Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Garston,
There is actually evidence he took both papers in his letter of May 1978 (Letter 13 TGYO – Numbers Game To Form a Picture).
Again it is interesting that Strombolus did not feature in the first 6 in my daily, or in a well known sporting daily. To the credit of The Sporting Chronicle it did feature.
I can’t think of another well known ‘sporting daily’ to which VDW would have been referring to other than the Life.
Hensman
By those with half a brain I take it you mean the high street bookmakers who put both papers on the boards for the punters in the 70’s. It would help if you could present some of your evidence that the Life was his main racing paper.
There is overwhelming evidence in the articles that VDW took The Sporting Life.
You have his April 1985 article (Wing and a Prayer etc) in which he uses the Life ratings instead of his own. If you study the examples there are also a few slight discrepancies in the ability ratings of horses when compiled from the form books. These are entirely consistent with information published in the Sporting Life though.
Nobody is saying he took the Life exclusively, he may well have taken the Chronicle as well, I guess most ‘serious’ racing people would have taken both in those days. There is plenty of evidence he took the Life though.
My apologises, I thought the discussion was about why VDW’s ability didn’t work, and that was down to the fact it didn’t incude weight.
Mtoto,
At the risk of repeating myself, I’m NOT saying VDW’s ability ratings don’t work. I AM saying they won’t work as a stand-alone rating. They were never intended to be used as such as class/ability is only one element in the equation. It’s my opinion that weight can be used to negate class.Crock,
A couple of questions if I may? First are you saying the ability rating doesn’t work, or isn’t up to the job because it doesn’t take weight into account? Also looking at Garstonf’s figures he appears to be using the bare rating. As you know when looking at the examples the selection is often well down the ability rankings, so how do G’s figures prove anything?
As you also know I don’t use/look at weight at any time, however I would be more than happy to put my ratings against any of the weight based rating you mention. Unfortunately I can’t give you stats as I inadvertently included a formula into my analysis sheets (also the sheets I used as a record of past races) so the figures have automatically updated, at times making a nonsense of past races.
Be Lucky
Mtoto,
I’m merely trying to point out that trying to use the ability rating as a stand-alone rating will not lead to success ‘How can one wheel in the cog be expected to work in isolation’. It’s combination of elements as demonstrated by the point you make about so many winners being well down the ranking.
I’m not really sure where your own ratings fit into this, as the discussion is about VDW’s ability rating. Generally (IMO) ratings that take into account a combination of elements (class, current form. weight, speed etc) will prove a better guide than those relying on a single element.
VDW said we can use his class rating as a base factor and when all elements line up…. He never said it could be used as a stand-alone rating and trying to do that will only lead to frustration & failure.
Crock
Forgive me, but I can’t follow your logic. If I understand Garston’s posts correctly, 27.6% of the winners in the races he has surveyed were won by horses in the top quartile of the AR ranking. I’m not clear how that bears on weight, one way or the other.
Hensman,
My logic is that a random selection method, let’s say splitting them in alphabetical order would expect to find 25% winners in any given quartile.
I would expect a ‘merit’ system, by which I’d include a class rating in that, to outperform random by more than 2.6%.
My conclusion therefore is that either the ability rating is little better than random or the effect of weight penalties related to that merit is negating that merit.
My guess would be that if you performed the same exercise on non handicap racing you’d find a significantly higher percentage than 27.6% in the top quartile of ability ratings. Here there are only limited weight penalties to negate any class advantage.
I’d further suggest that any ‘weight based’ rating system say Timeform or Postmark would find more than 27.6% winners in the top quartile.An interesting figure, Garstonf.
Just 2.6% better than random. I would think that quite a jolt to those who think weight plays little part in the equation with class.
Garstonf,
Whilst your research is admirable surely any statistical survey like that needs to be related to number of runners.
100% winners from the top 5 ability rating/ BHB rating is meaningless if only taken from 5 runner fields
A better comparison (IMO) for such statistics is % winners in top quartile or top 20% of field etc.
I wish you luck, Cormack. It’s not a race I’ll be getting involved in, too much conflict for me. I’m not quite sure what Galactic Star’s beating of Munsef at level weights amounts to.
Geoff Wragg has sent Ivy Creek around the houses in his last couple of runs but in hindsight his attempt to give Anna Pavlova 5lb in the Doonside Cup wasn’t a bad effort.
I am however willing to post bare bone selections prior to racing. Why? because I believe this is a greater help than a padded out form analysis that doesn’t even come close to touching on the specific element/s that separate one piece of form from another. It would be nice if others who professed to know would do the same so that we can compare?
[deleted]
L33,
Apologies I’ve no idea how your original post ended (nor whether it was deleted by you or somebody else).
I fully agree with what you say regarding bare bones selections, I’m one of those fortunate enough to have benefited greatly from these selections in the past. Not, I hasten to add because I bet on them, but because it was through these that the penny finally dropped regarding some critical elements of form.
I’m more than happy to join in, if others will do so, posting some bare-bones selections to compare but before doing so it must be made clear just where I stand.
I do not profess to know it all, certain elements are clear and some are still ‘misty’ shall we say. Therefore anything I post should NOT be regarded as a definitive VDW selection by anybody. The last thing I want is to be guilty of leading people down the wrong track and anything I post must be read in that light.the one where VDW ‘Spelt It All Out’
I wish someone here would spell it all out!!
I thought I was, cormack.
Anyway,
Some people have suggested that a horses’ strike-rate should be considered when calculating the probability factor. After all, the word (probability) is a mathematical question that ends with a statistical answer.
GL
What are odds if not probability percentages? VDW made several references to ….. was a good thing but not at the price. In the SIAO letter I posted earlier he remarked that Little Owl’s true odds when calculated were 3/1 on. A very specific figure would you not agree? He also wrote ‘To a large extent the art of succesful punting is dependent on the ability to appraise odds and never go against them’.
It’s clear from his writings that VDW had a penchant for percentages and what are odds if not percentages?
The 33% next time out strike rate of ‘111’ form horses may well be correct.
The notion that if there are three of them in a particular race they have a 99% of winning that race is nonsense.
What would the % chance of them winning be if there were 4 of them in the race?
But there can’t be 4 of them, Cormack. VDW was referring to the 3 most consistent.
What he’s saying (IMO) is that according to his records if the 3 lowest consistency rates from the first 5/6 in the forecast are all 111, then there is only 1 chance in a 100 that subset of 3 won’t contain the winner.
This isn’t quite a crazy as it sounds. Although back in those days the handicapper did seem to give horses more chance to run up a sequence, I’d hazard a guess there were very few handicaps containing 3 horses that had all won their last 3 races. This means that most of his records for these instances would be from non handicaps and given his propensity for better class racing, more than likely 3yo+ group races. Is it that far fetched to suggest that if in these group races 3 of the first 5 favourites had all won their last 3 races then there would only be 1 case in 100 that one of them didn’t win.
Maybe somebody with the right database can run those figures through todays racing and see what comes out. My suspicion would be that it would be an extremely high percentage even if not hitting the 99% mark.
But of course the VDW line of thinking here is tosh. If followed, it would mean that if there were four horses who had all won their last three races, the winner was certain to come from the four, ie any other runners had, literally, no chance. Common sense, never mind any knowledge of statistics, tells one that cannot possibly be true.
Hensman,
Given this was the 1981 and pre-dates RSB, Flatstats etc and the commercial database software we take for granted today I think it fairly self obvious that these were from VDW’s own records. Indeed, VDW confirms as much when he says ‘from my own extensive surveys…’.
Given that, I think it highly likely he was talking about the 3 most consistent horses from the forecast area in the (better class) races he studied. The statement would therefore include the 3 most consistent, not 4, 5 or any other number.
Cormack,
If all you are interested in at this stage is the basic numerics he spelled out then perhaps the following letter penned to the SCHB may help. I’m afraid I’ve no idea how to get the tables to ‘line up’. Perhaps you can edit my post to set them out?
There is a ‘chunk’ missing from this cut&paste which involved another race on the card. No idea why, but it will still give you the basic numerics that are being discussed.
————————————————————————————————————
Racing is a highly complex subject, full of controversy and abounding in aspects amenable to infinite interpretation. And it is a world where aspirations of millions is to find that pot of gold which will surely come when the infallible system falls into their lap!
Few ever reach their goal, not because it is unattainable but because they lack temperament and unwittingly stack the odds against themselves.
Every day huge sums of money are thrown away by the hoards who haphazardly select a horse from this meeting or that .Not content with irrational selection they further put the odds against themselves by coupling a number of horses in multiple bets. It may seem like fun to dream of a fabulous windfall, but I warrant it creates considerable frustration.
Little wonder is the common belief that only the bookmaker can win in the end. This I know to be untrue, but success can only come by putting aside compulsive gambling ways and making a new beginning using logical and positive methods.
Initially it means coming to terms with yourself and creating that indispensable asset, temperament. When you can view the situation completely without emotion and making judgment on real evidence something comes to the fore. Intuition, know how, mentor call it what you will, the fact remains without it two plus two will make three, five or what have you, but seldom four as it should.
To a large extent the art of successful punting is dependent upon the ability to appraise odds and never go against them. This does not mean never taking an odds on price which is something completely different.
If the true calculated odds are 3-1 on and you can strike a wager at 6-4 on it is a value bet. A single factor, time, form, class, etc, will not achieve consistent results. Many rely heavily upon ratings, but there can be a high degree of variation between compilers. You might assume, and probably expect the official ratings and Phil Bull’s much respected Timeform to show a high degree of uniformity, but this is not the case.Take just one example, the two Derby winners -and you can’t get better class than that-Henbit and Blakeney. The official figures show the latter to be 8lb superior, but Timeform go completely opposite making Henbit 7lb better. Over a stone difference which makes nonsense of calculations.
Conclusion…..regard ratings only as a guide in association with other factors.
Form can be misleading.Form, even though consistent, can mislead if taken alone when the horse is running against others with greater ability. Class which in my view is a major factor, can throw you of course if the horse is out of form, so to establish a reliable measure a combination of elements must be used to achieve consistent results. To find elements which can be combined and used methodically requires considerable thought and each must be logical. There are numerous ways to approach the problem of winner finding methodically and the one which I demonstrate has proved highly successful and consistent for a considerable number of years. Each element was selected after a great deal of research and when used as intended will place the odds strongly in the backers’ favour.
Form is considered a major factor to winner-finding and what is form if it is not that one performance is better than another?
Horses who consistently perform better than others should then command interest. My own extensive surveys show that a horse winning three races in a row is likely to extend the sequence by a further victory at a ratio of one to three. Expressed as a percentage it is 33%, considerably better than 2% which is the representative odds of a horse that has failed to reach the hunt on its last three outings.Consistent horses win races and to illustrate I will give some examples which show percentage wins next time out from various form combinations…..111 33%, 121 32%, 131 29%, 141 26%, 122 30%, 313 24%, 214 24%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
The figures show beyond reasonable doubt that consistent form does have an important part to play. If there are three horses each having won their last three races the figures indicate that it is almost certain one of them should win 33%+33%+33%=99%. Only about one chance in a hundred that the winner will come from elsewhere, so it would be going against the odds to select any other horse.First 5 in betting
Taking all races other figures show that 83% of winners come from the first five quotes in the betting forecast. This also shows that selecting a horse which does not appear in this range is again tantamount to going against the odds. The only exception I make to this is when a highly consistent horse fails to show in this area of the forecast.
It may be that the horse is outclassed in the present company but a check should always be made.
The combination of these two factors narrows the field to an area which consistently produces a high percentage of winners. Calculating the three most consistent horses by adding together the last three form placing’s from the first five (non handicaps) and the first six (handicaps) center attention where it is positively alive with winners.
When making these calculations it is necessary to use a little judgment. Basically it is a simple addition of the last three form lacing’s, but it does happen that a horse may have had only one or two outings.
In such cases assume that it would have performed at the same standard as its last form placing, i.e., a horse placed fourth and third would be considered to have run into third place once more giving a total of ten.
Other factors in the assessment will either support it or show it to be over compensated.
Form figures should be taken to the ninth place at par value but beyond this calculate it as 10 i.e., 3-16-4 =17 (3+10+4). Horses shown as last should be given an assessment of 10 for this performance but do let common sense prevail. If it is last of 7 beaten five lengths there is a world of difference to one last of 20 beaten out of sight. Also use discretion in the case of a highly consistent horse that suddenly puts in, what might seem at first, a bad one. It could have been put into a race where it had no chance which is not the same as if it had blown its top.
If the former is the case, common sense should show how to deal with the situation.
This is a methodical approach not a systematic one, so observe intelligent judgment.
A third factor which will further assist putting the odds in the backers favour is appraisal of the spoils involved. Figures show it can confidently be expected that a horse with the right qualifications will seldom fail to carry of the prize when it is big enough. Selecting races for application of the various factors must be methodical as well.The basic method is to select the race from each card having the highest prize money but for obvious reasons it would not be wise to use a novice hurdle full of nondescript animals.
It often happens that other races on a card will lend themselves to this method especially at the principal meeting but endeavor to keep as far as possible to the upper limits. Moving away from the basic principle starts to put the odds against you.
Attention is going to be centered on the better class races, so it must follow that the better class horses should be looked for. There are many conflicting views as to what class really is and I have heard some strange definitions. I believe it is more realistic to base class on what a horse has actually done in public not by any other means.
Class should be defined as ability and to assess the merit of one against the other, it becomes necessary to compile a rating.
This can quickly and easily be done by considering the prize money won to date in hundreds of pounds and dividing it by the number of races won. For example a horse has won eight races worth a total of £20,000 (200 hundreds) so to find it’s ability rating divide 200 by 8 which equals 25. This rating gives one of the most reliable assessments of a horse but always remember it must be used as a guide in conjunction with other factors.
It can be used methodically as the basic factor and when all other elements line up in support the horse concerned is seldom beaten. This point will be shown in an illustrated race, but always keep in mind it is a rating and as such, can and will prove false if used incorrectly.To complete the working platform it is useful to have another measure giving some indication of the various horses chances in the present situation and which will assist in confirming other data. This can be time, handicap ratings, form ratings etc. but always keep in mind they are a guide. I use two sets of ratings which are compiled on different lines so that I may judge the reliability of the figures but this is not essential.
This whole concept may seem complex and beyond the capabilities of many, but in fact it is extremely simple and becomes quick and easy to perform providing it is done methodically. Taken step by step and starting with the principal meeting the agenda is:
1. Select the most valuable race on the card.
2. Consider next most valuable race.
3. Select most valuable race from other cards.
4. Rate entire fields for ability.
5. Select most consistent from the first 5 or 6 in the forecast.
6. Apply selected rating method to entire fields.To illustrate the whole procedure I will demonstrate using the weekend cards for Saturday, March 7, 1981.
Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and the three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk (*)
1.45 Haydock
Previous Form Horse Ability Most Consistent Rating Rating
11F/111 Little Owl 36* 3* 65 90
1/21211 Wayward Lad 23* 4* 52 64
22/1324 Fairy King 10 9* 53 75
1111UL Mr.Kidd 13* 12 34 59Forecast: Evens Wayward Lad, 5/4 Little Owl, 14 Fairy King, 20 Mr.Kidd
At this stage do not make any automatic assumptions. The required data has been put together and it is now necessary to establish if any of the three probable’s have good claims for support. Always start appraisal by looking at the horse with the highest ability rating and check how it balances with the other data.
In this race everything is straightforward . Little Owl has the highest ability rating and there is nothing in the other elements to suggest any upset, indeed all evidence shows it ought to be a good thing . To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and most important how they performed in the later stages of each race.When you have followed the method for some time it is easy to turn back to your records concerning a given horse and it will help to balance respective performances.
This race clearly shows that Little Owl is a racing certainty and when the true odds are calculated a price better than 3/1 on would represent value. Wayward Lad is obviously a false forecast favorite and if it were to remain so on course the chance of a very fine bet would be there.
Little Owl Won 4/5
Many racing certainties start at much better odds than this.HAYDOCK 2.15
PREVIOUS FORM HORSE ABILITY MOST CONSISTENT RATING RATING
31111P Tragus 24* 3* 57 85
L11/P/42 King or Country 19* 7* 52 82
231111 Sunset Cristo 24* 3* 61 90
218U23 The Vintner 23* – 53 84
133/4U6 Fair View 25* 13 51 80
41L21F Bobjob 12 13 53 84
211F21 Bregawn 18 – 51 83
513512 The Engineer 13 8* 54 86Forecast: 7/2 King or Country, 9/2 Tragus, 11/2 Bobjob, 6 Sunset Cristo, 7 The Engineer, Fair View, 12 Bregawn, 14 The Vintner
Fair View with the highest ability rating is not at present consistent and the other data does not give any boost. Tragus made a mess of things and weakened to 12th in it’s last race and was then pulled up before the 14th which tells it’s own story.
Sunset Cristo, a close joint second on ability, super consistent and other data lends support. The form is impressive and note not only how it ran but what it had behind it, Silver Buck, Another Captain etc. The Engineer does not have the ability to gain the upper hand on the run in if it got into the hunt in the closing stages and King or Country does not have anything going for it.
Another case of a false forecast favorite so Sunset Cristo should be a good bet.
Sunset Cristo Won 5/1MARKET RASEN 2.00
PREVIOUS FORM HORSE ABILITY MOST CONSISTENT RATING RATING
3/23231 KENLIS 11* 6* 65 88
2F1P11 MASTER BRUTUS 10* 3* 41 80
133653 BROWN BARMAN 9* OFF COURSE TOO LONG
123784 MAGIC TIPP 8 19 42 86
222133 GREENWAYS 12* 7* 60 85
L413L2 TURK 9* 15 41 83
5L/3443 SILBERTO 9* 11 39 72
5U4248 GAME LADDIE 11* – 40 79
LL85/66 DALKET 10* – 35 61Forecast: 2 Kenlis, 9/4 Master Brutus, 4 Magic Tipp, 6 Turk, 13/2 Greenways, 12 Silberto, 16 Brown Barman, 25 others.
This procedure shows Kenlis to be a good thing but note how the relative ability of the whole field is like a blanket. Also note the penultimate race of Turk, last of seven, made no show and beaten out of sight. Calculate the performance as ten when totting up previous form figures. So far this is the only genuine forecast favorite.
Kenlis Won 11/4The spade work is all complete and it can be seen there is a possible winner for each race but once again the odds must be weighed.
Providing a reasonable price can be obtained Little Owl will be taken because it is a racing certainty.
Sunset Cristo will also be taken as it is almost a certainty.
Remember it is all tied up with temperament and odds.Crock/L33,
How does adding up form figures involve form? It gives the consistency part only of the formula. How do form figures represent form, three 2nds in a seller = 6, three 2nds in a Group1 still = 6. As L33 said Form represents a degree of achievement. Ok in the case of winning form the ability rating can help but what about horse that have not won many?
Be Lucky
If all that was involved was adding up form figures then I’d agree with you. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that VDW didn’t choose the word ‘consistency’ rather ‘consistent form’ in his equation suggests that there is far more to the term than adding up form figures!
It’s impossible to know exactly what VDW thought when giving this formula but (IMO) the term would also fit the way I think he viewed form analysis (when allied to class of course).
Sorry Mtoto, it’s impossible to be more specific without going into more detail which I’m not about to do at this stage.
If only the above was the truth. How can anyone be expected to understand VDW when an important part of the equation is being left out? What happened to the FORM bit of the equation.
Sorry Mtoto, you’ve lost me there.
The form bit of the equation is right where VDW said it was consistent form + ability etc.
Of course there is more than one way to view the term ‘consistent form’ and it must be married to class.
