Johnd

The point that eventually penetrated my thick head was that made over and over again by Guest and one or two others, relativity. And, relative to some other runners, Non So was simply not of sufficient class today.

Lto Spirit Leader was lugging 18lb more than today in a race of somewhat lower class, but still relatively higher in class than most of the rest of today's field have shown in of late (if ever).

The point about VDW, insofar as I understand him, is that nothing relevant is unconsidered. That para. in the "Spells it all out" article you pointed out recently is not there to fill out the space.

Fulham,

I get the impression you may have played on Spirit Leader today. If so, a big well done. That of course goes to both Barney & Dante who named SL on the Tipping Challenge thread today.


A question if I may .

Non So`s ability rating remains the same despite the fact that he has just run the race of his life in one hell of a classy h`cap.

What is this horses class now ?

Cheers,

Guest, A very good evening.

As I`m sure you have realised, THIS THREAD NEEDS YOU.

Don`t wait for Cheltenham.

Any comments on today ?

Cheers,

Determined

Non So's performance today will, of course, be very relevant in assessing its chances when it next runs. But in my view the important thing is to make no prior assumption. It may be a good thing, or it may be out of its depth - we can't judge until we consider it in the context provided by the race, the other runners, and the conditions obtaining on the day.

fulham, mtoto, john d, lee, statajack,guest,all.
regarding your assessment of todays competitive, races, was spirit leader a qualifier?...i noticed fulham put down the relevant factors, class as prize money rating form, assessing last three form placing, do you consider the five most consistent horses in the more competitive races,/ many thanks grundy

Grundy

Consistency and form are two different ideas within VDW's approach.

Personally, I start with class (ability); then form in the context of class and "conditions" (weight, distance, going etc). The consistency rating, per se, can be a useful cross-check, as VDW has indicated, and he rarely selected a horse with a consistency aggregate of more than 12. But, like much else, that should be thought of as indicative rather than as a firm rule.

It occurs to me that part of my initial post is ambiguous. Having eliminated three highly ability rated horses as palpably not in form, it should not be assumed that I regarded all the other four as form horses. One very knowledgeable follower of VDW's approach has suggested to me that the 2nd c/f wasn't among the four, and I suspect he may be right. (My initial view was that the horse concerned - Non So - was the 3rd c/f, but this turns on a point on which VDW was less explicit than one would wish, and which Bream referred to in a recent post.) On my expert colleague's view of matters, the first and second c/fs finished first and second.

Fulham,

You say the consistency factor is a x check. After reading all the books again I can't quite see that, to me it is one of the most important factors.

Why put in all the work finding the win % for the consistency rating?
Why out of the 6 c/form horses on Boxing are only 2 bets?
Why are we told with the Old Fellow example the third, and final (deciding) stage take the lowest 3 for consistency?
Why is the only time we go outside the forecast for the consistent horses?
Why did he go out of his way to show consistent horses that didn't qualify, still ran well?

I except a consistent horse may not be the form horse, but only a x check?

Congratulations on finding Spirit leader, she fared well in my class/ability ratings. My concern about her was her size, I thought the race would be to rough for a small horse. I also thought to keep her out of trouble, she would have to give away to much ground coming around the outside. I was wrong on both counts (her, and Puntal).

I think Determined, (like me) is thinking how can a useful ability rating ignore a quality run like that?

Be Lucky

The main problem with the prize money 'ability rating' is that it doesn't rate ability, it rates achievement, which is something quite different.

Mtoto

It is a matter of interpretation.

Rather like the Bible, VDW's work provides passages that, used in isolation, can be used to fit many assertions and arguments. But that doesn't mean there isn't a central, consistent and reasonably objective core to the "VDW approach", about which, in my view, VDW was absolutely explicit.

The ability rating is crude, and VDW himself recognised that it was not always an adequate measure of ability. But he also said, explicitly, that he'd adopted it for (almost) general use. Presumably if he had found something better - ORs, sfs or whatever - he'd have adopted that.

Epiglotis distinguishes ability and achievement, and rightly says that VDW's ability rating rates achievement. I think VDW would respond that achievement is, generally speaking, the best proxy for ability.

VDW said it all, really, in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of his article of 2 April 1983.

Saturday’s racing.

I’ve had a request from someone who wanted a list of recent examples of the methodology. I thought rather than just send them a list of winners, I’d post yesterday’s bets on the forum so that anyone who’s interested can have a look and either agree or disagree with my conclusions.
The consistency method from “Spells It Out” highlighted the possible chances of 7 horses that all came through the initial numerical picture of their respective races.
H.1.45 Claymore W10/11
A.1.40 A Piece Of Cake W11/4
C.1.45 Log On Intersky W4/7
A.2.45 Man Murphy W1/3
H.3.10 Paxford Jack W8/1
N.3.35 Marlborough L2/1
H.3.40 Simply Supreme L9/4

I am uneasy about backing at odds on so I left the 3 novice chasers Claymore, Log On Intersky and Man Murphy, although all 3 were well clear on all aspects of the methodology and only had to jump round to win.
A Piece of Cake I also let go because I was unhappy with the 2 “unseated rider” form figures and the fact that the horse carried more weight against better performers than for its last win. In the end APOC prevailed but only by the narrowest of margins.
I was chuffed to bits when Paxford Jack won. This was a brilliant “Love from Verona” style example which shows both how VDW used weight and also how this kind of horse is ignored by the betting market, to the advantage of anyone conversant with the methodology.
Possibly buoyed up by Paxford’s success I considered Marlborough a “good thing” against an overrated Chives and a shown up LTO Valley Henry. I couldn’t have been more wrong as Marlborough was well beaten by both when coming down at the last. I note Johnd mentioned Marlborough had a poor record at Newbury so well spotted, I wrongly assumed his class would carry him home.
I’ll probably make the same mistake with the Marlborough bet again in the future, but in the cold light of today Simply Supreme was a howler, end of story. I’d let APOC go because it was up in weight and I ignored this fact for Simply Supreme. I also ignored the fact that the horse was also upped in class and switching from a novice hurdle to a novice handicap hurdle. Firstly, I shouldn’t even be considering novice hurdlers, let alone one upped in class and appearing in a handicap for the 1st time carrying more weight. The horse was well beaten by a 33/1 shot.
Well there you have it. A “yes”, a “don’t know” and a big “no no.” However, the consistency method produced 7 possibles via the initial numerical pictures of their respective races of which 5 won. People can crab VDW methodology as much as they like but the results of just blindly carrying out the numerical picture show that there is nothing at all wrong with the method, only the individual’s (mine) understanding of how to continually utilise it successfully.
Regards,

Statajack
Didn't you like Stormez? I thought it was the clearest bet of the day.

Fulham
Perhaps you'd like to post the paragraphs in question on the thread Tuppenycat created for such occasions.

Statajack,

I dont think VDW would have considered the "lesser" races at the "minor" meetings.

Epiglotis

I take the view that those seriously interested in discussing VDW will, as a minimum, have the two Peach compilations and "Systematic Betting".

Okay, I'll see if I've got 'em hanging around somewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fulham:

VDW said it all, really, in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of his article of 2 April 1983.

---

Fulham, are the 2 paras. you refer to the ones that start as follows...

During the past few years....
and
Some readers have come to terms...

Cheers IMP

Imp

Yes indeed.

Fulham, Mtoto , Mickeddy and Lee,

I've just been reviewing the posts of the last week or so and just wanted to thank you for the points you made and questions raised.At times they had my head spinning I must admit.

Hopefully this week I should recieve a couple of form books relating to Pegwell Bays race and will start trying to understand some of the points raised.

statajack mtoto,fulham,johnd,lee,determined, bream,all,
could i also just say a thank you to the above posts covering van der wheils methods, any insight into van der wheils methods can only inspire us to work harder at the main points of reading form, as fulham as said, which comes down to getting all the relevant form books and articles and assessing these factors, i am still having difficulty in locating the form books for these horses, i would welcome any members assistance, keep up the good work, grundy

Epiglotis,
Agreed, Stormez had a lot going for it but was not in the 3 most consistent. At short odds I want everything to be right. Its easier and more rewarding to take a risk with outsiders than short priced favourites.
Barney,
You are probably right but for all Jock Bingham's failings I use his cut off point of £5k race value for whether I look at the race or not. Sometimes on a saturday it means a lot of work and time on a saturday is something I dont normally have, but the work is still worth it.
regards.

Imp
If you have the paragraphs under discussion perhaps you would care to post them.