Hi everyone,
Firstly many thanks to Guest,Determined Barney et al for their educational posts on this thread.
Re Kelburne is the hidden form merely a preference for right handed tracks? since breaking his maiden tag his runs left handed (incl 1st win) read 1,6,9,14,16,4.4 whereas his run right handed read 1,1,1,1,2,1,1 (I have ignored 2 runs 8f STR @ Newm)
I would be grateful if this could be confirmed because when looking at races I generally consider this aspect as characteristics/conditions not form. Also re the 10f win at Newm I think this was opportunism by the trainer in that there was little class in the race with many yet to win a handicap so his class enables him to pick up a decent prize on route to his target over his best dist going right handed.
Determined/Barney
Thanks for your posts re 2.00 Epsom. I also backed gentlenan's venture for exactly the reasons Determined stated. Looking back afterwards
I noted that he failed in exactly same conditions in Apr 2001 at Eps and looks like a "fresh horse" pattern character. Did any of you do a post mortem on the race and if so what were your conclusions. Thanks in anticipation.

Fulham,
Re Gaye Chance, you forgot to add the rest of the sentence to your quote which was "but the race is a good example of conflict and should be left alone." This is followed by "No element of a gamble should be allowed to creep in." Thats pretty clear to me.The question is: On what grounds was GC dismissed? He has identified it as the likely winner as you say so what possible reason did he have for not betting? "Little Owl will be taken because it is a racing certainty. Sunset Christo will also be taken as it is almost a certainty.The rest will be left alone." He doesnt add "until one is more experienced". I know what you mean when you say a lot of his selections appear to have elements of a gamble in them, but I think what is said in Spells It Out can be taken at face value. I think the first few paragraphs (especially 5) of the letter are just as important as anything that comes later. Hence Guest returning to the board with his convictions re the derby winner. After doing all the work he just "knew".I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong on that score. When it falls into place like HC did they "seldom get beaten." The problem is sometimes having to put up with the waiting.
regards,

Hi Statajack,

I didn't forget to include the rest of the sentence - I didn't bother as you'd already quoted it. We will have to agree to differ as to how to interpret VDW: in my view little or nothing he wrote can be "taken at face value".

Guest was correct with the Derby, but even there an element of risk was accepted, whether acknowledged or not. Apart from the very pertinent point made in your own comment on the race, there remained uncertainty about whether either of the principals would get a competitive 1.5m. Breeding may have suggested High Chaparral was more likely to stay than Hawk Wing - the balance of expert opinion (though not all) saw it that way. But until HC actually proved he could, it remained a matter of conjecture and therefore chance. (I'm not talking through my pocket. At the prices speculated early on Saturday I had not intention of betting on the race, because I was not sure which of the principals would prevail. But at the amazing 7/2 five minutes before the off it was irresistable to back HC in what was essentially a match.)

My basic point is that real certainties are very few and far between. Unless one is content to wait for the occasional very short priced selection, VDW's phrase "no element of a gamble should be allowed to creep in" is a recipe for not betting. Almost all of VDW's examples, the selections posted on this thread pre the "off" by Guest, and my own bets, have stateable elements of risk, which were accepted in balancing all the factors against the available price.

good evening

i found what i thought was a rifle brigade type at salisbury today,
in dawn invasion,but the form wasnt sparkling.So after considering that the uplift was too great against proven in form distance horses left it.

Interesting this talk about risk.I agree with Fulham on this one.VDW must have accepted there were risks involved or he would have said if we didn't achieve a minimum 100% winners evaluate our reading of form.

In paragraph 6 of the "Spells it all out" article VDW says "To a large extent the art of succesful punting is dependent on the ability to assess odds and never go against them." Odds after all are only probabilities expressed as fractions. I think I can see why Rifle Brigade was an "outstanding" bet for VDW rather than just the probable winner but at the end of the day it all hinges on the balance of probabilities.

Guest said previously that Kings Ride was an example worth looking into.I have tryed to apply my thinking on Rifle Brigade to this example and while I can see some similarities I haven't figured it out yet.Guest, I haven't had a chance to look at Kelburne and Ekbalco yet (not enough hours in the day I'm afraid) but I will get round to it.

Mac

I've been thinking again today about the SP situation.I did start looking at this a couple of months ago.I was thinking along the lines of the form reversal between See More Business and Florida Pearl.I started looking at present day examples rather than VDW's.I thought it was intersting but couldn't come to any firm conclusions.I've put it on the back burner for the moment.Going to let the subconscious work on it for a while.I would be interested in reading that article you mentioned.I,ve also been thinking about roushayd again and how the first way you read a sentence isn't always the true intention of it.I think I understand a bit better now.

All the best everyone.

Hi Bream,

I think there are two sorts of risk that prevent us getting near the 100% strike rate:

first, those clearly identifiable risks relating to a horse in the circumstances of the specific race under consideration: such matters as whether one can be sure the horse is fit, will manage the course, the going, the distance, the weight etc. I mean here any one (or more) of those aspects which need to be weighed up in considering whether the horse is a good bet at the odds;

second, those general considerations that can apply at any time to any horse but which are intrinsically unforecastable - for example, a horse falling (unless, of course, its got a history of falling, when that becomes a factor to be considered); being brought down (Ad Hoc in the National), or suffering some catastrophic "injury" in seemingly normal running (Valiramix at Cheltenham and Coshocton on Saturday).

Even if we could get the first right all the time (which, of course, we can't), there are enough instances of the second to keep even a modern-day VDW's strike rate well below 100%.

hello Guest


when looking at kings ride,a horse i had not looked at previously, i noticed sevreal areas where the horse showed consistency and also that the cycle indicated a good performance when fresh,its suprising when one considers the warwick race and the subsequent placements that it was 10/1.

it seems that i may be adding another aspect to the consisistency rating from now on, namely letter 30 para 7. Or should i not read what is there?

overall quite similar to PK.

i would appreciate any crumbs you could throw my way.

Hi All,
A lot has been posted recently regarding Little Owl and Sunset Cristo and what made these two out of all the examples given by VDW on that day the two horse's that were virtual racing certainties and why it is all tied up with temperament and odds !!
So in VDW's examples of Stray Shot and Zammandra and the other 4 horse's given that day was this the same reason for just the two of the six form Horse's being chosen as it was for Little Owl and Sunset Cristo they were both racing certainties??

Cheers Mima

Fulham- very well put.

regarding risk


in my opinion risk assesment is dependent on experience.Without much experience i can dismiss some horses out of hand ie not consistent not enough class, as i am sure most on here can, with some confidence. To dismiss in form horses and higher class horses is more difficult and i thought sometime ago it was important to try to learn how to dismiss what on the surface looks an apparent good performance.

vdw at the time of writing had 30+ years experience in his own methods, flaws that cannot be seen by us yet must stick out like sore thumbs to some.

i think your right fulham no risk = no bet

i think thats where we must "appraise the odds and never flaunt them" comes in.an odds on with 3 threats is risky, a 10/1 with two threats puts the odds in our favour.

Barney,

A very difficult thing to do ?

I`m about to start looking at Kelburne. It appears Guest may have identified him as a bet at Sandown.

From memory I had the race between Putra Pekan (in form ?) and Heratic (good class run on seasonal debut).

Both those horses seemed to have better form than`K` at face value.

Perhaps a detailed study of this race could help us in our quest to gain more experience in discounting seemingly in form horses ?

Cheers,

Bream,Fulham:
of course there are risks involved but the point is to minimise them as much as possible before betting. There will always be some questions left unanswered after looking at the form of a horse but a lot of the time they are relative to the opposition. Look at it this way: A horse with consistency figures of 111 wins next time out around 26% of the time, while one with 000 wins about 3% of the time. If in a 2 horse race, a horse with 111 figs runs against a horse with 000 figures the success rate will be considerably higher than 26%, whether the 111 horse is proven or not at the distance or on the going, course or whatever. Apart from the fact that 111 would probably be unbackable at the bookies prices, you wouldnt bet against it because horses with 111 figs are proven to lose 74% of the time would you? If you could get anything like a value price you would steam in (I hope). If you were fat, 30 years old and couldnt run a mile you would still fancy yourself over a mile against someone who was very fat, 50 years old and couldnt run a mile. Its all relative to the capabilities of the other horses,not just the going/dist/course needs etc of one particular horse who happens to be the class/form horse in a race. Going back to a 2 horse race, what if 111 was running against 311? Much harder before we commence form study - but what if we knew 311 had only been running in lower grade, hated the ground and had never won at the distance? Our 111 horse may not have won at the course or raced at the distance but will still be a good bet at the very least.
While this is easy to do for 2 horse races it becomes distinctly harder to do in competitive races where there are numbers of horses with 111, 112, 311 figs etc. This is what the methodical process given in Spells It out is for. It is to weed out as many carefully chosen negative aspects as possible before form study commences. e.g. discard those (subject to checking) not in 1st 5 betting, 1st 3 cons, 1st 4 ability etc. When there is no conflict you can move on to deciding the relative differences between the main contenders but any horse passing through the process unscathed will already have a lot going for it. Where there is conflict you risk wasting both time and money by proceeding further. "If in doubt leave it out" as someone previously mentioned on this board.
regards,

Not ignoring your earlier post. As I`m sure you`ve realised this thread has so many discussion points its very difficult trying to keep on top of everything.

Very quickly for now. With regards Kelburne I hadn`t noticed the right hand bias to his winning form which was a mistake on my part.

Nick Mordin stated that the majority of horses fit a certain PATTERN and I`m in total agreement.

In my opinion these `patterns` have to be one of the `hidden form` factors that those more experienced refer to.

`K` pattern aside I`m still not sure once i`ve evaluated the race that he`d have been a VDW selection for me.

Gentleman Venture - haven`t done the post mortem yet but I`m sure I`ll find numerous reasons why he shouldn`t have been backed.

Cheers

hi,

bream; am glad you are interested in the part past markets have to play in the overall process, the articles mentioned previously were done over a 3 week period are ratherlong-winded & mostly without substance, afraid little purpose would served in sending you the lot, perhaps a condensed version containing the relative facts would be better, the gentleman in question was influenced by vdw himself as i recall so it may be of some use to you in some respects, i found it very interesting anyway.
mac.

Hi Statajack,

I think we agree re risk!

I would venture one further comment. VDW's statistics on the likelihood of a horse with given form figures winning next time out were, in my view, the least convincing aspect of his work.

He wrote some palpable nonsense (such as the view that if you had three horses in a race who had each won their last three races, there was a 99% chance that one would win). And even when he wasn't writing nonsense, he seemed to confuse the aggregate with the individual.

Granted that a horse which has won three consecutive wins make it four in a row approx. 33% of the time (which, on the Flat anyway, we know, courtesy of RSB, was an over-estimate), that has no bearing whatsoever on the chance of a given horse which has won its last three races winning its next race. That chance can be very much higher, or very much lower, depending on the particular circumstances obtaining.

Re` Kelburne,

Am I right to suggest that you will have taken the view that Putra Pekan`s 2nd win when odds on was a downturn in form. That added to him carrying top weight ruled him out as a probable ?

Also, did your evaluation change once Heratic was a non runner ?

** on a slightly different note D.Nicholls may gives us a/n example of how well he places his horses come Royal Ascot.

Cheers,

graham,

what you point out is one way of hiding real form,similarly straight track - sharp track, good ground - soft ground, class track-low class track,
flat-hilly,2m4- 3m2 etcccc..........

it one of numerous ways that real form can be hidden or equally as important enhanced in preparation for the ideal circumstances the horses need.


determined,

i had it down to your two with a serious threat from kelburn, but i never bothered with it even though i was tempted. wish i had the RP with regard to what i think i have learned today i think if i remember correctly it would have enhanced the likely outcome.

hi statajack

can i ask you a question?


have you tried all these methods and been through the ups and downs or have you stuck with the perfect picture from the outset because it works??

Re Kelburne - The point in mentioning Kelburne was to show just some of the ways in which horses appear to run below form, only to bounce back next time at more rewarding odds. The eagle eyed would hopefully have noticed a few things along with another who bounced back. In relation to some of the points I raised recently, notice the market factor and the trainer factor. I saw and read several interviews with Ian Semple who appeared very confident of success at York despite the way the horse had been ridden in it's recent runs.

Re "Spells It All Out/Zamandra/Stray Shot/etc" - All of the horses that VDW gave as good bets or likely winners had certain unseen factors in their favour, which would only become apparant via an in depth study of form and class. Gaye Chance had these factors, though not particularly strongly, but relative to the others he had the best form. Kenlis also had these factors, though again there were a few minor concerns especially given the blanket of relative ability. Little Owl had no concerns and only a fall or ill health could have stopped him. Sunset Cristo had the best form and the two minor concerns were the longer than usual absence and the extra weight in a higher class race. Notice I said race and not higher class opposition. There is a difference, as VDW pointed out. The 4 horses VDW said to leave in the Stray Shot/Zamandra article didn't have the factors in favour, but SS & Z did.

Barney - The paragraph you refer to is just one reason why I also consider the 3 most consistent in the entire field, as VDW had suggested from the beginning. The study of form will show if any of them are outclassed or not capable. Love From Verona was just one horse who didn't feature in the forecast, but was one of the 3 most consistent from the field.

VDW was dead right with his assertion that one of the principle ingredients for punting success is knowing how to appraise the real odds and never go against them. The markets are a very good pointer for future profit, in fact VDW made comment on this subject not so long ago in RFU. There has to be a reason why a horse was 10/1 last time and is now 2/1 favourite. In relation, surely is it not worth investigating why a horse was 9/4 fav in decent class last time and is now 6/1 ?

This factor need to be linked up with everything else of course, nothing works in isolation, but when other factors line up it proves a useful process. For instance, a horse wins at 4/6fav in good class then 1/5fav in better class and is then 7/2 next time. If this horse has the class and form also then it should be obvious he has a great chance of winning the race and is providing some real value.

Are you after the Racing Post for the Sandown meeting ?

I have the paper. Can I help you with anything ?

If what you are looking for is a little to specific then of course I don`t expect you to divulge it but if it something I can help you with then feel free.

Cheers,