[Mtoto44]

AP,

The "be lucky" is just wishing you all well. I’m sure you must know even after the hard work is done we all need that little bit of luck.

Mtoto in the 88 Arc drove that home to me. An opening a split second earlier and he would have been home and dry.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

IMO, you have to get away from trying to find winners and try to find the best value horse. Selective systems that try and pin point winners don’t work, over a period of time.

Dave J,

Surely to make any real sense the above statment should read, You have to find winners that are running at value prices. Backing a horse JUST because it is a value price doesn’t work over any time period. If you have applied whatever rating you use and then applied the common sense guide lines, going, etc. to your list. For a start if that list contains one or more of the short end of the market AND your selection is above those horses are you then not on your way to a value bet? Even if it isn’t higher in the list but close on the ratings then it could also be a value bet.

Maggsy,

I hope that is another fallacy put to bed. VDW showed six examples where the horse wasn’t in the required position in the forecast ( seven if you count Little Nugget). He also said class is the king pin without it nothing else counts, but even with it the other important factors are needed. Consistency is just a filter and it judges nothing apart from basic consistency. Form is something else again, perhaps VDW would have been better served by not heading the formula with consistent/form. It seems to confuse as it appears to have done with Pru if he thinks consistency has anything to do with judging ability.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

If you look at horses not in the first 6 in the betting and consistant ie with a rating of 6 or less you get 64 wins from 1490 4.3% 38%loss according to RSB.

Maggsy,

For the above figures to make any sense in Saturdays race the question fed into RSB would/should include the class/ability factor. While I do agree about being doubtful about the prize money abroad, I would point out I didn’t use this when I made him the class horse. There is a VDW example were he shows how this is done.

Of course it can never be proven but I’m quite happy that Candidato Roy would have been seriously considered by VDW and been included in any bet type he decided appropriate, book, place, or e/w bet.

I did note Pru pointed out Warwick was a very different type of course to Ascot, and I completly agree. The logic behind backing him at Ascot was perhaps the reason he was sold and brought to Britain was to find a very different type of course than those he had been running on straight and stiff! The trainer and jockey were also very interesting but the only reason he came to my attention was his place in the class ranking, although a second place in them would still have had me looking very hard at him.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Sailing Shoes,

Thanks for your reply, and as you say it is just down to interpretation. VDW uses the word class when he is looking at ability. I don’t usually work with sprints as I have found sheer speed often cancels out class/ability, and it is easier for a sprinter to bridge the class barriers.

Artemis,

While I do use OR’s as part of my measure of class, I’m nearly frightened to say actual weight carried doesn’t come into the equation for me. Here I must say that isn’t a VDW point of view just my own.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Pru is quite correct, Class has little or no part to play in the results of handicap races, however this could depend on your interpretation of ‘Class’.

Sailing Shoes,

Can I play devils advocate as well, and ask what your interpretation of class is? I notice this idea that class pays no part in hcps has also been voiced by Guskennedy. I can understand his thinking up to a point as he specialises in sprints.

Pru at least has given an idea of how he looks at a race, as I said then I condsider I look at much the same. However because I’m interested in VDW I appear to have an illogical view on the project. However this thread has gone a fair way in explaining why I can often get well over the odds on some of my selections, I do wonder how many think class doesn’t effect the result in hcps. Its great to have an edge.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Cormack,

Does this mean I’m cleared to post on here?

And…finally – "it is the balance between class, form and the other factors [by which he meant capability and probability] which shows the good things" – surely that is the basis for ANY selection process worth it’s salt.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the above statement, but I think we are being asked to believe it doesn’t count in hcps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Mtoto44

Member
Posts: 141
(29/9/07 14:20)
Reply | Edit

Re: Saturday 29th September 2007 My understanding is the 48 hour decs were brought in to make racing a more sellable product. I don’t quite see how this works when punters can spend hours going through a race only for it to be decimated by non runners. Not only can your selection be pulled out but the whole shape of a race altered.

Ascot 3:40

Candidato Roy 1
Lovelace 2
Mutanaseb 3
Utmost Respect 4

Candidato Roy a surprising top rated, Jack Sullivan was the original top rated until his withdrawl. Although CR is now the top rated it is using completly different form lines than the ones used for JC. he is also a very hard horse to weigh up only having one run in Britain. Also have no idea about the draw at this stage. The only thing that stops me just putting a line through him is the jockey/trainer, both could have different options. I am toying with a place bet here, but only a small one and it won’t be used in the place doubles.
Lovelace, improving young horse. Course, distance, and going should suit, in fact he has handled everything that has been put in front of him. As he runs up with the pace that shouldn’t be a problem. He looks like a true group horse running in a hcp and more importantly over the right distance.
Mutanaseb, while slightly sub standard last race could be put down to the going it could just have easily been the stiff straight course. His best form has been round a bend. Can’t see him being good enough to win this.
Utmost Respect although he won the consolation race last week I have used his figures from the race before that as I make it the better performance. Although I had him top rated to win that, he didn’t figure very well in the big race proper. He is young enough to improve but I do have him with a lot to find with Lovelace, and he also has the distance to cope with.

Lovelace = c/f and a bet win and place. Candidato Roy is worth a SMALL place only bet.

Edited by: Mtoto44 at: 29/9/07 14:23

Cormack,

You mean like the above, note the date and time? Can I ask why you think I would allow you or anyone else to dictate which races I bet in? Can I also ask why you think I would want to play you’re game? If you read my letter to the RFU I think you will find I have no wish to prove anything. As stated before my only reason for highlighting the 3:40 was in response to impression VDW is/was outdated.

I only came on here to try to get an idea how some of the more intelligent punters view VDW.

Its your house and I respect that. If you think this thread is unworthy of a place here take it down. If you decide to cull it all I ask is you leave some of the more sensible answers up. Please try to judge those on their worth and not by the authors name and supposed worth in the racing media.

I have nothing to sell, my only aim was to try and counteract some of the absolute bilge spewed out by so called racing journalists and pundits.

Be Lucky all

[Mtoto44]

JohnG,

The real reason the 3:40 at Ascot was mentioned was in response to the folk who keep saying the method(s) are out dated, or to crude to succeed today.

Hensman has shown how the bare figures are arrived at, and that is fair enough. Pru has raised a few of the doubts I have about the worth of those figures. What he, and no one else can deny is they did narrow the field to include the winner. How many using commercial or well known ratings could have achieved that?

As I have stated previously I don’t use the ability rating shown by VDW (and the one shown by Hensman) in fact until it was pointed out on the VDW forum I didn’t realise the ranking order of that ability rating. I use a rating I think VDW used and one I think is stronger in the logic stakes. In saying that it is just another facit that was picked up by taking the time and effort to read and understand VDW’s thinking.

I did think by bring this race to everyones attention it not only showed that VDW worked in the HARDEST of all types of races a large field hcp at a top class meeting. It also showed value winners can be found without number crunching (and theories) all it takes is a little knowhow.

To those who have mention aftertiming, I wouldn’t have mentioned the race unless I was happy I could prove my assesment was made before the race. I don’t really see the point of putting up the assessment of this race now as I have put up other races again from the major hcps at top meetings. I can only assume ( based on remarks made on this thread) some folk haven’t bothered to read them if they still think VDW is just a system. However some maybe interested to see my top rated four on ability, Please note races won and prize money plays no part in this rating …

Candidato Roy 1
Lovelace 2
Mutanaseb 3
Utmost Respect 4

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

As for VDW, this is a good starting point for beginners but is not a method for serious punters looking to earn a living from the game.

Hi,

Can I ask the number crunchers how they got on with the 3:40 at Ascot? This method that is outdated and of no real use came out with the winner. A flash in the pan well not for me, and others that use the method. Fair enough I only backed him for the place and others included him in their book, but everything you need is there to find the winners and/or to make a profit. A starting point I don’t think so, not if the time and trouble is taken to read what is written.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Pru,

I read your post that starts… I am a form and time man (I left out the sectionals part as I’m still trying to get to grips with it) with great interest. The interest is based on if I had been asked to discribe my outlook on racing I could have written it. I hasten to say perhaps not as eloquently, but certainly with the same content. All of these things are part of the VDW thinking and anyone who has studied it would agree VDW covered them in some detail.

I too watch as much racing as I can, and form my own opinions, but I do like those opinions to be backed up with hard figures. I too accept every horse has a theoretical chance of winning a race, but here the difference is the theory part doesn’t happen often enough to make it worthwhile.

I have also read about Bill Banter and the bit that stuck in my mind is the fact his method only works because he is only dealing with a small pool of horses on a few race tracks. As much as I admire anyone that make money from backing horses, I feel his method has little to do with form reading, thus just making it number crunching.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Can I be the first then to come straight out and agree with Graham Wheldon?

Guskennedy,

Of course you may. That was/is the whole point of this thread. I notice you have been asked why you believe VDW is arrent nonsense and like GW you can’t or won’t answer that question. So can I ask when you read the VDW literature, what did you read that gave you that impression? Do you not agree a very large % of the better races are won by consistent (or improving ) horses, and the horse from the front of the forecast also win a large % of these races? Do you not think it is sensible to find away of judging a horses ability, and to find out if the horse can act in the condidtions of a race on the day?

All of this makes sense to me, but for you to be so adamant you must be able to point to the flaw.

While I can see why you think VDW was the biggest aftertimer. Can I ask do you think the same about everyone that writes a book giving examples of how they work? GW wrote a book using examples and to find his selections for the future you either had to pay him or study the examples. So did you study VDW’s examples, or just dismiss the whole thing out of hand as being too basic so it can’t possibly work, and base your logic on that?

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Mtoto44, I don’t understand your SR = ego comment.

Wallace,

To me strike rate like turnover in business isn’t important, the profit is the only really important thing to look at.

As said before some of my bets don’t look to find the first past the post, so strike rated as most look at it doesn’t come into it. 70% of my bets return a profit, the way I look at it is to return a profit a bet has to be a winning bet even if the horse didn’t actually win.

Dave J

I don’t see how vdw could be anything but pencils and paper when it first appeared.

I suppose it depends what you mean by pencils and paper, I take that to mean a painting by numbers procedure. Can I ask why you think the method has evolved and what is that based on.

If the procedures set out in SIAO ( the way most look at VDW) are followed to the letter, 37% of the first examples fail as they are not in the four on ability. That is IF that ability rating was used. One quick example is Baronet, he was selected in front of two horses that had lower consistency rating and higher ability ratings, and they also complied to the forecast requirements, how/why? It was always more than a simple system.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Am I still following VDW ?? The answer has to be yes, but the method has developed beyond the pencils and paper.

Dave J,

May I humbly suggest VDW has always been more than a pencils and paper method. At least I think it was.

Wallace,

I can only agree with Peter May. If needed I could work out my strike rate, here I take it you are talking about winners only. What I do know is the % of my bets that show a profit, and that is the only thing that counts to me. Strike rate = ego, and you can’t spend it! My bets are a mixture of win and place, place only, and the occasional lay. As no bet is ever struck at SP I have no idea where I stand with that.

Hensman,

in that sense regard myself as a VDWer, that is a matter of historical chance – I read VDW first.

While the above statement maybe correct for you, it doesn’t hold true for me. I have read many articles on racing, and for me VDW is head and shoulders above anything I have read.

You mention Trigger and his broom, the broom, the tool, isn’t the important factor. The important aspect of VDW is the technique of using the tool.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

The replies to this thread have been interesting as in as much no one has come straight out and agreed with Mr Wheldon VDW is nonsense. The main criticism is it is now out dated, and to basic to be of much use.

Of course both of these I have heard before. So can I ask how you think the changes in today’s racing has altered the general thinking behind VDW? While I do accept sponsorship has altered his basic measure of class, the fact that OR’s are now readily avalible away around that problem is easy enough to find. I also think the handicapper has tightened up the OR’s making it harder for horses to put a string of good form together. But does this really effect the two main elements of VDW class and form?

To the folk that think VDW is too basic (or crude) I can understand their thinking. It has been presented and made to look basic, I think to attract the general public of the time. However if it is studied I think most if not all of the facets needed for good race analysis is there. I do realise many how think it is basic have made up their minds and are very unlikley to revise their thinking as the only way this could be done is to go back and study the old early examples again. As this is very time consuming it is very unlikely to happen.

The folk that are using RPR, etc. to help a system work using VDW are on the right lines but are doomed to failure unless proper analyses of the most important factor in racing is carried out, the HORSE. Yes the trainer, and/or ratings are important but the really important thing is can this horse win this race under these conditions. Talking of ratings VDW used his own, or his ideas using other peoples rating. I have looked at every set of ratings I can find, but haven’t found any that would have Prominent King in front of Beacon Light, (that is if they are used in the conventual way) but I do think VDW did show how it works latter.

Anyway thanks for taking the time to give your views.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Carlisle,

Personally I think Systematic Betting is the best VDW book. In truth, I think most of what has written by VDW is well worth a read, but I think it should always be in the back of your mind, has this been written for Mr Peach?

Mr Peach has said on more than one occasion he asked VDW to write about speed figures as if it wasn’t a part of the original VDW thinking. VDW mention s/f in letter 19 in TGY, and in The Ultimate Whiel Of Fortune he dropped the hint he had been using s/f back in 1968. Both well before it became obvious VDW was being paid by Mr Peach to write for the SCHB.

The Golden Years is also an interesting read if SIAO is stripped out of it. SIAO for me is the stumbling block many can’t see past, and the one most remember. The only useful thing it does is to make one wonder how VDW worked most of the early examples. The one certainty was it wasn’t by following the criteria set out in it. I also think many have arrived at a false impression of how VDW looked at form by trying to make these early examples fit in with it. The use of the ability rating being the main reason for this.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

I suspect Mr Wheldon’s selection of letters reflects customer interest.

Hensman,

Can I ask have you contributed to the RFU forum? You seem well versed in VDW but would you bother to write when you know the reception would be less than inviting? You may well be correct, but I do wonder how many bother if they have anything to say about VDW.

The purpose of the thread was to try to find out the views of the knowledgeable folk on this forum about VDW. Not to go into any detail and tie up the forum/thread with the finer points. However while I do understand where your coming from with Baronet, I would rather use form to narrow him down into a short list. For me trends are only used when looking at capability and/or probability, the fact his form stood up was the main factor everything else was a bonus. That fact he had run a good 2nd in the race the year before wasn’t the reason I had him as the horse with the best form, that was down to his Ascot run 4/5 runs back.

A couple of things have surprised me about this thread, the first the lack of abuse. Second the amount of interest. As I write this there have been 70 odd replies, and even more startling 1500 hits in just the short time it has been up. I said on the main/usual forum I use I think there could be a market for a SENSIBLE book on VDW. Not another dumbed down Mr Peach type book, but something that may just raise the interest of people like Pru. I do think he would be quite amazed at the depth of analysis VDW went into.

Be Lucky

[Mtoto44]

Hensman,

While I agree there doesn’t SEEM to be much response in the RFU to VDW, and race analyse in general. With VDW at least I do wonder how much of this is down to Mr Wheldon, I have no idea how much influence he has in deciding what goes into the forum page. I do know I have written in the past, and I’m fairly certain a couple of others have said they have written and it hasn’t been printed.

Mr Ford (the editor of the paper) has told me he doesn’t know anything about VDW. If "respected" racing journalists like GW tells all in sundry VDW isn’t worth a light how many are going to bother to show an interest? This also reflects back on the people who do have something to say about VDW, why would they even bother to write to the paper?

To me at least, it seems trends are the order of the day. Page after page on trends. I have little or no interest in trainers records in certain races, or courses. I’m not interested in the usual age of the winner of a race, or how the favorites have performed in the past. The only thing that interests me is can THIS horse perform, given these conditions in this CLASS?

Be Lucky

[Author]

Posts