Good post Lee

Thanks for the replys gents some great reading amongst all your posts.
Now that we know how he used at least a couple of his methods to narrow the field down it would be even more interesting if we were to look for some of the clues he gave for selecting 1 or 2 from our shortlist.I agree with boozer, what a cracking post from Lee.

Walter,

Unfortunately the narrowing of the field further and identifying if there is a horse worthy of support requires work!

Firstly, if you are going to try and emulate VDW to any degree then it is my opinion that you need to work through his writings. But that involves a lot of persistence and frustration along the way. For me it has become an obsession to some degree. I wanted to try and make a profit from racing, a pastime of mine for many years, and this way appeared to be as worthy as any, and like Pringles, once I popped, I couldn’t stop!

There is certainly a great deal of mileage in his methods but initially the starting point isn’t that obvious. This thread, although extremely helpful, is cluttered with a lot of unhelpful stuff as well. You have to make up your own mind though.

I think JIB has touched on a point of extreme worth: compilation of lists to follow. This is, in my opinion, how VDW worked, in the main. He mentioned the ‘races to come’ section that enabled him to study well in advance – the 4/5 day entries contain races with declarations sometimes containing over 50 horses! Surely he didn’t go through that lot and rate them for consistency and ability etc. etc. He was looking for horses that he had listed, noting what entries they had, and how the trainer was placing them.

Amongst his examples there were races that weren’t in line with those that he outlined in ‘spells it all out’ article i.e. not from the principle race of the meeting, or the 2nd at the main meeting. However, on investigation these horses would most certainly have been amongst a list based on speed. Roushayd was a listed horse, and would have been followed by VDW until he was dropped in class for the Old Newton Cup. I bet though that he gave due consideration to the 3 most consistent in the field, as well as the rest, before deciding he was worthy of support.

Lists put you ahead because they immediately stop you looking for things that aren’t there i.e. the winner of every race that you look at and that urge to bet to justify the time you’ve just spent in analysing it. With the aid of lists you will be studying races with horses in them that you know are capable of winning given the right circumstances – you will be looking to see if your horse is that winner in the race.

JIB,

You are of course right in what you say; speed figs open up a whole area for consideration, however, VDW told us exactly where he stood with his views on speed right from the start through to the end, and I don’t think things changed that much:

From 1979:

“Speed figures are an assessment of a single performance and form figures are the overall merit of the horse, and times do not necessarily reflect this.”

“The Punter is obviously interested in, not one-off times, but an assessment of a horse’s true capabilities and this can be done by combining speed figures with form. A horse that records a figure of 100 one week and 2 weeks later records 60, must have a reason. To find this out, one must delve into the form book and assess the differing peculiarities that have caused this.

Only by using the figures in connection with the actual race will one be able to fathom this out.”

“Speed figures alone have little value if not supported by form.”

From 1987:

“I have long held the view that there is not any one single factor which can determined the probable winner in a race but time has shown over the years to be extremely useful and there are many ways to utilise it.”

Speed figures haven’t changed since he began writing, yes they may be a little more accurate nowadays, and one has to decide where he stands on adjustment for weight, but the ways in which they can be utilised are exactly the same today as they were then. The only restrictor is the user. Form figures haven’t changed either, 1 means 1st and 2 means 2nd, but just like VDW, we all no that they mean far more than just that.

JIB,

Strange as this may seem I have to agree with your last post. However as I posted before I don't think the use of s/f to gauge ability by VDW was a new idea.

I think the ability rating was the new (as opposed to original) idea. So many people were trying to make the method work without taking ability into account. He came up with a simple, quick method for them to use. He did this because he wasn't prepared to explain his original method. In saying this I know many VDW followers would not agree, and the gentleman who has just started a new thread obviously thinks penalty value is a good guide to ability.

Be Lucky

Lee,

From 1979:

“Speed figures are an assessment of a single performance and form figures are the overall merit of the horse, and times do not necessarily reflect this.”

“The Punter is obviously interested in, not one-off times, but an assessment of a horse’s true capabilities and this can be done by combining speed figures with form. A horse that records a figure of 100 one week and 2 weeks later records 60, must have a reason. To find this out, one must delve into the form book and assess the differing peculiarities that have caused this.

Only by using the figures in connection with the actual race will one be able to fathom this out.”

The above was written by a G.Hindle, Manchester.

In his reply VDW said there where bits of this article he didn't agree with. As he then wrote SPEED IS NO USE WITHOUT FORM SAYS 'DUTCHMAN* it begs the question what didn't he agree with.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Yes, you are right - I always thought that letter was by VDW for some reason. As you say, it does beg the question though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lee,

LEE
VDW wrote " I have been indisposed for most of the 1989 flat season but upon returning to the UK on Sep 28th, I evaluated the Ascot card for Sep 30th, producing 2 horses which I considered good prospects". It would be highly unlikely that those 2 selections came from a list of horses to follow, given that he selected them on the day of his return.

Boozer,

Nice to see you back!

John D,

Yes I’m aware of that, and the two horses that he selected were 3 year olds that hadn’t ran at 2. Unfortunately I’ve no longer got the form book for 1989 flat, but if my memory serves me right I think you’ll find that both Braashee and Zilzal achieved their best speed figures last time out at a grade 1 track, not at the minimum distances. Reading between the lines I’m pretty sure that these horses would also have been listed had he been around.

The other lists that he gave more details on were not difficult to compile at any stage of the season, with the aid of the formbook.

JIB,

Your way of judging quality of opposition seems to me to be perfectly reasonable – but only if one is content that weight makes no difference in the outcome of a race.

If like me one is of the opinion that weight is a factor to consider then the use of OR’s particularly in handicaps doesn’t serve as well.

The use of the ability rating by VDW was nothing new, but it is the way in which I think he used it that is important. Lawrence Voegele wrote a book in the early 70’s titled Professional Method of Winner Selection. It was only recently, via Mtoto, that I realised that this book was adapted for the UK racing scene by Paul Major in the form of ‘Horse Sense’.

The latter, in my view, is substandard to Voegele’s masterpiece given the era that it was written in. Voegele uses a consistency rating, he uses prize money to gauge class, and puts in a whole chapter about how to analyse a horses performance throughout, and the latter part of a race.

But US racing and information is so different from the UK. The majority of races are claimers and the prize money was/is far more rigid and runs more parallel to the class of horses, and what weight/claiming price the trainer is willing to risk. It is worth mentioning at this point that the idea that a horse is better off when carrying less weight is due in the main to American authors. It is a true statistic over there, but not so over here.

The handicapper has things pretty much sewn up, with just as many horses winning when going up in weight as when coming down, and I have proof! In 2003 of all the winners of handicap flat races, Class C and above that carried 9 stone, 36 were carrying more weight last time out, 35 were carrying less, and 3 carried the same. At 9-10, 40 carried less weight last time out, 6 carried more, and 1 carried the same. And at 8-4, 22 carried more last time out, 9 carried less, and 2 carried the same. This trend carries on throughout all the weights between 8-0 and 10-00. The idea that the outcome of a race is dependent on whether a horse is carrying more or less weight than last time out is a fallacy! The figures are conclusive.

That is not to say though I believe that weight has no bearing on the outcome of a race! I’m of the opinion that it is another smoke screen used to ready a horse, just like running it over an inadequate distance, course, or going. It gives the trainer the option of racing his horse without winning. The horse will perhaps be held up and get in to the race when it's too late, or it will be prominent at a fast pace before easing off 2/3 furlongs out.

The statistics prove that overall it doesn’t matter what weight a horse is, however, the question has to be asked why is the trainer entering his horse in a handicap with top weight? Generally this will mean less prize money if it wins. It needs to be decided if the horse has shown the class to take a more valuable race with less weight in the future.

And after all money is the only reason that the trainer gets up in the morning, so he’ll be in search for as much as he can get, which is why VDW saw prize money as a good guide to help decide what a trainer will do next. It has to be expressed as a rating, but I personally don’t see it as one, as such? Just because a race is worth £17,400 means nothing without analysing the horses within it, which doesn’t mean simply calculating the ability rating. Listed, G3, and G2 races are often worth much less than some handicaps, but that doesn’t mean they are inferior in strength. The winner of a G2 will earn far more money when its career comes to an end, and will generally leave a handicapper standing!

The most important piece of information that we need to know is the trainer’s intentions – nothing else really matters. But in order to work these out we need some tools, and I still think that prize money, speed, and consistency are amongst the sharpest in the shed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lee,

Lee,

Another excellent post.

What % do you think were selections coming from set lists? Is the c/form horse only selected from horses on a list? Some on here seem to think the c/form idea is something thought up by a few contributors to this thread. As you know it defiantly is not the case, VDW wrote more than a few chapters on the subject.

Interesting your stats on weight. It looks as if you have shown weight makes little or no difference. Yet you then say weight is a factor to take into account. Do you use weight to confirm a horse is capable of repeating one of it's better performances?

When you have 3/4 horses on a list in the same race which of the sharp tools do you think is the most important? Also do you keep a record of a trainer strike rate in certain types of races?

JohnD,

It maybe VDW could make those 2 selections easily because they were Roushayd type horses. The SCHB, (like RFUD today) showed when a horse had recorded it's best recent s/f in it's last race. So perhaps not a case of keeping a list but a quick check on an idea using a list someone had kept for you.

Be Lucky

LEE/MTOTO
Whichever way you dress it up, it was still quick, which indicates that it was also simple.

Mtoto - Thanks for the info ! - I know that it is hard come by - and it is good of you to release it !

Why ? - To solve a puzzle , begin at the begining !

I am looking at the first 3 or 4 letters in the sequence, and asking - what was he trying to show , who was he addressing as his audience, and how many methods was he propounding, in his contributions ??

Everything tends to get lumped together, - but I think there are a number of avenues which get developed separatly in later contributions !

Be Lucky


This thread shows promising sighns of revival, and providing that positve contributions continue, we can expect some good fun !!

John,

I do think there is a subtle difference here. VDW knew what he was doing, so it maybe he could do things quickly. Making them look simple.

Hope you have a good day tomorrow, and give my regards to the other 2.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

From my research I am confident that over 50% are from lists, and a good percentage of the remainder probably from lists.

With regards to weight it no longer concerns me if a horse I am selecting has carried the amount of weight before. Whether things have changed in this area I’m not sure, and I won’t be bothering to research the flat season of 1979 to prove myself right or wrong. What concerns me is why the trainer has placed his horse there.

As JIB has pointed out trainers are pre-occupied by weight and official ratings and so it remains my opinion that they both have a bearing on how a trainer places his horse even if weight doesn’t actually make any difference.

I don’t keep a record of Trainer’s strike rate at courses, as I think you have to stop somewhere! Because a Trainer has a poor strike rate at a course should it stop you from backing what you see as a sound chance in all other departments? Perhaps it should, but it doesn’t me. Trainer form is different; if the trainer’s horses aren’t firing then they aren’t firing simple as that.

Your last point regarding more than one horse from my lists meeting in a race brings me on to the 2.05 at Kempton on Saturday. Boogie Street, Nights Cross, and Bali Royal are horses that recorded their best ever speed figures last time out, the first 2 in Listed class, and Bali Royal in Handicap Company with a fair amount of weight. The first 2 are entered up in various group 2’s and 1’s in the future. Out of these 2 Boogie Street comes out on top for me, was a lighter raced 2yo, and also held Nights Cross at Ayr last year when expected to do so. Bali Royal is exposed and is first time out. Having said all that I wouldn’t be keen about backing a 3yo in this race, and that’s before I’ve looked closely at the opposition.

The horse must have shown it has the ability to handle the class, or step up to the class, and the only way of deciding this is by reviewing it’s preceding races. What did it do, against what, over what conditions? Then, has it been placed to win?

Sounds easy when I put it like that!!

Today I had Young Mr Grace entered in the 3.20 6f 0-80 handicap at York with a big weight worth £5,882, however it looks like he’s taken a rain check and is entered for a D classified tomorrow, and an E classified Monday. He’s on a handy mark now, and showed improvement when raised in class last time. Unfortunately he’s no world beater, but they must be looking for a win soon – in lower class.

That's all very well but I'm at a loss to see why trainers put horses in high class races if not "to win"(?)

Epi,

Particularly in Handicap races the majority of the field are there NOT to win, but instead being trained/readied to win. A horse needs to be in tiptop condition before the plan can be executed and the trainer, using a number of tactics, will do this at the racetrack. These tactics will include running their horse over an inadequate distance, on going it doesn’t perform on, on a course that doesn’t suit its running style, in a class that is too high, having it ridden in a way that will give it no chance, or a combination of all of these.

This will enable the trainer to get his horse fit and at the same time bring it down the handicap a few pounds, which can often give the trainer more entry options.