Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Maggsy/Hensman
You have answered exactly as I hoped you would. You are correct there is more to it than just speed figures but it IS the basics behind the answer. I will give you my full explanation later (hopefully tonight). Incidentally, Wayward Lad DID produce a speed figure last time out, it’s just that it was less than zero.
Hensman
This is my interpretation of why VDW said Burrough Hill Lad was not a form horse. Basically, it is because his last time out race produced the lowest speed figure by far of all the chases at that meeting. So to use VDW’s words “the race was slow and the horse did nothing from the distanceâ€
Arkle
When I was first composing that post I had some amusing quips in the second and third paragraphs to indicate how things steadily got more difficult. So the words quite simple don’t really have the same meaning as first intended. The words quite straightforward would be more appropriate. But that is just to describe the method as stated in the first paragraph only.
Regarding Celtic Pleasure the class sequence of races run, that you have shown, is correct. His wins were, most recent first, class 68, 53 & 5. His ability rating was 42 as shown on page 6 of this thread and I have him with the second highest ability rating in the field.Pipedreamer
The betting exchanges are putting nails in the coffins of high street bookmakers. Gone are the days when the bookies were packed. When an outsider won nearly every punter lost and they would all swarm to the boards holding the racing papers to see what they had missed. In the exchanges it is the layer that chokes on his coffee and reaches for the paper.
Arkle
The class rating of Celtic Pleasure’s last race was 20 and this was the eleventh highest in a field of 12.
Cormack the VDW method is quite simple. From the high value races evaluate the 3 most consistent horses from the first 5 (non handicaps) or 6 (handicaps) in the betting forecast. Include any highly consistent horses not in this area.
The whole thing is encapsulated in the formula; consistent form + ability (class) + capability + probability + hard work = winners.
VDW said the formula “forms the framework to logical methodical evaluation and as such could not have a set of specific rules applied to it!â€Mtoto, Hensman, Anybody.
If you remove the ability rating column from “Spells it all outâ€
For younger horses VDW suggested using the best speed figure as a merit rating to be used in conjunction with the ability rating. I have added these to the relevant races below.
6/4 423221- Rifle Brigade____5*___7__52 W5/2
2/1 01100-0 Alaskan Prince__18*__21__57
4/1 1400-00 King Pearl______23__15__54
10/1 00404- Deep Profile_____15*__0__29
12/1 055200- Gardenia Press__20__0__15
5 runner handicap5/2 __213-3 Gypsy Dancer___7*___?__72
4/1 21111-1 Derrylin________3*__38__88 W4/1
5/1 ___31-2 Newski_________6*__12__67
6/1 ____01- Double Form_____8__28__60
13/2 __111- Weth Nan_______3*__26__79This thread is going too fast to keep up.
Below are the ability ratings for the previous races.4/1 33340-3 St Petersburg______17*__20
9/2 1230-0 Prince Gabriel______22__10
5/1 0202-12 Celtic Pleasure______5*__42 W7/2F
6/1 012320- Lucent____________12*__30
8/1 434034- Town and Country___17*__19
10/1 others
Note this is a handicap so we should be taking the first 6 in the betting.7/2 1112-41 Alexanda the Great__7*__11
4/1 134011- Move Off__________8*__52
5/1 2420-12 Battlement________8*__10 W9/2
6/1 0310-02 Lochranza_________15__11
8/1 020-214 Autumn Glow_______7*__7
10/1 others
Note this is a handicap so we should be taking the first 6 in the betting.Sorry, I did not do the race for Strombolus but for info
22111F Strombolus_____3 W7/1
I did note he was not in the forecast in the Birmingham Evening Mail.6/4 423221- Rifle Brigade___5*__7 W5/2
2/1 01100-0 Alaskan Prince__18*__21
4/1 1400-00 King Pearl_____23__15
10/1 00404- Deep Profile__15*__0
12/1 055200- Gardenia Press__20__0
5 runner handicap11/4 01343-0 Fluellen___9*__24
4/1 41023-1 Orchestra__6*__31 W6/1
5/1 204210- Sporting Yankee__13__139
6/1 044112- Fools Mate___4*__23
8/1 02034-2 Limone_____9*__525/2 213-3 Gypsy Dancer___7*__?
4/1 21111-1 Derrylin_____3*__38 W4/1
5/1 31-2 Newski_____6*__12
6/1 01- Double Form___8__28
13/2 111- Weth Nan__3*__26I would appreciate it if someone could give me the details of Gypsy Dancer’s 2-y-o win. Also if any of the above differs from the Sporting Life.
Note also I have added a * to Gypsy Dancer to include it as one of the 3 most consistent.Cormack VDW for Dummies would make a great book. At the end of the penultimate chapter you should have the words “and now for the missing linkâ€
Cormack, forgive me for mentioning another website (defunct), but can anyone tell me why the VDW-collection website folded?
Further to my previous post here are the wins to runs for each consistency rating.
_____ 1978__________ 2007
cons
rate_ wins runs_______ wins runs
3____ 9__ 32__ 28%___ 1__ 13__ 8%
4____ 2__ 26__ 8%____ 1__ 24__ 4%
5____ 7__ 36__ 19%___ 4__ 36__ 11%
6____ 3__ 33__ 9%____ 5__ 42__ 12%
7____ 5__ 54__ 9%____ 6__ 46__ 13%
8____ 5__ 46__ 11%___ 2__ 36__ 6%
9____ 4__ 48__ 8%____ 6__ 39__ 15%
10___ 6__ 44__ 14%___ 2__ 40__ 5%
11___ 3__ 44__ 7%____ 3__ 40__ 8%
12___ 5__ 53__ 9%____ 3__ 47__ 6%
13___ 5__ 47__ 11%___ 5__ 43__ 12%
14___ 5__ 38__ 13%___ 4__ 61__ 7%
15___ 1__ 35__ 3%____ 8__ 41__ 20%
16___ 2__ 22__ 9%____ 3__ 40__ 8%
17___ 1__ 31__ 3%____ 1__ 31__ 3%
18___ 2__ 24__ 8%____ 1__ 25__ 4%
19___ 0__ 22__ 0%____ 0__ 28__ 0%
20___ 0__ 13__ 0%____ 3__ 20__ 15%
21___ 1__ 11__ 9%____ 1__ 24__ 4%
22___ 0__ 11__ 0%____ 1__ 15__ 7%
23___ 0__ 9___ 0%____ 1__ 10__ 10%
24___ 0__ 16__ 0%____ 3__ 18__ 17%
25___ 0__ 0___ 0%____ 0__ 10__ 0%
26___ 0__ 4___ 0%____ 0__ 9___ 0%
27___ 0__ 5___ 0%____ 1__ 6___ 17%
28___ 0__ 4___ 0%____ 0__ 3___ 0%
29___ 0__ 2___ 0%____ 0__ 0___ 0%
30___ 0__ 2___ 0%____ 1__ 7___ 14%____ 66_____________ 66
First thing to note here is in 1978, during the specified period, there were 32 horses with the magical consistency rating of 3. But in 2007 there were only 13. Where have all the super-consistent horses gone?
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.
