JIB


You wrote:

"The first and perhaps greatest non-sequitur about the VDW methodology is the contrast between the ridiculously simplistic (and form wise worthless) consistancy rating and the complexity of the musings given to weight carried in class."

I'm probably going to regret starting this, but I can't for the life of me see how these two matters are non-sequitur.

The first - VDW's consistency rating - has indeed nothing to do with the issue of form (and probably one of the most common mistakes those, including myself, interested in his initial articles made was to assume that it did). All the consistency rating does in reality is to narrow the field of runners so that attention can be focused upon the sub-set from which the winner is most likely to come. If one takes the first six (and equals) in the betting forecast for the kind of races VDW suggested should be focused upon, and especially the better class handicaps, and adds to them any horses lower in the forecast with one of the three lowest consistency ratings, one usually (though of course not invariably) creates a sub-set including the winner. VDW was aware that this was a meretricious device, but in my experience it works. And it is an easily checked empirical matter.

The issue of form, class and weight is much more complex and goes to the heart of how VDW approached handicaps, which some punters leave alone as being too tricky for betting purposes but which to VDW were happy hunting grounds. (And, if I may confess a personal prejudice, they are my preferred area of operation. I'm much more interested in achieving a decent, though far from 80%, strike rate in races where prices are rarely below 3/1 and often very much higher, than I am in the kind of odds on shots in non-handicaps that seem to be preferred my some of my fellow VDW enthusiasts.)

The reasons that handicaps are considered difficult are various, but include (a) the fact that, in the main, they consist of horses with considerable exposed form, and (b) the differential weights are allocated by people whose full time job is essentially to stay on top of that form and try to ensure that all the runners in a given race finish together. How, then, can we punters, most of us part time in the extreme, hope to do better than the handicappers and identify winners in this situation?

VDW has an answer to that question which, unlike his consistency rating (and indeed his ability rating) is not meretricious, and takes a lot of work to discover. It doesn't, of course, always work out as one would hope, but it does often enough to enable a more-than-worthwhile profit to be made. And it is based on a number of considerations each of which seems to me logical. These include:

1) the proposition that not all the horses in any given race are currently in form. (At the level of simple observation this surely seems right. Some runners carry penalties for having won an often similar handicap a week or so ago, while others won't have been in the first half dozen in their last five or even ten races and, in the commonly used term, are sliding down the handicap);

2) those horses which are in form (from a VDW perspective, often probably not all that different from any other perspective), are not all well suited by the circumstances of the actual race under analysis. Distance and going are obvious factors. So too, I suppose, is the nature of the course, and the draw, though in my ignorance I rarely consider the former (except where a horse is notoriously right or left handed), and except in sprints the importance of the latter is often over-emphasised. Then there is the issue of weight which some - Mtoto is one - are inclined to disregard, but which to VDW was crucial, and which I'll address below.

Mtoto's position, as I understand it, is that surely a few pounds (or even perhaps a stone or two, is irrelevant when we are considering the likely performance of an animal weighing nearly 1000 pounds over a finite distance. And there is much to support this view - after all, horses' natural weights vary from day to day, depending on a number of things including their relative fitness, and we don't know either a horse's "normal" natural weight or his weight immediately prior to a given race. So why on earth should we be concerned whether he is handicapped to carry 9 stone rather than 9.7, or even 10 stone?

And a good deal of nonsense is talked about the effect of weight, even by those who should know better. Take this quote from "How to Compile Your Own Handicap" by Raceform's private handicapper, David Dickinson (it is on page 10 of my copy):

"Using the minimum race distance of five furlongs, the most basic question is "just how many extra pounds on a horse's back will slow it by a length". In feet, the distance of such a race is 3,300 and, as the weight of the average horse and the average jockey combined is roughly 1,100lb, it essentially follows that each pound slows a horse by three feet. As the average length of a horse is around nine feet, our first conclusion is that one length (nine feet) is worth roughly 3lb in a five furlong race."

(You referred to non-sequitur. There is surely a true example in there.)

Nevertheless, while not taking too seriously Mr Dickinson's view, I do not agree with Mtoto. I believe that in truly competitive situations, when the difference between winning or losing can be measured in fractions of a second, even the smallest consideration can make a decisive difference, and marginal weight is one of those considerations. (In similar vein, top athletes and swimmmers seem to go to great trouble over matters of dress, and even body hair, to make sure that they are not hampered by marginal considerations.)

What VDW provides in this context are means of judging which in-form (from his perspective) runners, suited by the other conditions of the race (distance, going, etc) are likely to be able to carry their allocated weights successfully, and which are likely to struggle. And for those (surely the large majority) who take the view that, at the margin, weight does matter, that is no small asset.

Finally, some comments about the perception that VDW's ideas are really only useful to explain retrospectively, and that (judged by the selections posted on the thread) their use prospectively is unimpressive.

First, I believe that at least some of VDW's examples were analysed by him retrospectively, and that from time to time he, without any conscious attempt at dishonesty, inevitably interpreted matters in ways supportive of the result. I believe that also applies to many posts on this thread where someone says "how did we miss X, a true good thing?", having obviously just missed X. But so what. We are all clever with hindsight, in whatever sphere of life. The fact remains that VDW's approach is available to use both before and after races and, to pick up the matter of X, it should never be assumed that everyone missed it.

Second, the matter of prospective selections. Part of this is easy. Some of those who post such selections are (in the spirit of Christmas) in the early stages of trying to come to grips with VDW's approach. Perhaps their early efforts should not be taken as indicative of what can be done by those further advanced down the path to understanding that approach (any more than my golf is remotely indicative of what professionals can do).

But that does not address the whole issue, as there is one poster of prospective selections who, in my judgement, has understood very much more than the rest of us, namely Guest.

Guest must have put up several dozen pre "off" selections over the last nine months, and individuals will have formed their own views on such matters as strike rates, overall profitability, etc. Investor has, and has recently posted accordingly.

Guest will no doubt reply to Investor's post if he so wishes, and it is certainly not for me to try to respond for him. All I would say is that in those races I focus upon, and particularly the better handicaps, Guest has amply demonstrated what can be done: Lunar Leo, Birjand and Smirk coming immediately to mind.

It is easy enough to deride VDW's work, and there is plenty in posts on this thread which assists those who wish to do so. But at depth you need to ask yourself why people who are plainly not without some capability - Guest, of course, and you might even feel I could find place on such a list - use the man's work as their approach to betting. It may be that they are in reality losers who can't face the fact that the time and effort they have put in (and are still putting in) hasn't paid off. It may be that they are addicted to VDW as others are to betting itself. It may be that they have ulterior motives - perhaps some believe that Guest has aspirations to be the next Colin Davey. And there are countless other possible explanations. And these include that we know, from the evidence of our finances, that VDW's approach really does work.

Happy Christmas to you, and to all.

What a wonderfully eloquent reply.

It amazes me how many members of this forum are very classy writers (JIB included).

I should add that I am not judging either side (before I get embroiled within the VDW arguments!!!).

[This message was edited by senguptaj on December 24, 2002 at 08:15 AM.]

Firstly I would like to second Senguptaj's comments.
An excellent post.
I am glad to hear you look for decent priced handicap winners.

You mention how some other members on this thread tend to go for low priced/odds on favourites and non-hcps, which is not your forte.
Well that is a very good point.

No wonder sceptics think VDW is a load of rubbish when they see blatantly obvious favourites that anyone could pick get beaten.

When people post such selections on here they are saying (or trying to say),
"Look here are the sort of winners you get with VDW!"
Then when they lose it just belittles the VDW methodology.

If we saw a stike rate of odds- on of 90% we may be impressed, but, of course, the strike rate (from what we have seen on here) is appalling.
No wonder people think "So what".

I also do not understand the point of going for odds-on or low priced horses in "A" races when all the other runners are potentially some good.

Surely if one was to go for such horses it MUST be better to back them against a load of no-hopers. It's not exactly difficult to figure that out.

Let's use football as a comparison.
If MAN UTD were odds on at home to Bury in the FA cup most people would reckon MAN UTD were a 99% certainty.
However if they were playing REAL MADRID they are nowhere near a certainty.

That is because of CLASS difference obviously, which I which I notice you all mention regularly in you horse race summing up,

However, as you are unwilling to post any selections (I think you said you never will), and Guest appears to try his hardest but without success, there only appears to be Mtoto (who has e-mailed me privately), Andrew and JohnD with a few good selections in all the hundreds of pages of this thread.

That's why you will always have doubting Thomas's, both from people who can win at racing and those who can't,
Merry Christmas
Swish

Thanks very much for that.

Senguptaj/Swish/Arowson


Cheers.

In response to Swish's perfectly vaid comment re demonstrating what can be achieved, I would say that there are numerous reasons for not pre-posting on this board, but that doesn't mean that the exploration of races before the off is not worthwhile, or that in other fora I don't participate in such explorations, or draw attention to the occasional horse I'm backing.

The following was posted on another forum, of which four other contributors to this thread are members, at 8.21am on 18 October, relating to the 1.45 at Newmarket that day:

"For me the most interesting race on the Newmarket card.

Among the first six, the only horse I don't regard as a form horse is Medallist. Among the five form horses, the ability rating order is:

Champion Lodge - 113
Faithful Warrior - 101
Bestam - 65
Nashaab - 63
Kilkenny Castle - 48

I think Champion Lodge is a decent c/f, though not a spectacular one, given his steady rise up the handicap since his win on 15 June at York, and in a 26 runner handicap one could not be too confident. Nevertheless I shall try to get a modest EW bet on at 11/1 with the Tote at 9.30.

Although Faithful Warrior is 2nd highest on ability, and well clear of the other three in form horses, Nashaab seems to me to be the principal danger. But as he's Pricewise's selection I've already arbed him, which effectively saves on Champion Lodge.

There are several horses with higher ability ratings than Champion Lodge down the field, including Duke of Modena. But none seem in form - though I thought that about Repertory yesterday!"

One post, obviously selected to show a decent priced winner, proves nothing about overall performance. But I hope it may dispel any sense that I am unwilling to share my views before racing as well as afterwards. But the context has to be right, which for obvious reasons it isn't here.

Firstly I would like to echo the applause for Fulhams last post which goes some way to reasoning just why the whole thread can not be taken at face value in respect of VDWs effectiveness.

Swish - I have mentioned before that one of the major irritations on the thread is the selective memory by some posters and I'm afraid I have to include you in that group. Your latest post refers to the selections I have posted before racing over the last year and then implies that JohnD has proved more successful in this department. Now I have conversed with John in private and in my opinion he is on the right road, though different to mine in some respects. However, I am positive I have personally posted many more winners than John on this thread and on quite a few occasions, because he raised the points, have pointed out why some of his selections were not the class/form horses or bets before the race. I also gave the true winner in some of those races including Sir Toby the outsider of three at 7/2 and Smirk at 7/1 who completely dumbfounded the odds on merchants. With all due respect to John and I have no axe to grind with him, in fact I wish him well, his promise of 80% did not materialise and I have no doubt that the selection of Old Feathers was not a standout VDW bet. Paco Venture had far more going for it.

That's all by the by really though. The point is that continual selective facts about this thread just add to the confusion. I don't have all the answers and the learning process is a long ongoing one. I am totally convinced though that the basic factors I have in place for form evaluation as given by VDW are correct and match with all the selections he gave apart from the unexplained unexposed methods. The art is in implementing them correctly without error for every race evaluated. This is where experience comes in and recently I allowed a challenge to further hinder progress in this department.

VDW summed his method up as a numerical evaluation of the true odds. He continually evaluated on a numerate basis, but the majority took this in the wrong way. The 3 most consistent in the races indicated do win a large percentage of those races. That is a fact and undisputable. The reasons why? Who knows, but the idea of finding consistent horses is, like most good things, simple and logical. In itself it does not provide an easy route to winners, but it narrows the field thus reducing the odds of finding a winner.

Form horses, as established in VDWs way, win around 70% of all races. That is a fact, but it is relatively unknown because very few actually understand how VDW established a horse as a form horse. This factor alone will always safeguard the VDW methods because it is something one learns after experience coupled with research into his past examples. It cannot be explained in a few sentences or even a long article. VDW clearly said as much with his comment that form is a highly complex subject open to endless permutations and beyond the scope of the book Systematic Betting.

Form establishment VDWs way comes about via constant reference to class and I'm not talking about just race class and certainly not ORs. Most form students use ORs and that's why they all come to the same conclusions most of the time. The same would happen if most used VDWs way properly, but that will never happen in my opinion.

Speed is useful but it is definitely not the missing link or the full answer to VDWs methods. In fact you could argue it's use was a method itself. It is of no more use than any other aspect if it is not connected with class and form in the in depth manner VDW implied but never spelt out.

The posts I made concerning the Mackeson in 1988 hold more clues than I have ever posted before. True, these factors may not be the full story, but I am certain only a tiny amount of people know the factors I am refering to and they know that they work. I was expecting a few more to click on some of the points I raised in those posts. I even gave a very simple double meaning clue that would direct anyone spotting it to an important point in VDWs article. Maybe it has been spotted, who knows.

Finally I would say to Swish, that I have noted Andrews success and a well done to him. I also note that perhaps Mr Ed is more in the know concerning VDW than most. Either way, regardless of anyones VDW viewpoint, I would like to wish all a merry christmas and a prosperous new year.

Having taken a few days off with a bout of flu, I've just been catching up with the recent posts to this thread. Some excellent posts in the last few days from Guest, Fulham and others.

To be frank many of the recent posts couldn't have been more specific in spelling out many of the points to consider. To anybody starting out on the road of discovery then please ignore the doubters and knockers, buy the books and form books and get to work with the many examples that VDW gave. Virtually everything has been covered on this thread in one way or another but whilst the procedures may be simple and logical, please don't forget the hard work element of the equation. Simple and logical doesn't necessarily mean quick and easy!

At the end of the day the methods of VDW will point you towards a realistic profit from horse racing. Whether your strike rate is 80% of 50% matters not a jot in my opinion, the game is about making a profit (IMO), the sad fact is that the majority of punters fail to make an overall profit of any description. At the end of the day the strike rate will match the risk involved. Fulham, concentrating on good class handicaps and horses priced at 3/1 or better will quite obviously have a lower strike rate than those who restrict their betting to odds on chances in non handicaps but it doesn't mean the profits won't be greater.

The issues that VDW discussed in his many writings of class, form, consistency, weight etc will provide food for thought for any punter whether he embraces the whole VDW approach or not. There are several contributors to this thread who have undertaken some of the research and adapted his thinking to form the basis of profitable methods for themselves. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think VDW would have any problems with that. I'm sure he would have welcomed the fact that some of his thoughts had inspired others to discover profitable methods for themselves.

Whether people decide to embrace the VDW methods as he intended or cherry pick aspects to improve their preferred strategy anybody putting in the necessary work to understand the points he was striving to put across WILL gain something along the way.

A Merry Christmas to all.

Cheers

guest
why will people who use official ratings as part of their form study come up with the same horse most of the time?

to all vdw fans on this thread for me continuing to post on here,as i do not post much about vdw,but as barney knows i have bought all the books,just havent applied any of it,and as this is the only part of the forum with form discussed,youre all stuck with me.
merry xmas to all

The many excellent recent posts by Guest, Fulham, etc continue to prove this forum has to be the best going.

One day I hope to be able to post something of worth but until then I intend saying very little.

Merry Xmas to all the posters and their families and lets hope for a `peaceful` and prosperous New Year.

All the very best,

Cheers,

JIB,
I would think that just about everybody on this board is in posession of a dictionary, however the difference between them and you is that they dont spend hours poring over it in order to write inconsequential posts slagging off some thing or someone, whether its me, Barney, VDW in general or anyone else. You seem to think using long words researched from the dictionary (as you have admitted in a post on another thread) implies both eloquence and understanding. Unfortunately you confuse both for waffle, they are not the same.
I'm unable to amuse you with more tales concerning my "reliable source", because the tips from Mr Sillett appear every thursday in a UK local newspaper and a simple check of results will assure anyone that Sillett is both a) reliable, b) honest and c) profitable.
Also, you are welcome to be "on my case" as long as you want. You have been ever since you worked out that I'd read the same books that you had as a child and seen through the work of fiction you presented to everyone on this board as the story of how you wound up in Brazil. The thing is though, no-one cares about people's backgrounds on internet forums so why did you ever feel the need to invent one, and moreover one that could be seen through by anyone who has read the sequel to "Papillon" and a few Biggles books?
Like your avatar, you try just that little bit too hard to convince when there is no need, which leaves me to wonder exactly what it is you have to hide.

Fulham,
A very good case for the defence, whether yours personally or VDW in general although there is one aspect in which you are mistaken. As mentioned above, simply because JIB uses a dictionary for his pompous prose it doesn't mean he fully understands the words or phrases he finds, or the correct contexts in which to use them. What is certain is that he will have numerous hours of fun finding new ones to use when composing any reply. A possible metaphor for all our studies of VDW perhaps?

As its christmas eve, I'd like to wish everyone on this thread and the whole Gummy board (yes, even JIB) a very merry christmas. Enjoy!
regards,

guest,
these are only a part of the overall picture.

i have all the form for boxing day if you want to post a few hcaps up?

Greg - ORs were just not readily available day in day out in those days and VDW only mentioned them once and that was to demonstrate their failings as just someone elses opinion of a horses ability. VDW based a lot of his evaluation on how he found it best to appraise a horses class.

I`m pretty sure the ability ratings have already been posted somewhere on this thread but to save me a little time would somebody be prepared to put them up again.

Thank you in anticipation,

Mr e d,

I'm going to answer you on this thread, to try and keep everything together.

Why do you think Mr Kildare would have been the selection if PK hadn't run? Nowhere did VDW say he was the second rated, or is this another case of words being put in his mouth? Is it not enough to say BL was out of form, if VDW had thought that why didn't he say it?

If VDW was using the c/form method wouldn't MK have been eliminated as his form wasn't strong enough? VDW has shown in other examples that winning in lower class does not always constitute form. Guest has also supported this with some of his examples.

Having a selection that has an ability rating that is very low doesn't frustrate me, I just think it is illogical. There is a big difference if none of the horses have proven class. Remember it was VDW that said ability (class) never fades, (a horse can return to form at any time). He also told us to study what the horse had beaten, or been beaten by. What had MK done to warrant support against this field, even if he was the only form horse in the race? If you wouldn't advise taking novice form into a handicap why take into a race against top horses, non handicap or not.

I also think calling JIB an empty vessel, just because he doesn't agree with your thinking, arrogant. I don't agree with him about VDW, but I do understand were he is coming from. When horses are ruled out of races for what ever reason, and that self same reason is excused in following examples. However, I don't think that is down to VDW, more the people trying to make sense of the examples.

I would like to wish you, and all the contributors to this thread a very happy Christmas and prosperous new year. Along with a full, and better understanding of VDW.

[This message was edited by Mtoto on December 24, 2002 at 04:52 PM.]

JIB,
Napoleon's adventures are well documented by historians, yours are only documented by yourself.
Have a happy christmas anyway.
regards,

Barney
I do congratulate you on what appears to be outstanding progress in the short time you have been into VDW. I note that you have moved on to the 3rd method of rating (handicap ratings) something not deliberatly highlighted in the VDW piece. Perhaps I could point out to you that it is possible to form handicap ratings for non- handicap events as well. If you read and re read piece 35 in the Golden Years "to survey a phenomena" it will give you the answers you require. For cofirmation you could look up both Storming Home 4/10/02. & Life is Life 22/6/01, if your calculations are correct both will have almost a stone in hand. With regards to handicaps it is interesting to note that to rate the whole field using a very basic handicap rating method it traps the winner in the top 4/5 almost as often as the first six in the betting forecast does.- "In the Land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

Mr. toto

Before we move on to Strombolus perhaps we could survey a more topical example i.e. Prominent King, had you realised that if PK had not run in the Erins Food the VDW selection would have been Mr. Kildare - a raw Novice!! If I may say so you need to come to terms with the fact that Ability\Class ratings are a pecking order, always commencing at the top and working down eliminating those out of form eg Beacon Light, and once they are gone they don't reappear for appraisal at a later stage of the calculations. Of course we all make mistakes and from time to time they come back to haunt us. I feel sure that the above is the reason for your frustrations eg being unable to understand how a horse with an AR of 13 can win a race of 100+. Hence you come down and down the pecking order until occasionally you come up with a Desert Hero (13) or a Love From verona (7). Hope this helps.

JIB/JOHND

Mr. toto coined a phrase he picked up from his working life "Bullshit baffles brains", well heres one I picked up from a previous life as a Dustman:- "Empty cans make the most noise"

Guest

It is indeed the season of goodwill