Mtoto
I appreciate where your coming from.
It is hard to get a consistent amount of winners to make a profit, especially at this time of year.I feel that at VDW's time racing was different than todays for a number of reasons, reasons which IMO need us to alter our opinions on how VDW assesed races and modify them using as much of the methodolgy as is useful.
1.The betting public & bookies are far more knowledgeable on the whole than 20 years ago.
2.It is much more difficult to run up a sequence now, even consistant horses who dont win races but are placed frequently can be handicapped out of the winners enclosure for a number of years.
3.Horses laid out to win races by careful manipulation are very difficult to keep out of the publics attention due to the vast array of telecommunications/exchanges ect therefore prices are not what they were in the days of the big gambles unless your in the know ante post.
4.As I posted recently an aqaintance of mine who is a professional "Investor" as he likes to call himself, has been in the game for 30 years and finds he does not get the same value on winners now due to much of the above, so he complements his income by laying, with as much as 50% of his profits now coming from this sphere.He also bets on soccer matches more & more, showing over £4000 profit on Scottish & English lower leagues so far.A point in which was not lost on me was when he explained that due to all these clubs having web sites, info about injuries, suspensions ect can be used to advantage nearer the game as the coupons are printed up earlier in the week.
The point I am trying to make is that selectivity is a notion which has always had substance but to me it is something which I am trying to incorporate much more rigidly into my betting habits, it is something in which VDW was very specific upon.As I explained on Fri/Sat I like to mark off all the runners with positive comments about the last 2F in a race and work back the way analysing form,ability,class ect, When I get the time I find it saves a lot of effort and does not leave anything uncovered.As you have probably read before I use a computer program based on VDW methodology to analyse races-time permitting-and if a top rated selection has been marked out as showing positive "last 2F" comments they are never far away & show a good strike rate, however on Saturday there was one of these animals out(Navado) & I posted it up on GDB(VDW...golden oldie) only to see it get a poor ride and it finished 2nd to the 2nd top rated horse from the program Councils Opinion.To round off I think VDW had some very sound principles, however too many people have been trying to uncover the mystery for too long-far more intelligent than me- and have never got close, although in saying that its admirable the work Fulham has done over the years albeit he even admits he's not cracked it.
Bio

You've read the thread so I assume you realise that Fulham has no idea of the worth of VDW. Tuppenycat recently posted a link to a VDW piece that contained a sentence along the lines "as we're looking at high class races we look for the class horse", there is far more wisdom in that one sentence than in all the nonsense about class/form, ability ratings, etc.

Sounds like i should stick to my A levels!! lol

The artcles that are on this site suggest you can make money if followed correctly.
'Spells it Out'

class is - "King" !!!!!!

tc

BIO,

I can't really see how it is quicker to work backwards. I know some don't agree but the first filter is consistency. If you start there and then apply the form study, including what happens in the later stages I find it is just as quick. If you bring in the improving filter at the same time it is hard to miss any likely horse.

This thing about the later stages I don't think can be worked by something as ridged as a computer program. What about the horse that needs a strong pace, and doesn't get it. Tries to make the running gets chopped for speed at the end. In truth he has run a blinder, still managed to be placed and then is penalised for his trouble.

I keep reading about the lack of bets, how many winners are you looking for in a week? Pick your bets have enough on to win a decent amount, I look for 2 winners a week. I very seldom back at under 4/1 although I will occasionally go lower. I do like to find a reason a horse will be under bet, and that is usually because of weight. I also think I use s/f in a different way to most, that helps. I'm not looking for, or expecting an 80% strike rate, I think that takes the pressure of looking for too many bets.

Ben,

Everything has to be taken into account, you can't make it work by using a few of the factors. I would say take no notice what others say, read Fulham and Guest's posts you won't go far wrong there. Fulham admits he hasn't cracked it YET, but if you can get as far as him you will make money. I think it is just a SMALL step then to the final conclusion. VDW didn't spell it all out, but he came quite close.

Class may be king but even that isn't enough by it's self.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Do you not consider the ability ratings first?

The way i read the article on gummys,it suggested to me that if you found the group of horses that qualified for ability and consistency and the form backed them up.
You should wait for the odds to be right to enable you to back all qualifers.Then you would achieve an 80% s/r.

Mtoto
You replied to my posting & I quote "This thing about the later stages I don't think can be worked by something as ridged as a computer program. What about the horse that needs a strong pace, and doesn't get it. Tries to make the running gets chopped for speed at the end. In truth he has run a blinder, still managed to be placed and then is penalised for his trouble".


I dont know how that is relevant as it does not matter what method of selection is used these factors will not be known about until after the race.The program I use-ProPunter- is based on VDW methodology, and I used to use it blindly, however by applying the filters I mentioned + lbs+ or - and whether animal in question has won a race in this class i.e 0-105.I read somewhere that these groupings 0-115 are very important when deciding on a possible bet and that its a three length step up on average e.g a horse which has won a 0-75 race and is entered in a 0-80 race will generally have to run three lengths better to win again.
Listen, Mtoto we all have our ways of doing things & if it works then great.All I know is that after 20 years of betting I have bet more winners in the last 5 years than I did in the preceding 15 with LESS SELECTIONS.The program I use isolates the most likely winners and the filters shortens the qualifiers.Read the VDW...golden oldie thread on GHRD and you will see that its not a crap bit of software.Its has returned profits for 15 years on selected races.
Bio

quote:

---

Originally posted by ben:
The way i read the article on gummys,it suggested to me that if you found the group of horses that qualified for ability and consistency and the form backed them up.
You should wait for the odds to be right to enable you to back all qualifers.Then you would achieve an 80% s/r.

---

BEN
If that was the case then after 20+ years of public knowledge there would be no bookies and all the VDW disciples would be betting the same horse-and ALL at odds on.
Bio

BIO,

Sorry didn't explain myself very well. The race with lack of pace is the previous race, reading out paced, one paced, etc. How will a computer pick that up? The time could still be fair, and the speed figure of the winner not too bad. I think Prairie Wolf on Friday is a good example of this. OK it didn't win, it was second beaten a neck at 20/1, paying more for a place than many winners that get rave reviews.

I'm pleased you have found a way of making money and cutting down the bets. I didn't say, or mean that the program was crap. I just think when it comes to reading form, the human brain far out strips any computer program. As long as the brain is tuned in.

Ben.

Yes, I suppose I do check the ability rating first, but automatically bring in the filters very quickly. The ability rating by it's self proves very little, VDW said class without form is no good. A horse can have class but if it's not in form what's the point. I feel that way about the horse being consistent. BIO is correct if it were that easy it would have been solved years ago. I think somewhere VDW says it is the form aspect that gives the main problem. As he didn't explain how he sees form, we can only try and work it out from the examples. That is why it can take years if you do it properly. If you are even a little bit serious you need to buy the books at least. They don't cost that much, expect you spend more over the weekend.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Im not being picky, just pointing out aspects in your post which dont really mean much as I see it, according to the way I select my races to bet on.
The races I concentrate on are quality contests from higher class H,caps to Group 1's.If any animals I am inputing data for has won a £5000 race in a slow time it will be found out anyway.Slowly run race winners will always be found out at the higher levels as they are run at a good pace throughout 9/10 times.
Bio

Bio,

I disagree with your statement “at the higher levels horse races are run at a good pace throughout 9/10 times”.

Class will determine a horse’s ability to be able to quicken from the distance, or go with the early pace in sprints, but in general the difference to the overall times is not great. Indeed in many circumstances the higher-class races are run in a slower time.

At the highest level in the Golden Jubilee Stakes (Gp1) this year Choisir broke the track record, however, in the very next race, the Wokingham Handicap, Fayr Jag managed to run even faster and therefore record the fastest ever time – another record time held by a handicapper. However, I’m fairly confident of the result had Fayr Jag competed against Choisir in the Group 1 race just before.

Like I say this isn’t an uncommon situation. The gap between race times in different class is a lot less than some imagine. Particularly when comparing just one or two classes higher/lower, the gap is more or less non-existent.

Race times on their own DO NOT help in gauging how classy horses are.

Interesting
Because the first 6 home in Fayr jags race went on to win a further 7 races in the next 2 outings

Lee
I am paraphrasing here, but your thinking is roughly this:
A 0-100 race competed for by 15 horses over 1 mile-race value £5800 to the winner on a group b-d racecourse will be run at the same pace & by the same quality of horses as a 0-100 race, 15 runners, 1 mile, race value £58000 and a group A course.
As far as I can see, that is utter nonsense, besides Fayr Jag was carrying 2lb more than Choisir in the respective races we are discussing.I have read it before, but how can anyone say that Fayr Jag would not have beaten Choisir had it ran against it, after all Patavellian was behind it getting 12lb and has since slaughtered his field in the Stewards cup & won the Prix de l'abbeye fairly easily.When people compare racehorses from different era's, its personal opinion on who was the best between Mill Reef & Nijinsky or Dancing Brave, but in this comparison we have a horse who ran on identical going, same course, carrying more weight, beating arguably better horses giving them weight, yet woulden't have beaten Choisir because of what REPUTATION.I look forward to your reply on this one Lee
Bio

Boozer,

You are right, this years Wokingham was a decent renewal, with the two that dead heated going on to win Group 3 races in this country. However, note that both failed miserably in the highest class Gp 1 and 2 races over the same 6f distance.

Here’s some course record details from Newmarket, which again proves that time doesn’t necessarily relate to class. From distances of 1m – 1m6f, 3 of the 5 distances were recorded in handicaps. 2 of these never went on to anything better, with one winning a Listed race in the future. One was recorded in a Group 2, the horses best ever win, and the other was recorded in a Listed race, again the horses best ever win. So, over the Classic distances, mile/middle, Group 1 horses have recorded no record times.

Bio,

I missed your post above.

To reiterate, it is a horses ability to be able to quicken where it matters that determines class, however, by doing this it won’t necessarily mean a fast time is recorded. Very few races are ran ‘flat out’, but if they were then I have no doubt that the higher the class the faster the time would be, but this simply isn’t how races are run.

Further to your first point, given the course records posted above, and given that 2 of the handicappers that hold record times were exposed and rated 86 and 95 respectively at the time, why then do you think they were not/are not good enough to compete in Pattern Company?

The fact that Patavellian has gone on to win a Group 1 race helps prove the point. Why if he's a Group 1 horse didn't he keep up with Fayr Jag - who cannot now be said to be of the same class?

Bio

Cant agree with you there.Sometimes people want mystery and cant see the obvious.

Take C.Holts fineform max's

I believe these have been around for sometime,but how many profit from them,not many i would'nt mind betting,why?
It seems to me that if you were to back all of them your losses would not be great,so equally so it should not take much to turn those small losses into gains.
Yet rather than stick with something simple like that.People assume that it cant work because its to simple.They then forget about them and move onto another selection method which produces much bigger losses than the fineform max's would if you were backing them blind.
But then ask those same people about fineform maximums and they would tell you that they are a waste of time.

Mtoto

We are most responsible and dont have wild weekends

Hi guys, just looking in on the posts hope you are all well, boozers & lee's posts of late caught my interest.

Hi guys, just looking in on the posts hope you are all well, boozers & lee's posts of late caught my interest.
Sorry for being rude, and others as well of course.
pitmatic thanks for the reply m8.

[This message was edited by walter pigeon on October 15, 2003 at 04:37 PM.]