Well done to all those who particpated in the discussion on this race.

Just goes to show how different we are when reading `form`.

Both Hedgehog and I came out with totally different `class/form` horses.

Also, the majority were saying no bet because of `conflict` and/or likely `dark` horses whereas I who `knows nothing` would have been very close to backing Priors Lodge granted fastest ground.

*** I`ll be putting up several more `attempts` to evaluate races this week so hopefully subject to the time you all have availible further discussions can take place ***

Cheers,

more congratulations are in order

well done investor on your direction to khastari
went off 9/4, well within your range i hope you got on!!!!

HI GUEST

Barney
Thanks, in your reply to carlos posts today you mention 3 numbers & 75% care to elaborate?.
mac.

HI MAC

in letter 13 of the golden years"numbers game to form a picture" vdw illustrates combinations of form figures,determined by adding together the finishing position of the horses last three runs.In that article he states that if three runners have form figures 0f three then in 99% of races the winner will come from these three runners. ie 000 "three runners, with previouse form figuers as stated, will win 2% of the time.

in full here are vdw's own figures 333 99%,334 98%, 345 96%, 444 95%,456 90%, 5612 73%, 161830 17%.

he also stated that all relevent horses are rated by two different methods.

of which juding by your recent posts your on your way to one

hope this helps

yes that helps barney good of yourself & carlos in sharing that, i know im very close to the 2 methods he used, but ive been sidetracked with other commitments recently, then investor got me thinking with his posts yesterday & that has me intrigued also.
mac.

I am just wondering how many times I have to tell you all that adding up form figures is a completely meaningless exercise.
If you still don't believe me, kindly have a look at some of the winners I gave amongst my selections on the SWISH PAST POST THREAD today, or any day, add the form figures up of the winners and losers and see for yourself.
I am sorry, but to think that is a step forward is just naievety.
I bet punters thought of this 100 years ago if not more.
Barney,
You will remember when Marchwood came up with his adding up form figure table and I said,
"If you could find winners by just adding up form figures the bookies would be long gone and we would all be millionaires".
If I remember correctly, you replied to that post with:
"Lots and lots of big belly laughs".

Also when you are deciding stick to first4/5 in betting in hcps you are deciding that the odds compilers know more than you do.
Well do they know more than you? (any of you) that is.
Swish

very quiet this morning


hi swish,i know that adding up form figures is not the be all and end all. i raised the subject, in a broader sense, to show which races vdw( who I think is right) said we should be looking at.

the races we keep selecting for analysis do not have the right profile,and this adds to the conflict. another month will put paid to that.

have a good day today at york,wish i was going but i cant get out of work untill thursday when i will be going. it woould be nice to put faces to the text, anyway good luck once again.

Blind acceptance is a sign of the times - good song that . But back at the ranch - what if there were 5 horses in a race with 111 - what is the percentage then ?
Was vdw saying that if a horse has 111 then the horse has a one in three chance of winning its next race based on historical data - then if we have 3 such horses is it really only one race in a hundred where you would lose ? Is that logical ?
Im not sure about those percentages when coupled together. Form figures I can take or leave (ok I do!) but Im not just sure about the percentages that are oft quoted.
Swish - hope you had a good day in York - yes they probably do !(well more than me anyway) thats my key to unlock the door !

Barney

Like yourself I take some heart that someone appears to be thinking along the same lines as myself. I don't know where you feel you are with VDW's methods, I've started with a few basics and am working hard at cracking the consistency method. I agree with you that this method is as much about selecting races as horses.

Given that I'm only playing on the flat for now the likeliest looking race today is the 14:25 York where the main protaganists appear to be Nemo Fugat, Zandicular and Takes Tutu. The highest ability rating is Serieux (111) but this comes from a valuble but retrospectively weak looking Goodwood Maiden. An effective last (Bragadino slipped a plate) in the Greenham fto this year hardly gives cause for optimisim today.

My reading of the form makes Takes Tutu or Zandicular the most likely winner but I can't confidently discount Nemo Fugat although I suspect he may find it hard to give weight to the two mentioned. If the opportunity arises a book could be made although someone 'braver' than myself my care to try to choose an outright winner. For what it's worth if I had to back one only it'd be Zandicular.

Swish, I've seen some of your selections and you certainly know your onions but with all respect I feel you may have missed the point regarding the addition of form figures to narrow a field. Everyone has their own methods and constructive criticism is always welcome but it's not always true that one's own methods are the only way, still good luck at the races today, work permitting I'll be attending York myself on Thursday.

Be Lucky (and methodical)

Carlos

i am in agreement with regard takes tutu he also has a lot goin his way with cross checks,nemo fugat also ha a lot in his favour today,serieux obviously has some class but his last two runs do not bode well,and factors against but has to be respected for obvious reasonszandicular again has a good chance based on his last three runs going up in class the last two,with improving speed figures but going up again,conflict all the way,i actually like nemo fugat,but too many have chances..temperement

Investor

I was interested to read your summary of this race, it seems we are broadly in agreement even if we favour different horses on the short list.

With regard to the mention of Zandicular's last 3 runs, how relavent do you feel runs from the previous season are with regards to step up in class and speed figures. My main reasons for favouring Zandicular are

1) 2yo form as good as most in the race

2) Showed form in a 144 class 7f race last time out and races with 11lbs less than that today.

Takes Tutu appeared a poor 2yo but has shown form better than most over the distance this season and is weighted to carry 5lbs less than recent runs.

I do feel that Nemo Fugat has one positive and that is the trainers decision to withdraw him from a race at Beverley on Saturday when the draw was against him. I wonder whether this is because Hannon feels he is ready to win and didn't want to 'waste' a primed horse from a poor draw?? Of course it's equally possible to conjecture that the horse was entered to day to allow the stables other runner (Zandicular) to carry the lighter burden he's shouldering today.

Looking at the prices on offer it would appear that the market is in accordance with ourselves regarding the chances of these three (1st, 2nd and 3rd fav.) so the possibility of making a book is looking remote

Regards

Carlos

Regarding the chances of making a book looking remote, may I add a 'thankfully'. Not obviously in form but 'class' tells in the end eh?

i think this race illustrates the fact you can never rule out class/ability,albeit one race won which was over six furlongs,his last two runs were,nt inspiring at all neither were the prices,and at 10/1 today i don,t believe any exponent of vdw methodology would have backed him,but of course he had to be respected hence TEMPEREMENT...

Investor

Well said regarding temprament. Having said that I've not had a bet since the last day of the Jumps season so now is my 17th day with no bet and I'm finding that my temprament is been tested. I've not got much spare time and it takes me a fair bit of time to cover a race. At the moment it's all work and no play which is making me a 'dull boy'.

Well there's another days racing tomorrow so who knows??

i,ve been told in no uncertain terms that the horses whole career must be looked at,i don,t personally do this because i don,t possess past form books,so i,ll never master the methods fully,a lot of the time a horses last three runs will tell you wether it,s probable or capable,and a good profit can still be made, but always remember class/form come first,hope this helps..

I have taken the time (and expense) to purchase the last few years form books so I can review a horses history. This is one of the reason a race takes me so long. I realise that recent form is significant and am really waiting for races where the 'better' contestants have a couple of runs to their names this season.

VDW constantly emphasised the balance between class and form but it's a tricky business (as demonstrated today). I'm really trying to hold tight for the horses that 'stick out like a sore thumb' but the wait is proving a long one.

On top of this I still feel I'm missing something with regards to assessing a horses most recent runs, surely the penalty value of a race is not the be all and end all in assessing its class. Common sense tells me that it's the participants that make up the class of the race itself and I seem to remember that VDW suggested as much in one of his letters.

Having said all of this since attempting to adopt a VDW approach my betting has been more disciplined AND more profitable than ever (the fact that I am indeed showing a profit is testament to this). I feel that by trying to utilise some of VDWs other methods I could probably find more bets but I see little point in trying to spin extra plates when the one I've got is keeping me busy enough.

This will probably be my last post of the day (I've got no PC at home as I see far too much of them at work). I'll be looking at tomorrows racing tonight and I'll post my findings around lunchtime tomorrow.

Be lucky (and methodical)

Carlos

You guys ought to analyse harder races !!! No wonder there isnt a stand out selection or the study takes a long time. How do you decide whether a race at first glance is competitive or not ?


Investor - if the last 3 runs works for you stick with it - theres both pros and cons with this route - but if its profitable - why not ?

theprofessional

I wonder wether you'd care to elaborate a little regarding assesing the competetiveness of a race 'at a glance'. I seem to remember reading a posting by yourself suggesting that you steered clear of handicaps, but I may be wrong. I know that by turning my attention to smaller field stakes races the analysis doesn't take as long and my strike rate is better, am I answering my own question here?

Regards

Carlos

i,m not strictly vdw,i use methods of my own,which have been strenghtened by all the advice,that has been shared by so many on this thread,since last october,the thread suffered a great loss when guest went,which was partly my fault but it,s gaining strength again which is good.