Hello Investor,

The postmaster bounced my email. Try the following.

hedgehog23@hotmail.com

All the best
hedgehog

Bensam,
Theres a bit more to it than cons and first 5 in betting. He tells you what it is in "Narrow the field to gain winning strip" although he is slightly ambiguous , whether intentionally I couldnt say.

Hedgehog,
Why throw out Donnybrook today,perhaps he qualified under another method?

Mtoto,
No Im not mr class/form and yes I would say its possible you can have different vdw selections although its unlikely they would come from using the same method.

Regards,

Hello All,

hope you and yours are well and happy.

Investor - don't bother with the posted email address. I've just tried to get in and it's all screwed up. Ask Barney instead.

Statajack - I did say it had some positive form aspects. If your refering to a method I should know then my understanding of it must be limited. If your refering to another method can I be cheeky and ask for a couple of positives and a couple of negatives?

As ever you can ignore that question if you wish.

All the best
hedgehog

i had the same problem with barney,it came back sorry mate don,t know what to do.cheers

Statajack,
Yes, there is alot more to it than just cons and first 5/6 in the betting. I merely stated this to indicate ''one of many ways'' to reduce the field down to the few likely candidates. This was how three of the four horses named in my last message were shortlisted. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions that the "Narrow the field to gain winning strip" article hints at much of VDW's thinking with regard to winner finding. Though, like everything else he wrote, the apparent lack of detail has caused those reading it to bypass the information he was trying to convey- something we're all probably guilty of doing to various amounts. I don't know about ambiguity, but it should go without saying that it would have defeated the object of the excersise had VDW spelt it all out in laymans terms.

I should like to pose a question to those who both know VDW's writings well and have studied his examples.

In his article of 10/10/1981, published under the title "A Word About Evaluation from Van Der Wheil", VDW argues that "what the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation." He goes on to say that "There are good grounds for taking the view that when using time as a means of evaluation, attention should be restricted to the five and six furlong sprints, or at least to the maximum of one mile. These same grounds hold good for thinking the use of time during the National Hunt is not so reliable as other means because of the minimum of two miles".

Some nine years later, in "Systematic Betting", VDW uses speed figures as an indicator that a horse has improved from one run to another, illustrating this with examples from the Flat (a 1.5 mile race) and the NH (in respect of chases from 2m to 3m), ie in circumstances his October 1981 article would suggest that the use of speed figures "is not so reliable". In other words, it seems as though, over the years from 1981 to 1990, VDW came to take a more positive view of the potential contribution of speed figures in assessing longer distance Flat, and NH, races.

My question is as follows. Given VDW's October 1981 position on speed figures, is it safe to assume that they did NOT play a significant (and certainly not a decisive) part in his early NH and longer-distance Flat evaluations, such as the 1978 Erin and Whitbread (NH), and John Porter and Sandown Cup (Flat)?

Fulham,
You may not view me as qualified to answer your question as I have not studied all of the examples, in particular the ones you mention. However, this gives me a perfect opportunity to show how those reading VDW's articles bypass information so easily. Some 2 1/2 years earlier than the ''A Word About Evaluation...'' article, VDW wrote ''Look Before You Leap In'' wherein he made use of speed figures in forming a shortlist of N/H horses to follow, with no mention of distance.

Thus the answer to your question is a resounding no, it is not safe to assume he ignored speed figs in his earlier examples.

Hello All,

Investor - don't understand. It worked for me. Have you got the address right?

All - here is how I see 3 races today

2.40 Kelso
1. Lord Sandrovitch(4), Radar(9), Amber Moss(11), Superior Weapon(11)

2. Amber Moss(56), Radar(42), Lord Sandrovitch(35), Murder Moss(26)

3. Garden Party II, Lord Sandrovitch?, Radar, Superior Weapon

4. Radar, Lord Sandrovitch?, Garden Party II, Superior Weapon

My choice is Superior Weapon.

3.10 Kelso

1. Baby Gee(4), Bodfari Signet(8), Brave Vision(10)

2. Bodfari Signet(28), Totally Scottish(27), Baby Gee(24), Golden Hawk(23)

3. Baby Gee, Bodfari Signet, Totally Scottish

4. Bodfari Signet, Totally Scottish, Baby Gee

My coice is Bodfari Signet.

3.00 Southwell

1. Inchcoonan(5), Shirley Oaks(16), Rio's Diamond(17)

2. Galapagos Girl(36), Effervesce(32), Inchcoonan(28), Rio's Diamond(27)

3. Effervesce, Inchcoonan

4. Effervesce, Inchcoonan

My choice is Effervesce.

All the best
hedgehog

Hello All,

Well I got one right.

Of the winners, Fille Genereux has me completely baffled. I can see no reason for it getting anywhere near the winners enclosure.

Any comments on my selections?

All the best
hedgehog

Hi Fulham,

Given the amount of time over which VDW shared his knowledge, I think it is fair to assume that he would have had some changes of opinion. No doubt also he became an even more astute punter over this period learning, as we all do, by mistakes that he made and of course the benefit of experience is invaluable.

VDW set out lots of little exercises such as the ones you mention and others like, Roushayd, Pegwell Bay etc. And it is my interpretation that he did this to arm his readers with a method of crosschecking selections. Most that use VDW as a means of selection don’t run all the crosschecks that he gave over races they are analysing, which is on the whole down to the time it takes to complete, and also because they are unaware. I for one don’t employ every crosscheck that he gave, but have instead taken a couple that I feel content with, which include Roushayd, and I run them over every race that I look at. This is of course a following on from the main ‘consistency method’, and is where the more obscure selections come from, as I’m sure you realise.

I personally cross check, with speed figures, every single race that I look at, be it a 3m chase or a 5f sprint, and I have to say that I doubt if VDW ignored speed figures in those early days, just as I doubt that his method of determining a horse’s class was invented a while after his initial letter. I think it’s more the case that he just didn’t mention them straight away. There are indeed hints in the Prominent King letter when he refers to certain horses that he was using a method, of some description, to quantify a horse’s class, which I’m sure was the ability rating. Anyway, back to the point! It’s my understanding that VDW used speed figures as a crosscheck in his selection process, but class/form was and still should be the driving force behind selections. Yes, Roushayd for example had an improving speed figure, but that was just a confirmation of his class/form in comparison to the rest of the field. With regards to PK it was class and form that showed him up as a good thing, and not speed figures, in my opinion.

[This message was edited by Lee on March 26, 2002 at 05:50 PM.]

Hello Fulham,
In Systematic Betting, he uses speed figures as a means of ascertaining improvement not of evaluating a race. When Roushayd posts an improved figure in a higher class he can be sure it has improved considerably,it may not be the highest figure in the race but a faster time in a higher grade equals improvement. Its not actually trying to quantify just how much improvement has been made and to avoid risk, the horse is backed only when it is dropped in class next run. All the "horses to follow" methods specify that the SF must be above a certain level, how much above is unimportant.
I would generally agree with Lee's views although as vdw supposedly arrived in the UK after WW2 and his first letter didnt appear until 1978 he had over 30 years to formulate his methods. I would be surprised then if they changed all that much between 78 and 89.
If he says he didn't use speed figs for rating a race as per your message, I would give him the benefit of the doubt personally. Why bother with all the letters and books if he was deliberately trying to put us away right from the beginning? Just about everything else he has told us has turned out to be true so why not this?
regards,

Bensam/Lee/Statajack

Thanks very much for your responses.

I think (though no doubt others will say if they don't agree) that it is common ground that VDW never really "spelt it all out", but provided a number of very useful clues and approaches, some very clear in his letters/articles, others that have to be worked hard for, again in the letters/articles but also by researching the examples. And, as Bensam said in his 10.24am post, it would have defeated his objectives if VDW had spelt it all out in layman's terms.

Although on another thread I have been described as sceptical and negative about VDW's work, my main objective is to make ever more sense of it. And hitherto I have worked on precisely the assumption that Statajack has just set out: ie that VDW was trying to be genuinely helpful to those interested in working to understand his thinking and, while not making everything obvious, would certainly not have been deliberately misleading.

Now, I've been engaged in an email discussion with Mtoto about the 1978 Erin, and I hope he won't mind me saying that we share two conclusions. First, that Prominent King had the potential to win (judged by his performances in the 1976 Triumph Hurdle and the 1977 Erin), and had been placed early in the 1977/8 season in such a way as to bring him to peak fitness for the 1978 Erin. Second, that without reference to sfs, we can't see how Beacon Light and Decent Fellow can be DECISIVELY eliminated as possible winners. (Both, after all, had within the few weeks prior to the Erin won races of broadly comparable class, which was more than Prominent King had achieved up to that point.)

Mtoto currently takes the view that Prominent King's achievement of a higher sf than either of the others, in a comparable race to the Erin, may have been the decisive factor for VDW. In the light of the two articles I mentioned in my post earlier, I take a different view: in the light of his 10/10/81 post it seems unlikely to me that sfs played much part in VDW's analysis of the Erin.

However, Bensam has very helpfully drawn attention to the 3/5/79 letter, where it seems crystal clear VDW did indeed use sfs in relation to NH races, as some guide to ability (just as he did much later with his "2yos to follow at 3" methods).

I saw what seemed to be the discrepancy between VDW's 10/10/81 article and Chapter 6 of "Systematic Betting" as probably explained by developments in this thinking over the intervening years (because someone with as fertile a mind as VDW would, in my view, constantly have been reviewing and refining his approach). But now there is the discepancy between the articles of 3/5/79 and 10/10/81 to try to understand.

As I write this post, I am aware that concern with such a question will be seen by some as academic in the pejorative sense of the term, and by others as ridiculous. But from my perspective, its an issue of real PRACTICAL importance in trying to achieve the fullest possible understanding of how VDW analysed those early examples.

Anyway, if any of you has any further thoughts, or others wish to contribute theirs, they will be very welcome.

(For completeness, if sfs were not a significant part of VDW's evaluation of the 1978 Erin, as I currently believe, in my view the analysis of that race turns on how one interprets Beacon Light and Decent Fellow's runs immediately prior to the Erin. And on that, I suggest that differing opinions are legitimate, something I'd be glad to explore in more detail if anyone is interested.)

Dear Hedgehog,
I shall reply to you. Well done with SUPERIOR WEAPON who beat my choice by a neck. Did you use speed figs atall to arrive at your choice? The reason I ask is because in one part of the internet Racing Post it had scored 120 in its last run, but when I went to study that particular race all the horses were rated nil with the race time being 23 secs below standard. I was not sure what to think. Which RP page was wrong? I decided the 120 was an error seeing as its race had been run in such a slow time.
Perhaps it wasn't wrong then. If I had known that I probably would not have backed RADAR,
Yours
Swish

Hello All,

Investor - try hedgehog232002@yahoo.co.uk

Fulham - I know you are more knowledgeable than I but Beacons Light was finding each race more difficult as it decreased in class.
Surely if the horse was simply maintaining its fitness level the task at hand would have become easier as it dropped in class.
Why the trainer should make BL look so good prior to the Erin is beyond me. He must have been aware of BL's dropping form. Why else drop it in class? Surely running in races of comparable or higher class prior to the Erin would have been better preparation.
"Train hard, Fight easy" I believe Marshall Zimarov said.
Anyway that's my view. I fully expect to be corrected.

All the best
hedgehog

Hello Swish,

Yes I did look at the SF but first I tried to work out which horses I thought were in form. The SF was confirmation as far as I was concerned.

I'm not very good at this working out "which horses are in form" business. I'm still not sure if I should have considered Brave Vision as in form. It's last race really put me off.

Thanks for the reply.
All the best
hedgehog

Fulham,
You said ''But now there is the discepancy between the articles of 3/5/79 and 10/10/81 to try to understand''. At face value, the articles do appear to contain conflicting viewpoints but my opinion is that in the latter article, VDW only mentions ''good grounds'' for taking the views described therein. These ''good grounds'' are based on the fact that few races are run flat out because of ''tactics'', and so logic dictates that the further the distance run, the more the likelihood for a slower time being recorded. That said, for longer distances, wouldn't you agree that recording a fast time would indicate a good performance?

The overall evidence within VDW's writings overwhelmingly suggests that he referred to speed figs in his analyses over both codes and ALL distances. It is certain that he would never have used them as the decisive factor in any bet made, but more, used as a single factor brought into balance with others, most notably class and form. In my opinion, in the case of Prominent King, it is predominantly the balance of class and form that made it a bet, not speed figures.

Dear Hedgehog,
Thankyou for replying, but where did you get your speed figure from?
Yours
Swish

Regarding the speed figure debate, it was well known that VDW made use of the Raceform speed figures both as a measure of a horses improvement in fitness or as a merit rating to assist with gauging ability. As the consistency method stands they were not relative to that method. In Prominent Kings race there were obviously many Irish horses involved but there were no recent speed figures available for them. P King had gained his at Cheltenham in the Triumph 2 years earlier. Beacon Light had some figures having run in England for all his runs and whilst they showed a small dip they were still very fast figures.

The reason for Beacon Light and Decent Fellow being discarded was because VDW didn't rate them as form horses in the race. The question to answer is why?

Hi Hedgehog

You may be right re Beacon Light, and certainly at one time I thought that, taking his three runs before the Erin together, I could detect something akin to a reverse "Roushayd" effect - a declining sf from his class 85 win on Boxing Day 1977 to his class 39 2nd on 4 February 1978.

But that only holds if one limits one's view of race class to penalty value. Following VDW's "Spells it all out" approach, I did just that until I became persuaded of Mtoto's views on this matter (by finding how well they worked on current examples). I now take the view that the level of the opposition is a more useful indicator of the class of a race than the penalty value (though often, unsurprisingly, there is a correlation between the two).

Now, sadly for us, ORs were not so publicly available in the late 1970s as they are today. They were fairly public for Flat horses, via the International Classification, the two Free Handicap weights, the regular rounded OR updates in the Racing Calendar, etc. However, there were no comparables in respect of NH races.

One can derive differences in NH ORs from handicap weights, albeit without ever knowing the exact ORs, but only of course for horses regularly entered in handicaps, which did not apply to some of the key horses in the 1978 Erin. Nevertheless, I have established to a high degree of confidence some of the handicap differentials of Erin horses, and have been able to make what seem to me to be decent estimates of others. And when one views the last races of Beacon Light and Decent Fellow prior to the Erin with the respective ORs in view, the races take on a rather different light, in which BL and DF's performances seem much more impressive. (Incidentally, I have recently asked Weatherbys if there is any chance of having access to the exact ORs of the principal hurdlers of the period, to check my estimates. I'm still awaiting their reply, but in the past they've been very helpful.)

Of course, ORs are just opinions, and in that sense no different from, for example, Postmark ratings today. And, as the "matches" between Orientor and Needwood Blade in March 2001 and last Saturday demonstrate, ORs don't always work out. Nevertheless, I think they have evident value in the analysis of any non-handicap like the runs of BL and DF to which I've referred and, of course, the Erin.

Bensam/Guest

Thanks for your thoughts - helpful as ever.

It seems clear to me that you both take the view that VDW eliminated Beacon Light and Decent Fellow as potential winners on grounds of form, but form either exclusively or principally assessed without reference to sfs. Please put me right if that is a mis-representation.

That happens also to be my position in my email exchanges with Mtoto. Where I probably draw a different conclusion to you is on the question of whether there were adequate, specifiable grounds, before the Erin was run, for eliminating BL and DF. My view, based in part on the approach intimated in my post to Hedgehog, is that there was no clear cut basis for being sure that PK was in sufficiently better form that BL or DF though, as ever, I'm open to changing my mind as I continue to look at the race.

However, I'm currently inclined to think of the PK example as a good introduction to understanding how trainers set a horse up to be at its peak, but also an example of what I suspect to have been post-race rationalisation rather than pre-race prediction.