Thankyou for that,

I had used the sp and with no indications that there had been market shifts, which normally are indicated in my form books, I had assumed that that was the opening show and therefore based on the forcast of well informed judges as today.

Do you have any account of the opening show as compared to the forcast?

lee,

hello, had a good holiday?

I cant see for looking, can you tell me where pagan sun is?

Barney

I can't help re first shows, I'm afraid. The info. might be available in the following day's Life, but I've never checked.

Pagan Sun was one of the Handicap Hurdle method selections VDW gave in his 18/1/1986 article "The VDW Approach", mentioned in the paragraph immediately after the sub-heading "A Puzzle to Follow". (Page 25 in my edition of "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune".)


Lee

Thanks. I wonder do you mean specific to handicaps, or specific to handicap hurdles?

I was once told there is no such thing as a stupid question.

Is the ability rating not one of the two methods of rating?

IMHO it is entirely feasable that VDW rated a particular aspect of his form study as Mtoto suggests and in particular how horses fared in the final two furlongs of their last race.
I have read a number of articles in the past on this and the best and most relevant of the lot appeared in the March 2002 issue of Smartsig. The article rated form book comments relative to the finish of a horses last race and set the analysis in a VDW framework ie 1st 5 in betting, top 3 consistency etc.
Obviously it would be wrong to repeat the detail here but interestingly the author wrote under the name of "hedghog" - a name which I am sure appears on this thread.
Interestingly on a rating of 0-5 my assessment is that Beacon Light would have got 0 and Prominent King 3.
Regards

Graham

he was wrong

no offence meant whatsoever

just a light hearted way of saying

not imo

I am sure that the article that hedgehog posted was posted to the forum.

If i am not mistaken shortly afterwards


are you familiar on how to do a search on his/her posts

I have not got the 1985/86 form book can you tell me please if he was fto race?

None taken.

Just that (and I haven't got my books to hand so I can't quote page/letter reference etc.) the first letters say 'and using my two methods of rating' and then later the ability rating is introduced.

Guess I shouldn't have re-read Minority Report last night. A nice tale of cause and effect.

If people are going to reply to my last post why not try to answer the questions posed in it?
Ratings like topspeed or postmark may well influence SP's but not to the extent you might think. There are numerous occasions when a horse top rated on both can go off at 5/1, so what? The point as was claimed, is certainly being missed!

You can rate a race for consistency and ability and then read the form until you come to your choice (or not as the case may be) and then you may or may not get it right, depending on various factors such as experience, tiredness, mood or any of the hundred and one factors that may be missed for whatever reason. We've all been there, right?
We can never be certain we've made the right choice (horse racing is after all an unpredictable event) but how can we be virtually certain we've got it as right as we can and not favoured one horse unduly for maybe sentiment or some other reason without realising it?
Still with me?
Now look at all vdw's examples where he showed the initial picture with 2 ratings (compiled differently, remember)and then differentiate between the examples where he said "bet" and where he said "no bet." He also said it didnt matter what ratings were used so long as they were reliable and that a horse didnt have to be top rated. So you dont even have to use PM, TS or RHR-you can use less well known ones which wont affect SPs.
At the end of the Henbit/Blakeney paragraph in Spells it out he says "conclusion, regard ratings as a guide in association with other factors." Just where did this morph into "ratings are worthless"? The idea is to use them as vdw intended, not rubbish aspects of the methodology that were overlooked or misunderstood and which dont fit in with your current viewpoint. Perhaps those who disagree might humour me by using them correctly for a couple of weeks and then comparing their new strike rate with the old one.
regards,

ps fto over hurdles

Barney

No, the race Pagan Sun won as a VDW selection was his 3rd of the 1985/6 season, and the first two were handicap hurdles of comparable class to that he won.

Thankyou again

more form books on their way!

Arowson,

The ability rating as later introduced wasn't one of the two methods of rating as used in the PK example. He said PK was joint in one and top in the other. He also says of the five horses he rated, the 3 stared came out best. Beacon Light was well out of it on both. If he had used the c/form method why was Beacon Light considered, if he was out of form?

In the 4 examples were he shows the other ratings, he also includes the ability rating. I am studying this at the moment, to see if anything can be learnt about the way he thought. For example why wasn't the obvious horse Wayward Lad, 2nd rated but 3rd in both methods. After all he was second in the consistency and ability ratings.

Be Lucky

Grundy - VDW mentioned those horses for a very good reason. He later said that he often put things across in a way that most people would think them of little consequence, but that in fact they were of importance.

Statajack/All - Put it this way. I methodically rate horses when I undertake an evaluation of a race using VDWs approach, just as I believe VDW did. If I also refer to press ratings I am not using a method to produce these ratings I am merely conferring with someone elses opinion. Yes, THEY would have been methodical in how they rated the same horses, but I seriously doubt they used the same means VDW seemed to use.

Mtoto - Beacon Light was considered because it was one of the consistent horses. Was this not the basic initial approach? Finding the class/form horse has nothing to do with consistency ratings.

VDW readily admitted that there were many ways to do the same thing. However, he did maintain that doing things his way he seldom came unstuck.

Why do so many fail to really think about why VDW put things across in a certain way? This was not some haphazard writer just slinging ideas at the Raceform readership. He was obviously a very astute person conveying some of his approach in a methodical manner whilst at the same time being careful not to tell everyone everything. He knew, quite rightly, that only those with an inquiring mind might see what lay beneath the surface of his writings.

The question of form will always raise it's head, and VDW eventually realised that his definition of form was very different to the majorities. Until you consider form in anywhere near the same way that VDW did, the approach VDW gave will not work.

But, you may ask, how did VDW establish form ?

If you really think hard about his whole approach the answer is obvious.

Guest,

I can see Beacon Light was considered in the first place, I am talking about why was he considered in the ratings if he was out of form. Why bother to rate an out of form horse, if he used the c/form method he would surely have been eliminated immediately. I CAN see if the form wasn't good enough he would have fared badly in the ratings, but that doesn't make him out of form. Just not good enough. As VDW used a consistency rating I don't think he would have duplicted it in other method/rating. I think the other ratings were to gauge the elements not included after the field had been narrowed down with the consistency and then the forcast.

{Using two methods of rating all five horses, I found that the three starred horses came out best. Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it and his last race had been a hard one against Sea Pigeon so I was left with Prominent King etc.}

You say consistency has nothing to do with the c/form method. I agree, that's one of the reasons I don't think it's any more than a cross check. It is however the easiest way to get rid of BL. I don't think any of the commercial ratings would, but VDW did and so can I.

I do agree with your reply to Grundy.

Be Lucky

In a recent post to Barney you suggest that he consider the link between two sentences from separate letters penned by VDW. Letter 13, last sentence of paragraph 4 and letter 8, first sentence of paragraph 4, I understand that to mean the following two sentences, could you confirm this please.

I also stated in my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods.

Using two methods of rating all five horses, I found that the three starred horses came out best.

It's not clear to me what you're getting at as both sentences describe the same matter if from a slightly different angle. Perhaps you were using VDW's own words to answer Barney's remark "speed figures, official ratings and form are all utter and complete RUBBISH."?

For those who haven't seen these letters I append them here, also letter 12 as it was in reply to this that VDW wrote letter 13.

Letter No 8
In response to G.Hall (16-2-78) perhaps the following will provide food for thought.
It is not a system, but one of many ways to narrow the field and at the same time put
the odds in your favour. I suggest that two factors can be coupled together to leave
three horses for consideration.
First, consistent horses win a high percentage of races. Second, the first five in the
betting forecast in non-handicaps and the first six in handicaps, produce a high
percentage of winners. If we add the last three placings of the respective horses in the
betting forecast together, we have a numerical picture. This can be very illuminating
and show, subject to other considerations, the good betting propositions. A high
percentage of winners come from the three lowest figures. Leaving out sellers and
novice handicaps it often traps the winner in all races on the card.
As I write the only race in my paper which was 'on' - the Erin Foods Champion.
Hurdle at Leopardstown broke down as under - * is used to indicate the three-
probables.
Decent Fellow............. 7
Beacon Light............... 3*
Monksfield................. 16
Prominent King........... 5*
Mr Kildare ................... 3*
Mr Kildare had only two placings so the last placing was added on.
Using two methods of rating all five horses,
I found that the three starred horses
came out best. Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it and his last race had
been a hard one against Sea Pigeon so I was left with Prominent King and Mr Kildare.
12
Prominent King had the edge by one method and was level using the other. Checking
the form. Prominent King was coming out of handicap company where he shouldered a
massive 12-7 last time out going under by five lengths to Drumgora also in this race on
171b worse terms.
Mr Kildare, an odds-on winner last time out not against much opposition, was set to
carry 51b more. Prominent King coming out of handicap company with 151b less to
carry and on the same course looked a good proposition. It duly obliged at 6-1, Mr
Kildare following him home at 5-1.
With a sensible staking plan, the method works well for me. But remember, you do
not HAVE to have a bet, but when you do, load the odds in your favour. In conclusion,
may I say to G.Hall that we are all novices, it is just that some have been so for longer.

C Van der Wheil, Market Harborough.

Letter 12 From “Methodmaker” Sports Forum`s Systems Anayst
Betting Forecasts Narrow The Field
IN a recent contribution to Sports Forum, reader C. Van der Wheil put up a
proposition which he claimed would narrow the field and at the same time put the odds
in favour of the backer. He also said that the first six in the betting forecast produce a
high percentage of winners, 'and if we add the last three placings of the respective
horses in the forecast together we have a numerical picture.'
I certainly agree with this contributor's contention that the first five or six horses in
the betting forecast, between them, produce a high percentage of winners. Indeed, I
have proof that:
1 - First and second quotations return some 50 per cent winners.
f*
2 - Third, fourth and fifth quotations 33 per cent winners. ﾈ';･
3 - All other quotations 17 per cent winners.
The above percentages covered a wide area of different forecasts and can be taken as
the result of an acceptable survey.
What I am not so sure about is the way C. Van der Wheil so readily accepts previous
form figures at their face value. He appears to do this without question and in this
context he may be skating on very thin ice.
On occasions, the winner apart, such placings can be virtually meaningless.
Logically, to assess their true value all minor placings should be the subject of close
scrutiny. I am sure that 'C. Van der W with his undoubted know-how will appreciate
the point.
As regards the introduction of our friend's approach of betting forecast quotations, it
is good to see that nowadays different newspapers tend to present much the same
anticipatory odds. This greater unanimity serves a good purpose in the sense that it
stabilises the position for the many keen users of betting forecasts.
Of course, forecast quotations can never be more than a guide as to how the betting
on the course may go. Inevitably, actual SP returns will tend to differ, but by and largcf'
betting forecasts will continue to serve as potentially sound sources of information.

Letter 13
Numbers Game To Form A Picture.
METHODMAKER comments on my contribution with the suggestion that I appear
to accept previous form figures without question and in this context may be skating on
very thin ice. He omitted to mention that I stated, with regards to the numerical picture:
'This can be very illuminating and show, SUBJECT TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS,
the good betting propositions.' Presumably if someone ofMethodmaker's calibre has
misinterpreted my suggestion there will be many readers who have failed to grasp the
intent.
I stated that consistent horses win a high percentage of races and now present a few
form-figures from my own extensive surveys. Disregarding ALL factors other than the
last three placings, my figures show percentage wins next time:
111 33%, 121 32%, 221 31%, 321 29%, 132 26%, 313 24%, 213 25%, 214 24%, 204
8%, 302 8%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
Using Methodmaker's figures, which I accept, the first five produce 83% winners.
My own combined figures from the three most consistent produce - 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4
98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%.
I also stated in
my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods.

April 21 at Sandown, the day following Methodmaker's comments, there was on
|outstanding bet by my calculations, Celtic Pleasure won 7/2. It is interesting that on the
^ame card Little Nugget scored and I leave it to readers to ponder without further
comment other than to say it did not feature in the first six in my paper, in fact it was
not mentioned. The following day Saturday, April 22, produced two more good things
(by my calculations) Battlement won 9/2 at Thirsk, and Strombolus won 7/1 in the
Whitbread Gold Cup at Sandown.
Again it is interesting that Strombolus did not feature in the first six in my daily, or in
a well known sporting daily. To the credit of the Sporting Chronicle it did feature. A
further point I feel worthy of mention is that both first and second in this race had a
total of three from last three placings. The previous Saturday, April 15 produced
three outstanding bets, again by my calculations. Rifle Brigade won 5/2 (Beverley),
Orchestra won 6/1, Derrylin won 4/1 (Newbury). In the latter's race note Weth Nan
second, and in Orchestra's race Welsh Dancer second. Readers may also like to ponder
over the Scottish National on the same day.
Since the opening of the Flat I have placed 32 bets of which 29 won. No wonder I
smile when a self-appointed 'old 'un' of 50 years' experience topples himself from
his pedestal by stating he finds it even more difficult to show a profit now tax has
been increased to 9%. I accept Methodmaker's comments and concede the ice breaks
sometimes, but assure him that on the whole it is much thicker than it may appear.
C.Van der Wheil, Leicestershire.

Barney,
Yes I am thanks - had to be to keep up with this thread!

All the best,

Graham

Statajack - For some time now you have been implying that one should follow the ratings, as in VDWs examples including Little Owl and Wing & A Prayer, by only betting if the horse is also rated in the best two of both sets of these ratings. This is all well and good if you know how VDW compiled these ratings. I know he used the Mail and Sporting Life for Wing & A Prayer & co just to show, in my opinion, that they are only a crosscheck after the hard work is done and any good set will do. However, it still begs the question of why VDW felt it necessary to compile his own method of rating horses?

Many times a good thing is not top or 2nd in the press ratings as per Wing & A Prayer or Cool Gin and I'm sure a lot of VDWs wagers were not top or 2nd in the press ratings of the day also. The thing is, he had developed his own method of rating races and horses. He just didn't quite spell out how he applied this method.