Hello All,

Guest - I would like to add my thanks to those of the others for your work on Saturday. I found it very instructive.

All the best
hedgehog

This statement seems to always cause problems and is a bit tricky to explain without spelling it all out. Suffice to say you can treat it as a cryptic clue as per a crossword puzzle which might help. There was no "winner in the race" in the Extra Jack/Flying Instructor example. Instead there was "conflict" as Guest might say.

Hi Guest,

The points that you have made in relation to Vouchsafe are ones that I was aware of. Like has been said before when assessing a race there are many factors that have to be weighed up, however these factors I’m sure you’ll agree are logical and fairly simple. The hardest part of all, once they have been discovered, is employing them as VDW intended they should be.

Vouchsafe, as you rightly said, reversed form with those that beat him in the Northern Dancer, but for anyone looking at these examples in depth should be asking why? Other than skulduggery how can a horse that finished way down the field last time out then go on to reverse form and win? There isn’t one answer, but the answers are there. The point that ‘Guest’ has made regarding his previous win in the same race 2 years previous when being disqualified is one factor to note. It is also interesting to note where the Northern Dancer is run in relation to where Vouchsafe showed some of his best form. Why did the trainer enter him in the Northern Dancer? When I said that Vouchsafe hadn’t beaten much in the Bessborough in 88 that was of course in relation to his chances when coming up against Roushayd at Haydock.

Regarding past examples, they obviously get easier to compile as you go on and if I had my time again I would do things totally different to how I first started recording the information. In relation to that point the Roushayd example was one of the later ones that I looked at. I still go back over the examples even to this day, and have done so many times as it is amazing what else can suddenly appear that you didn’t note the first time round!

Statajack

I disagree. There were two potential "winners in the race" in the 3.00 at Doncaster - two horses which had the proven ability to win a race of that class and which, if they ran to their best, would readily beat all the others. One was, in my view, the more likely to run to his best, but the second could most certainly not be ruled out.

The two came first and second, although not in the order I regarded as the more probable. However, at the prevailing prices, both cried out to be backed.

Lee - The points you raised are good ones. How indeed did Vouchsafe improve so much on only slightly better terms ? I believe VDW was unable to discuss these type of selections because of certain considerations involved and the fact that he would have been implying some skullduggery against certain trainers.

I agree that it is very useful to go back to VDWs examples over and over again in order to spot virtually everything that was there.

By the way, I wasn't actually aiming the points made about Vouchsafe,etc at yourself, Lee because I was sure you knew what I was referring to anyway.

Fulham - What I think Statajack is saying is that because there was a doubt about certain horses, then there could not be a "winner in the race" in the sense VDW actually mean't. Again of course, VDWs phrase is actually a cryptic clue.

Barney - Here is the Raceform comment for Beacon Lights 3 runs prior to failing in the Irish Champion.

4/2/78 2nd - lw, qcknd & led 4th, hrd rdn last , ro wl

2/1/78 1st - held up , led appr last , pshd out

26/12/77 1st - held up , led last , qcknd , ro wl

Maybe Guest or some one else could explain
Probability as used in the VDW equation.
I think i understand the others but i`m not
sure about this part.

Determined.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back, I just don't know where the time goes!

RE, the 2 horses you mentioned, I thought Albuhera was a good bet another that made a mockery of the weight for age rule. Looking at my records I had him at 10/1. The Whistling Teal is a horse I have never backed, not because he didn't qualify on occasions. He just seemed to have a knack of getting himself into trouble, and not always running his race.

A couple of people have said Flying Instructor had no recent form, could I suggest they go back and look again. I think Swish and Determined may know where I am coming from, but it is not easy because I use my own speed figures (unadjusted for weight) and I'm not sure now Topspeed figures hold up. I'm not saying I backed him, but I did make him the class horse. If I had noticed what I have now seen I may have, but I missed it at the time.

Lee.

Can I ask what part of conventional form reading do you ignore, or not take into consideration? I have a tendency not to take weight into account, but many people think that is the route to the poor house.

Pleased to see I was in good company on Saturday, I also couldn't find a worth while bet. There's always next week!

Regards

Dear Maggsy,
I am not sure myself. Probability of winning compared to other runners perhaps?
I noticed you suggested that 4-1 winner the other day and noone replied (including myself), for my part I was not sure what to say because, later you hesitated against it. It must annoy you when you get no response, I know it does me, (like your opinions don't matter). In my case I have insulted a few on board on occassion, so I have to grin and bear it, but you have insulted nobody.
Therefore you are entitled to a response whatever it may be,
All the best
Swish

guest

thanks for those comments on the last three races
its all getting clearer,i think,i have just got to get the form books.like you say guest they are not machines.

maggsy

probability

in my opinion probability is a combination of all the relevant factors,class of race, distance, course, speed, ground, fitness,jocky, weight, trainer form, ability = probability (under todays circumstances) and of course for good measure it is proportional to the other runners in the field.

Guest

I've always thought that this phrase of VDW's was one of his most helpful, because prior to thinking about it I had assumed "naturally there is a winner in every race" which, in the practical sense that at the end of the race one horse will go into the winner's enclosure, of course there is.

What VDW meant by his phrase is, I believe, that we are concerned with those races where, by the application of rational form analysis, one can say with confidence that X has both the ability and form to win this race, today, in the prevailing conditions (opposition, going, weight, distance etc).

Technically, on this basis, there can, of course, only be one "winner in the race". But there were situations where VDW could see two (or more) plausible "winners in the race", in the sense that, in the other's absence, they were the clear "winners in the race". In that sense, there was conflict which ruled out a single win bet, but my hypothesis is that VDW turned the situation to advantage by multiple betting.

Unfortunately, although he gave us a wealth of examples of single bets to study, as far as I have yet been able to trace he did not give any examples where he clearly named a two (or more) horse betting situation - the 1986 Old Newton being the nearest. But the whole tenor of his approach suggests that he would only have backed two (or more) in a race where he saw each of them as a plausible "winner in the the race" in the other's absence. In other words, my assumption is that he employed multiple betting precisely in situations like the 3.00 Doncaster on Saturday.

I note your comment about doubt about a horse, and for me there were most certainly doubts about both Extra Jack and Flying Instructor - principally about how confident one could be in one's interpretation of their last runs. But I have to say, having worked through a number of the early examples in some depth, that there were what I would regard as doubts in most, if not all, cases.

Take Prominent King. Prior to the 1978 Erin, although he'd shown the potential to win a race of that class, he's never actually won one. I absolutely agree with your view that he was the class/form in the race, but the history of racing is littered with "nearly" horses: Rooster Booster being a current example. Until Prominent King had actually won the Erin, there was an element of doubt as to whether, when push came to shove, he could show that he had more than potential and what it took to go on and win. Similarly, with Rifle Brigade there were doubts - about whether he would be fit enough for his first run of the season, and about whether he would actually manage a trip 50% further than any he'd tackled previously in public.

In both these cases, VDW clearly did not regard these possible areas of concern as sufficient to deter him from viewing the horses in question as "a good proposition" and an "outstanding bet", respectively, judgements I can understand (though in the case of Rifle Brigade not wholly share). And for me, no small part of the value in exploring the old examples is to identify what I would regard as possible areas of doubt, and thus get a fuller understanding of what VDW was prepared to discount (at least at the prevailing price) when balancing the various factors.

VDW – WEIGHT ( a great leveller ? )

Morning all,

MTOTO – many thanks for your comments on the 2 horses I put up. I really do appreciate and value your point of view.

Albuhera – I actually backed him at York (race no` 4170) when beaten by TWTeal. Looking back at the race now (hindsight) I should have backed both horses at the available morning prices of 7/1 and 8/1.

I didn`t back `A` in the Newbury race (4863) as I felt the 10 lbs more actual weight he had to carry , 9-07 against 8-11 may count against. Looking at the race again now he was the class/form horse and was crying out to be backed especially against the opposition he was faced with today compared to his last 2 previous runs.
With regards TWTeal I felt he was a very strong bet in race 1638.


WEIGHT – your comment on tending to ignore weight is I feel open to question. With the greatest respect to you didn`t VDW say that weight was a great leveller. This factor is certainly causing me a few headaches. There is so much more work for me to do in this area so perhaps when that hard work has been done I may have more answers. CLASS must have something to do with it. After all how many hcaps including the big ones have down the years gone to horses near the top of the hcap.

Off the top of my head I have come up with several horses which suggest in some cases weight may have effected the result and in others the opposite, ie

Effected result Moor Lane and Extra Jack last weekend
Marble Arch when pulled up behind Copeland at Newbury

Didn`t effect Albuhera in race 4863
Nimello in race 1164. won Lincoln easily off 8-09. next run in competitive hcap albeit a drop in class he was asked to carry 9-07 (a 12 lbs increase) yet bolted up again.

ANY COMMENTS FROM MTOTO and ANYBODY ELSE WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECATED.

Kind regards,

Weight - interesting article in smartsig saying I think that the speed loss through upping weight is less than the speed increase by decreasing weight on a horse.

One problem of course is that in all of this we actually forget about the actual weight of the horse - it may well have a reduction of 7 pounds in handicap weight - but the horse itself may be heavier than its last run - no wonder sometimes form cannot always be explained logically

Fulham,
VDW made numerous references to multiple staking, I quite agree. He even set out how he went about it but he only referred to finding a "winner" in the race and not "winners" plural. By your logic why did he not back Beacon Light as well as Prominent King or Deep Profile as well as Rifle Brigade? These 2 races have given people a lot of problems but as both myself and now Guest have explained "winner in the race" is a cryptic clue. Judging by the last 2 paragraphs of your message you are nearly there. Given the concerns you mention, what made him back these 2 horses and not make a book?
Regards,

Guest,

I fully agree with your view that VDW had to be careful with what he shared in public and no doubt had the trainers in mind when he was writing his letters. Likewise, the bits and pieces that I share with the forum are aimed at those who are undertaking the task of sorting out VDW, and certainly not someone like yourself who understands. It is nice converse though with someone that knows the true worth of the methods instead of listening to the constant rubbishing that is the general tone when VDW is discussed.

Mtoto,

Conventional form reading is how the majority analyse a horse’s chance of winning a race. Without going in to too much detail in order to do this a comparison of those in contention has too be made somehow, with whatever method one uses. A vast majority who attempt this place far too much emphasis on one or two factors. Collateral form ratings and speed ratings are such factors, in my opinion, that too much emphasis is placed on. To say that they don’t have their place in the method is far from the truth; when assessing young horses speed ratings are certainly an essential tool, but different types of races call for different lines of investigation.

The Vouchsafe example mentioned recently shows that anyone using ‘conventional’ types of form analysis would have been along way in forming the conclusion that this horse would reverse form with the likes of Billet, who beat Vouchsafe easily on their previous start, to win the race.

The weight issue is one that is very important, and is a factor that has to be assessed in EVERY case. But again, not quite in the way that most will approach it. Many steer clear of handicap races because of the weight issues involved; however, they fail to understand that there is also the issue of weight to be considered in other events; Weight For Age, Sex, and of course Penalty’s. The quote that VDW made regarding weight that ‘if a horse is set to carry more than they have previously performed well with, it is reasonable to assume the day will not be theirs, irrespective of other factors’ is one worth looking in to, but it all has to balanced with other factors most notably class and form.

Please realise that what I am stating here is in relation to the methods put forward by VDW, and I am certainly not saying that nothing else in racing works.

Hi Statajack,

In my view, the answer to your question re the races won by Prominent King and Rifle Brigade is clear: as far as VDW was concerned, in each of those races, under the conditions prevailing, there was a clear "winner in the race", ie a "class/form" horse where, unlike Guest's eight on Saturday, form analysis showed it was strong enough to bet. (Though personally I'd have reversed VDW's terms - Prominent King I see as an "outstanding" bet, in the same category as Orchestra and Derrylin, whereas I would just class Rifle Brigade as a "good proposition".)

On Saturday, there were three "class" horses whose previous performances showed they had the ability to win the 3.00. One (Red Ark) could, to my satisfaction at least, be discounted as unable to beat Extra Jack in that particular race. I was unable convincingly to separate Extra Jack and Flying Instructor, either of whom would have been the most plausible winner in the other's absence, and the prices created the opportunity of backing both.

[This message was edited by Fulham on March 05, 2002 at 03:58 PM.]

winner in a race

if there is A WINNER IN A RACE you do not have to look for it and compare it to others.

if there isn,t then there are outstanding bets, good things etc...probable winners and likely winners.

it is a different method!!

(in my opinion)

Maggsy - The probability part is reached through methodically going through all the factors, balancing them with class and form and coming to a conclusion. The stronger the conclusion about a horses winning chance, the better the probability. Simple really, but there is a lot to undertake and evaluate during the process.

Fulham - There are many considerations and factors that combine to show a winner in a race in the way VDW suggested. You have to be aware of virtually all these factors and considerations though to see confidently the winner in a race. Prominent King may well have looked like a Rooster Booster to most, but I'm sure others who have understood most or all of the method will agree that Prominent King did have the required profile.

Determined - It is too general to say a horse carrying more weight from one race to the next will be severly inconvenieced. Class for one thing can have a big bearing on the effect of weight.

Lee points out some very important things to consider such as weight conditions. I also take the view that the ideas and considerations of VDW are mainly germane only to his methods, but that doesn't mean his is the only way. However, I have yet to find any other approach not derived from VDW that works anywhere near as well.

Dear Determined,
I have discovered I am not very good at picking winners of hcp hurdles in general. Is that because I am ignoring weight? May be maybe not. It does seem to me that lower weight horses win most of these races, BUT I do not know for sure.
As for Hcp chases and Novice and Hunter chases I don't take weight into consideration atall, excepting I prefer to be on high weight/high OR horses. And I do very well in deed with them,
Yours
Swish

Busy reading systematic betting which I had never managed to previously get a copy of. Browzers have brought out a reprint of it and its worth getting hold of. Tony Peach had reproduced portions of it but not all and the missing parts may be helpful.

Went on a tour of bookshops yesterday and found that the old form books are still there to be had. One guy had a box full of Raceform and other flat books going back to 1949.Before you ask I have bought all the relevant ones even going back to 1970.

Been going through suggested races spending hours looking and willing some sort of pattern to jump off the page and hit me between the eyes. Then again I could never see the 3D images in those dot pictures but the wife could. PerhapS I'll ask her to sort it all out or maybe ask the bloke who broke the enigma code.

FULHAM

THANKYOU,

I am now the proud owner of flat and jumps 1975-1987.

mint condition bound in red calf leather, all for less than the price of what some tipsters charge for one months donkeys.


once again thanks.

I suppose now starts the hard work!!