what do you get for coming second at caterick?
knackers off.What sort of prize is that?

Hi Determined

Just a further thought on placing reversals which may or may not be helpful.

Last season Manchester United were beaten at home by some unlikely sides, including Bolton and West Ham if I remember correctly. If I'm right, would you back either to win at Old Trafford this season? Either might, but taking account of all the factors its surely at least as likely that MU will "reverse placings".

Fulham

Did Vdw ever say that he had a bet each way on a horse ?

Professional

Not as far as I know: but there again as far as I know he didn't say he backed win only, either.

Fulham

But if you had his convictions about the outcomes wouldnt you say he was very much more likely to do win only betting - each way betting means you have a doubt about a horses ability to win - and if youre of that view -maybe in vdw terms it shouldnt be a bet because you see legitimate doubts re your selection.

Professional


VDW may have taken exactly the view you express. On the other hand, he clearly gave us only a partial picture of his bets: every example a winner save, I think, Broadsword. VDW must obviously have backed some that didn't win, and he clearly implies that sometimes he dutched, so maybe he backed EW sometimes?

Its possible that, had he been faced with Saturday's John Smiths, with four places available, VDW might have thought that Vintage Premium was a "good thing" amongst the older and exposed horses, but there was some risk he could not disregard from the three less exposed horses I mentioned. On that basis he might have reached the same conclusion as Guest; or he might have felt that, at 28/1 available early, VP was nigh on certain to be in the places, and was worth backing even if one of the younger and less exposed horses came good and beat it (what one might call the Mtoto view).

But this is mere speculation. What is not speculation is that as one examines some of VDW's examples in detail, its clear that they are not unproblematic. And VDW would surely have seen, at the time, the questions we can see now, and probably saw them a lot more clearly! Either he was able to resolve those questions with a far greater degree of confidence than I and others I respect are able to do (a by no means unlikely possibility), or he accepted that he was betting with a degree of uncertainty and may well have covered himself either by dutching or backing EW, whichever seemed the more appropriate.

good afternoon..i forget which one of the books it,s in,but vdw described e.w betting as COMPLETELY NEGATIVE,we all know he dutched,but it,s doubtful he backed e.w,..

Investor

You may well be right, though I don't recall the quote. But VDW wasn't the Pope, and therefore not infallable, and EW betting under the right circumstances - such as Vintage Premium on Saturday - seems a rational enough approach to me.

ultimate wheel of fortune..the halfway mark..para 3,i did,nt say he was the pope,just trying to be helpful..

Mtoto,

Firstly, it is important to point out that I quoted VDW exactly, that is he said class was KINGPIN in using his methods as he intended them to be used. To illustrate, the kingpin on an old car holds all the other minor parts of the suspension together which, I have come to understand, is the case with class in VDW methodology. Secondly, I accept the ways VDW measured class. As stated, they may not be foolproof but I accept them as of fundamental importance in using the methodology properly. It is fair comment to suggest VDW would use every means available but to my knowledge he never stated nor inferred he used OR's to measure the class of a horse. Surely, if it is anyones desire to use the methodology as VDW intended, they have to accept his way of doing things.

It is up to the individual to decide whether to use the methodology the intended way (which incidentally, does require comparatively an extensive amount of work, which ever way you tackle the field), since a method, whatever it is, has to be comfortable with its operator for it to be used effectively, as pointed out by VDW.

Personally speaking, I find this subject interesting and thought provoking but it does not consume my life in a way where I feel I cannot profit from racing using ideas, either taken from the methodology, or by a totally different approach, based on logic. I believe you have an eye for appraising the odds in your own way Mtoto, which appear to produce results comparable with anything demonstrated on this forum, but if you feel it necessary to understand VDW's methods in detail, you first have to accept the stated ways VDW measured class.

Investor

Thanks, that is indeed helpful, and VDW's position seems clear.

I still think that there are circumstances where an EW bet is rational, as on Saturday. If (and granted that its a big if) one concludes that there is a finite number of potential dangers, but not such as to permit dutching, at the right odds an EW bet offers insurance in case one of the dangers materialises. That said, as I suggested in a previous post, I think Guest made the percentage call.

Hi Max,

I'm afraid I've got to disagree with your post regarding Guest.Your reference to schoolmasters was appropriate however because in my opinion Guest is a very good teacher.2 reasons for that,he has an in depth knowlege of his subject and he seems extraordinarily patient with people who are willing to put in the effort to learn .His clues may seem hidden or cryptic sometimes but I am sure they are made with the best of intentions.

Your Guide to Pro Punting thread was absolutely fascinating and you have my respect for earning your living in a way that I dream of doing.I think you might agree however that trying to impart knowlege,that seems fairly fundamental to you,to people with less knowlege than yourself could be a very frustrating experience.That Guest has continued to try to help while at times receiving an, at times, extraordinary level of abuse says a lot about his character to me

Hi Fulham,

I think I look at things slightly differently to you.I cried for you and Vintage Premiums relationship for example. In the light of Pipedreamers post and your subsequent comment it may be better to let the Vintage Premium matter rest.People may be getting bored with it.

All the best everyone.

Thanks for the feedback.

Bensam,

It was a mistake, when I miss out the pin bit. Not knowing one end of a car from the other kingpin was lost on me. Also you are right it's the principal vdw used that are more important to me. Class is main factor in my thinking, I'm just not happy with the way VDW defined it. If he had said that right from the start, I still wouldn't be happy with it. When he gave his first example he never mention ability ratings, you have to agree PK's and MK weren't up to much. If they were a true gauge to PK's ability you would have to be a brave man to back him.

The real purpose of this reply is to say I understand what you say. But can't see the logic behind it. If someone has a very good idea, and circumstances change, it would be foolish not to use the knowledge to improve the idea. I'm not saying my method is without fault, but I do think it is an improvment on using penalty value to judge class. I think you have to agree racing has changed in the last 25 years. Not always for the best.

Bream.

I think this is just the place to discuss form, and how we see a race. If people are bored they can just flip past it. I for one would be more than interested in your thoughts on I Cried For You V Vintage Premium or any other horse in the race. I put a line through ICFY because I could see no way he would get the distance in a fast run race. I thought Leadership had a chance but was worried he had been handicapped on the trainer rather than his form on the track. I was very nearly wrong. I backed Systematic when he beat him at Ascot and thought L was a little soft. He came to win the race and didn't put his head down and fight. I thought Kelburne was in with a big chance on form, but was worried he would get trapped on the rail. The horse I would have backed in the race was Common World but he was pulled out, Butlers other horse had a chance, but the draw didn't help him. I could also see some reasons VP would run a big race and knew if it came to a fight he wouldn't back off. I think most of us know the formulas vdw used, maybe it is how he read the races that is the key. Who knows, but it can't hurt to discuss the races, and we all may learn something.

Be Lucky

Max - My view regarding your understanding of VDWs methods is based on your many posts and in particular another thread you started in which you claimed your filters could enhance VDWs strike rate.

There is nothing wrong with VDWs strike rate and nor has there been for many years. It is the interpretations of his methods that are largely wrong. VDW did not spell it all out in the way that you are suggesting I should because if he had then far many more would be benefiting from his ideas.

One thing that does get my goat is this idea that you can tell so much information about my personal life. You have no idea about my lifestyle whatsoever, in fact you probably know slightly more about VDW than how I spend my time.

ORs - They are just an opinion and should be treated as such, just as VDW stated. He gave an example of comparisons between the OR and Timeform via the Derby winner Henbit and found the best part of a stones difference of opinion. The class ratings that VDW gave are much more effective if used as intended which goes beyond the obvious.

Bensam - Well done for pointing out just one of VDWs clever quotations. He of course didn't say class was King, but the Kingpin, which is different as you pointed out. King would have implied that class should over rule everything, which is doesn't, well not on the surface level.

your last post goes a long way in proving the point i made last night when i stated the only opinion you are willing to consider is that of your own.
so you do not think that the ideas i gave can improve the vdw s/r.well as per usual you are to wrapped up in your own little world to have notice the thread i started on the 23/3 in the vdw corner where i evaluated the class/form horses on a given day,all 11 of them and all favourites.the filter i suggested proved correct 10 times giving a 91% s/r on the day,figures like that only exist in your head when contemplating your own s/r.so read it and weep.
as for the point you raise concerning o/r's i really do not know why this concerns me as at no point on the vdw thread have i broached the subject.last week i did post for peoples thoughts regarding o/r's on the general discussion thread but this was for a system i am looking at.i imagine the very mention of systems makes your blood run cold and would be treated with the same contempt you show to 99% of this board.
true i do not know you and can not confidently comment on aspects of your personal life but the attitude displayed by your posts obviously conjurs up an image not to far from the truth i would wager.
an observation i have made though is that you do not come onto the forum until very late in the evening,i assume this is due to work commitments allthough i did not realise they had started to give nightwatch men laptops.

i think the answer to your evident social interactual problems would be to take a night off and get yourself laid.

posted July 15, 2002 11:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swish - The answer to your first question is that by "conventional form analysis" I am referring to the generally excepted way of form analysis IE so & so is so many pounds better than another horse. In short, the markets are formed by popular opinion which is frequently wrong in racing circles.
What the hell does that mean?
HOW IS IT DECIDED THAT "SO AND SO" IS SO MANY POUNDS better than another horse, What is the criterium, when they have never ran against each other, nor any other runners in the race?
Wouldn't it be wise as a first basis to see how fast a horse can run? Then look at the weights and what the opposition is?
Your Answer is?

Swish

I don't know when or if your answer will come, but | will shoot false charlatans like you down forever, believe me,
Answer my questions in a proper and adult manner, from now on,
Win friends and influence people!!!!!!!!!!!!
Swish

Swish

The answer to your most recent question - "HOW IS IT DECIDED THAT "SO AND SO" IS SO MANY POUNDS better than another horse, What is the criterium" - is through the standard techniques employed by handicappers, to which I assume Guest was referring to when he wrote of conventional form analysis.

The best brief summary of these techniques I know is in chapters 1 and 2 of David Dickinson's book "How to Compile Your Own Handicap". Dickinson is Raceform's private handicapper and the book was published by Raceform two or three years ago, I think, price £9.95.

In chapter 2 Dickinson sets out the kind of chart handicappers use, giving for each race distance the pound value of one length, a table derived from the formula:

furlongs in race x pounds per length = 15.

That table is then applied to results, eg the race prior to the John Smith involving Rasm and Vintage Premium, among others, and assumptions are made about the relative abilities of horses through this nexus of weight and distance beaten.

Of course experienced handicappers don't take everything at face value - we've all seen horses which could have won by 10l eased down to win by 2 - and Dickinson usefully shows how handicappers seek to validate their work.

There is no doubt that the view of things that lies at the heart of how handicappers work has much to commend it. If two horses, seemingly running as fast as they can, finish 2l apart at level weights, then in principle by making it carry slightly more weight the apparently faster horse can be slowed to enable the apparently slower one to tie with it, or even beat it. And the table Dickinson includes offers a solution to the question how much additional weight must the faster horse be required to carry?

But as is evident every day, the theory doesn't work out with any precision. Often, its true, there will be a close finish in a handicap race, but usually only involving two, three or four horses, with the remaining dozen or more spread out behind them over perhaps 20l or even further.

What VDW offered, among many other things, was (in my view) a much better conceptualisation of the essence of racing, through his distinction between "class" and "form", together with meretricious but practically very useful means of judging both. And unlike some he saw handicaps as "happy hunting grounds" (13/3/1980 article). That was because he knew that, whatever logic there was behind the theory of handicapping, in each and every handicap certain horses could be identified as "in form" and likely in the prevailing conditions to perform to their best, while others could be identified as "out of form" and/or unsuited by the prevailing conditions and therefore unlikely to perform to their best. Further, by concentrating on the more valuable races, he offered himself reasonable assurance that the "in form" horses suited by the prevailing conditions were trying, and no strokes were being pulled.

As will have been evident from some of my previous posts, I am not uncritical of VDW, who occasionally wrote some palpable rubbish. But by comparison with conventional form analysis of the kind I think Guest means (and exemplified by the handicappers' approach as set out in David Dickinson's book), he was miles in advance.

As has been said many times, VDW worked methodologically, rather than by following a system and, despite the sub-editor's title to one of his articles, he did not spell out all his thinking. As a result, no one can be sure that he or she understands every aspect of VDW's approach, and even among those who clearly understand quite a lot there will be differences of interpretation and application. Getting to grips with the ideas is, as several have testified, time consuming and frustrating, and for that reason, among others, its not for everyone. But its a serious body of thinking, which has attracted a number of serious "students", and the ideas it contains work in the sense that a number of people use them as their approach to betting and make money as a result.

Finally, although through the medium of email it is sometimes the case that we come across more aggressively or dismissively than we intend (as, inadvertently, I did in a reply to Professional yesterday), there is the world of difference between that and explicit comments about a person's fantasied personality, or probity, of the kind Max and you have recently made re Guest. Comments of that kind are palpably unfounded, gratuitously offensive, get in the way of productive discussion and, I would have thought, quite contrary to Gummy's very recently articulated and wholly sensible rules for the conduct of the board.

[This message was edited by Fulham on July 17, 2002 at 06:31 AM.]

330y

a comment on the intricacy of form.

last year mr mahoose was fav and expected to beat continent and eventually was 3 lgth off him.

on the surface( and to the market setters) 3 length off continent, what a good horse.

this horse was fav in grade b last year and is now in a c carrying 9-9 on his second run of the season, WHY?a bit kutubish.