Well impressed Investor, 10/10 capitals, just a tadge more on the punctuation, you know,.,.,.

as you know its all about time to look enough

the races i had looked at before Guests post I had reached the same conclusions bella tusa, knavesmire, folio all races where there was conflict. archduke was obvious but no value and holland so no bet for me. I liked litttle amin because of the price and the hidden aspects.I did like the clonmel horse though but being honest would not have looked at it without Guests pointer.

Guest is obviously doing it much faster than I certainly can because he put up the whole days likely's in a matter of hours.

As usual win or lose, I returned to every race examined to check for errors or mistakes or just to confirm findings. I ended up making 4 bets today as Archduke Ferdinand was below the forecast 8/11 which I made clear in my post.

Two points came out of my inquest. I had failed to note that Sarraaf had been dropped into a poor claimer to win before being raised against Muchea and co. Also Smart Hostess had been racing at a low level and the win came in a false value race. The opposition wasn't much today though, but even so a mistake I feel.

Unleash just ran well below and perhaps hated the blinkers. Ballyconnell was good value I thought and jumped very well before throwing it away on the flat. That happens so rarely, but that's racing. To be honest, I actually found Sisals overhauling more of a let down. Still, it's just one days events.

Guest, does that mean you win some you lose some ?

Sorry, just trying to economise on ink.

You picked some bad horses today, but heh I have had terrible days too, like most punters.

I reckon, (and its only a guess that you are quite young, or haven't done this for many years, say more than 10. Again only a guess).

In my time I have had many tricasts using draw alone and a multitude of forecasts.
So to say the draw is irrelevant really does show your inexperience.
I will say though that draw is of more relevance in handicaps.

As you know I like speed figures. Regrettably the speed figs can go right out of the window if they aren't drawn right.
Dont you know about people who made several hundred thousand pounds backing the draw at places like Thirsk and Sandown in sprints?

I am talking like the first 3 home being 33's 33's 16's.

Oops I forgot, not first 6 in the betting. Doesn't count then.

Max, myself and others aren't talking rubbish.

Yes I know you worship VDW but do you really think he is the only person to have ever made money betting?

Cheers
Swish

Swish - I'm probably younger than yourself, but I'm old enough to know that tricasts and other bookies benefits are for mugs or fun punters.

No, I don't see VDW as the only one who made money at betting, but I do see him as probably the most successful. This is because he was able to teach me through his articles, how to consistently find winners, something no one else has done. I am aquainted with several "pros" and their approaches vary wildly. Some of them live on a very tight edge and clearly have other income sources, but in the main I respect them for making it pay to various degrees. Obviously I can only gauge your own circumstances from your posts, but I'm quite sure from what you have said in the past that you are not making a very comfortable living from your betting, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Again also you have misunderstood one of VDWs guidelines. The betting forecast was not a rule and was only really used as a guide in the consistency method, but it is a fact that some 80% of all winners come from the first 5 or 6 in the forecast or are you going to argue that point also.

Sorry if the tone of my reply is somewhat condescending or arrogant, but some of your flippant remarks are so clearly born out of a long time following old wives tales in racing.

Show me a spread sheet for a 1000 races that proves to me that 80% of winners come in the first 6 in the betting in handicaps (you aren't getting away with 6,7,8,9,10 runner races etc
let's say 14 runners and up).

The ball is in your court.

If I run out of cig papers whilst we are enjoying our fun it is definetly your fault,
Cheers
swish

Whilst you are at it prove to me that most winners don't come out of the draw they are supposed to (irrespective of price)
Swish

p.s
You are often arrogant, same as me,
Swish

Swish

Assuming I've set the categories up correctly (and any other RSB user will be able to correct or confirm the following data), over the 16 years 1986 to 2001 inclusive, on the Flat (I don't have NH data), there were 60,941 races, of which 52,718 were won by horses in the first six of the betting forecast, ie 86.5%.

But, as you say, that includes a lot of races where it was either certain, or highly probably, that a horse in the first six would win.

Focusing therefore on races with 14 or more runners, we get the following:

total such races - 15,776, of which 11,402 were won by horses in the first six of the forecast, ie 72.3%.

And if we confine ourselves to handicaps with 14 or more runners, there were 10,151, of which 6,763 were won by horses from the first six of the forecast, ie 66.6%.

Assuming that I've not cocked the RSB categories up, therefore, even in 14 and more runner handicaps 2/3rds of the winners have, historically, come from the first six in the betting forecast.

There can, I suggest, be no reasonable doubt that VDW's guideline of focusing on the first five (non-handicaps) and six (handicaps) in the betting forecast does indeed focus initial attention on the "pool" containing most winners. But it was only a guideline and its clear, from both his writing and his examples, that VDW never confined himself to the first five/six.

I am not nit picking believe me, but can you clarify apoint for me regarding the forcast.

is that information on the morning forcast for instance or the actual prices at the off.


thanks in anticipation

as a cross check here are a couple of my class/form horses

255n

c/f suggestive
2nd c/f binary file = gateman

suggestive is a bet

325n

c/f zafeen
2nd c/f cassis

barons pit is out of form

non of these are good enough to beat zafeen and he looks a cert to me


as always i am open to correction

is the fact that vdw told us to look at different forcasts from different papers a pointer to the often occuring instances where the morning forcast and SP differ?

Barney


Again, I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable about RSB than me, but I think that for most of the years, RSB have averaged the forecasts in the Life and Post. I'm not quite sure when the Post started, so some of the early years may just be Life data, whereas presumably the most recent years are just Post.

But the figures I've given are definitely related to betting forecasts, and the software also allows one to do the same calculations with SPs.

As you your later query, I simply don't know. From a study of VDW's examples, its clear that VDW didn't always use the Life (eg for his very first, the 1978 Erin), but sometimes the Chronicle's or Mail's. However, while the use of different forecasts may lead to different intermediate conclusions (ie as to the identity of the class/form horse IF I'm right in thinking that, for VDW, the c/f was always one of the first six in the forecast), it should be immaterial in reaching final conclusions (ie bets), as VDW did not confine his attentions to the first six.

And I think this is where those who have only a sketchy knowledge of VDW get worked up over nothing. From time to time, when Guest posts a selection it evokes comments on the "but it wasn't in the first six in the forecast" or "but it wasn't one of the three most consistent horses" lines, as if somehow Guest was breaching some Mosaic law. From my researches, with one possible exception (that they were form horses, in VDW's sense) NONE of VDW's guidelines apply in all the examples he gave. The percentage of selections he gave which were (a) in the first five or six of the betting forecast, (b) among those five or six top rated on ability, and (c) again among the five or six one of those with the three lowest consistency figures is significant, but far from 100%.

Barney

As regards class/form horses, if Guest posts in respect of the 2.55 Newbury I believe Mtoto's question will be clearly answered. For unless I'm much mistaken, for Guest Suggestive would not be the class/form horse even if the race were a match between him and Binary File.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I was starting to panic for a moment or two.

With regard to your later point, I have to agree with you, I have said that all along "they are usefull pointers"

IT would be nice to read your thoughts on one or two of todays likely races on what looks a promising day.

Surely if Guest can put in the time and effort for the benefit and education of us all, then its only a small step to take in appreciation.

just seen your last post

we shall see. Thats why I put them on

what is your c/f?

Thankyou for taking the time and effort to look that info up.
Ok, I shall accept 66.66 for 14 runner hcp winners and over.

It would be nice if someone could come up with the draw figures as well,
Cheers
Swish

Swish/Fulham - Fulham your figures are pretty much spot on and nothing much has changed on this front over many years, despite the doubting thomases. Of course,Swish it is only a guide, but you have to have a very good reason for going outside the forecast area. It does happen, but not all the time.

Of course if Fulham generously decides to undertake a draw study with RSB, should it not also follow that a separate study for races of double figure fields should be used in line with your 14 runner guideline, just so we cover most angles ?

I will make a post about todays racing later.

Hi Fulham, Swish,

The picture for NH racing is very similar, even slightly stronger.

The first 6 in the forecast produce:
All races - 92%
14 runner + - 80%
14 runner + handicaps - 69%

All data taken from RSB NH 1991 to 2000 inc.

Surely, if you are going to analyse the draw factor in flat racing then somebody needs to define the parameters of favoured biases at individual tracks. With many publications taking opposite views and many biases being dependant on prevailing going conditions and stalls placement, this is no easy task.

Cheers