- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Maggsy,
Mandrake has it in one, yes I’m looking at Braashee and Cossack Guard. I also agree with Hensman that no one element can be taken/used by its self. Although I do have a slight problem with CG not being a form horse and as said he is consistent. I can’t see why conflict isn’t a problem IF weight is used in the conventual manner either. That brings us back to did VDW use weight in the same way as others? I can see he may have used it to judge if a horse was capable of carrying a weight. As he himself said, class is the kingpin would he have said ok that horse carried x in a low class race I assume he can carry it against better class horses.
As for the distance question, as many of his selections had NOT won over the distance did he leave that question to be answered by the trainer?
Be Lucky
so hensman how did kings ride mark its card well not mark its card because i dont think vdw worked that way dont think he watched and marked down .i get the notion he or they worked through the racing papers systematicly and methodicly , had kings ride a good ability rating in the bottom of the race? had it been placed in a good race as a 2yo/3yo?,had it came down the weights to qualify for a handicap ,had it improved late on in the previous season,to be well in.there you are in plain english love a good mystery but i understand shakespear better tha vdw speak plain english please how did vdw spot kings ride
- Total Posts 12
Gentlemen
I wonder if anyone can shed any light on the following.
Well, a piece that has always puzzled me is when VDW was saying in Systematic Betting under the heading of Form Class Evaluation, he was discussing Ibn Bay (spanner in the works) he says he is a high class horse, and on his final outing of the 1987 season he came out of a 984 class race, he then elaborates more in Racing In My System…..There is a question mark concerning Ibn Bay’s class status. The reason I say his class status is because he said just previously that Merce Cunningham does have some class, I assume he is referring to his third placing over the mile at Newbury as a 2yo with a speed figure of 57. He had not won much prize money compared to Ibn Bay.
How can he question his class if he won a £75567 G1 race at San Siro in Italy in 1987?
He then writes about his 2yo record….. ran twice as a 2yo coming out late (Aug) at Nmkt in Listed mile race, class 90, finishing fourth with a speed figure of 9, he then improved to win over an extended mile race at Haydock, class 26, with an improved sf of 58.
The burning question is, is it speed figures on grade one tracks as 2yos and early 3yo’s that define class or is it winning a group race with a valuable prize…….or is it both?
Hope I have explained it properly.
Mandrake
Pipedreamer,
Proven was dropping in class 71 from 89 the way most work.
Son Of Love wasn’t in the lowest three for consistency or the forecast. I make him joint 4th best with a c/r of 8. The form book seems to be missing a win (or two) from his 2 year old career.
Be Lucky
class tells
No great mystery about King’s Ride when the race is assessed in the usual VDW way – but a good example of the class/form horse being well down the ability rating ranking and well down the handicap weights. Similar examples include Love from Verona and Desert Hero.
The point of mentioning him is to suggest that there should be no assumption that because a horse has either characteristics, or indeed both, he can’t, in the right circumstances, be a selection.
are you saying like secret ploy on saturday good consistency figures,good ability figures within the subset of cosistency figures ,good cosistency to ability ratio ie 22, framed in the right part of the handicap that kind of thing
has any of the vdw,ers rated performance rather than 1st 2nd 3rd ect the top rated gets the 1 in place of the winner did this a few seasons ago mainly to back top of the handicap chasers only lasted a couple of months, if it was top rated rpr in its individual race it still counted as a 1 but could still have 1 against it if it was 3rd and top handicap[ rpr] rating if you get my drift . then did my vdw with these figures showed promise but due to work could not keep it up.i know its a strange one but if you dont try you never know
Class Tells,
Hello, why did you feel the need to change VDW’s approach?
Wasn’t the method you partly describe not working for you his way?
where are Fulham, Stone and Johnd?
Cant believe they would miss a good VDW chat. They must all be busy making it pay.
And Guest as well, where is Hedgehog?
Mtoto
In RFU you were hoping for a reply from GW explaining the flaws in the VDW method and why it doesn’t work. Perhaps the following will go a long way in answering that question.
In VDW’s first letter outlining the method he made the following statements.
First, consistent horses win a high percentage of races.
Second, the first five in the betting forecast in non-handicaps and the first six in handicaps produce a high percentage of winners.
In VDW’s reply to methodmaker he stated; since the opening of the flat I have placed 32 bets of which 29 won.
The following data is from this period, namely the Lincoln meeting through to the Whitbread. I have compared 1978 and 2007. The survey involves the winners of the top 66 races for this period both flat and jumps.
First, the actual betting forecast. 6th fav was for handicaps only.______ 1978______ 2007
1st fav__ 21__ 32%___ 18__ 27%
2nd fav_ 18__ 27%___ 18__ 27%
3rd fav__ 9___ 14%___ 10__ 15%
4th fav__ 4___ 6%____ 4___ 6%
5th fav__ 3___ 5%____ 1___ 2%
6th fav__ 4___ 6%____ 1___ 2%
No fav__ 7___ 11%___ 14__ 21%_______ 66_________ 66
As you can see an outsider won almost twice as many times this year compared to 1978 for the same or similar races.
Next, the consistency ratings of these winners.
_____ 1978__________ 2007
cons_____ ___ running_________ running
rate_ wins_____ total___ wins_____ total
3____ 9__ 14%_ 14%___ 1__ 2%__ 2%
4____ 2__ 3%__ 17%___ 1__ 2%__ 3%
5____ 7__ 11%_ 27%___ 4__ 6%__ 9%
6____ 3__ 5%__ 32%___ 5__ 8%__ 17%
7____ 5__ 8%__ 39%___ 6__ 9%__ 26%
8____ 5__ 8%__ 47%___ 2__ 3%__ 29%
9____ 4__ 6%__ 53%___ 6__ 9%__ 38%
10___ 6__ 9%__ 62%___ 2__ 3%__ 41%
11___ 3__ 5%__ 67%___ 3__ 5%__ 45%
12___ 5__ 8%__ 74%___ 3__ 5%__ 50%
13___ 5__ 8%__ 82%___ 5__ 8%__ 58%
14___ 5__ 8%__ 89%___ 4__ 6%__ 64%
15___ 1__ 2%__ 91%___ 8__ 12%_ 76%
16___ 2__ 3%__ 94%___ 3__ 5%__ 80%
17___ 1__ 2%__ 95%___ 1__ 2%__ 82%
18___ 2__ 3%__ 98%___ 1__ 2%__ 83%
19___ 0__ 0%__ 98%___ 0__ 0%__ 83%
20___ 0__ 0%__ 98%___ 3__ 5%__ 88%
21___ 1__ 2%__ 100%__ 1__ 2%__ 89%
22___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 1__ 2%__ 91%
23___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 1__ 2%__ 92%
24___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 3__ 5%__ 97%
25___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 0__ 0%__ 97%
26___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 0__ 0%__ 97%
27___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 1__ 2%__ 98%
28___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 0__ 0%__ 98%
29___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 0__ 0%__ 98%
30___ 0__ 0%__ 100%__ 1__ 2%__ 100%_____ 66_____________ 66
In VDW’s reply to methodmaker he gave us a few examples of horses he considered good bets. The highest consistency rating of these was 8, so we will use this figure for comparison. I am not suggesting for one second that VDW used this as a maximum.
In 1978 47% of the winners had a consistency rating of 8 or less. This year that figure was only 29%.
Jock Bingham used a maximum of 12, again this gives 74% in 1978 and only 50% in 2007. Now, lets take the rating of 22 and above, the rating where you cannot have a win in the last 3 races. In 1978 none had this rating yet in 2007 seven of the winners had this rating.
Finally, the figures you really want to know. The 3 most consistent. For this exercise I have used the 3 horses with the lowest consistency from the actual betting forecast, i.e the first 5 in non hcaps and first 6 in hcaps. So if there were 3 with a consistency rating of 3, then these are the 3 most consistent. If there were 2 horses with a rating of 3 and 2 with 4, then of the 2 horses rated 4 the one with the highest price was omitted. Again, VDW did not work this way. All I am trying to show is a like for like comparison for the 2 years.
In 1978 39 of the 66 winners, 59%, were in the 3 most consistent as stated above. But in 2007 only 26 of the 66 winners were in the 3 most consistent, only 39%. Obviously this is due to almost twice as many outsiders winning.
Now if you could achieve an 80% strike rate selecting from a pool that traps the winner 59% of the time. What strike rate would you expect from a pool that traps the winner only 39% of the time?
In my next post I will give the wins to runs for each consistency rate for the 2 years.Garstonf,
First may I say a very impressive set of stats. Can I then point out using them wouldn’t have shown VDW’s first example winner Prominent King. Although VDW hadn’t shown or mentioned an ability rating at this time I am in no doubt he was in fact using one. This I believe because he mentioned he had used two sets of ratings to find the winner of the Erin. He also said all relevent horse are rated using two different methods.
I think these ratings must have been very powerful and accurate as I have still not found any commercial rating rating that had PK in front of Beacon Light. Working the way I think VDW did I have found a way of achieving that. I have no wish to appear rude but your figures prove little with out the use of at least one of his unspecified ratings. All you are doing is using the very basic elements and like those who try to make them into a system that fail.
Be Lucky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.