JIB/Investor

Out of 332 C grade and higher Handicaps
150 were won by a Horse with a Cons rating of 12 or less
Roughly 45%

You are not going to come to a conclusion

JiB
your idea that consistent horses are bad business practice sounds logical and I would have to agree
But the results prove otherwise

My own opinion for what its worth is the cons rating is not good enough to use as a filter

You would do just as well with a pin

I am not trying to cause problems here but we could try picking a big race..at the weekend or whenever.then put some views forward and see if we can find some logical selections before a race.

Ectoo
For christ' sake,Will you read my posts properly as well I said "when a horse hasthe form to back up the consistency rating theyr'e never far away" i was merely making a point to jib the a lot of winners in the top class races have the cons figures that vdw put in the book or they are in the top 3 from first 5 or 6 in betting or top 5 from the whole field,If you think that dubawi didn't have the best form you better look more closely at how vdw interpreted form because you are wrong my friend,And he had the ability to back it up.Before you post please rad my posts thouroughly then i won't keep repeating myself.

Dubawi in no way had the best form in the race Investor. DD had won a Group 2 race and gave weight in his next G2 to a decent horse.

This is also backed up by the 4 lb superiority on RPR ratings.

It's no use just saying a horse has the best form, you will need to explain it for me because I don't buy this mysterious reasoning of just saying a horse is this or that with no explaination as to why you hold an opinion.

If I have misunderstood the reason for posting here let me know, then I can just join in with "XXX was the class horse" after each days racing..makes really interesting reading

JIB,

I suppose there is a point to your last post to me, but I can't see it.

How many horses that have run badly in the Chester trials have gone on to win the Derby? No doubt you must know of one or you would have bothered with the post. I except Epsom is nothing like Chester. A horse that can handle Chester would have proven it is a well balance horse, and can handle a turning track.

Apart from Lingfield where do you go to see if the horse has these attributes? The Epsom trial is too early, and the Goodwood too late.

Can't really see that EC's stats are the death knoll for consistent horses. It would be interesting to see the stats for inconsistent ones. There would be far more of them, but except you would have an answer ready to disprove them.

Be Lucky

The argument that inconsistent horses win less races than consistent horses is flawed because it's clear that most of them have no ability and will be priced accordingly.

The argument is that consistency = profit and on it's own it doesn't. The fact that these consistent horses are flaunted after they have won tells me that people aren't interested in profit but proving that VDW picks winners..well so does my cat. Little use if they don't show a profit.

VDW was an invention of the Raceform Handicap Book, the forum on there was virtually none existent due to lack of interest when VDW letters startes appearing. It was created to get conversation goimg which it indeed did. What was put forth was a methodology based on the obvious..horses that have a lot of sexy form figures win more than those with non sexy figures..the only reason they win more is because they are at the sharp end of the market in many cases..the market rules..form figures are just a by product because they filter out the no hopers. There are too many "consistent" horses, as VDW ers like to call them, to make that a filter strong enough.

So the handicap book, under the guise of VDW, then added the prize money idea which was just a copy of basically what they do in the US and had done long before VDW ever existed..they call it EPS earnings per start and their idea is superior to the way VDW used it. EPS actually gives a rating that measures consistency and class as it based on all starts rather than just winning ones.

What has happened since those days is a cult of people who like talking about old races and how VDW invented the earnings rating and how consistent class horses win races..like saying horses with 4 legs win races..yes we know..a lot of them though aren't there.

The choice VDWers make now is whether they just keep going round in circles patting themselves on the back after 4.45 each day or try and look at what VDW actually is. A lot of generalisations thrown together to get some interest in a flagging newspaper forum 20 odd years ago.

The myth has grown but has no flesh on it imho.

Anyone that wants to be a groupie of an outdated cobbled together set of generalisations gets my sympathy because there ain't no mystery to VDW..now making money from horse racing is a different matter

Mtoto,

Chester is often used to teach a horse how to handle the left handed turn at Epsom.

As you point out a Derby or Oaks candidate is unlikely to be at its peak so many days before the actual classic so why would the trainer bother otherwise?

I think you should be able to see that if you were a trainer like say Mr Nichols you would be solely preocupied about getting one or two of your charges to peak condition for each of the big sprint hcps and not at all interested that they all always made the frame.

Of course the stats for inconsistent horses are worse than the consistent ones, Clive Holt showed that 30 years ago. The difference being that only a fool would take all inconsistent horses seriously.

Boozer,

Of the 45% of C+ hcps won by '12' horses how many of them had only one qualifying '12' horse? As you say its a useless filter.

"JIB/Investor

Out of 332 C grade and higher Handicaps
150 were won by a Horse with a Cons rating of 12 or less
Roughly 45%"

Boozer
Any chance you could use your magic gizmo to give us the stats for all races 17k and above.
Thanks!

Well, it does seem that there is a small bit of movement at last!

We have gone from a maximum of 5 to a maximum of 12.

I'd say that this is a step in the right direction.

What am I on about?
Here's that piece from Gummy/Marchwood/Charley Anderson again:

"
look at the highest value races of the day, Group races and grades
A, B, & C only, and try to confine your bets to the top class races
at each meeting, basing class on VDW's rating system mentioned below..

never ever back a horse that has not won at least one of its last
three races and was placed in the other two.

last three form figures must add up to no more than a total of five
we are looking for consistent horses nothing else. (see below*) e.g.
1st=1, 2nd=2, 3rd=3 up to 9th=9 and 0=10.

-------

*The only last three outings that Charlie Anderson is suggesting are
as
follows: 111=3; 112=4; 113=5; 121=4; 131=5; 122=5; 221=5;
212=5; 311=5.

Please note: All of the above does not conform strictly with VDW
methodology and you will see some horses in VDW examples whose
form figures do not correspond. However, it appears to be usually
accepted that this was the type of thinking that was in VDW's mind."

Everything copied and pasted from Gummy Racing Forum.

Ectoo,

Some interesting statements, and some I have to agree with. Also a few I don't. I wanted to invite you to join a group of VDW fans, but someone who knows you suggested it wouldn't be a good idea so I left it. I wanted a someone who knows about horse racing to put across another point of view.

I agree with some of your doubts, I'm not happy with the win only being used for a guide to ability. I'm not happy with money being the sole guide to the class of a race or horse. I don't think that was how VDW really worked, more a case of using something the every day punter of the time would understand.

I'm not a 100% sure were you get this idea about the sexy form figures more than a few selections figures were not that sexy. In the first example 422 was taken over 112, 11, and 313.

I also agree in the main about consistency figures not being the answer. However when they are only used in conjunction with class I think there is/can be a different perspective. Class is the king pin, but I think class was found in a different way than he used in the explanation. I can't get my head round an a/rating that is putting up horses that stand little or no chance on the basic rating.

I know you and many others are not happy about the lack of pre race posting, but is that because of the noisy doubters and the likes of Colin Davey? I have read more than a few of your posts on other forums, and you are more than happy to put up selections. Are you also happy to go into detail about your thinking? Do you ever explain exactly how you formulate your speed figures and standard times? If you find a way to make money by thinking outside the box, do you shout it from the roof tops?

I'm more than happy to discuss VDW in general terms with you, or anyone else. You have a knowledge of racing that would make it very interesting. Unfortunately it can only be based on my ideas about the subject, and they are different to many others who have worked hard at trying to understand it.

I make racing pay, I have too. Most of my thinking (not all) is based on VDW. Interestingly the one thing I don't agree with about his thinking, I think you would agree with him. Of course it would be a complete waste of time if you are sure it is all bollix.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Quote by VDW from Racing In My System:
"What a lot of punters don't seem to appreciate is that in any race, the majority of horses are not there to win, but to prepare them to win"*
It would seem that many can't grasp that fact, no matter how many times they've read the books!
From yesterday's 2 big handicaps, first 3 only:

SPURADICH Why was he ridden totally differently yesterday to his previous run?
BLUE SPINNAKER Why was he dropped back to 1m lto, when he had been outpaced over 10f in his previous run?
JABAAR Best run this season over extended 10f when up with the pace all the way, yet lto, in a slowly run 10f race he was held up. Why?


FUNFAIR WANE There is no doubt that his best previous form was over a straight 6f, yet he had not had one race this season in such circumstances. Why?
CONTINENT His previous race had been over 5f on g/f ground, yet anyone who knows anything about reading form should also know they were the wrong circumstances. Why did he run there?
Come in, it's raining!

* Ectoo. Bloody good ghost writers, weren't they, can't say I've seen that sort of thing in any other books, and I've read a few.

If anyone thinks the above is an argument against consistency, it isn't; exactly the opposite, in fact.

JIB

If I remember correctly there were a vast amout of "12" and less in the first 6 in the betting
Something like 1800 total 1100 cons rating 12 or less

I should make up a proper database to check the results in detail
But I cannot summon up any enthusiasm at all to commit time to what looks like a total waste of effort

Even if you can wangle 078 to look like 111 like Investor suggested nudge nudge wink wink
I cannot see any reason to pursue it at all

Findin a second filter for the first 6 in the betting that reduces the field even more is a hard task
I pursued it for a long time and the nearest I got was

Ranking the first 6 in the betting in weighted order
Result
the top 3 weights are biased 60 40
When the winner falls in the first 6 of course

Not easy narrowing the field from the initial 6
Not easy picking from 3 horses and being correct more times than not
Hard game init

Johnd

I will have a go tomorrow when I have recovered from todays effort
I do think its pissing in the wind trying to prove anything with stats from the most cons

Fortunately, I did back Kind today, though I nearly rejected this winner bc of my (possibly wrong) interpretation of VDW criteria.

My reasons were more to do with breeding, ownership, trainer, and jockey (flown in specially for the one race).

On at least one other forum, Kind was top-rated.
Those ratings were based on factors thought likely to generate profit.

Take them or leave them, and make a judgment. No compulsion to do or not to do.

------

OK. On to why trainers are running horses.

Well, let's not forget that, basically, they're running them bc they get paid to do so, by the owners!
So long as the cheques for fees keep coming, they couldn't be bothered much about placings, though some do like place money to give them a bit extra.
This is all at the run-of-the -mill level, where there are hundreds of horses that never win **** all.

Bluntly speaking, these trainers take on owners whom they consider to be "silly bollocks" and they proceed to rip 'em for as much as they can, for as long as they can.

Ever been in the winner's enclosure after the race and listened to the shit they tell the long-faced owners of the one that came third or fourth?

Just imagine the spiel they give the majority, whose animals have no chance of ever doing any good.

How do they make money out of these crap horses? Well, at the end of the day, there's the buying and selling plus all the "jobs for the boys" involving work done by their trusty vets.
All these ops, that they advise are needed to transform Donkey into Arkle, are paid for by the owners. It's expense after expense.

If it works, and they land a gamble, everybody's laughing. If it didn't work that time, and there's a row, they sometimes buy the ****ing thing themselves at a knock-down price.

About a month later, you see in the results section that Donkey, now owned by Mr&Mrs New Sillybollocks, has gone in third at 20/1.

And so on it goes.

What's my point? Simply, that not every horse that runs is expected to win and hardly anyone really cares. Cynical but sadly true, I think you'll find.

Hi Mtoto

I am not saying that following an approach like the Handicap Book articles is wrong. They make basic sense but I think people stick so rigidly to this VDW belief that they blinker themselves from anything they think our imaginary friend would advocate.

I have put many many angles up messageboards over the years particularly on Direct Racing and have discussed making speed figures in fair detail on the Racing Forum.

I don't have all the answers but I od know that you MUST be open to new ideas and be prepared to change your views when you realise that some long held ideas are maybe open to question.

I am sure everyone here loves the game like I do but on occasions I just see people under some kind of a doctrine that means they close their mind to anything that questions what the Handicap Book articles say.

A lot of that stuff is inaccurate and full of generalisations that are not enough to make a profit.

Hopefully if people stop treating VDW like some kind of religion they might realise it isn't the be all and end all. I find it is a bit like a closed shop on here where if you say something against the "religion" you either get insulted or ignored. It's like a kind of superiority thing built on some mysterious method of picking winners that only those that "understand" can discuss.

It does make laugh a bit though, maybe that's against the "religion" as well

GUMMY
Quote by Mtoto
"Ectoo,

Some interesting statements, and some I have to agree with. Also a few I don't. I wanted to invite you to join a group of VDW fans, but someone who knows you suggested it wouldn't be a good idea so I left it. I wanted a someone who knows about horse racing to put across another point of view."

With respect, there would be far more point in banning posts like the above rather than banning Epi for speaking his mind.
We know they are desperate for members, but please don't allow them to use this thread as a recruiting ground again!"

Sean
At one time there was a suggestion that
you never backed in races unless the percentages of the 3 probables added up to 80+% or more
It was Water p Or statajack I think suggested this Nudge nudge wink wink missing link 2nd numerical picture stuff

Mtoto

I would be very interested in joining your group by the way but will understand if it's not allowed.

Got a problem there John?

Your idea of someone speaking their mind is being pig ignorant I gather.

JIB,

Our thinking about Chester seems to be along the same lines. As you say none of the horses in the trial are fully wound up. How disappointed would you be if your Derby hopeful was hammered by horses the are also not at their peak?

I don't doubt inconsistent horse are laid out to win races. As I pointed out Funfair Wane was proven in the class, if there was a reason to point him out, or back him, it should have been that not another inconsistent horse wins. I have said being consistent is not a reason to back a horse.

You asked Boozer how many races had one horse with the c/rating of 12 or under. I'm looking for races with the most horses with that credential, more horses that are going to run to their profile. Less guess work, more profit.

I don't like the way Nichols runs and enters his horses. Scattergun tactics, if he was so great why not enter a couple? I think it's because he's not sure, so he goes in mob handed.

You will never convince me that a proven, consistent horse is a poor bet, and it better policy to look for the inconsistent guess. Much is said about the poor prices, I'm looking for good prices, and get told they don't win every day. I don't back every day. I should be please you and many others think like this I often wonder how can this horse be so big? It's you and your friends that do it, thanks.

JohnD,

Sorry, but you have lost me. How did you know the ridding tactic were going to change before the race? Isn't this another form of the after timing sin?

Four of the five horses you mentioned were on my short list for the races 2 of them were my class horses. I left them BECAUSE they were not consistent, simple as that. It's easy to find reason after the race. I made my decisions before it. If I mention a horse after a race it can easily be confirmed by looking at the profile. Not a different excuse/reason why a horse may or may not be a selection.

EC,

It just goes to show 2 people can read the same words and come to very different conclusions. I read this thread and the insults go the other way. If you believe anything different to the doubters then the insults come. I have tried to explain how I work, and I haven't turned it into a religion it's my bread and butter. I stand or fall by it. If you would like to explain were I'm going wrong I'm more than happy to listen. All I ask is you don't suggest I should start to try and second guess trainer intentions, or worse still just start guessing

Be Lucky

I was addressing John there referring to Epiglotis's reference to me being Braindead, nothing to do with anything you've said Mtoto. Always enjoy chatting with you. I don't think I've exchanged a view with John but he has decided to have a grudge against me, odd people about on messageboards

I'll let them get on with it I think as it seems a bit like League Of Gentlemen here

ok pal!