Lee,
How did you assess Airwave today,was he a vdw type in your view

PD,

Airwave today could never be backed against, as she is in a different league, and although out of sorts in higher class she arrived here today in Listed Class without a penalty. This is the only filly to scalp Russian Rhythm back as a 2yo.

That said, just like Kalaman, she wasn’t one to back at the odds, but fully expected all the same.

Lee: in such a case wouldn't a double bang it up to a reasonable price?

Lee
Thanks for the reply,as I thought both Airwave and Kalaman had similar profiles

Epi,

It just isn’t necessary in my view. Consider that the odds of a horse winning don’t always reflect their chances.

You made a statement yesterday that the VDW methodology is based on clichés and that you’re happy to go against it every time for two basic reasons:

1. Cliched thinking chooses favourites and favourites lose 60%+ of the time, and

2. Favourite thinkers are my pray.

I wholeheartedly agree that clichés are there to be taken on where racing is concerned, however, I would argue that the VDW method is a complete contrast to how most perceive it, and in actual fact goes the whole way in supporting your theory, it’s just that those who purport to know anything about the subject are often completely ignorant to the facts.

“How often do you see a so called good thing beaten only to see it turn up in the winners enclosure next time out when no one wants to back it.”

Lee,
Good post,and a horse that springs to mind is Sulamani at the weekend.
VDW stressed about temperament and it is the key factor.I had a bad couple of weeks on the vdw front,up until the end of last week,but went back to basics,and trawled through some recent bets,to see what I was doing wrong,and it was enlightening for me.Looking for what is not there seemed to be the biggest problem,I think it is also important to do a post race analysis of ALL bets.

About a month ago I gave a survey of all the races I had evaluated over a year on the flat. The results showed 82% of winners came from the first 5/6 in betting forecast and 61% of winners came from the 3 most consistent in that forscast. But the 3 most consistent was 3, 4, 5 or even 6 horses. If the consistency ratings were say 3, 3, 4, 4 and 5, then all 5 horses would have been included in the 3 most consistent. This gives a distorted view because if all races were like this then we would end up with 82% winners, the same as the betting forecast.

I have gone through all the figures and narrowed the field to just 3 using the following criteria; If the cons ratings were say 3, 3, 4 , 4 , then to separate which cons rating 4 to include, I have chosen the one at the shortest forecast price, if still the same then by win last time out, if still the same then whichever looked to have best figures on paper. I know this is not using the method as intended but all I wanted to do was end up with 3 horses. Firstly, to compare with the previous survey and secondly to arrive at the combined figures that VDW gave, for comparison.

The survey involved 340 races and just over 3,500 horses.

As mentioned above my previous survey produced 61% winners from the “more than 3” most consistent. Using just “3 only” most consistent produces just 52% winners.

VDW said that most readers will be aware of statistics regarding horses placed 1, 2, 3, 4 lto. I for one wasn’t.
From my survey;

1 lto 745 runners 102 won 14%
2 lto 447 runners 64 won 14%
3 lto 354 runners 39 won 11%
4 lto 314 runners 26 won 8%
5 lto 305 runners 27 won 9%
0 lto 585 runners 27 won 5%

VDW’s last 3 placings were; 111 33%, 121 32%, 221 31%, 321 29%, 132 26%, 313 24%, 213 25%, 214 24%, 204 8%, 302 8%, 404 5%, 000 2%.

From Racing To Win by Statistician printed 1987, it states My figures (statisticians) based on a full year of racing, flat and jumps are 111 30%, 121 32%, 221 29%, 321 28%.

As you can see the two sets of figures are very similar.
From my survey;

111 37 runners 7 won 19%
121 22 runners 3 won 14%
221 27 runners 1 won 4%
321 13 runners 1 won 8%
132 18 runners 2 won 11%
313 8 runners 3 won 38%
213 16 runners 1 won 6%
214 9 runners 1 won 11%
204 7 runners 1 won 14%
302 6 runners 0 won 0%
404 2 runners 0 won 0%
000 47 runners 2 won 4%

VDW’s combined figures were; 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%.

From my survey;

3-3-3 2 races 1 win 50%
3-3-4 8 races 5 wins 63%
3-4-5 5 races 3 wins 60%
4-4-4 0 races
4-5-6 2 races 1 win 50%
5-6-12 1 race 1 win 100%
16-18-30 0 races

Other combinations include 3-4-6 5 races 2 wins, 4-5-7 4 races 0 wins, 9-10-10 3 races 2 wins, 12-13-14 3 races 1 win and the highest figs 19-21-21 1 race 1 win.

You would need at least 10 years of combined figures before any sense could be made out of them. The combined figures are from the “3 only” consistent horses in the betting forecast.

One thing puzzles me though, if the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term.

Garstonf: Very interesting and thanks for all that hard work. If possible I'd like to know the average field size of your sample. As you took the first 5/6 in the forecast (which?) it might be interesting to compare fields up to 11 with fields above 11.

3 most consistent frrom first 5/6 in betting

Only one suitable race today, 7.10 Sand.

Warden Complex
Peter Paul Rubens
Camberwell

Gas,

I have yet to get involved in discussion about VDW’s consistency figure percentages, either on here or anywhere else.

The apparent misunderstanding of this particular basic area serves to be true what I said yesterday, that those who purport to know anything about VDW are often completely ignorant to the facts.

Please don’t take this personally, in fact the only reason that I’m responding is because of the obvious effort that you’ve put in, and that you have very nearly answered your own question.

VDW said that his methods were based on sound foundations that would ensure the future of his approach would remain constant. You have highlighted an area that hasn’t changed – the first 5/6 in the betting forecast still produce over 80% winners – which should therefore remain an area that our attention should be focussed.

You make the following statement at the end of your post:

“If the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term.”

It is here where the misunderstanding lies. VDW’s consistency percentages were calculated on the above 83% winners from the first 5/6 in the forecast. Races where the winner came from outside the forecast area didn’t featured in the equation.

For example, from these 83% winners, which came from the first FIVE in the forecast (non-handicap), a horse that had won each of its last three races won again 33% of the time.

Where there is three horses that won each of their last 3 races VDW calculated that the chance of one of them winning would be 99%, but again, only from the 83% winners that made up the first FIVE (non-handicap) in the forecast.

JohnD,

This is an interesting little race in which I think Peter Paul Rubens is the most likely winner, but not a back.

I’m not a stats person, but do have a look for really strong trends, and this race fits that bill. In the last 10 years the favourite has won 8 times! With the 3rd favourite taking the other 2. Cole has taken the race twice and so has Hannon, with Terry Mills taking it last year.

2 trainers do very well this type of race and at course,
Cole and Stewart

Lee
With you on PPR, the likely winner, and possibly will go off as fav.

Lee,
Was it distance alone,that caused you to rule out Viscious Warrior in Top Dirhams race or was there another factor/s

Pipedreamer,

The distance was a factor but there were a good few other negatives as well. Weight is a great leveller, and not only was VW going up a lot in actual weight he also had to give a lot away. Some will say that this is a product of class, but there are ways of making an informed assumption.

Note also that both Top Dirham and Vicious Warrior met in their penultimate runs, and although TD ran flat, there were excuses; note here their respective market positions.

What each trainer did next is then important, and how each respective race turned out. One much higher class than the other, but they were both very good pieces of form from a VDW perspective.

Both horses rated closely by calculations, but the negatives for VW, and the way TD had been placed tipped the balance.

Lee,

Good strike rate recently well done, I hope that your success will encourage people into buying the form books. Then they can try to work it out for themselves

Barny - what a bloody patronising post - typical of the VDW crowd - who never- post - before the "OFF" !!

johnd and Lee have both stuck their heads "on the line" and given us their selections prior to the race !!!

I wish they had explained a little more fully, but at least they committed wholeheartedly !!!

JIB is running them both - a close second - if not beating the pants off them !!

I enjoy all these contributions !!

You and the bloody "VDW" crowd are running in a "sad" - Last Place !!

tc



Give us "Your" posts - before the "OFF" and you might earn yourself - Some - "Respect" !!!

Your right TC

Lee,Johnd and Jib have put more into this thread in the last month than the rest have since it started

YUP !!!

Messers Lee, Jd, Rab,

Another nice pick today. Well done!

It's interesting to see what happens when the differing opinions agree.

Barney,

Dont be so jealous, it is unbecoming of you. As these people are your fellow members and trying to help you, it would serve your character better to be genuinely pleased for them.

Epi

I have not kept a record of the number of runners in each race and have absolutely no plans to count them in all 340 races in the near future. But I can tell you that there were 40 races, in total, of 4 to 5 runners in non hcaps and 4 to 6 runners in handicaps, which produced 72.5% winners from the “3 only” most consistent. In which case the remaining races with 6/7 runners and above produced 50% winners from the “3 only” most consistent.
Big fields never stopped VDW.

Lee

“Using Methodmaker’s figures which I accept, the first five produce 83% winners. My own combined figures from the three most consistent produce - 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%.”

Are you saying that in the case of 3-3-3 it is 99% of a sample of the 83%, because, it certainly doesn’t read that way to me. There again, it wouldn’t be the first time I have taken the wrong interpretation reading VDW.