Hi Maggsy

How are you defining a "form" horse? VDW's arithmetic indicator of form was usually the sum of the last three placings. On that basis, unless I've made a mistake (always possible), Shooting Light and Ad Hoc were equal (rating 10). On ability, Ad Hoc was well in front (255 v 186). Those two ratings tended to be bedrock of VDW's arithmetic platform, which he checked with two sets of his own ratings followed by careful study of the form.

As to the winner of Image de Marque's race, as Barney has pointed out it did have an ability rating: 97 v IdM's 63.

Again, I emphasise that I'm not suggesting that either Ad Hoc or Never were bets. I didn't have the time to examine the two races in depth so I reached no definite conclusions.

I have my way of interpereting, VDW, as a lot of you know, and, recently I have learned more, thanks to Mtoto and also reading all your various letters on the board. Those of you who have read my contributions will know that I found winners were more easily found in low class races, however I now see how they can be found in A,B,C races too. However, I do not agree with VDW or anyone else that adding up of form figures is relevant. I do not think that "how many days since run" is very relevant either. (I will concede that 11 C/D makes 50% profit, that is plain for all to see on Gummy's board). I have done many thousands of hours of study of races from all aspects, including form figs and days since ran. It never taught me any thing much except it does not matter. I have said this before and I shall say it again. If a horse was to come 5th in a class A equalling the course record, it's previous two races being PP, and this horse was now running against a horse that had won 3 class D's and 3 class C's all at least 3 seconds outside the respective course records the bet, to me is the horse with PP5, not 111. Surely you can see what I mean. I cannot prove it, but until someone else proves that it is me that is wrong, I shall stick with it,
Merry Christmas All,
Swish

Maggsy,
It just goes to show how we all see things differently. To me, Image de Marque was a certainty (to my cost), so I agree with you there, I wouldn't do Shooting Light cos it had never proved itself at the distance. I cannot see a reason why Ad Hoc was not the right bet, so there we differ,
Yours
Swish

Hi Swish

With regard to adding up a horse's last three placings, all VDW was doing was pointing out that, in statistical terms, consistent horses as indicated by such placings were more likely to win next time out than less consistent ones.

He first wrote, of course, long before the availability of RSB or similar, when much that can now be done in moments could take hours. But on the sample he used, he found that about a third of horses which had won their last three races went on to win a fourth, while only one in fifty horses with three "duck eggs" won their next races.

Thanks to RSB we can process the total data for 15 years in moments, and on the flat since 1986 about 25% of horses which had won three on the trot have gone on to win a fourth. For horses 10th or worse twice, and most recently 5th, about 6% went on to win.

Its inconceivable that VDW would ever have bet JUST on this rating, and in the first example he gave us - the Erin Hurdle in 1978 - he preferred Prominent King, whose last three placings were 422, to Beacon Light (112) and Mr Kildare (11).

As Guest has shown recently, however, highly consistent horses which also have a margin of superiority in terms of ability continue to provide a prolific pool from which winners are there to be found. But study of form (which, as you say, needs to address exactly the kind of issue to which you refer), experience and good judgement are necessary to sort out those worthy of backing - the arithmetic platform alone is insufficient.

Presumably its the hope of gaining experience and improving judgement that motivates Mtoto (judging by his posts) and others to spend time doing something which at first sight perhaps seems bizarre - examining the examples VDW gave us from the 1970s and 1980s. (It certainly is in my case, as at present more of my selections lose than win, and I am very keen to reverse that statistic!)

swish

vdw would not say what his ratings were(although he gave clues)

because of readers asking what they were
on some examples he used the sf from the sporting life and the form rating from the daily mail to show that any ratings could be used.

in his ratings he only used the top rated
in the sl/mail examples he used the top 2

Hello Swish
According to RSB horses that have won there last
2 races and are c/d winners win 26% of the time
on the flat and 34% of the time on the jumps.
Making a 8% loss to level stakes.


Maggsy

Hello Swish


The fact that Shooting Light hadn`t won at
the distance didn`t bother me because i think
it was VDW that said that a horse that can
win at two and a half miles is a live contender
for the National.Shooting Light and Ad Hoc
both had form figures of 10 but Ad Hoc was
beaton 22lengths in his last race so wasn`t
a form horse .So to back him was i think going
against the odds unless there was a good reason
for such a bad performance.

Maggsy

Hello Fulham
Iagree that both shooting light and Ad hoc
both had form ratings of 10 and that Ad Hoc
was infront on ability.But as i understand
the method you first look at the form of
the horse with the most ability .To see if
it confirms what the figures say.It seems
clear to me that Ad Hoc was not a form horse
after looking at the form of his last race.
Even though he was rated as having more ability
than Shooting Light.I then looked at Shoothing
Lights form because he was 2nd best on abilty.
His form looked good to me and there didn`t
seem to be any danger from the others.

As for the other race that Never won i concede
that Never had a better ability rating.I didn`t
see that.But thats what you get for rushing


Maggsy

Hello Fulham


The figures that i get From RSB for horses that
have won there last 3 races both Jumps and
flat combined are 29% and 7%loss.What VDW was
saying was that looking for horses with good
form figures was putting the odds in your favour.
Along with other factors like class which would
also put the odds in your favour.Much of what
VDW said can be checked with RSB and with pen
and paper.

Maggsy

Blimey, some good letters there. Might not be able to reply to them all straight away, but....,
Maggsy,
O.K. 11 c/d makes a loss in general and I am not the slightest bit surprised. It only reinforces my form figure theory more. many years ago I knew about this f/form 11 C/D business and I made a loss and dismissed it. However, Gummy's interpretation of it makes money, that noone can deny.
Fulham,
An excellent letter there, glad you admit you get more losers than winners, you came over as if you knew it all, (that is one trouble with a message board, we do not know and cannot see each other).
I know VDW adding form figs was only a slight part of the equation, if that's the right phrase,
however, I am completely and absolutely certain that it is how fast they ran that counts, not the placings, (although, obviously, I am going to back one that has won 3 B races rather than one that has 000)
More Later,
Swish

Hi Swish

As someone who:

a) for nearly 20 years had been unable to solve the Rifle Brigade example;

b) was still too cautious to have backed Cornish Gale last Friday, despite its good form and dominance in terms of class, because of a concern about the distance and a deep reluctance to back anything at less than about 3/1; and

c) is still far short of achieving his aim of a season-by-season 80% "win single" strike rate,

I can assure you I am only too aware of how far I am from knowing it all.

Hello Swish

What is gummy`s interpretation of the 11c/d
system?


cheers

Maggsy

Looking at todays racing Montpelier seems to
have alot going for it.I only have one doubt
about this one.Majed in the 2.35 at Wincanton
is also a possible for me.Although i do have
some doubts about this one.Could this be a case
of backing more than one in a race as VDW did.
Best Mate also has strong claims if it runs in
the 2.00 at Wincanton.Any thoughts ?Before they
run if possible.

regards


maggsy

Dear Maggsy,
I have only just read your letters today. Regarding 11 c/d, I believe Gummy just takes the one with the shortest forecast price (if there are more than one.) Also C,D counts = to C/D. As far as I know that is all there is to it, so why it should totally outperform doing all or any is a bit of a mystery to me, but it does. Perhaps there is a bit more to it. Don't know. I know I am too late to offer my advice beforehand for the horses you mention, but I thought Majed and Montpelier were both decent bets, but did neither.

Fulham
I can't "solve" any of VDW's examples from the past because I would have to have all the horses speed figs, and they simply were not available then. As for a reluctance not to back horses under 3-1, there's nothing wrong with that, but some horses really are certainties under that price range and are good for cash flow and peace of mind and having an interest, most days, except when they lose of course! I have said before that you have to be damn good to avoid losing runs at any price , but the higher the price the harder it is. However if you have the skill to avoid them any way, or they do not bother you, you may as well stick to higher priced horses,
Yours
Swish

Hi Swish

Yes, when one tries to explore races of twenty years ago one appreciates how much more information is routinely available today. There are SFs in the old Form Books for the first five or six horses per race, though, and of course these are very useful.

I find the most time-consuming thing compared with today is working out the Official Ratings for non-handicaps from the old Racing Calendars. Nowadays the Racing Post sets the info. out in a simple table: working the figures out for an old race can take the better part of a couple of hours (including the journey time to the Newspaper Library which, apart from Weatherbys, is the only place I've found where they are available).

if OR interests you look at 350 today at wolvs if you cant see that your blind. that horse won by 25 lengths at 5/2 unbeleivable!!!

Barton looked like a VDW selection today.
Though the price was crap.VDW said that the
price had to be above 1/3 on even if Barton
was a racing certainty.In the 2.55 at Kempton
Phar from a Fiddle looks interesting.Only one
problem with this one that i can see.


Any thoughts

Maggsy

Hello, Hope you all had a good Christmas, I was amazed at all the post that have been going on over the holiday.

Maggsy.

You ended one of your postings by saying what am I missing? I don't think you are missing very much at all. If anything you are trying to roll two vdw methods into one and maybe even crediting vdw with a few sayings I'm not sure he is responsible for. One thing I think you are doing is taking the form figures at face value, and maybe you should take a little more notice of Swish.

Swish

A very good thread on the tissue makers. I hope you had the 20/1 winner yesterday, just goes to prove there is value out there. I had the 20/1 and the only danger I could see was 4th at a very good price. I some times think the tissue makers can't see past a few wins (not taking class into account). That's when they are not busy believing the hype (they wrote) about horses, trainers and jockeys. Someone posted a system about horses that open a lower price than the forecast. It works not because the horse has been backed, but because the bookies know the price was wrong in the first place. The value has gone then, but it is out there if you look long and hard. Mark Cotton wrote a very good article about forming a tissue in his book Value Betting and there have been some good articles in Smart Sig. These forecasts are just someone's opinion, who is to say they are any more right than you. I do wonder if they are trying to forecast the actual starting prices and not the true chance of the horse. The journalists have an editor to answer to if it looks wrong, but in many cases the editor is like the one that told Mark he was wrong to nap a 25/1 winner because we don't work like that. It really is sad to see Mark go from Pricewise to any price will do.

Hope you managed to find some good winners, and miss the hyped ones that lost, there where quite a few of them.

Regards

Hello Mtoto


What makes you think that i`m taking form figures
at face value.I understand that you have to look
at the form of all concerned to see if the form
confirms what the form figures say.I do this by looking
at the class of the last 3 races.How far it won or was beaten .Grade of course.Pace and going of
the races.and most important how the horse peformed at the end of the race.I understand that
a horse that came 3rd in a 3 runner race beaten 20 lenghts is not
the same as a horse that came 3rd in a 30 runner
race beaton only a length.


regards

Maggsy

In the 1.45 at Newbury today See You Sometime
seems to have alot going for it.Can`t see any
problems with this one.Anyone agree?


Maggsy