[grand lodge]

cormack,

Apologies, I have amended the post – it now reads ‘dividing’ instead of ‘adding’.

Yes, it is as simple as that and how VDW explained it. But, having no stat’s to back up this data column at present, it’s not something I would use, personally.

GL

[grand lodge]

cormack,

Before you move on, the form figures need to be checked first before adding them up. For example, if a horse had form figures of ‘411’ and that fourth placing was last of 4 runners – beaten by a fair distance – then it would be rated as a ’10’, totalling ’12’ for its consistency rating. If it only had two runs under its belt then it was suggested, and this bit still makes me feel uneasy when I type it, that the last figure should be added to form its LTO placing, i.e. form= ’32’, becomes ‘322’, totalling 7 for its consistency rating.

The ability figure is calculated simply by dividing the total winning prize-money by its wins and then dividing by 100. This is obviously not suitable for 2 or 3-y-o’s because of there being insufficient data to form a reliable assessment. Remember Lamtarra? His only win, prior to the Derby, was an 8k 2-y-o event.

I would suggest using OR’s or RPR (unadjusted) ratings or whatever as a substitute for the normal ability rating with these types of races.

Although I think VDW’s approach of cutting down the contenders is somewhat flawed, I do beleive the basic Idea is of sound principles, that is to say using various columns of data to highlight the ‘contenders’ and do away with ‘pretenders’, leaving you with horses to further analyse through form lines ("subject to other conditions").

The main problem is deciding upon what data should be contained in these columns and why. I think statistical data is the key nowadays. I mean, it’s okay using things like prize money/wins to form one column of data if this is backed up by statistics that say the top 3 or 4 have a good strike-rate against the rest.

I know, statistically, in handicaps that the top 12lbs (OR) performs better than the next 12lbs and nearly twice as much as the remainder. So, this is one data column I will use for Hcp races.

VDW is close with the forecast-price group and I think he may have compiled is own statistics for this. But, I would improve on this by saying that 80% of winners come from what I call the ‘contenders’ range. That is, dividing the runners by 2 and using this as a cut-off point for the forecast. Example, 10 runners/2 = 5 (5/1), so any horse that is forecast at 5/1 or less in the race will be highlighted in the FP column.

One more thing, VDW’ers, please can we bin the thirty-year-old races and start discussing the bare bones of recent/future races so that people, new to VDW, can back-check the form and see where you guys are coming from? I’m just glad that I am not a newbie trying to decipher what’s going on in the main ‘Cryptology’, sorry, ‘VDW’ thread.

[grand lodge]

The following article (source unknown) may be of some interest and help to VDW’ers, old and new:

This is of course the first example given by VDW in his letter 8th April 1978; unfortunately the detail given in ‘The Golden Years of Van der Wheil’ was incorrect! The errors related to the consistency ratings. The example was in relation to just the basics of one of his methods, the numerical picture which provided a way of narrowing down the field – an area where many winners were to be found. The corrected details are as follows:

18/2/78 LEOPARDSTOWN Yielding
2m Irish Champion Hurdle Class 90 16 run

Last 3 Runs Horse Weight Cons

0 1 0 P MASTER MONDAY 8-12-0 21
3 1 3L DECENT FELLOW 5-11-11 7(14)
1 1 0 MELADON 5-11-11 12
1 1 2 BEACON LIGHT 7-11-8 4*
3 3 6 MONKSFIELD 6-11-8 12
– 8 9 0 BALLYMOUNTAIN GIRL 9-11-4 27
4 1 1 BANSWARA 6-11-4 6

5 1 0 – COOCH BEHAR 6-11-4 16
3 1 2 DRUMGORA 6-11-4 6
1 5 – 0 MULTIPLE 8-11-4 16
4 – 2 2 PROMINENT KING 6-11-4 8*
1 5 7L TROYSWOOD 6-11-4 16
1 1 MR KILDARE 5-11-1 3*
1 3 F 5 SILVINE 5-11-1 9
1 1 2 BEPARAEJOJO 4-10-0 4
3 2 2 BUGLE BEADS 4-10-0 7

Actual Betting: Evens Beacon Light 5/1 Decent Fellow, Mr Kildare 6/1 Prominent King 10/1 Meladon 11/1 Monksfield 20/1 Bar

VDW F/Cast: Beacon Light, Decent Fellow, Mr Kildare, Prominent King and Monksfield
(note actual betting differed slightly to F/Cast).

Here was the form for the race:

Date, Position, Race Value, Lengths +/-, Weight, Race details, SP, weight of horses they beat or were beaten by and their price
MR. KILDARE
28/1 1st 14 8 10-10 2m NAAS Sft Cond Hd 8/11f 11-0 3/1
27/12 1st 6 2.5 10-9 2m LEOP Yld Mdn Hd 2/5f 10-9 10/1

BEACON LIGHT
4/2 2nd 39 1 12-2 2m SAND Hvy CondHd 6/4f 11-12 2/1
2/1 1st 43 2 12-1 2m WIND Gd CondHd 4/5f 11-9 7/2
26/12 1st 85 2 11-10 2m KEMP Yld CondHd 5/2 11-7 6/4f

DRUMGORA (for reference)
28/1 2nd 17 1.5 10-9 2m3fNAAS Sft HcpHd 9/4f 9-7 5/2
14/1 1st 6 5 11-2 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 6/4f 12-7 9/4
27/12 3rd116 2.5 10-1 2mLEOP Yld HcpHd 33/1 11-4 4/1f

PROMINENT KING
14/1 2nd 6 5 12-7 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 9/4 11-2 6/4f
31/12 2nd 14 4 11-4 2m4fPUNCHSftCondHd 8/1 11-4 12/1
17/2 4th 88 11 11-11 2m LEOP HvyCondHd 10/1 12-0 20/1

DECENT FELLOW
28/1 3rdL 22 25 11-12 2mDONSftCondHd 9/4 11-12 13/8jf
27/12 1st 116 1.5 11-4 2mLEOPYld HcpHd 4/1f 10-4 14/1
17/12 3rd 28 12 11-8 2m ASCGd CondHd 4/7f 11-8 13/2

Result
Prominent King WON 6/1

As you can see, taking the placings literally, the 3 most consistent from the first 5 in the betting forecast at the time would have been Decent Fellow (7), Beacon Light (4 not 3 as printed) and Mr Kildare (3). Prominent King was given as 5 but this must be a printing error because his total was in fact 8. It should also be noted that in the case of Decent Fellow, his last race 3rd place (when 13/8F) was in fact a very poor last of three and deserved to be judged as finishing last and given 10 points making his total 14 points. Remember that VDW said last=10.

We then arrive at the top three on consistency (which is what we are interested in) as those * above, Beacon Light, Mr Kildare and Prominent King (even with his revised figure).

Here is a summary of the race:

Prominent King ran in the lowest class of the 3 probables last time out. All 3 horses were going up in class. Beacon Light was dropped in class last time for the second time and was beaten although giving 4lb to Sea Pigeon.

Note the Starting Prices of the horses last 3 runs. Note the Starting Prices of the horses they beat or were beaten by (Weight and S.P. of those horses on the far right of the form evaluation after each run).

At no point did VDW state that the consistent horses were the form horses,
so why do so many think that they are? This is always a point to remember as is the fact, that later on VDW offered the Roushayd method, (down in class) at this stage he was quite happy to select horses going up in class.

Going back to Prominent King you can see that in his last race Prominent King was carrying 12-7 giving 19lb to the 6/4fav Drumgora who had previously finished 3rd in a
class 116 race. Prominent King went down by 5 lengths and finished 2nd. Before that on his seasonal debut 2 weeks earlier he had contested a class 14 race over 2m 4f carrying 11-4 beaten 4 lengths by a horse carrying 11-4 who had just won a class 24 race. His last race of the previous season was in the corresponding Erin’s race (then class 88 ) carrying 11-11 and finishing 4th beaten 11 lengths. Of the other 2 probables , Mr. Kildare had won 2 races from 2 starts. Firstly a class 6 maiden race beating a horse that had previously placed 5th in class 4. Then he was raised to class 14 carrying 10-10 and beat a horse carrying 11-0 by 8 lengths that had previously placed 2nd in class 17.

Beacon Light had won 3 out 5 that season. His third last race had been a win in class 85 carrying 11-10 giving 3lb and a 2 length beating to a horse who had placed 2nd in class 37 previously. Then Beacon Light was dropped to class 43 and again won by 2 lengths carrying 12-1 and giving 6lb to a horse that had previously run 2nd in class 70. Then dropped again to class 39 carrying 12-2 but beaten a length by Sea Pigeon carrying 11-12 whose only previous run that season had been 2 months earlier in a class 350 chase (The Colonial Cup International) when he fell. Which was the better performance when considering the respective last races of Beacon Light & Prominent King?

Other points to bear in my mind are how often the 3 probables had raced that season, the prices they started in their races and also the Starting Prices of those they raced against. Why was Prominent King raced first time out after a long lay off over a 4f greater trip and then asked to carry a massive weight next time against a horse who had placed 3rd in an even higher class race than the race Prominent King was contesting that day? All these points are worth looking at to get the picture!

The two terms concerned with here are "Illusions in form" and "Blown its top" both are credited to VDW in his writings, and both are beautifully illustrated in the Prominent King example.

First lets take Beacon Light and show how he was able to show that this horse had blown its top, and could be eliminated from calculations: If we look back to BL’s, third last race (1608) we can see that it won a £8,500 race beating the likes of Night Nurse and Drumgora. Next race (1764) this time is dropped in class to £4,300 and again takes the spoils, now to the downturn, race (2175) dropped in class to £3,930 beaten and hard ridden flat, is favourite, and also for good measure a downturn in SF, solid evidence on three counts that Beacon Light has well and truly "Blown his top".

Now lets look at how the trainer keeps Prominent King on ice till the following season before placing him to win, his trainer had noted what a fine performance the horse had put up in finishing 4th in the valuable Erins Food Champion Hurdle race (2015)on Sat Feb 19th.1977, the horse is then put away till the last day of the year, in a race (1746) which now becomes his first run of the 77-78 season and is placed at his wrong distance (two & a quarter miles) and first run of the new season placed so he cannot win in a modest £1,400 race, but still manages 2nd. a clear illusion of form. Prominent King is now sent to contest another modest race (1961) this time the trainer has placed him in a handicap with a massive 12st.7lb to shoulder, and up against Drumgora, who had just previously ran 3rd. in the valuable Sweeps Hurdle (£11,673), Prominent King also has to give Drumgora 19lbs who is made the 64 favourite, with Prominent King second favourite, so therefore fully expected to be beaten by Drumgora. Another clear illusion in form.

Exactly one year later, Prominent King now goes back to contest the race where he showed such improvement the previous year, and is now poised to win. Hopefully readers will be able to see the logic of these evaluations. A point worth noting is in respect of evaluating previous races and not just taking them at face value.
Half the battle can be won, simply by putting yourself in the position of the respective horses trainer and weighing up ‘WHERE should I put this horse next time out’? A trainer, like all of us, only has limited resources and time and by no means can they afford to go into an in depth study of previous races so it is almost inevitable that a quick & easy method of weighing up how their horse is progressing ( in relation to the others it ran against ) has to be found.

The writer of this piece used prize money as it was virtually all that was available in those days, however old hands can now avail themselves to the Official Ratings which are readily available these days, and probably more accurate.

In the book VDW says ‘ using two methods of rating (?) all five horses shown, I found that the three starred horses came out best; if any of you have read any of my previous articles, I used my own consistency chart and split seconds speed figure (unadjusted) plus the horses OR to form a rating.

That is , to my mind, a very fascinating resume of Prominent King and I hope helps to unravel the plot. For my own part what it tells me is that a horses previous runs, as in the case of Roushayd – using a different VDW method are of the utmost importance. In similar fashion building up towards the planned coup. In Prominent King’s case going up in class and in Roushayd’s case going down in class. As the writer said, the starting prices of previous races also shows a picture, worth studying. I have also seen it suggested that VDW had spotted a ‘link’ between the trainer & the race in question…….either directly or via the previous race run in.

Prominent. King had raced better class than Mr Kildare although he was the only winner last time out and had the beating of that horse and I assume that with Beacon Light VDW felt that it had a hard race last time out against Sea Pigeon and did not perform well even though it had been lowered in class in both of its last two races.

It is still my own personal view that an improving horse going up in class with the right previous race preparation is a better proposition than a horse being lowered in class for the wrong reasons. We have to remember that the foregoing resume is not the work of VDW and is based on knowing the result; we cannot be sure that the writer would have reached the same conclusions prior to the race – but we hope so!

There are some races that do not require such an involved investigation, but in this case, I do no think that any short cut would have produced the right result. Finally, if you were not happy, or could not spare the time necessary to do a complicated form check, or only used the numerical picture and unable to split the top three on consistency; then use multiple betting (the secret weapon of VDW in my book and the answer to his 85% Strike Rate) back all three!

[grand lodge]

HI LADS
THIS IS MY 3RD VDW SITE I HAVE JOINED AND I CAN SEE BUY READING THROUGH SOME OF THIS THREAD THAT VDW IS STILL VERY POPULAR. VDW WRITINGSI ARE A BIT LIKE MARMITE YOU IV’ER LOVE IT OR YOU DO’NT. FOR ME PERSONALY I’M WITH THE FORMER. THE BOOKS AND OTHER MEMBERS (SOME ARE MEMBERS ALREADY ON THIS FORUM)HAVE HELPED ME COME A LONG WAY INTO WINNER FINDING. I AM STILL A LONG WAY FROM BACKING A SINGLE HORSE SO I MOSTLY MAKE A BOOK BUT ITS ENOUGH TO KEEP ME HAPPY

Arkle,

Are you an under-study of Derren Brown?

[grand lodge]

GL,

Taking flat, hurdles, and chases seperately can you break them down for age?

I can’t personally, but there are services on the net that provide such data and more.

GL

[grand lodge]

Those stats are great GL but only of use when reconciled against the probabilities. What I mean by that is that the horses in the top third generally start at shorter prices and are therfore perfectly entitled to the higher ratios. And so on.

Cormack,

I can understand and agree with the first sentence but do not understand where you are coming from with the second one.

GL

[grand lodge]

Here are some more stats for you guys:

Weight difference from LTO – All races
More: 11,083 /108,413 10.22%
Less: 9,768 /113,231 8.63%

Weight difference from LTO – Same class
More: 3,925/38,120 10.30%
Less: 3,630/40,950 8.86%

Weight difference from LTO – Handicap to Handicap
More: 5,474/55,031 9.95%
Less: 4,217/57,085 7.39%

Weight difference from LTO – Handicap to Handicap – Same class
More: 2,092/20,108 10.40%
Less: 1,658/22,380 7.41%

Weight difference from LTO – All stakes races
More: 4,268/36,323 11.75%
Less: 4,665/39,751 11.74%
The only race-type that seems to have no effect from changes of weight!

Weight difference from LTO – Stakes to Handicap
More: 1,035/10,155 10.19%
Less: 1,412/11,093 12.73%
The only race-type that favours horses carrying less weight than LTO!

There you have it. The hard facts.

GL

[grand lodge]

Hi Artemis,

They are not incorrect, it’s just that I rounded the numbers up. The middle v bottom ratio is around 1.67:1.

I have more stats to come, including horses carrying less weight from LTO v horses carrying more wieght from LTO, plus a few more eye openers.

This time I won’t round up the figures.

GL

[grand lodge]

Crock,

RSB? How dare you! It’s for weights on the day.

johngringo,

I did actually round the figures up. It is, however, nearer 2:1 than 1.5:1.

GL

[grand lodge]

This following information is based on ten-year stats and might help settle some of the debate about weights in handicap races:

[code:2yvcj1ei]
Weights Win Ratio
Top-third v Middle-third 2:1
Top-third v Bottom-third 3:1

Middle-third v Bottom-third 2:1
[/code:2yvcj1ei]

Hope this is of help.

GL

[grand lodge]

good god almighty how stupid do i feel the little owl vdw ratings ,on and off have looked at these ratings for a while to see if i could work them out on a earlier post it was hinted as to what they were based now the penny has dropped now know how to work out the secound column god stupid wee things can make your day

Would you care to elaborate, CT?

[grand lodge]

Thanks for the reply but I feel my questions are still unanswered.

Are you still using all the elements in the above post and, if so, can you explain the following:

1. Rating+Days+Class(67 )-(18 )-(Cl5 )30%)
Unique rating figure (67) (achieved 18 days ago) (class 5) (resultant 30%)

Where does the 30% come from?

2. Trainer’sCrseRecord~(50)-(5)-(San)-(10%)
Current Course Record (50 runs) (5wins) (Sandown) (resultant 10%)
Owner’sCrseRecord~(1)-(1)-(San)-(100%)
Current Course Record (1 runs) (1win) (Sandown)(resultant100%)

Are these last 14 days or season and all codes, regardless of today’s race?

3. How is the value figure of 70 arrived at, using the six percentages in the example? It’s obviously not an average sum or the highest of the six?

Hope you can help.

GL

[grand lodge]

Hi Alexander, thanks for your reply.

I am still confused about certain details. Below, is your example that I copied from page 1:

13/9/06 (Wednesday) SANDOWN
3.35pm

Rating+Days+Class(67)-( 18 )-(Cl5)-(30%)
Unique rating figure (67) (achieved 18 days ago) (class 5) (resultant 30%)

How do you arrive at this percentage figure?

Trainer’sCrseRecord~(50)-(5)-(San)-(10%) [/b]
Current Course Record (50 runs) (5wins) (Sandown) (resultant 10%)

Is this last 14 days or season, and for all types of races/codes and is it only the strongly bet ones?

Owner’sCrseRecord~(1)-(1)-(San)-(100%)
Current Course Record (1 runs) (1win) (Sandown)(resultant100%)

Same question as above.

Can you give a working example of calculating the value figure?

Thanks again.

GL

[grand lodge]

Hi Alexander,

Congrats on a good post.

I would like to ask a few questions, if I may:

1. when compiling owner and trainer course stats, is this for current season only and do you break it down into categories, eg, hurdles, chases, nhf, 2yo, 3yo etc?

2. How do you arrive at a % on the rating+days+class line?

3. What is the formula for calculating the value figure?

Looking forward to your reply.

GL

[grand lodge]

I have studied the works of VDW for some years now and concluded that it is somewhat flawed in its method of evaluating races/horses.

First of all, form figures should not be taken by face value alone. You might as well add up the saddle cloth numbers for what useful information that gives out. He also had a suicidal way of conjuring up non-existent form figures, ie, if a horse had only run twice and had form figures of ’32’ then a ‘1’ would be added to make its tally ‘6’. Come on, even someone half as shrewd as VDW (allegedly) would not dream of getting away with such methods of folly in race evaluation!

Prize money: this has some form of feasibility, in particular with 4yo+ horses as there will be enough ‘settled’ information to arrive at a reliable evaluation. I think you would need to tread carefully with younger horses though. Lammtarra is a good example, off the top of my head; prior to it winning the Derby, it had only won one race as a 2yo, worth about 7k.

Where VDW finally becomes transparent, is at the last two rating columns he used. Nearly all his selections were, I think, top-rated in both. However, he would not divulge the method(s) he used to arrive at these ratings – dismissing readers by telling them it was only part of the picture and they could easily substitute it with their own methods. Why, then, say to one reader ‘start talking with your cheque book’ for demanding the ‘secret calculations’ if it was not an important ingredient to the overall method? Imagine myself selling a copy of War and Peace on Ebay with the last chapter missing and telling the disgruntled buyer that it is not important to the book, you can submit you own version of it if you like or I will send you the last chapter in exchange for a fat cheque. Enough said!

Personally, I cannot understand why people are still blowing on this expired ember – the pedestal, in my opinion, belongs to Stewart Simpson, but that’s another story.

[grand lodge]

Nice bit of advertising, Peter.

[grand lodge]

Jock Bingham wrote a couple of books on systems he had devised from the VDW methodology: One that I own is called 4 ways 2 win, I forget the name of the other.

GL

[Author]

Posts