- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
L33
I don’t know if, given your irritation with Cormack’s deletions, you still look in, but in the hope that you do I should like to raise with you a point with which, despite quite a lot of thought, I still find difficulty.
It emerges in VDW’s discussion of the 1978 Erin, where he says: "Using two methods of rating all five horses, I found that the starred horses came out best [Beacon Light, Prominent King, Mr Kildare]. Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it and his last race had been a hard one against Sea Pigeon so I was left with Prominent King and Mr Kildare.
Prominent King had the edge by one method and was level using the other …"
This example was presented before VDW showed us a number of his rating techniques and it seems to me very likely that the second of the "two methods" was form, for on that, of course, "Beacon Light [was] well out of it", and "Prominent King … was level [with Mr Kildare]"
In respect of the other method of rating, by which, again, "Beacon Light [was] well out of it" but on which "Prominent King had the edge [over Mr Kildare]", I think I’ve tried all the other methods VDW showed us, but in no case do both of VDW’s comments seem satisfied. For example, PK ,18, could fairly be said to have "the edge" over MK ,11, on the ability rating, but BL’s 46 seems to preclude that from being the explanation.
My question is, are you satisfied that you know which two methods of rating VDW was referring to in this instance? If so, if you felt able to offer any hint as to how it might be discovered it would be much appreciated.
"Prominent King … was level [with Mr Kildare]"
Hensman,
I know your post was addressed to L33, but can I ask why you assume PK was level with MK? VDW said….."Mr Kildare, an odds-on winner last time out not against much opposition, was set to carry 51b more". That doesn’t really read as VDW considered him a serious contender based on known form and a likely bet if PK hadn’t run?
Why couldn’t PK have been level with say Decent Fellow that set of ratings, but DF behind a couple of others on the other set? For what its worth I think MK was only in the best three by default. A top class flat horse who had won his only two starts over hurdles and could be anything.
Be Lucky
Mtoto
I assume that the third last para. of the letter about the Erin is a discussion comparing Prominent King and Mr Kildare partly for textual reasons and partly for analytic ones.
Textually, that para. seems me me to flow naturally from the end of the previous para., and fit with the following one. In other words, VDW having eliminated his third probable (Beacon Light) in the fourth last para. and being "left with Prominent King and Mr Kildare", I assume that what follows in the next two paras. is his (partial) explanation of why he selected Prominent King over Mr Kildare.
Analytically, I am assuming that the "two methods of rating" through which Beacon Light was shown to be "well out of it" were probably methods he showed us in the fulness of time, and on how he rated form I think Beacon Light was "well out of it" and Prominent King and Mr Kildare were level. My problem is that I can’t at present find a second method he showed us which showed Beacon Light "well out of it" and Prominent King having "the edge" over Mr Kildare. Hence my question to L33 asking if he was confident he had found the solution (and, if he has, the hope that he might offer a hint as to where it might be found).
In the above I am also assuming that "two methods of rating" was not just a way of saying "two sets of ratings", ie the equivalent of the final two columns he gave in the four illustrations in the March 1981 article.
Hensman I hav’nt looked at the Prominent King race in detail, but could one of the methods he talks about be class of horse they ran against , not class of race.
Maggsy
Plausible, but I doubt it. PK ran against a much better horse (from a VDW perspective) than anything MK faced.
Finally managed to track down the old form book so I’ve been looking at the Sunset Cristo race.Seems pretty straight foward apart from not ran for 72 days although has performed well after an absence and also carrying 11-7 although not top weight and had won with more before , but not in this class. Is this why VDW said not a cert, but a good bet at the price.Any thoughts on this one?
Hi everyone,
I think it was Sheikh Mohammed who once said "If you live in the past, you miss the future". I have been lucky enough to have been a member on a few forums regarding VDW and long ago came to the conclusion that nobody tells you anything. What I have deduced though is that VDW’s ideas are just as relevant today as they were when he wrote them. There are good VDW bets every week if you know where to look. I do believe, as certain members on here will know, that selecting the right race is as important as anything else he wrote about. Look for the right races and you’ll find the right horses.
Mike.Leopardstown 13 January 2008
1:50 PIERSE LEOPARDSTOWN HANDICAP CHASE (GRADE A)VDW STIKES AGAIN.
Paddy Power knocked back my £0.37 bet.
I’ve not posted for a while (been busy) but I’ve been meaning to put this query in for quite a while. In his writings for Raceform VDW submitted ideas for compiling lists of horses to follow. He suggested on various occasions how useful speed figures could be in making these lists and for several years during the nineties I followed his suggestions with some success. My problem s is that the speed figures published in Raceform today are compiled differently than they then were. For a while it was possible to use the figures in the Racing And Football Outlook while Ken Hussey (sadly missed) was alive and well.
Speed figures have always been something I attach importance to and if anyone can recommend any s/fs published these days I would appreciate it.
goodlife,
The Topspeed figures published in the RP and on the website(free) are about 95% reliable in my estimation for racing in general, although I would say they are(fairly obviously) better for flat racing than jumps.
The ratings on the ATR website are also quite good and free.
Mark Nelson in the RFO produces a weekly list for a small charge.
I believe Turftrax and Superform also produce ratings for a small charge, not to mention the long established Timeform service, which is rather more costly but is probably the best service around.
Thanks for the reply, Artemis. I have been using the RP Topspeed ratings for a few years now and I agree that they are very good. One of the ways that VDW suggested using the old RHB sfs was to list all horses recording an sf of 80+ at Ascot,Doncaster, Goodwod,Newbury, Newmarket, Sandown and York and watch how they were placed during the folowing season, making a bet when conditions seemed to be right. As far as I am aware all present day
sfs have been brought into line with weight-adjusted handicap ratings – 0-120+ for flat racing and 0-175 for NH. I can’t quite make up my mind what the qualifying sf should be with these figures.Presumably VDW was using the old BHB scale of 0 to 100. Now, under the newer scale of 0 to 140, a Topspeed rating of 80 is just fair handicap form.
85 to 95 is useful handicap form.
95 to 105 is top handicap form bordering on listed class.
105 to 115 is listed to group class
115 to 125 is group class
125+ top class, Group1, classic standard.
I think about 90 or better is worth considering.
Goodlife
I have a copy of an article by VDW dated 10 October 1981 in which he discussed an approach on the lines you mention, with the same 7 courses listed. In that article he suggests noting 2yos with a speed figure of around 70 and above and lists the 1980 qualifiers – just 13.
The number of qualifiers VDW found suggests that any qualifying speed figure should be near the top of the range. If one could find a ranking of last seasons’ best 2yo performances as measured by speed figures one could perhaps just take the top 15 or so.
GeorgeJ
I also have the article to which you refer and your suggestion could be the way to go. To consider another approach, I have just been on the RP website and, taking the best s/f recorded at 2.Y.O of the last ten winners of the 2,000 Guineas I have calculated the average which is around 103.
I think that the reason VDW wrote about speed figures as much as he did was that at that time the speed figure compiler in the Raceform Handicap Book – Ken Hussey ( now deceased) – was recording some phenomenal runs of success with his ratings. For a season or two in the early eighties he achieved a level-stake profit on all his selections. This caught the attention of several of my acquaintances at the time. One of them would not make a bet unless it was well-rated on Hussey’s s/f. As well as "doing the math " I think that there was also some art which went into his ratings and he also wrote features in the paper explaining his reasoning and approach.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.