Johnd: Thanks.
It would still be nice to hear from someone who uses the "full" method, I'll be going out soon so I've no time to play around with dozens of figures. If nobody puts them up I'll work them out later.

Top 3 Massey Max from first 6 in betting (handicaps only)


3:15

Impeller
Amandus
Battle Chant

note Ancient World is unexposed, and doesn't get a look in on the Massey ratings


4:25

Buy on the Red
Green Manalishi
Jimmy Ryan

Royal Challenge also unexposed so similar comments


5:35

Loyal Tycoon
Undetered
Merlins Dancer


7:05

Snow Bunting
Johnny Ebineezer
Tony the Tap

johnd - you may well be right about Desert Lord - that looks a typical M.Stoute stunt !!

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

Hi All,
Epiglotis,Johnd what about 2.40 LUCKY SPIN improving and up to win in group class ??
3.15 ANCIENT WORLD - 22 runners a concern
4.25 ROYAL CHALLENGE - 22 runners a concern.

LAST

3:15 2nd -

I did tho - point out that I regarded the Massey rating allocated to Ancient World as "Unreliable" so its a "maybe"

4:25

5:35

7:05

"Caught" - a bloody - Dandy Nichols Winner !!!

TC
As stated 3 races for saturday for you top 3 in each last race had tie for third rated
2.00 Goodwood
1 = 112
4 = 104
2 = 98
2.35 Thirsk
4 = 90
1 = 84
5 = 84
3.15 Doncaster
1 = 93
3 = 89
2,4,10 = 87

hope this will do for now

have fun

Thanx michael - will have a good look at them !

Being a bloody masochist, however I am going to continue tomorrow - again trying to find the winners in the Handicaps at Goodwood

Some Hope !!!



re Second set of Ratings - Ihave to admit that at the moment - I take the easy way out, and use the Daily Mail forcasts

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

TC,

Even so, here you go.

3.35 Fantasy Believer, Material Witness, Pivotal Point - all 3 have a negative in win class, MW the least. Mutawaqed has a very good regression model 4th rated.

4.10 Bibury Flyer, Come Good, Empire's Ghodha - BF has big negative win class, EG negative speed, BF and EG drop in class.

4.45 Elisha, Lady Chef, Al Garhoud Bridge - E slight negative win class, LC slight negative win class and speed, AGB slight negative win class large negative speed.

5.20 Dream Magic, Ringsider, Parnassian - DM last race a negative, R no negatives, P large negative weight compared with others slight neg win class and speed.

So going blind on the ratings Ringsider would be the bet. If you want value then 13/2 or better - f'cast 3/1.

Me, I'm not backing any of them - I'm still learning (probably always will be - but not learnt enough yet).

3 most consistent from first 5/6 in betting

2.00G
Pongee
Portrait Of A Lady
Daring Aim

3.05G
Chorist
Zozima
Echoes In Eternity

3.25N
Adaikali
Olivia Rose
Ken's Dream

I have left out the Stewards Cup as most of the consistent horses are outside the first 6 in the forecast. IMO Two Step Kid is the likeliest winner.

Top 3 Massey Max from first 6 in betting (handicaps only)

Heres where it all goes pear shaped !

3:35 - I suppose it all depends on the draw ! the world seems to think that a High draw is essential in this race, - but - I think I am correct in saying that Dandy Nicols predicted that todays winner would come from a low draw !

I have prepared 2 lists to cover both eventualities - take your pick personaly - peverse as usual. I am going for the low draw.

Low Draw

Mutawaqed
Pivotal Point
Two Step Kid

and as a concession to johnd - I'll chuck in Material Witness who has a combination of High consisency and Massey max figures !

High Draw

High Reach
Fantasy Believer
Dazzling Bay


4:10

Empires Ghonda
Bibury Flyer
Rancho cucamonga


4:45

Justaquestion
Al Garhoud Bridge
Emerald Penang

Hi All,
3.25 ADAIKALI is the one for the house keeping ??.

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

Well I suppose that we have to be content with -

1st 2nd 3rd and 4th from 6 selections in the Stewards Cup


As for the last 2 races - I desrve a good !Kicking" ! - I should never have put them up !

I have been pointing out Masseys limitations with regard to unexposed horses all the way through this experiment - and here we have 2 races full of the Bloody things !!!

Lesson - leave these well alone !!


Be interested in other members views on the experiment - I think my theory stands up pretty well.

tc

TC,

It would seem no views on the experiment. I do not know enough about VDW to post from that perspective.

However combining the 2 ratings would have given 1st and 2nd - quite probably a fluke but...

Oh, and the 1st was carrying a 3lb penalty the other 3lb'er 7th 50/1.

Ringsider also won, like I said no bets for me - oh bo**ocks.

3 most consistent from first 5/6 in betting

After 2 weeks and 26 races, the product was a disappointing 17 wins, (65.3%). From 79 indicated selections that gives an overall strike rate of 21.5%.
A small enough sample, and maybe the fault was in the races selected, but enough to cause doubt as to the true worth of consistency as the basis for a successful system. However, that does not detract from the fact that consistent horses do win many races, and the better the form figures, the more likely they are to win. Maybe Lee could give us some figures to support his view that the percentages VDW gave are accurate when applied only to the first 5/6 in the betting?

Tc/Nofinepix
From an even smaller sample, your ratings have proved more successful than consistency when applied to the first 5/6. Maybe there could be something in that approach?
VDW never specified how he formed his ratings, though he did, at one stage, indicate that Split Second (Time) and Dick Whitford (Form) would be adequate.
I have little idea of how your respective ratings are arrived at. Could either of you enlighten us?
Personally, I will continue to believe that the answer is where he said it was, in the form book, and on how the horses are placed, though I am sure that other approaches will pay dividends.

The only statistic that seems to hold its own year in year out and long before VDW appeared on the scene is the first 6 in the betting or betting forecast.

Last year on the flat out of 4642 races of all sizes and types
3887 winners were inside the first 6 in the actual betting

Proving that racing is biased towards form horses

But we know all this dont we?

JohnD
Out of those 26 races
How much would you have been in front if you had managed to select the 17 winners?
Or even 70% of those 17 winners

That seems to be the most dificult hurdle to overcome

As VDW said people get stuck and cant select the winner from the 3 probables

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

Johnd,

I don't know why I am bothering really,but I will try as I would not like to see you fall at the first hurdle, due to misunderstanding and therefore the incorrect application of VDW's full technique of Appling consistency to a given race, subsequently misdirecting those genuinely interested in HIS(VDW'S) APPROACH.

some clues.

1) For each race what is the consistency figure of each of the three best rated.

2) from the three consistency figures, which come out best from the forcast area(five non handicap and six handicap), what is the chance that the winner will come from those three? VDW was very specific with his figures, as much so as with 111.

3) if, for instance, there is only a 60% chance that the winner will come from those three, which other horses will you factor into the calculations?

A giude to the depth of VDW's investigations, is that he gave figures for several individual horse's consistency figures, and a number(which indicates he reasearched all combinations) of combinations of the three best figures in the indicated races. YET YOU GIVE UP AND REFUTE THEIR WORTH AFTER ONLY 26 RACES.

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

johnd

An Interesting Meeting - thanks for twisting my arm and forcing me into making the effort !!

Pity I was Daft enough to play in those two unexposed last races - otherwise it would have shown some seriously good results.

Still 9 winners from the Goodwood Handicaps suggests that there is something to build on !

I think that Massey is unique in that he provides the "Max" rating figure, which shows the best rating from the horses previous runs - to my mind this is useful at a meeting like Goodwood - where there is good prize money on offer, and the Trainer is likly to have brought the horse back to that "peak" in going for the prize !

If any one knows of another easily accesible source of previous "best" ratings I would love to know.

I have always viewed consistency ratings in Handicaps with suspicion - after all - the trainer is trying to outwit the Handicaper - and he is not going to do so with a series of 111s behind the horses name (Mark Prescott excluded of course) !!

I think that the consistency ratings are much more important in "Stakes" races, and I always prick up my ears, when I see a decent consistency rating coupled with a top current Massey rating, and in particular when it also features a top "Max" rating !

Ratings have always been derided on the thead by VDW exponents. The argument it seems being - "We don't have access to VDWs rating methods so therefore we can't Rate the horses" !

I suggest that with the advent of Computors -Ratings have advanced by leaps and bound since VDWs day, and we would be foolish not to include them in our appraisal of a race !

re the form book - I suspect that you are right - but I have yet to come across information that points me in the right direction in this regard - Help !

I am now going off to pusue my other Hobby horse - Jockey/Trainer statistics -
Can-do has just sent me the most fantastic spreadsheet, which I just can't wait to explore !!

Nofinepix

Thanks for your contributions !

I am always amazed at the amount of time and effort that you apear to put in - compiling your ratings !!!