with that attribute. That was a common mistake of the time and is still repeated today, as few people show much understanding of basic probability.
Evening Folks
VDW’S first example was the Champion Hurdle at Leopardstown.
Decent Fellow 7
Beacon Light 3*
Monksfield 16
Prominent King 5*
Mr Kildare 3*"Using two methods of rating all five horses, I found that the three starred horses came out best".
How well did these horses perform in the market over their last three races as opposed to their forecast odds in the papers of the day or in the SP of the day over three previous outings ( i.e. did they out perform the forecast to SP or the other way round)
Weight and the market will lead to the probables but if you do not or are unable to make a reasonable book then the race should be left alone.
VDW used two methods in the above example one was consistency and the other was?
But one still has to consider the form of all in the race.
Another point is "excess weight in the saddle is more of a brake than a heavier jockey".
Balance?
How many jockeys ride to their true weight without lead?
These are just thoughts and not conclusions.
Sleep Tight.
Lamby150
In todays Cambridgeshire I have the winner coming from Pipedreamer, Night Cru, Mutajarred, Docofthebay, and Monte Alto.
In the 505N I think both Capricorn Run and Salient are good enough to win.
Johngringo
Well done.
The five lowest consistency aggregates produced nine consistent horses:
03: The Illies
05: Monte Alto
06: Docofthebay, Pipedreamer, Night Cru
09: Greek Well
10: Fremen, Escape Route, SeabowAnd, low and behold, just as last week putting them in ability rating order finds the winner coming top: the VDW class/form horse:
240: Pipedreamer
233: Monte Alto
193: The Illies
108: Greek Well
104: Docofthebay
085: Fremen
082: Escape Route
055: Night Cru
052: SeabowRobert99 that is my point he says he disregarded all other factors like class and size of field if you do that you just end up with an average.I am well aware that field size and mant other factors determine the probability of a horse winning as I’m sure VDW was. Anyone that could come up with the formula consistant form+ability+capability+probability+hardwork=winners is far from being stupid. Some consider VDW to be a genius. i think based on that formula he was. No one has ever put it some simply yet logically as that.
Mtoto or any one else did you have a look at the 3.20 at Newmarket and the 4.10 at Redcar today? I would be interested on any ones thoughts on these races from a VDW point of view or otherwise.
Maggsy,
Sorry, I didn’t look at either of the races you mentioned. Apart from the Cambridgeshire the only other race I looked at was the 5:05 at Newm. I had a busy day so gave up on it because of the non runners.
While I agree it can be quite interesting to talk about races after the result is known, I wouldn’t advise doing it on here. The howls of "aftertimer", etc would be unbelievable. On an open forum like this I wouldn’t post any post race thoughts unless I had proof of those thoughts before the off.
I would say don’t get too tied up with the actual combination of the form figures. While being consistent is the first filter, it is just a starting point. Class is the important aspect of these methods. Whatever retired handicapers may say class wins races including hcps. IF handicapers. official or otherwise, think weight cancels out class perhaps that’s why VDW said hcps were is happy hunting grounds. Just a thought.
Be Lucky
Mtoto
You wrote: "IF handicapers. official or otherwise, think weight cancels out class perhaps that’s why VDW said hcps were is happy hunting grounds".
Spot on, and of course sane ones don’t. Weight (both actual and relative) in my view is a significant factor but one of several.
Second in the ability ranking (win prize money basis) of the consistent horses for the Cambridgeshire was Monte Alto – and I wouldn’t argue that 233 compared with Pipedreamer’s 240 was a significant difference. The fact that he was beaten a little over 3.5 lengths carrying 3lb over-weight, and the possibility that the trainer could have engaged an experienced 3lb claimer and thus had 3lb off the scheduled weight, means that, had another choice been made, MA would have carried 6lb less. Whether, in that circumstance, he’d have finished closer to, or even beaten, Pipedreamer, can of course only be a matters for speculation, but to me the former at least seems not improbable.
Weight is weight.
Class is class.
Just because in racing they are measured in the same unit does not mean they are interchangeable.
Historically they came to be measured in the same unit because of Admiral Rous’ misconception over their interchangeablity.
Admiral Rous was right in that class can be effected by weight but not in a linear or precise manner. That is why small differences in weight are largely irrelevant because they are unable to hinder a horse from proving his class.
By this time tomorrow the folk how complained about the VDW thread should be more than happy, it will have fallen on of the Horse Racing thread. I do accept it should never have been on there of course, what the devil would a method of analysing horse races do featuring on a thread that would be better served be called the Horse Racing Lounge. Nobody on here wants to discuss any sort of detailed horse race analysis, in fact I think I only found one thread that even came close.
For me at least one interesting thing emerged, and that was written by a "handicapper" class plays no part in handicaps. Well that person certainly wouldn’t understand VDW, but then I do wonder if he (the handicapper) understands horse racing. Now this person isn’t shy about giving his opinion, so no doubt he will put me right, if class doesn’t effect the result of races why bother to handicap them? Isn’t one of the aims of handicapping to give all the horses in a race the same chance, and to classify the grade of horse that can run in certain races? Does he really believe weight has the same effect on all horses, i.e 6lbs extra will slow all horses down by the same mount?
Not only would VDW give him an insight into class, I think it would help him and others to look at the course the horses perform to their best. Now again it may just be me, but I can’t help wondering why some folk think a horse who’s best winning form is on left handed speed course can’t perform on a right handed stiff track when it is competing against top class horses who have.
Then throw in a gentleman who somehow thinks the aim of the VDW thread is to seduce the "brains" into some dark website. If they have brains that would be impossible, and what would be the point? Charge these brains for information, torture their secrets out of them?
As I’m not sure who Hensman is I can’t speak for him, but for my part if anyone had shown any interest in analysing a few races I would have been more than happy to take part. Again I can’t speak for Johngringo but I do think he would have joined in and then perhaps some of the 9650 who bother to look in would have had something to judge the worth of the methods against. Who knows they may even had something to judge if class matters or not against, rather than just the word of a racing journalist/pundit.
I am surprised that so many racing commentators, myriad contributors to this forum, are unable to provide a rationale for the existance of the multi-national industry that they, not unlike the birds found on the backs of hippopotami, exist upon.
Its actually quite frightening to see that they think that ‘value odds‘, ‘libres avoir du pois‘, and ‘trends‘ are the secrets to having a horse win a race.
I can only ask them if, they should one day own a black type horse, they would breed from that horse based on these conceptions.
I think this debate has probably run its course.
The arguments have been presented, listened to, and responded to.
There are many ways of approaching the task of finding winners and everything that goes with it, and I’m sure most people will recognise what VDW was trying to do – and repect him for it – even if they disagree with the main thrust of his approach.
A VDW thread on this quieter part of the forum will be useful, highlighting selections for coming races and promoting discussion about his method, but it is not the place for carping about those who hold different views. They have given their reply. Let’s leave it at that.
Mtoto
By your own account, you started this thread to see what level of interest there was in VDW in an active, non-specialist racing forum – and you’ve had your answer. You seem disappointed, but the problem is not in the responses but in the mismatch between your hopes and reality.
Your hopes were unrealistic because they neglected two realities:
1) race analysis, when considered simply as an intellectual problem, free of any moral approval/disapproval, is a complex task, more complex than most have the capability to handle. A member likened it to the task detectives face when trying to solve a crime. Like all analogies, that only serves so far, but to my mind it is an apt one and deserved more consideration than it got from those who responded to it. (Pushing it a little further, there are many with the capability needed for the constable role compared with the number of those able to handle the Morse role, and the even smaller number able to handle the chief constable role);
2) race analysis involves time and effort – hard work, one could say. Not everyone has the disposition for that: the equation posted by Imp struck me as absolutely to the point.
Among any population of those interested in betting on horse racing, those with the level of capability and disposition for serious race analysis (on whatever lines, not just VDW) will always be a small minority. Considerably more numerous will be those who hope that success can be found via tips, systems or "value betting".
- Total Posts 12
L33
Your post on the 4th of Oct has real quality and wisdom about it, but in your view how did VDW define class his way. I mainly look at the conventional way, ie; G1 and so on down the range to sellers.
Thanks
Mandrake
Wise words, Hensman.
I don’t think it could have been put any better.
As the saying goes:
The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on.
Mtoto I would be interested in analysing races before the Off time.Don’t want to be accused of aftertiming.Will probably have a look next week end at Ascot or York. Should be some high class races then worth having a look at.Putting in the hard work and getting bets on has to come first, but if there is enough time hopefully others will put there thoughts up as well whether from a VDW point of view or how ever they analyse races.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.