Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Speedy Filly has had six outings and the form line reads 134120
Actuary,
I did wonder if that was what you meant, sorry. With that consistency rating it would stand at 13. If it was one of the lowest five c/r’s in the race I would then look at the chances of the horse being a probable. With a 0 last time out the chances of it being a probable would be very slim.
Right, or wrong I work on the consistency rating being based on the last three finishing positions in races only, without making any allowances. If for argument sake instead of a 0 the last race had been 1 or 2 making a c/r of 4/5 (and every chance of being a probable). When moving on to assessing form only the form from turf would be taken in a race on turf, and of course only the A/W form if an A/W race.
I think perhaps it should be said I don’t use the usual ability rating. I think that was introduce at a later stage to make up for the fact VDW wasn’t prepared to explain in detail his rating(s). I think that rating was the original ability rating.
Be Lucky
AW is one of those factors. I would be interested to know when creating your form line rating whether you factor in all weather form.
Actuary,
The short answer to that is no, I don’t use A/W form when looking at turf races. By the same token I don’t use turf form for the A/W
One of the flaws I can recall was with horses winning a high prize money race as a 2yo. Years later they keep appearing as potential bets but have not won since.
This is just one of the reasons it is a method not a system. Just because a horse is consistent and in the forecast it isn’t an automatic selection. There are NO automatic selections, being top rated for ability, or anything else for that matter isn’t enough.
I have to mention that when I typed the word ‘flaws’ I question who the bloody hell am I to question VDW such is his reverence even today!
VDW said himself don’t take my word check it out for yourself and then decide. So you have as much right as anyone else to "question" his ideas. While I think VDW was light years ahead of his time I don’t agree with all of his ideas. Some of his selections I couldn’t back with any/much confidence.
To be honest I can not remember an Annabell
I’m not sure but I think her real name may have been Karen. She gave the impression she worked/helped with you on your racing ideas. She also pointed me to an article you had written and posted on a forum. I thought is was very good and kept it for a long time. In it you used RPR and Top Speed ratings and as I have little or no faith in them I didn’t use the ideas, as much as I liked them. It was also interesting to get another mind set (a women’s) on racing.
Be Lucky
For something that many think has long past its sell by date, I’m quite surprised at the number of hits this thread has achieved.
Actuary,
Anyone who uses the VDW mythology today would have also needed to make sound judgements along the way to keep it relevant causing a drift away from the original VDW method of selection.
Have to say I don’t think one has to "drift" away from the original VDW method, it works as well today as it always has. That is once it is understood it is a method and not a system. Although I’m still far from convinced 80%+ is possible with straight win bets (unless one is happy with mainly short priced selections).
I wouldn’t call myself a "speed handicapper" but I do use speed when making my selections. Like you I don’t adjust for weight in fact it isn’t used in any of my calculations. However unlike you I mainly steer well clear of the A/W, over the last few years the bets I have had on that surface could be counted on one hand.
Are you still in touch with Annabell? She joined one of the first VDW forums, but dropped out.
C the S,
I’m not sure I agree with you about the VDW ratings not being key to the methods. Agreed, he said ratings are not be and end all, but I have yet still to find any set of ratings that would have made Beacon Light well out of it in that race. So key or not they are worth their weight in gold.
Be Lucky
OFO,
For me the answer to your question has to be. Have consistent/improving horses stopped winning the valuable races? Is it no longer logical to have a reliable method of assessing a horses ability, and are the best horse still winning the majority of the valuable races? The answer has to no to the first, and yes to the second, they are still coming up with the goods.
Will the answers shown in SIAO bring you success, the answer is still no. There is far more to it than a few simple rules.
If anything has been written that comes anywhere near the importance of the VDW literature I have missed it. There have been some interesting idea voiced, but I have yet to find one that couldn’t be improved by applying some of the basic factors suggested by VDW.
Can these ideas be improved on? Here I think VDW himself explained the ability rating judged by prize money had its flaws, and that can be improved on. He said the competition was the true class of a race, not always the prize.
I agree an hour looking at just one race is far to time consuming. With a little forethought, and organisation, I find even cards like Cheltenham or Royal Ascot can be cut down to a few horse that need to studied in detail in each race in a very short time.
Be Lucky
John can’t get to a computer at the moment, and I have been asked to pass on his selection for today…………….
Newm 4:05 Premio Loco
Be Lucky
Pipstead King Goerge V Handicap (0-110) Class 113 Speed Fig 65 (Soft)
Gorgeous Strike Northern Dancer Handicap (0-110) Class 192 Speed Fig 79 (Good)Monster,
A quick question if I may. Are the above s/f the best achieved to that date for both those horses, and where they the last runs for both horses?
Be Lucky
Interesting to see s/f being discussed in relation to VDW. Many of the VDW experts think s/f have very little to do with VDW’s thinking, and they were only used to compile lists. I have never quite been able to understand this thinking as these lists in the main were lists of GOOD horses to follow when conditions suited. The main factor used to decide if the horse was good enough was the s/f. If this applies to young horses 2/3 year olds why not older horses? In fact VDW did say ANY horse, subject to certain conditions could be entered on a list. even NH horses.
One of the reasons put forward against s/f being used in the methods seems to be based on Mr Peach saying VDW only mentioned s/f AFTER he ( Mr Peach) had suggested using them. VDW says he was using s/f as far back as 1967 long before his first letters to the SCHB. He also said Jock Bingham was well on his way to understanding the methods, and JB used s/f.
VDW suggested using the unadjusted s/f, and not to adjust for weight carried on the day. This being so I don’t think it matters what s/f are used, but stick to the same ones once/when you have decided. I think a realistic s/f is 100+ for 2 year olds and would look for 110 for 3 year olds +. Not adjusting for weight carried on the day I think makes sense as speed is the commodity being measured. The effect weight may, or may not have on a horse is open to debate, and I think there are often elements like class, and course configuration, that have a bigger effect than weight.
Be Lucky
I’ve also heard others say this and that theres no way of knowing which few bets will make the difference at the end of the year so they have to back them all.
Maggsy,
But does that mean go looking for them, and/or back just because a race happens to be taking place? I don’t think so.
Interesting you should mention Alan Potts as I would like to think it is his method of working/betting I have tried to follow. He said he tries to keep to the better /classier races. After reading his books I didn’t get the impression he was backing numerous horses in the same race. However I did get the impression he was looking for the most likely winner, he is looking for value about his seleted horse, so why am I an imbecile? What am I doing apart from disagreeing with Prufrock that makes me an imbecile, and completly wrong with my approach?
Perhaps I did word my post incorrectly (that could/would explain the semi literate jibe) when I said Mr Nevison knew little about racing. I should have said he knows more about figures and theories. I do know when I listen to him as a racing pundit I’m not overly impressed with his logic. However after reading about his exploits at Plumpton I do get the feeling he does relish meetings, and races where randomness is more likely to happen.
Be Lucky
Thanks for the advice.
My pleasure.
I have made a decent living on and off from punting in the last 6 years (only breaking off to pursue other remunerative ventures) and have never done better than when pressing my advantage by being prepared to back/lay win/place every horse in a dozen or more races a day.
I now understand why luck and/or randomness is important to you.
But, clearly, I could do even better.
I certainly think with a little hard work you could cut down your expenditure. If you selected your races/bets with greater care would you really need so many bets? I have no doubt you and others that work like this make money. Although when I see Mr Nevison and his like it does cross my mind they operate like this because in truth they know little about racing and are just playing a numbers game. Of course I have no idea of the sort of profits made but I’m 100% sure I could match them for a far smaller out lay.
Randomness not all its cracked up to be.
How can you possibly predict or explain the processes that go into horses leaving the stalls and taking up positions – possibly on slower or faster going, chasing a slower or faster pace, or finding themselves blocked in or getting a clear run – in a Flat race?
Prufrock,
Answering your question would be more fun than accepting your invitation.
First I never back in any sprint races giving horses time to take up their positions. If the horse I’m considering has a reputation for playing up, or being slowly away I take that into consderation when measuring its chances. I usually leave the going aspect to the trainer (as I only back good horse the trainer isn’t likely to take risks) UNLESS the horse has shown a marked preference for a particular going. The pace in the races I back in is usually a good to fair one, but even then I do look to see where its drawn and who is drawn around it. I never back in really small fields unless there is a proven front runner who has the class to lead well into the closing stages. As for horse not getting a clear run this does happen in some of the big hcps, but even then with attention to the running syle, jockey, and field postition likely to be taken the instances of this can be cut to a minimum. For me one of the most important factors I look at is the course type, often you can eliminate horses, some of them very short priced favourites because the course isn’t suitable.
Agreed, even after taking all this trouble things can go wrong. Instead of looking for bad luck or randomness I go through the race again to see if the mistake was MINE, after watching the race again I can make the decision. I very seldom excuse bad luck in running unless the incident is obvious. Many "unlucky" horses are repeat performers, same as unlucky punters, with the punters in many cases is it luck, or other reasons?
I can only think you are either backing far to many horses (if you have backed thousands in recent years) or you are not choosing your races with enough care.
Be Lucky, but do your homework first. You can’t have one without the other.
Dave Jay, as a matter of interest, does it change your view on any of what was "discussed" on the infamous VDW thread? Having embroiled myself in that particular waste of time,
Dave Jay,
I’m afraid it was this post by Prufrock that caught my attention in this thread. I mistakenly thought when he talked about randomness it was a quantifiable factor that could be used then assessing a race. Not just an academic theroy that has little or no part in assessing a particular horses chances in any race.
I wish you luck and hope you solve what for me is insolvable. If/when you do, hopefully it will stop the lazy/poor punter from using randomness as an excuse, even more importantly it will stop them using it to make themselves look academically superior to the poor sod who has taken the time analyse a race properly.
Yes, luck, randomness can happen to any horse at any time, but that goes for ALL the runners in any race. Knowing that can’t give anyone an edge, and backing horses hoping it will intervene, is a bigger waste of time than VDW will ever be.
Good Luck
Mtoto .. how else would you measure a series of races for randomness?
Dave Jay,
As it is something I have never considered important I haven’t given the matter much thought. I just can’t see how the fate of a certain set of horses be it first, second, third favourites or rank outsiders can be used to show it. Some of the winners from these categories must also have benefited from the results of randomness as well as the losers. I don’t really see how randomness can be measured, what is it? Is it the same for everyone, I look at a race/horse and see a possible weakness, you can’t see it. When/if it happens something that is random to you, isn’t for me.
The nearest I come to looking at the truly unexpected result is when my rating fail to include the winner of a race. I only work in the highest class races so when I say good horses conform to their profiles I can only talk from my own experience. It would be fair to say it is a rarity when a race is won by a horse that didn’t figure in the ratings. As I have no intention of explaining how I formulate the ratings any stats I give would be meaningless as they can’t be checked. However even with these unexpected results very few are down to randomness.
Be Lucky
This is looking at all of the favourites, in all of the races and then working out in which class the favourite is most likely to win. The class argument should see the higher class favourites doing better than lower class favourites which is clearly not the case. In fact the opposite is true.
Dave Jay,
Why do you think just because a horse is the favourite it stands a better/higher chance of winning? In most/many cases in these better class races hype is the only reason some of these horses are made favourite. Even more so in many of the class 2 hcps. The record of the favourites may prove something to you, but for me it is just another stat that proves little/nothing..
I agree it maybe harder to isolate the "true" class horse in higher grades of racing and easier in the lower classes. It is the fact that finding the class horse that highlights the likely winner, not being the favourite.
Be Lucky
Prufrock,
The 2:10 at Newbury today was a race that looked as if randomness played a major part. Using this race can you show me how knowing it exists is helpful, and can give one an edge?
Formath on another thread fancied the winner and was happy to put a price against the runners. Looking at the prices he put up I don’t think he had taken randomness into account. However if he wanted to he could have easily added a few points to ALL the runners to cover that eventuality. To cover these unforeseen events the chances of them happening MUST apply to all the runners otherwise it can’t be random.
This race may have shown you randomness is important and does happen, fair enough. Formath had looked for the likely winner, and because of this he could have allowed something in the price for the unexpected. You say this isn’t the way to go, for me it is the only sensible to approach the game.
Be Lucky
Now you are putting words into my mouth.
Prufrock,
That certainly isn’t my intention, I really am trying to understand where your coming from.
But randomness is a factor and plenty of performances require no explanation other than that things do not always happen as we expect them to. Even more performances require no explanation other than that if things had happened differently, though in a way that we could not reasonably predict, the result would have been different.
If there are plenty of exmples could you point me to one or two? Here I’m talking about good class races, the type of race a horse would be trained and aimed at, not a run of the mill "bookie fodder" race. I firmly believe class horses run to their profile consistently and randomness plays little part in these races. I also have some trouble with classifying randomness with when something happens you or I didn’t except, surely randomness is ONLY when something happens NOBODY expected.
Be Lucky
I didn’t think that people would not believe in it.
Dave Jay
It isn’t that I don’t believe in randomness, I just don’t think it plays an important part in horse racing. Roulette, dice, and the lottery fair enough. I can’t see knowing randomness exists can give you an edge in horse racing. All you can do is adjust the prices on all the runners to allow for it, if it bothers you.
I am a form (and a time) student through and through, but my punting improved greatly when I started excusing past bad performances more and not being carried away by past good performances as much as I used to.
Prufrock,
I’m afraid the above statment has lost me. When you are looking at form good or bad, are you not trying to find a reason for that performance? If it is all down to randomness why bother with the form aspect?
This is a bit of an overspill from a previous thread in which some people seemed to think that races had predetermined outcomes and that all you needed to do to be a good punter was to crack the puzzle often enough.
I suppose it depends on how you view a good punter. For me a good punter is one who has weighed all the reasonable situations that could happen for or against your bet. After this is done a price against the horse winning is measured and if/when a fair price or better can be found you take it. If this can be done often enough you win/make a profit and are a good punter. Whats a good punter in your eyes?
Be Lucky
Dave Jay,
Thanks for the reply. To be honest the post was aimed at Prufrock as I’m still trying to understand his "strange" logic. He was the first to bring this "randomness" to my attention and I was rather hoping it would explain, or help to explain his thinking.
The way I’m reading this thread is luck or randomness as he prefers, must apply to all the runners in a race, so how does it give an edge? Surely it effects all the runners whatever their price? Sorry but the whole thing smacks of guessing, can anyone really back a horse hoping luck will intervene. Even if it does look like luck is it really? On Saturday a horse fell at the last when it looked the winner. I had looked at the race it was over the fixed brush hurdles. I had decided a chaser, or a French horse would win it as the technique needed to jump these fences is different to conventional hurdles. The horse that fell was "unlucky" the winner was "lucky" but where does the punter who had done his homework stand? He didn’t back the unlucky horse, and may have backed the lucky horse does that make him lucky?
You, and others have made this an interesting thread, and I thank you for giving me something to think about. But in the long run don’t we all make our own luck by doing the homework. Yes, sh1t happens, but how can you back horses hoping the unexpected (and sometimes the not so unexpected) is going to pay off in the long run. For me anyway this is a nonsense. The only way forward to study the form book, do your homework, and find the value. Value is backing a horse(s) with a good chance of winning at prices better than expected.
Be Lucky
