Trojan

Personally, I find the most frustrating thing about VDW's methodology is the number of races one analyses, only to conclude that there is no sound bet. Not just the 4.20 today, but the Showcase handicaps yesterday and today, where the c/fs were clear cut (Corridor Creeper and In A Silent Way) but had obvious questionmarks precluding bets.

Still, it's even more frustrating when one identifies a likely winner, concludes that it is insufficiently solid to back, and it wins! (I still shudder about leaving Hug's Dancer, again the clear cut c/f, unbacked in this year's Chester Cup, having convinced myself that the horse never wins first time out.)

Pjck,

The only indication that VDW gave as to the number of bets that he struck was when he stated in a letter, which he probably wrote sometime in may 1978: “since the opening of the Flat I have placed 32 bets of which 29 won.” It’s impossible to be accurate about the breakdown because A) we don’t know exactly when the letter was written, and B) how many of those 32 bets were NH and how many were Flat.

It also helps me answer your question in that VDW claimed to have struck 32 bets of which 29 won! I have never managed this, and so I can’t class myself as well versed!!

Swish/Boozer

I have no wish to open old wounds, but can I ask why the post I'm going to include could cause offence. I think anyone reading it could see how I worked on the 3 races. Does it lose any validity because it is posted after the event? I can only think of one reason some would complain that it wasn't posted before the event. Nothing has changed with the facts, everything is still the same. Anyone that want's to learn how I work (I hope and think it is VDW driven) still can. If you think I am a cheat then fair enough, but who am I kidding. I suppose there are some that would/could kid themselves. All it takes is a little work on your part to see if it makes sense, and/or they are consistent in how they work.
*******
Hi,

Three races for me to look at today.

3:15 Yarmouth.

In a Silent Way is my BEST HORSE, she creeps in by being in the 3 lowest for consistency. I have to admit I don't like her bad run at Newbury. I have never seen a reason given for the bad run (though I haven't finished looking for it) For me it also throws doubt on the form of Dawnus. The second rated Montmartre has shown her best form on stiff courses although she has won a poor race on this course. No bet.

4:20 Yar

Dawnus is top rated on the first element of my figures. She proves nothing should be taken at face value. She won an A grade race worth £19,000 but it was a weak race class wise. Two horses have come out of the race and run well. In doing so raised doubts about their suitability to win the Brighton. The second rated Silence Is Golden is a genuine consistent horse dropping in class by both methods. For me there is to many questions. I have Beneventa as outclassed but never been asked the question. Irtahal the class horse put in a bad/poor run last time. A race I'm leaving.

4:10 Sandown

I have Covent Girl as the BEST HORSE. The course should suit, 2 win on stiff right handed courses. On bare form it may be tight with the 2nd rated Honorine who is also suited by the course. CG has improved since they meet H doesn't show the same improvement. Dicharachera is a slight concern being a course winner. The win was hard fought and in lower class. Bet on Covent Girl
*********
Let's get rid of the nonsense, and get on with the job in hand. Trying to understand how VDW worked

Be Lucky

Yes. the ratings are mine PM x prize money. An di'm pleased that I got the winners because i might have got egg on my face! I always dutch the top rated and dutching can also be for negative profit - hedging.

420 Yarmouth was esp. good because it ilustrates that vdw said form can be an illusion. Do you also notice the betting? and what I said about 3xfav price? I'm still learningbut it is encouraging.

Mtoto. My ratings for your chosen races. Again very interesting (80% plus and vdw ratings also v high)

 YARMOUTH 17 Sep 2003 3:15 Tote Exacta Stakes Showcase Handicap (Class C) (for the Golden Jubilee Trophy) (3yo+ 0-90) Winner £6 942.00 (1m2f21y)1m2f GD-FM , 10 Runners Handicap

 Eastern Breeze,,..................................Form 3 ¬7*¬3*  (13)  sp lto 10/1, wgt 9-0 e/s, ln 10* Av = 11k** , Ab = 9k**   Score=7+1
 32%  95C 12f 3*/2 10rs**  GF Kem  6K    (12 days)(g)  (Down in dist placed ?)    Same class 6K, BUT chk figures (9-0 e)
 92%  90B 10f 7*/5 9rs**  GF Yor  18K    (28 days)(g)   (** DIST  Unpl)
 46%  91C 12f 3 /3 6rs  GS Nmk  9K    (46 days)  (Down in dist placed ?)
   .................................. (100%)
 In A Silent Way,,..................................Form 1*¬8*¬2*  (11)  sp lto 13/2, wgt 8-8, ln 16 Av = 10.3k** , Ab = 6k  Score=8+6
 100%  92A 9f 2*/hd 8rs  Fm Bri  19K    (21 days)     (Chk Dist PLACED **)    ***DOWN in class from 19K to 6.9K  IMPROVING *** (8-8, )
 27%  69D 10f 8*/16 10rs**  GF Nby  7K    (45 days)(g)   (** DIST  Unpl)
 25%  88D 10f 1*/¾L 10rs**  GF Nby  5K    (61 days)(g)    ** DIST + WIN **
   .................................. (89%)
 Dileer,,..................................Form 1 Mdn ¬20*¬8*  (19)  sp lto 5/1, wgt 9-10, ln 52 Av = 16.3k** , Ab = 5k  Score=3+4
 37%  65C 10f 8*/21 8rs  GF Hay  10K    (66 days)(g)   (** DIST  Unpl)    ***DOWN in class from 10K to 6.9K, BUT chk figures (9-10,)
 91%  47B 12f 20*/36 20rs  GF Asc  34K    (92 days)(g)  (Down in dist Unpl)
 19%  69D 10f 1 Mdn /5 7rs  GS Ayr  5K    (110 days)    ** DIST + WIN **
   .................................. (87%)
 Montmartre,,..................................Form 2 Claim ¬2*¬3 Claim   (7)  sp lto 7/4F, wgt 8-4, ln 7 Av = 10.3k** , Ab = 5k  Score=4+3
 26%  78D 10f 3 Claim /3 7rs  Sft San  6K    (19 days)   (** DIST  placed ?)    Same class 6K, BUT chk figures (8-4, )
 75%  88C 10f 2*/½L 15rs  GF Nmk  15K    (25 days)(g)   (** DIST  PLACED **)
 42%  75D 9f 2 Claim /4 6rs  GF Nby  10K    (33 days)(g)      (Chk Dist placed ?)
   .................................. (83%)
SANDOWN 17 Sep 2003 4:10 Man Group Fillies' Handicap (Class C) (3yo 0-90) Winner £7 020.00 (1m14y)1m GOOD , 11 Runners Handicap

 Elidore,,..................................Form 7 ¬3 ¬8*  (18)  sp lto 40/1, wgt 9-0, ln 30 Av = 11k** , Ab = 5.5k  Score=4+0
 82%  82B 7f 8*/10 13rs  Gd Nmk  12K    (71 days)(g)     (Chk Dist Unpl)    ***DOWN in class from 12K to 7K,  CHK for improv (9-0, )
 57%  85C 7f 3 /9 5rs  GF Lei  8K    (107 days)      (Chk Dist placed ?)
 75%  69A 7f 7 /11 11rs**  Sft Nby  13K    (326 days)      (Chk Dist Unpl)
   .................................. (100%)
 Lady McNair,,..................................Form 4 ¬15*¬8   (22)  sp lto 16/1, wgt 8-4, ln 41 Av = 12.7k** , Ab = 5.2k  Score=4+3
 48%  72C 8f 8 /9 12rs**  GF Goo  8K    (111 days)   (** DIST  Unpl)    ***DOWN in class from 8K to 7K,  No improv (8-4, )
 46%  46C 8f 15*/23 15rs  GF San  12K    (145 days)(c)   (** DIST  Unpl)
 116%  77A 8f 4 /9 5rs  Sft Pon  18K    (331 days)   (** DIST  Unpl)
   .................................. (98%)
 High Finance,,..................................Form 10*¬4 ¬5*  (19)  sp lto 16/1, wgt 9-1, ln 16* Av = 10.3k** , Ab = 4.3k  Score=4+0
 100%  85C 6f 5*/1 19rs  GF Sal  14K    (13 days)   (UP in dist, Unpl)    ***DOWN in class from 14K to 7K,  CHK for improv (9-1, )
 34%  82D 7f 4 /2 8rs  GF Goo  5K    (24 days)      (Chk Dist Unpl)
 63%  63B 7f 10*/13 13rs  Gd Nmk  12K    (71 days)(g)      (Chk Dist Unpl)
   .................................. (91%)
 Scotland The Brave,,..................................Form 4 ¬15*¬5*  (19)  sp lto 14/1, wgt 9-2, ln 25* Av = 13.3k** , Ab = 3k  Score=2+1
 38%  76D 8f 5*/3 9rs  GF Nmk  6K    (39 days)   (** DIST  Unpl)    UP in class from 6K to 7K, BUT chk figures (9-2, )
 113%  52C 7f 15*/13 17rs  Gd Goo  26K    (48 days)(g)      (Chk Dist Unpl)
 43%  65C 7f 4 /9 5rs  GF Lei  8K    (107 days)      (Chk Dist Unpl)
   .................................. (90%)
 Convent Girl,,..................................Form 1 ¬2*¬3*  (6)  sp lto 11/1, wgt 8-12, ln 2 Av = 8.3k** , Ab = 5k  Score=7+5
 90%  90B 9f 3*/1 8rs  GF Goo  12K    (24 days)     (Chk Dist placed ?)    ***DOWN in class from 12K to 7K  IMPROVING *** (8-12,)
 62%  93C 8f 2*/1 9rs  GF Kem  8K    (31 days)   (** DIST  placed ?)
 39%  93D 8f 1 /hd 10rs**  Gd Kem  5K    (49 days)(g)    ** DIST + WIN **
   .................................. (88%) 

GOOD EVENING VDW'ERS,

I have been waiting for ages for this thread to get back to normality, whatever that is.

I have been looking at races from a VDW point of view for a while now, I have struggled with the consistency ratings and ability ratings for the whole of the summer, but It seems I am still no where near.

I looked at one race today from a VDW point of view and was certain that I had it cracked.

YAR 4:20

from the three most consistent take the highest ability rating ; DAWNUS. The horse was 20 clear on ability and earlier on this thread someone said it only needed to be five clear to be a bet.

How anyone can say they cant split the consistent horses baffles me, as that is what VDW is, isn't it. NARROW THE FIELD AND THEN USE ABILITY TO FIND THE WINNER.

The horse was not even in the first three.

WHAT AM I DOING WRONG?

PKBOY

PKBoy

I think that at depth the answer to your question is that you are only applying part of the VDW methodology. Consistency, in the sense of low figures for the sum of the last 3 placings, plus being top on the ability rating, will throw up winners, but also plenty of losers, as today. VDW looked at horses under four "headings": form, ability (class), capability and probability, and on the evidence of your post you are using only one (ability). (Consistency is not what VDW meant by form.)

Dawnus had a lot going for it, was for me one of the two most likely winners and, I think, put in a poor performance. But in my view it could not, in the round, be separated from Beneventa (being higher on the ability rating is a start, but not sufficient). Although he was fine from the capability point of view, for me he failed on probability, GIVEN the number of other horses in the race with a shout.

What we are really looking for is a horse with all the credentials and nothing else remotely comparable to beat. That may sound ridiculous, and certainly doesn't happen every day, but there are enough - all all levels - if one looks for them.

Two recent ones from high class races, selected by Guest and posted (elsewhere) well before the off were Lucky Story at Doncaster on Friday, and Vinnie Roe at the Curragh on Sunday. In much lower class, but arguably even stronger bets than these two was Mimic, selected by Investor, Folkestone, 21 August. All of these had (virtually everything) going for them under the first three of VDW's four "headings" (I can't comment on them from the perspective of the fourth, probability, as I'm not at all confident that I know what he incuded there). Also, each of the three faced, relatively speaking, no opposition.

Your aftertime post wont cause me any offence
And there is a need for discussion after the race no matter what happens, to learn and log the positve/negative points for the future

But

If you were to subscribe to a tipping service with a view to investing your hard earned cash

Who would you go with

A tipster who gave you examples and results after the event and said he could

Or a tipster who proved himself with a x number of bets trial in real time and proved he could

Showing confidence before the race is totally different to showing it after the race

Even so well done today I discussed more or less the same horses with other people

Probability

First six in betting
80% probable that the winner comes from here (proven) year in year out = Highly probable

His consistancy figures ?
Dont know but 111 111 111 99% probable that the winner will come from these figures and the others
Dont know about that but according to VDW =Highly probable

I am sure I can think of other examples but for the moment I have gone Blank

To me the whole framework of narrowing the feild is supposed to put you in well stocked waters where it is Probable that the winner will fall

being out of those well stocked waters is bucking the odds and moving towards Improbable

Boozer

I agree that VDW referred to several things from the probability point of view, but satisfying the two you mentioned was not a necessary condition of VDW's selections. For example, both Love from Verona and Son of Love, which VDW referred to as good things, were miles out of the betting forecast, and he gave several horses with relatively low probabilities in terms of their last three placings (Roushayd among them).

And, for the record, Mtoto put up his view of today's three main races elsewhere, well before the "offs", as numerous others can verify. And he was certainly not alone in leaving In A Silent Way and Dawnus and backing Convent Girl.

Do You reckon his Formula
>>>>>>>>>>> hard work = winners
Was meant for all his methods?

I have no doubt that those were Mtoto's observations before the race
But he asked a question

Pkboy,

Good on you for posting your thoughts regarding a race where, on the face of it, a horse looked to fit the picture to a tee.

Unfortunately things aren’t that simple, and it is “subject to other considerations” that a consistent horse will show up to be a “good thing”.

The form of all needs to be looked at to confirm what the figures say.

If you have the books such as The Golden Years etc. it is then it is necessary to go that step further and acquire the form for the races that VDW gave as examples. The best way is probably in the format of Raceform annuals, or otherwise I know that some, Fulham definitely, has managed to get copies of the relevant pages of the Sporting Chronicle for the said races.

Unfortunately without the form to compare you won’t get anywhere.

PKBoy,

Another purpose of my last post was to see if anyone would respond, and ask why I wasn't happy with Dawnus. The c/form horse is the horse with the highest ability rating that is in form, or a form horse in relation to the race in question.

Didn't VDW say to check the figures to make sure they are what they say? D, may have won a £19,000 race, but was it up to strength and as strong as you would expect in a race of that class?

No need to beat yourself up, MANY MANY people make the same mistake when they start. If it was easy and straight forward everyone would be using it. Have you any of the literature, if you haven't may I suggest you get it. It is impossible without it. Many good things are on this thread, but they are other peoples interruptions of what the literature says. Get it and form your own.

Then ask the questions about what you don't understand. Read ALL the answers and form your own ideas.

I think I understand how Fulham works, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. He has a gift of being able to explain himself, and he won't put you far wrong. One of the main differences between us is I think consistent means what it says. Consistent - form means what it says. Think it may have been better if it was written as I've just written it. Always remember no one element by it's self is enough. For me Dawnus failed on form, if it hadn't it would have failed on capability. The important thing is it failed, everything didn't add up.

Boozer,

I agree with your thinking, but the last thing I want this thread to be is a tipping line. I know you wouldn't rush out and back a horse because someone on this thread thinks it can win. Some do.

Be Lucky

Mtoto Said
I know you wouldn't rush out and back a horse because someone on this thread thinks it can win.


Bloody damned right there Mtoto

Nessie,

I'm afraid I still can't make head or tail of you ratings. That's not to say it's your fault or that the ratings are not very good.

The thing that bothers me with just working from bare ratings is how many of the variant's can you include? If they were mine I would take the top 3/4 and study them in detail. An example of this is when/if you look for course winners, can the ratings pick up horses that have not won on a course, but have won on similar courses. Do your ratings take everything at face value?

The biggest worry I would have about using Postmark in the ratings. What happens if they change personnel at the Racing Post. I read somewhere recently the guy in charge had just amended the way he worked. Will that effect your ratings when looking at past races?

Have to say I'm that thick, I can't work out who is top rated unless you put them in order.

Be Lucky

Boozer

I just don't know.

VDW showed several "methods", but personally I'm not convinced that they were all different: rather, I think several were the same but that he introduced them differently for different examples to draw attention to particular elements.

My current working hypothesis is that he had three methods, two of which I have yet to get anywhere near fathoming:

* the Handicap Hurdles method, intimated in VDW's article of 18/1/86;

* the "Best Bet/Next Best" method, touched on in VDW's contribution to Jock Bingham's "Be A Winner";

* the rest.

All I know is that the great bulk of VDW's selections ("the rest" - over 120 examples) can be understood in terms of Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability (or, as I think of it in shorthand, the class/form approach), and most of the selections from the other two methods can't be.

pjck,

I’ve been racking my brains as I thought there was another reference to the amount of bets that VDW struck and I’ve managed to find the relevant piece, which states:

“This should bring to the for something that the acquisition of temperament will show you. Betting every day down and across the card is a fool’s game when, by being in complete control you can strike one, two or perhaps three good bets over a period of a week and really get somewhere. Why bust a gut when there is no need? Leave that to the mug punters who are going to pay your way.”

If thats an accurate quote then it shows him up to be the arrogant w****r he comes across as.
Try telling that to someone like Nevison who regulary has upwards of a dozen bets per day.Whether you like him or not he does make the game pay and is represetative of most full time pro's.The notion that they sit around all day long lining up a plot,spreading a couple of k around are long gone and only the Tabor's and of course JP keep this nostalgia alive.I doubt even after one of their coups the winnings would keep the private jet in fuel for a week.
Basically I think punters fall into four categorys.1 The one who sticks a tenner on each morning on his way to work and probably loses five days a week.2 Then you get the form follower who buys the post and has taken the trouble to actually learn how to read form,will spend a couple of hours going through it before putting fifty quid on a couple of runners.He/She does this to supplement their income and will usually use it for the holiday fund or the kids birthday etc.3 After this comes the punter who relies on winners to pay the bills.A typical day starts early evening the previous day when tomorrows cards are up and three or four hours of staring at endless lists of form are only broken by the chimes of midnight.Depending on whether a race meeting beckons up at five to get the post and usually spend another two hours double checking.By eight a.m you usually have a shortlist to work from and can start checking prices,non runners etc.If you are off to a meet then a couple of hours up or down the motorway gets you at the track for one p.m at the latest.Leave early so as to sit down for tea with the kids and missus at six.A couple of hours in front of the telly and it all starts again.With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work after you have taken your expenses in consideration you have got about 250 quid for your effort.
4 And finally the high rollers who will think nothing of betting 10k from the comfort of the coporate box while the peasents scramble around the ring picking at crumbs.

Try telling it to your old mate Stewart Simpson
He didnt have that many bets in a season Or Did he?

Is he still active?