Forum Replies Created
- Posts
VDW’s basic numerical picture, which you choose not to use as set out, is the platform for EVERYTHING he writes about.
L33.
I suppose it depends on what one uses as his basic numerical picture, before that statment becomes fact. As far as I’m concerned I use the numerical picture as shown in the first example the Erin. Apart from telling me I’m wrong I can’t see much in the way of explaination from your side. As this is so I take it you work on the basics as set out in SIAO ( the oringinal VDW for Dummies).
It is all very well talking about VDW expanding on his methods how about looking at what went first? If the basics in SIAO are used as presented 14 of the 38 examples shown before the article FAIL to be found using it, including the first one.
I rate every horse for ability, I use the c/rating, in fact I use the whole formula as SET out in the same order.
I’m more than happy the methods work, although I will never have a win strike rate of 80% +. This is down to me as I can’t bring myself to back ANY short priced horse to win. I would rather back a horse to be placed, often at better prices than can be achieved for a win.
Be Lucky
First of all, the adding up of the form figures is basically for the consistency data-column.
GL,
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
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
After all, this thread is to try and help newbies to better understand the method.
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?
Be Lucky
L33,
If you explained how you see consistent form we may start to get somewhere. I have explained how I see and use the first element of the equation. It works for me and it works for the examples. I’m happy I’m using consistent form,m but can you explain how you make Wayward Lad, Ekbalco, Soaf, and even Celtic Pleasure work your way?
Pipedreamer
That’s a little naughty.
It is obvious IF they are the c/rating they can’t be correct. However did VDW ever say they were? I think the only mistake is showing them in the first place. I think they are ranking for the consistent horses, and as such of no great importance.
Be Lucky
Why did VDW find it necessary to lay out the form as he did in the Pegwell Bay and Roushayd drafts hinting that there was more than one numerical picture?
L33,
Was it the form or the class VDW was trying to show in these examples? As with all these example the tendancy is to take what you want from them to prove the already preconceived ideas. With Pegwell Bay VDW states………From the three most consistent ratings (first numerical picture), the three highest ability ratings are.
Wait a minute how are the four horses listed the three most consistent? Warner For Leisure has a rating of six were as Bishops Yarn has a seven, ok WFL isn’t in the forecast but there again neither is BY.
The consistency ratings had already been calculated for each horse, it was a matter then of studying the form of all taking particular note of…
Doesn’t the above prove my point? Consistency and form are two different things and that’s what I’m saying you caluclate the c/r and THEN look at the form.
Be LuckyI recall that you started your VDW studies with Systematic Betting? Perhaps it is you then that studied the earlier letters and examples with preconceived ideas.
L33,
You are quite correct with the above statement. The difference is I couldn’t make sense of the early examples using the methods and thinking others were putting foreward to solve them. I was being ask to accept things I couldn’t see the logic in i.e. Beacon Light was a non form horse because he couldn’t beat Sea Pigeon giving him weight on a course and going that didn’t suit. So I decided to try the lessons shown in SB and they worked they solved the early example including those shown by Mr Hall
Reading your consistent form piece I have to say I find myself in agreement with you Form represents a degree of achievement. What I can’t see is VDW showed us how he looked at consistency and then gave stats confirming his views, he also said these stats were based on the bare figures as you say DISREGARDING all other factors. The way I’m reading post (and Crock’s) you are saying the form has to be consistent and/or progressive, now it may just be me but I think more than a few of his selection didn’t comply to that thinking. I have seen it said on occasions that form is good enough to be considered consistent, but that is after the fact because VDW made the horse the selection.
Cormack
I think the idea is to look for consistent horses THEN look for its best ever performance and use that to measure its chances in the race being considered. Form and class are interwoven.
Be Lucky
GL,
The article you have posted was written by Marchwood, but it was taken and adapted form another VDW forum. The original article was written by a chap who had a far better grasp on VDW than Marchwood ever will. In saying that I’m not happy with the conclusions reach by the original writer.
I can see no way Prominent King’s last run was any better than Beacon Lights. I can see no reason for coming to the conclusion BL was out of form or gone off the boil. If VDW thought this why is BL included as a probable? I also find it very hard to believe Decent Fellows last run is only worth a 10, and VDW made 4 mistakes in the c/rating out of five horses.
Marchwood says he used Split Second s/f and OR’s to compile a rating for PK. BL had the highest s/f and OR of these two horses on all the figures I have seen.
Be Lucky
Consistent form
As said before consistency is a separate issue to form. Why consistent horses? I think because it is an easily to measure factor that holds good today, and still helps narrow the field. I think it impossible to argue with the stats consisent horse win more races than inconsistent horses. I think VDW was quite explicit when he talked about consistency, it was the last three form figures added together. Simply that, although many would have you believe he used other methods when talking about consistency. Position in past markets is one that is often thrown up.
Form, many seem to work on is the horse in form, does the horse have progressive form, etc. I think it is, does the horse have the form to compete with the competition in this race?
How important is this first element? If you are using the consistency/basic method logic tells you a horse needs to be consistent, or it wouldn’t be considered in the first place. However no horse is ever backed just because it is consistent, ALL the facets of the formula are required to be in place.
Be Lucky
He later remarked that “It would seem the object of the exercise was lost, which is a pity and a waste of my efforts – because had it been understood it would have carried readers a long way.â€
Garston,
As I didn’t ever join that forum, it is only hearsay. As far as I can tell the site was withdrawn because the "owner" took unbridge that the tipster he introduced was pants. Reading between the lines the whole thing was down to selling VDW E-books and then promoting this tipster. To be fair the stick that was given out to the tips was waranted, and the introduction (unproofed) did look pretty good but in practice it was a disaster. Often three selection per race and just as often not a winner to be seen.
So in short just another person trying to make money of the back of VDW!!
Be Lucky
Cormack.
If folk have read the VDW literature, and studied a few of his examples I think in the main it is self explanatory. I do agree there are a few anomalies, and Mr Peach (or anyone who decided to write about) should have at least tried to explain, if in deed they are even aware of them.
For me summed up the whole process with his formula Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + HardWork – Winners.
If you take the first element consistentcy, I think it is still a fact that consistent horses win a major % of races. The consistent horse that are in the front of the forecast also still hold the best chances. I do feel perhaps the form factor shouldn’t have been coupled with consistency beacuse they are two very seperate things, it would have been better to couple it with ability.
Form can be looked at in two ways and this can be a problem. Is a horse IN form or does the horse HAVE the form? A horse can be in form but still stand no chance of winning a race. So I work on does the horse have the form?
Ability however one looks at this, a measure of a horses ability/class (an accurate one) is a must if you are going to back winners.
Capability, for me this is the question can this horse perform to its best (or well enough) to win this race? Class of race, competition are two major factors, along with going, distance, course etc.
Probability this for me is a slight stubbling block. I know what I need to measure it but did VDW use the same variables. Whatever, it does make sense to put a figure against how you see the chances of your horse winning a race. Here I think your views are just as important as the market, you hopefully have used logic can that always be said about the market?
Hardwork that goes without saying.What did VDW do, he not only gave you the basics in his formula he explained in his examples how to find the factors needed to back winners. He also explained it pays to stick to the top class races. Although the procedure can be used in low class races he said we are looking for GOOD class consistent horses. Consistency is just one starting point, he then when on to show how improvement could be measured.
and used to find winners.Finally whatever VDW is it isn’t a system.
Be Lucky
Garstonf,
First may I say a very impressive set of stats. Can I then point out using them wouldn’t have shown VDW’s first example winner Prominent King. Although VDW hadn’t shown or mentioned an ability rating at this time I am in no doubt he was in fact using one. This I believe because he mentioned he had used two sets of ratings to find the winner of the Erin. He also said all relevent horse are rated using two different methods.
I think these ratings must have been very powerful and accurate as I have still not found any commercial rating rating that had PK in front of Beacon Light. Working the way I think VDW did I have found a way of achieving that. I have no wish to appear rude but your figures prove little with out the use of at least one of his unspecified ratings. All you are doing is using the very basic elements and like those who try to make them into a system that fail.
Be Lucky
Pipedreamer,
Proven was dropping in class 71 from 89 the way most work.
Son Of Love wasn’t in the lowest three for consistency or the forecast. I make him joint 4th best with a c/r of 8. The form book seems to be missing a win (or two) from his 2 year old career.
Be Lucky
Maggsy,
Mandrake has it in one, yes I’m looking at Braashee and Cossack Guard. I also agree with Hensman that no one element can be taken/used by its self. Although I do have a slight problem with CG not being a form horse and as said he is consistent. I can’t see why conflict isn’t a problem IF weight is used in the conventual manner either. That brings us back to did VDW use weight in the same way as others? I can see he may have used it to judge if a horse was capable of carrying a weight. As he himself said, class is the kingpin would he have said ok that horse carried x in a low class race I assume he can carry it against better class horses.
As for the distance question, as many of his selections had NOT won over the distance did he leave that question to be answered by the trainer?
Be Lucky
Consistency, Ability, Weight, are all fundamental factors to the successful working of the method, the balance between class and form. They are factors that VDW went in to in great detail, directly and indirectly. They are aspects that in isolation or in combination people still choose to ignore believing them to be unimportant; why is this?
L33,
I can only speak for myself, but of the three elements you mention above weight is the only one I ignore. Why is this, simply because I have solved many if not all of the old examples by not using it. You use the word balance, but I do feel some get very unbalanced when it comes to weight. Canny Danny is being used as an example as to why weight is important but in truth he was only carrying 3lbs more than when he won at Sandown (+ he had carried bigger weights and still run well) so actual weight carried wasn’t the problem. For me there were two other problems, the handicapper had underestimated the worth of another horse in the race. More importantly I think another of VDW factors was over looked that factor he also spoke about many times and it isn’t included in your three elements to be considered, the course. Why did VDW use weight to explain the defeat, I think because it is the scape goat most understand, and of course when the figures for the race are looked at CD comes out joint last?
Be Lucky
For instance there are many who believe that weight isn’t a factor in the method? How can this be when VDW remarked on it many times?
L33,
I can find weight mentioned in The Golden Years 36 times, but very few of these are actually from VDW. Yes he does say weight is a great leveller, and he does say horses have INDIVIDUAL weight limits beyond which THEY do not perform. Does that mean you accept a horse can carry a big weight is say a class 2 hcp because it carried it successfully in a class 4 hcp at the being of its career?
I have serious doubts VDW looked at weight the same way as many do. If he did why isn’t weight mentioned when he gives his advice on what to look for when studying form here he said… 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. No mention of weight carried. He also said don’t adjust the s/f for weight carried on the day. He also didn’t bat an eyelid when he put up a horse to defy a 7lb turn around for a neck beating.
Had the RG race been ran at level weights do you believe that the result would have been the same?
There is no accurate way to answer that question. He didn’t finish as if weight was the problem. What I do know is even if it had been a none hcp I still wouldn’t have backed RG to win that race.
Be Lucky
