Forum Replies Created
- Posts
You won’t find a VDW example like Red Gala – up in class, distance, AND weight. Not only up in actual weight by nearly a stone but also giving nearly a stone to class and form horses.
L33,
I agree with the above, but it does raise an interesting question. That being which horse is the c/form horse? Looking at some of the examples it isn’t the highest rated for ability. so why isn’t RG the actual c/form horse? Like Gaye Chance and others he isn’t the top rated for ability but he does have ratings backing. He is a distance winner and has won on the going. Who do you have as the class form horse, I can’t really see it can have been the winner because he had too many unaswered questions.
The point I was trying to make is even with a combination of the "negatives" you mentioned Soaf was a selection. He was going up in distance, class and weight (albeit only 7lbs), but all three of these negatives wasn’t enough to stop him being a selection.
Be Lucky
On to the question asked. In short it was a combination of ‘small things’ as you put it that should have warned anyone using the method that Red Gala was never a good thing, and indeed a false favourite.
L33,
Thanks for your reply, I agree there was enough to stop RG being a bet, but I’m not sure they were enough to make him a false favourite.
While I can see where your coming from with the "warnings" they singularly in themselves are not enough to rule any horse out of the equation. So just another clue as to why this not a system. For me at least many of the VDW selected races had conflict, and VDW again selected a few horses that had won their last races and then were going up in class and distance.
Class tells,
going to use his ratings for a while to see how it goes.
Can I ask who he is in the above quotation? If its VDW fair enough, but if its anyone else why do you think that is the answer. As said before Formcast has been forwarded as a possible solution, but it is a fact there was no Formcast published for the Erin. Also Sunset Cristo was the lowest of the runners in his race using Formcast, from memory he had a 68 to his name. It should also be remembered VDW said about these other ratings … The final two columns in the illustrations are my own ratings and were, like the ability ratings, evolved by myself, so will not be found in any publication, etc.
Be Lucky
Hensman,
That is what I was trying to find out was the difference in the ability rating the deciding factor against Red Gala for L33?
When the examples in SIAO are studied three times VDW didn’t take the top rated on ability, albeit for different reasons. He does say use two other rating to confirm what the reliability of the figures, if this is done Buccellati is found wanting whereas the 2nd rated RG isn’t.
Have to admit I didn’t look at the forecast in the Post, so I have no idea if B was in the first six, so I don’t know if he would have been in the reckoning using SIAO.
The point I’m trying to make is there is no way VDW should be on the systems thread/forum. There is far more to it than being a system. I think weight was a deciding factor against RG for many. Personally I wasn’t that happy with the course, and the fact his best form was over 10f.
Be Lucky
L33,
Can I ask why you didn’t put up Red Gala today? Please understand I’m not suggesting you should off, but I think many who look on VDW as a system would have expected him to be a selection.
If the criteria as set out in SIAO had been followed he would have looked good. Even down to the fact he was backed up by two different sets of ratings. He was the top rated using Formcast from the Mail, a rating that is often quoted as being something VDW used. I also think he was top rated using the RPR from the Post. + he was again top rated using one of the popular speed ratings. He was also a distance winner on good to soft. So what put you off? Was it a combination of "small" things, or one factor that said it can’t win this?
Be Lucky
Rob,
The way your working is sound and sensible, but I don’t think this is what Prufrock means by value betting. I of course could be wrong, but in reading his post on this thread and others, his idea seems to be backing a horse just because it is a better price than he thinks it should be. This for me should remain in the box labelled "theories" and that is where it should stay until someone comes up with a method of evaluating the "true" odds of any given horse winning a particular race.
This is very different from narrowing a race down to say a few horses and then ONLY backing them all, or even one IF it is a better price than the one YOU think reflects its true odds.
Be Lucky
For me the most important thing I look for is class, the class of the horse. How it is measured is up to you, but find a reliable method that has a proven track record. Class and form are interwoven so it is impossible to have form without class as the class dictates the worth of the form. To have worth it doesn’t have to be winning form. but winning form with worth is obviously a bonus.
Distance, going, type of course for me are also reliant on class, can the horse perform in this class? A horse wins a weak race on a course and it is classified as a C&D winner, why assume it can repeat the performance when stepped up in class?
Good class horses conform to their profiles in a far more reliable fashion the an average horse. Trainers are more inclined to look after these horses, and not run them in known unsuitable conditions. That is apart from being dictated to by certain good races, always being run on a particular course.
So in a word the most important thing I look for is CLASS.
Be Lucky
Sailing Shoes,
but the horse could be even better.
I could accept the above IF the horse had never tried a stiff right handed course before, but of course he had and failed. The going and distance were suitable and for those who put faith in the market he was a very short price.
Johnboyirish,
I’m afraid I have to agree, but also have to point out in many cases the problems are not caused by the doubters, but by the so called VDW fans themselves. Put up a winner they don’t agree with and the cry goes up but thats not a VDW selection. it wasn’t top on ability, consistency, in the forecast, hadn’t won on the going and/or distance, etc. IT ISN’T a system, there are no hard and fast rules just guide lines. Of course the doubters often have cause to complain because of the after timers "how many found the certainty in the 3:30 at X" posted at 6 o’clock later that night, or even the next day.
It will be interesting to see if any do decide to put up any real sort of analysis of any races. Here when I say analysis I don’t mean just a name or even a short list but some reasons why a horse has been selected in front of another. There are people who are quite happy to do this BEFORE the race, but ONLY when they can see others joining in.
Be Lucky
Most will be acquainted with the idea of looking for horses which are dropped in class. Often this is a race offering less prize money, but not necessarily so. The quality of horses engaged is more to the point.
Mandrake,
I don’t think any race can be classified by just looking at the title, G1. Listed, Hcp 2, that doesn’t work any more than looking at the penalty value. The words above are VDW’s so I think he would agree.
Be Lucky
By this time tomorrow the folk how complained about the VDW thread should be more than happy, it will have fallen on of the Horse Racing thread. I do accept it should never have been on there of course, what the devil would a method of analysing horse races do featuring on a thread that would be better served be called the Horse Racing Lounge. Nobody on here wants to discuss any sort of detailed horse race analysis, in fact I think I only found one thread that even came close.
For me at least one interesting thing emerged, and that was written by a "handicapper" class plays no part in handicaps. Well that person certainly wouldn’t understand VDW, but then I do wonder if he (the handicapper) understands horse racing. Now this person isn’t shy about giving his opinion, so no doubt he will put me right, if class doesn’t effect the result of races why bother to handicap them? Isn’t one of the aims of handicapping to give all the horses in a race the same chance, and to classify the grade of horse that can run in certain races? Does he really believe weight has the same effect on all horses, i.e 6lbs extra will slow all horses down by the same mount?
Not only would VDW give him an insight into class, I think it would help him and others to look at the course the horses perform to their best. Now again it may just be me, but I can’t help wondering why some folk think a horse who’s best winning form is on left handed speed course can’t perform on a right handed stiff track when it is competing against top class horses who have.
Then throw in a gentleman who somehow thinks the aim of the VDW thread is to seduce the "brains" into some dark website. If they have brains that would be impossible, and what would be the point? Charge these brains for information, torture their secrets out of them?
As I’m not sure who Hensman is I can’t speak for him, but for my part if anyone had shown any interest in analysing a few races I would have been more than happy to take part. Again I can’t speak for Johngringo but I do think he would have joined in and then perhaps some of the 9650 who bother to look in would have had something to judge the worth of the methods against. Who knows they may even had something to judge if class matters or not against, rather than just the word of a racing journalist/pundit.
Maggsy,
Sorry, I didn’t look at either of the races you mentioned. Apart from the Cambridgeshire the only other race I looked at was the 5:05 at Newm. I had a busy day so gave up on it because of the non runners.
While I agree it can be quite interesting to talk about races after the result is known, I wouldn’t advise doing it on here. The howls of "aftertimer", etc would be unbelievable. On an open forum like this I wouldn’t post any post race thoughts unless I had proof of those thoughts before the off.
I would say don’t get too tied up with the actual combination of the form figures. While being consistent is the first filter, it is just a starting point. Class is the important aspect of these methods. Whatever retired handicapers may say class wins races including hcps. IF handicapers. official or otherwise, think weight cancels out class perhaps that’s why VDW said hcps were is happy hunting grounds. Just a thought.
Be Lucky
Mtoto – you’re not actually VDW yourself are you? Just wondered as you do seem to have the old Dutchman on the brain!
Cormack,
No, I’m afraid not. Old I maybe but not that old. As this is a racing forum it is hardly surprising the only thing I mention on here is racing, but I do have many other interest.
As to having an old Duchman on the brain I hardly think that is fair. As said the only reason I came on here was to find out how others looked at VDW and why? Some answered the question but the why seems to be based on very little as they haven’t bothered to read the literature. I and a couple of others have tried to answer any questions raised about the method so once again it is hardly surprising the talk has been about VDW.
I went on to another thread and asked a question of someone who looked as if he had some views on VDW. Now this person has a couple of thread that talk about VDW, he has also written a book on the subject. Plus he has a whole page on his website dedicated to VDW and his ideas. Some of which I agree with and some I have doubts about.
So to be honest I don’t understand your question. I have found out what I wanted to know. Even on here very few have had a good look at VDW so have no real idea what its about. The other thing that is blatantly obvious judging by the number of hits there are a lot who are interested, either that or they are hoping to see a good row.
So knock me of the members list and I will go away. I have achieved what I wanted, I have no wish to "educate" anyone about VDW. However I do find it hard to ignore some of the rubbish that is spoken about his methods.
Bye
The reasons being that I have no interest in it at all nowadays and only posted on this thread to try and help Class Tells, who is.
Formath,
Please accept my apologies, but it is an easy mistake to make that you may have been interested in VDW. After writing a book, going into some detail on your web page, and more than a few mentions of VDW on the threads you frequent.
Be Lucky
(Tony Peach publishes a Sports Forum Special and away we went – but note the KEY is there before your very eyes above).
Formath,
Can I ask if you are suggesting the "key" is based on the form figures? I ask because to my eye there are a couple of horses with better looking combinations in Baronet’s race. At least one of these is also in the forecast. How/why do you think Mr Hall decided Baronet was the selection? Up to this point the only time VDW had mentioned using other ratings was when he mentioned the Erin, although he did say all relevant horse were rated using two different methods.
Be Lucky
Frankly, as guskennedy has implied, there are better things to be done with one’s time than to spell out these things painstakingly on an internet forum, so at this juncture I’ll take my leave.
Pru,
I can only say that is a great pity. I for one will certainly miss the input from both of you.
The point is that if you use filters something of small significance – such as a 1 lb advantage to 3-y-os over older horses in a given race – will be accorded the same weighting as something of great significance – such as a 15 lb disadvantage to a horse drawn wide at Chester.
Surely the above is only possible if you are treating race analysis like painting by numbers, and not using your brain?
Be Lucky
Sailing Shoes,
Apart from not bring class into your assessment I can see how you work, and if it works for you fair play. As said before I don’t very often even look at sprints, this is because right or wrong I have decided class doesn’t play as big a part in these races.
Looking at what you do assess, course, distance, and running style, likely pace in a race, all this is very much the same as myself and others I talk to. The main difference between us is I wouldn’t look at a race of that class under any circumstance what ever the distance. This is for a couple of reasons, the first is I don’t like trying to 2nd guess trainers. Is this the real target, is it a prep for something else, etc. The 2nd reason I do believe the better horses conform to their profile far better.
Have to say this filter variable has got a little out of hand. I only use a couple of filters and to me they do need a yes or no answer. The main one being is this horse in the lowest five for consistency? Even this is bypassed on ocasions, if I can see a very good reason why it has failed. I do use a filter when looking at class in as much as horse has to achieved a worhwhile speed figure before it is consisdered but the actual s/f isn’t the important factor the class of race it is achieved in is. I don’t use a filter for things like only course and distance, age, wins on going, etc.
Pru,
Are you saying a horse with a good set of variables would still be a bet if it was drawn in the carpark in a sprint at Chester? Using your methods it would still have a theoretical chance of winning and its price could well be higher than its theoretical chances, but is it a sensible bet? I also still think most punters use variables as filters.
Be Lucky
Using filters essentially says that the variables in use are of equivalent significance. A "trends" man may maintain that a horse meets 4 of the 5 requirements to win the race and therefore is a strong contender, but what if the one requirement it does not fulfill far outweighs the others in terms of significance?
It had three previous runs (tick), placed in two of them (tick), carries 9-00 or more (tick) and is returning from a break of no more than 36 days (tick). Problem is it is drawn out in the car park in a sprint race at Chester and might as well not turn up.
Pru,
With this example are you saying without using a filter your variable will somehow know the problems of a high draw at Chester? I don’t think so it surely would need to be asked to eliminate/down value the high draw? So what is the variable doing in this case a filter can’t? When talking about filters/variables I only looking at a few basics I would rather trust my brain to sort the finer points. Benter is just number crunching, little to do with proper race analyses. After reading the journalist in my daily I think he must follow this method, so can I ask is it the latest fashion with racing journalists? Crunch a few numbers and then try to rubbish what you don’t understand. Although in your case I would say you only don’t understand it beacuse you haven’t looked at it in detail.
Be Lucky
pro’s AP, Pru, Wallace and Gus
While I have seen AP and Pru on the television as racing pundits, and in the case of AP read a couple of his books, and articles in Odds On I don’t think I have heard of the other gentlemen. What I do wonder if these four meet and had a discussion would they all agree on the same things? Unless AP has changed his mind, reading some of his articles I didn’t get the impression he would agree on class, and value (or backing a horse just because it was over priced) Apologies AP if I have misunderstood.
While I do agree watching as many races as possible is one way, but first you have to learn what you are watching. Most folk have to work and that isn’t really an option. I video the races and have never used the videos on the RP or ATR sites so I can’t comment on those. I also agree forming your own opinion about a race or/and a horse is very important, but that is one of the reasons I take very little notice of the market. Why bother to form an opinion if it is only going to be swayed because others don’t agree with you?
As for Gus joining in the debate I don’t consider his effort can be called joining in. Pru did have a go but it was all very half hearted. When he did mention factors he looks for when assessing a race I was slightly disapointed to find they are very much the same as mine. But for what ever reason he dismisses VDW for being crude and simplstic, think he just fell into the Peach trap. This is too clever lets dumb it down for the general public.
Just to get it clear in my mind about what’s the best way to start off then;
1. VDW methods as stated in the literature, but study the examples, and concentrate on what was written BEFORE Mr Peach started dictating/suggesting what should be written. Read Systematic Betting with an open mind.
2. Watch as much racing as you can, after you have some idea what you are really looking at. Try to work out how you expect the race to be run. Use the mute button and then see if you watched the same race as the commentator.
3. Benter type models if this means use filters (variables if you wish to look clever) fair enough. The rest forget it only works with a small pool of horse running on similar tracks. The main trust of the method has nothing to do with serious race reading, and seems to be all about numbers
4. Handicapping (form/speed) but put your own (or someone elses proven) slant on them.Be Lucky
