Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Goodlife
I must admit I’m not as enthusiastic this morning as I was last night. Last night I was graced by Bacchus who has now deserted me. I dont really look at anything other than C2 affairs so I shouldn’t have been touting out of my normal pitch.
Goodlife? I will let you off for this oversight, John.
I am the opposite. Class 4-6 is my hunting ground. Why sift through bags of sand for a golden nugget when one is staring us in the face elsewhere?
Should be fun to watch the race today.
GL (Grand Lodge)
Recent selections are lepers.
Whilst we can do them in english, scottish, geordie, spannish, french, german, and portugese their qualities come from the outmost extreme selection methods.
Better Moment 420 Folk has been placed to win and I have backed the place at 11/2;
Hi John,
Although I haven’t VDW’d this race, I was looking at it for use with my own methods.
I think ‘Oneforfun’ is the better horse but my reservations for this one are:
1. Best form(this season) prior to this race was a non-handicap and was hard ridden to lead in closing stages.
2. Trainer ‘0-1’ in hurdles, which i will take or leave.
If the price warrants an e/w bet then I might consider it.
Your selection:
Better MomentMy reservations for this are as follows:
1. Trainer Stat’s in red – Last 14 days = 0-1(take it or leave it), Hurdles = 0-7 (caution!)
2. The horse is facing 10lbs better class than its good handicap place in April.
3. The best form this season has been on tighter tracks than today and both left-handed:
Today’s race – Folkestone (RH (11.0f), Stiff/Handy, Und, 220y)
Best form this season:
May – Fontwell (LH (8.0f), Sharp, Flat, 200y)
Apr – Plumpton (LH (9.0f), Tight/Handy, 200y)So, as the ol’ dragons would say, for that reason, I’m out!
All the best with it anyway.
GLThe next time I see one which looks like a good thing I’ll put it up.I’ll probably end up with egg on my face!
Goodlife,
Don’t worry. It’s not about winning or losing at the moment, more about learning and understanding.
GL
This continues to be an absorbing thread.
This weekend I’ll post up a couple of races from Saturday’s card(s) and, as a practical, experential exercise for those, like me, who are still in the process of developing our understanding of this approach, I’ll invite all and sundry to ‘VDW’ the races in question. I might even have a go myself. Should be interesting.
A good idea, cormack.
let the usual group back-fit ancient races to eternity while we advance into the future with this methodology.
Looking forward to offering some input.
GL
The idea of achieving a high winning percentage when making horse-race selections will ensure that VDW and his methods will always be discussed..
Goodlife,
I think the claims of 80%+ strike-rate is what draws the majority of people to the VDW method, but what is failed to be realised by his literate work is that he advocated backing more than one selection in a race and, anybody making such ridiculous claims of achieving such success, purely by backing single selections is, without a doubt, leading people down the wrong path and, plainly, taking the piss.
The subject would have been buried years ago would it not be for the same kind of people on this thread who profess to know all without revealing all.
The method, as VDW said himself, is quite plain to see. It depends who you want to listen to and who you don’t.
GL
Has it performed well with today’s weight
Cheers, goodlife, I have updated the post.
GL
Cormack15
I have on file a small pocketbook ‘VDW Update’ published in 1985, obtained at the time for a couple of first class stamps. It encapsulates in about 6 pages the basic methodology.
If it is of any assistance in aiding your understanding of VDW I would be more than happy to email you a copy if you PM an email address. The same goes for any other member who would like a copy.
Formath,
I have sent you a PM, cheers.
Crock,
You are correct and, I guess, the ‘probability’ part of the data-column should be/is answered by the horse featuring in the first 5/6 of the betting.
Cormack,
It might help to summarise what has been established so far:
Constant Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners
Constant/Consistent Form
The sum of the horses’ last three placings. Figures greater than 9 are scored at 10, as is F,P,U (discretion used here) and also placing last in the race. Again, discretion needs to be used here along with some cut-off point for distance beaten. It might be an idea to use the following formula:
1 length per runner. For example, if a horse came last of 5 runners then count it as ‘5’, if it placed no more than 5 lengths behind the winner and ’10 (last)’ if it did.
Ability
4-y-o+ = Winning prize-money/wins
2-y-o or 3-y-o = OR, SF, RPR or such
Capability
Is it capable of winning under the following conditions?:
1. Course
2. Distance
3. Going
4. Class
5. Today’s weight
6. Draw (if applicable)
7. Size of field
8. Days since last ran
9. Jockey
10. Both trainers and jockeys course/race-type stats not in the red:
Look under hurdles for hurdles, 2-y-o for 2-y-o, etc. Take careful note of 3-y-o+ races and, in particular, the age of the horses. Example, if there is a 3-y-o and a 4-y-o in the same race then look under the different age group columns respectively. Again, use discretion when determining the trainers and jockeys good/poor record. A ‘0-3’ is a ‘take it or leave it’ scenario, however, 0-5 is a ‘be cautious’ level and 0-10+ is a ‘best leave the selection alone’ scenario.Additional suggestions welcomed
Probability
In the first five or six of the betting (forecast/SP or both(?))GL
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
OK – ‘Probability’?
What is it, how do we get objective about it and what does VDW have to say on the matter?1. Can the horse handle the distance, going, course, class
2. In formMy suggested additions:
1. Right jockey on board
2. Trainer and jockey stat’s all stand up – when I mention this it always reminds me of a few years ago when a bloke carrying 5k in a plastic bag, being interviewed on TV by Big Mac, was boasting how he backed the Fav successfully on its last two outings and was going for third-time-lucky with the whole 5K. I checked the trainer race stat’s before the off. -33 was his record! You can imagine what happened to the fav and the poor guy with his plastic bag.GL
Whoa there guys – you’re racing ahead of yourselves again – Remember this thread is ‘VDW for DUMMIES’
So far we’ve established the criteria for consistent form. We were looking at ability – which I think we’ve cracked (at least as far as us dummies are concerned).
Next – ‘Capability’
What is that all about?
Hi cormack,
Nice to have someone back who is a bit earthed.
This, I’m afraid (depending on whether you like hard work or not), is one of the factors that is taken care of in the ‘hard work’ part of the equation.
First of all, you will have to get your race-reading hat on and weigh up its previous form. The following questions, amongst many others, need to be asked:
1. Has it won or placed well under similar or better conditions in any of its races before? How far you go back into the horses form is down to your discretion.
2. In any of its last three races, has it shown it was fit by placing/winning or did it fade out under strong pressure at the closing stages? You have to weigh up the distance, class and going of these events in order to conclude whether or not it was unsuited to the race or was out of form.
3. What sort of odds did it go off at, compared to today, which jockey was riding and who is riding today and how does the jockey get on with the horse, is it a first-time apprentice on board (ooh, perish the thought)?
3. Does both the trainer and jockey’s course/race-type stat’s hold up at this meeting?
This is, obviously, just scratching the surface and, I’m sure, others would like to offer up some criteria for the check-boxes.
Fair enough but where is the form data-column? The ability rating most use only covers the winning form. I know you don’t want to talk about the old examples but do you realise many of VDW selections were well down the ability rankings? To be selections he must have though they had the form to win. What would be the point of giving a formula if it wasn’t to sort out the race? The hard work element is the final result of working the formula and keeping records, etc.
Be Lucky
Hi Mtoto, the form-data is part of the ‘hard work’ section – in which you have to race-read in order to evaluate this. The ability rating is just that, its race-winning ability.
As I have mentioned before, the ‘ability’ column, like most methodical/system rules out there, really needs to be substantiated by statistical data and, until the day we have this at our disposal, I would not recommend using it as part of the elimination/selection process.
GL
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!
Nobody was saying that’s all there is to it, crock, and I am just quoting his initial method of evaluating consistent form – as outlined in the book. An explanation of each part of the method is all people on here are asking and, remember, cryptology is out!
Regards
GLCrock/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
Mtoto,
First of all, the adding up of the from figures is basically for the consistency data-column and is used, solely for the purpose of elimination. As you rightly explained, from figures in sellers can be the same as group races and the difference in the quality of these figures is arrived at in the ‘Hard Work’ section of the method. In other words, you will have to look at each race in turn to determine the class and form of the race.
I have covered the topic of ability ratings for younger horses/low earners in a previous post.
GL
I think that we’re all realistic enough on here to realise that nobody who has fully understood VDW and is obtaining 80% winners is going to come on and explain how he or she achieves this. I am sure that there are a number of forum members who are capable horse-race selectors who would have little time for VDW methods. As far as I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to acquaint any interested parties with VDW methods. It would then be up to that individual whether or not they wished to pursue the matter any further.
It’s rather odd that people who claim to have cracked the method quote exactly the same strike-rate as VDW. Why not 75%, 78%, 83%? Always 80%!
Anyway, I agree with you, goodlife. Perhaps, if anybody wishes to offer future races up for analysis (without being frustratingly cryptic about the whole thing) then I won’t mind throwing a few coins into the hat myself.
GL
Hensman, we shall leave it at that. After all, this thread is to try and help newbies to better understand the method and debating the debated only serves to cloud the waters of progress.
GL
crock,
I totally agree with you.
Personally, discussing VDW is a futile exercise as many prefer to remain guarded or, indeed, hidden behind the VDW book and emulating his mastery of cryptology – which many people on this board seem to do, with annoying accuracy. If people are not prepared to put up …..!
However, I am lucky enough to be able to make racing pay through my own methods and stat’s and am thankful of not needing to rely on such folly as a foot-in-the-door for my race analysis and betting.
GL
Grand Lodge
It needs to be kept in mind that the "thirty-year-old" races you wish to "bin" were those that VDW brought to our attention when outlining his approach and anyone who wishes to understand it has no option but to study them. As this thread has made clear, there are notable differences of interpretation between VDWers and no "newbie" has any basis for concluding which, if any, accurately reflects how VDW worked.
That’s all very well, if you have the form books for those races, but most people do not and, therefore, cannot study the races in-depth to find out exactly how these contenders are weighed up against each other.
What is wrong with the ‘experts’ putting up a recent/future race for analysis? As I mentioned before, It would be far better to discuss these as the from is readily available for breaking down and explaining to newbies how a possible selection is arrived at. My view is that the experts of today are still no wiser to the method than people were thirty years ago, hence the need to be eternally turning over the same races from the same period.
GL
