Knew - "All Along" - that you were - a "Closet" _ VDWer !!!

What is most interesting, -

is that these comments come towards the end of his life/postings - and I suggest must - therefore -

be representative of his - "Final Conclusions" !!

I have suggested in many earlier Posts, that - His very first "Postings" - were directed at - The "Mug Punter" - and that they were simply "Pointers" - as to - Methods of -

"Putting The Odds in Your Favour" - Nothing more "Complex" than that ! (and no point in looking for "Smoke and Mirrors" ! )

His later Postings went into - Much more Depth!

and are more worth reading !

VDW is littered with improving sorts, proven horses & sleepers imho, any thoughts?.

Or have we covered about everything there lol.

One Small Step

TC,

You will have seen those old b/w films with the wierd and wonderful 'flying machines' falling to bits as soon as their 'pilots' tried to take off.

Well your revelation post reminded me of them when I thought of all those serious faced smug old vdw members desperately revving up their 'c/f' horses, ARs, and CRs!

quote:

---

Originally posted by john in brasil:
_Amazed_TC,Finally after 700 pages appear writings that support what we've been abused all this time for.And here it is:

_To be a succesful Punter -
you need to ubderstand - the things that Trainers do - to bring horses to the boil !!-
_Reconcile that statement to the consistency rating!

---

Jib
It has already been reconciled, not least by Lee.
It is a subject that has been widely discussed recently, though even the 'cognescenti' refuse to recognise that it happens.

Jd,

It is the 'cognescenti' that I would like to do the reconciling!

Thank you, Tuppenycat.

That's cleared up a lot of confusion for me!

Would be interested in Mtoto's comments re - my post !!

TC,

The first question I would ask is why couldn't all of the quotes you have printed apply just as easily to consistent horses? Does a good trainer stop trying to win races, and thinking about how to place it because it is consistent?

The next question is why do you place more importance on these quotes than........


[Consistent horses win races and to illustrate I will give some examples which show percentage wins next time out from various form combinations '' 111 33%, 121 32%, 131 29%, 141 26%, 122 30%, 313 24%, 214 24%, 404 5%, 000 2%.]

or...........

[True, I can recall the class horse in the field set to carry bottom weight and three 'duck eggs' in front of its name winning at 33-1, but this is an exception and not recommended for consistent success.]

As I recall this discussion started when you decided to look at the bare c/rating, and the success or otherwise of them. They were not that good, or what you expected (I think) Then the shout went up waste of time expecting consistent horse to win, and if they do the price is poor.

All I said was it doesn't matter how good the intention, if the horse isn't good enough it won't win. If you don't agree fair enough, but how/why does it mean the consistent horse hasn't also be well placed? So why is it not good policy to back consistent horses if they have the proven ability to win the race, if they are backed because they have the ability AND they are consistent.

VDW did explain he had other methods that didn't use consistency, Roushayd for one. He did however show there were very good reasons to back them. He also mentioned a few that he didn't explain in detail, the last being the one he mentioned in the foreword for the J Bingham book, I can't remember the names of the horses or find the book. I do remember some of those horses were far from consistent though.

JIB, in his wisdom has decided to point out and give reasons why it doesn't pay to back consistent horse. From your posts you seem to be agreeing, and trainer intention is more important. All I'm saying is I use both but concentrate on the consistent horses. I don't like second guessing trainers, and I want proof that the horse is up to the job. I have tried to answer your questions, would you like to show me were I going wrong, or the thinking is duff?

JohnD,

I have read your post and my reply. I thought I had answered your questions and the intention wasn't to be smart. Possibly it is the way your mind works based on the way you talk to people.

Before the race I had know idea the riding tactics would change. I had looked at the horses you mentioned and rejected them on the grounds of consistency Although they had pasted my first filter, and shown they had the ability to win. If I decided to try to second guess the trainers the selections would have been Continental and Blue Spinnaker as they were the class horses the way I work. As you have pointed out they both may have been plotted for their races, but I didn't look any further. I'm more than happy they, and most of the field were going to try and win, after all it was a very big prize. What I can't see is why any trainer would set out to use those races as prep races, there must be cheaper races to practice in. I left both races alone.

The after timing remark was because you used a race after it had been run to point out a few facts. When you do it, it's ok. When others do it, it's somehow cheating. If I mention horses after the race I'm also trying to point out some FACTS that may help.

Be Lucky

"To be a succesful Punter -
you need to ubderstand - the things that Trainers do - to bring horses to the boil !!"
Ché Van Der Wheil


"I don't like second guessing trainers, and I want proof that the horse is up to the job." Mtoto

If VDWers can make it pay with their various ldeas, then that's fine by me. Good luck to them!

However, some of the points CANNOT be universal.
For instance, this idea, that proof is needed before you back, means you'll never back a Derby winner, doesn't it?

Every day horses are stepped up to what may be their seasonal goal, or, more accurately, the goal of the connections.

Horses do have their own ideas about class, but it generally boils down to which one has the nastiest bite and kick!

We humans are the ones who stick the labels on them, and, sometimes, they don't do what it says on the tin.

In fact, I go as far as to say that most horses are not consistently good performers. This is how bookies stay in business, in my view.

JIB,

I take then that you think it a waste of time studying why horses are consistent? Why the trainer has entered his consistent horse in a good race? Why it is impossible to win with these horses although the facts say something very different? That all these consistent winner haven't been well placed and it is sheer luck they win. That the trainers of these horses suddenly forget all they know. That it is impossible to prime a horse without it being run down the field time after time.

I look for reasons a horse can, or can't win a race. I don't get it right every time, but more often than not I get a good run.

Be Lucky (think you will need it more than most)

Thanks for your reply - and for the effort you have been putting into your recent posts !

Your good mannered discusions with ecto have also been most interesting - it would be a shame if he decided to leave at this juncture !!

re my views on the consistency rating - yes I felt it important to test the validity of the statements made in letters 8 and 13 - and yes I have concluded that it would be most unwise to rely on the accuracy of those figures at face value - I have however done my best to avoid making bold statements to the effect that "Consistent Horses do not win races " - clearly they do win, around 50/60 % of races , and if (if I read you correctly) - having examined the rest of a horses credentials - you are also left with a consistent horse then, its consistency is yet another factor in its favour.

Little wrong I feel in your approach !

The VDW formula relies on 4 named factors

Consistent Form- Ability (class) - Probability - Capability.

certainly the first two refer to the horse (and we know that "consistent form" is linked to class)

But I feel that the last two - (capability and probability) - are goverened by the Trainer, and what he does with the horse before directing it at its target !

It is only when the horse is given its "ideal conditions" that it can be expected to win

We have had endless discusions on the thread relating to class/form - but very little regarding - "Capability" and "Probability" - maybe these are areas which would
best reward - more discussion !



Ponder this - Quote !

Many things were conveyed in such a way that most readers passed over them - considering them of little importance. - although in fact they were !

I have never written anything just for the sake of it _ Everything has had a relevence and many times I have suggested they read what was said!!

Frequently I suggested watching how horses were placed, but I believe that it fell on " DEAF " ears !!!!

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

Mtoto,

Please show me where I have said consistant horses dont win.

I have been saying they do not make a profit.

Anyway it is VDW who says trainers bring their horses to the boil, which hardly fits in with your ideas about a horse being consistent does it?

You need no longer argue with me, address your complaints to the zoo keeper not the parrot!

You need no longer argue with me, address your complaints to the zoo keeper not the parrot!

Not sure who you mean by the zoo keeper, so I will answer the noisy one, if you think of your self as a parrot fair enough.

If you were not saying consistent horses don't win, then judging by the replies I am not the only one who mistook your reasoning. So now you agree they can, and do win. (progress) you now follow it up with another strange statement, they don't make a profit. They don't if you back them because they are consistent, but I have never suggested you should. If you concentrate and listen, a GOOD profit can be made by backing horses with the proven ability that are also consistent. If you back consistent horses that don't have the ability factor you will loss in the long run. Simple really.

Why can't you except a trainer with a consistent horse can also plot and bring his horse to the boil? Yes, VDW made the quote you are making a big fuss about, he also said consistent horses win a high % of races, but other factors have to be taken into consideration. I can't see how these quotes contradict each other, can you?

TC,

The written word is not a strong point with me, and sometimes things come across not as intended. So if I haven't explained things in the past as well as I intended I can only apologise. I have always tried to answer all and any questions in a straight forward and honest manner.

I agree that probability is down in part to the trainer, in as far as does he want to win this race? That is why I look for a good reason to assume it is the target or a sensible part of a long term plan. To be honest there must be other factors to this element, but I'm not sure exactly what, or what VDW was looking at.

Capability gives me more problems because I can't quiet see the difference between ability and capability. This maybe because I have rolled the 2 into one, and don't just say this horse has the class/ability when I make the decision about ability.

Hope someone else can come up with a better explanation.

Seanrua,

When I'm looking for proof, I'm looking for proof the horse has the class, and can act on the track. The distance, and going I leave to the trainer. I don't judge class by the value of the race, I look at the class of the horses it has run against. I don't only use course wins/runs to judge if a horse can act on the course. So I'm quite happy to try and find the Derby winner. The horse must have run well against horses of the class of horses in the Derby. Yes, I get it wrong at times I (and the trainer) thought Refuse To Bend was a good bet for the Derby last year. Now if I had taken another horse with the proven class, that and shown it could handle a flat sharp track.

Be Lucky

Psittacosis

Mtoto,

You have made clear that you do not back a horse irrespective of whatever other auspicious augurs it boasts unless its CR is no more than 12. And even admit to missing a lot of winners because of your self discipline.

It is yourself who seems to think the form figs possess some form of supernormal power, not I. On the contrary I have made clear on innumerous occasions that the horses' consistency means nothing to me.

I bet on a horse when I feel its trainer has placed it to win. The horse can possess any type of form fig, (it could even be making its racecourse debut) because the form figs tell me v little, almost nothing, about what the trainer has in mind.

I might bet on a horse with form figs -11 if those wins had been at less than its ideal conditions and it now is about to get a perfect set up. The only doubt would be its price which would be so small as to make it likely for me to keep my money in my pocket.

However I will almost certainly back a horse with form figs -00 under the same conditions as there is usually real value, particularly on the exchanges, to be found with this type of horse.

The SR of the former is, I agree, better than the latter but at the same time the ROI is in a constant battle to keep itself in the black.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

Thank you for your reply, Mtoto. I must confess I don't quite understand how you're seeing things.

Though, after 35 years of punting, I still don't make enough profit, I have a fair bit of success with the Derby.
In fact, in Kriskin's year, I had the 1,2,3, and again this year, I backed what I thought was the obvious winner. I was fortunate.

Anyway, to my mind, the Epsom Derby is a unique, high value race.

I cannot see that "proof" exists anywhere until the race is over.
However, if you can, all well and good; you have an "edge" on me.

We'll probably have to agree to differ, on this one.

As to JIB's point, I cannot see why you disagree with him: there is a huge gulf between consistently picking winners and being able to make a profit from racing. The two are not the same, and I'm sure you know this.

In case there is any who doesn't, the proof can be found in the Napster's table in the RP.

It will be easy to see that the guy with the most winners is not necessarily the one with the most profit.

For instance, this morning, the top guy, with an astonishing 60 pt profit to a level 1pt stake, had 58 winners (this flat season).

Below him were guys with 60+ winners, and one guy had 84 winners but made a loss of 22pts!
This unfortunate fellow even had less losers (114) than our top profit man who had 119.

There's a lot to this game, isn't there?

Finally, I was a bit confused by your way of estimating "class".
A mate of mine, whose methods are far more profitable than my own, works partly on principles gleaned from VDW.
He tells me to go by the value of past races when making the class estimate; forget shit like ABC etc, just look at the money figures, says he.

I'm only just getting my head around this, and you seem to have moved the goalposts, leaving me to ponder what the fk is going on.

It's all a bit like that silly game "snakes and ladders", isn't it? I think I'm getting there, when, next thing, I'm tumbling back down into a mess of confusion.

All I can say is thank fk I don't use some of these ideas in my punting! I'm bad enough as it is.

I think JIB has hit the nail firmly on the head by saying consistent horses are hard to make a profit with as most punters will bet them and this will reduce the odds

Re: The class of the race

I ve found that taking the average of the ORs of the runners has proved quite interesting. (If there is an obvious no hoper whose OR is 15 or 20 lbs below the others I dont include that OR in making the average).

Its quite simple: in a ten runner race I tot up the ten ORs and divide by 10. Using the average OR of races you can compare if your tentative selection is in fact running against tougher or easier opposition from lto, or last win, or etc, or etc.

I ve been quite surprised by the varations amongst the quality of opposition principally in the group of that is made up of 20k class A non hcps. Even the same race can vary considerably from one year to the next and very much from one course or meeting to the next.

Rab
That may be the case with some horses, not all consistent horses are overbet.
One extreme example;
Misternando won 9 handicaps last season and was one of the most consistent horses in training.
On his first start this year, in the Chester Cup, despite his string of ones, and his being the class horse in the race, he was allowed to go off at 33/1. Would have won,too had not the draw and the going gone against him.