All I know about the subject ( vdw) has been gleaned from Gummyforum, and it's not much really.

When I've looked elswhere, I haven't a clue what they're on about! So many don't seem to pick the correct race; they try using the method on class 6 races and then go way off, imo.

Whatever the case, there can be no harm in studying and trying different approaches.

It would be ironic too if I had any imput on a vdw forum, Walter, as I'm almost a disciple of old John in Brazil who seemed to hate vdw stuff!

JIB was a big man on OR. I tried using OR, but didn't make much headway.

TS and SR are more my things now, plus Trainer Form.

Sean I personally think OR are over rated. There are better ways of weighing things up. You really need to read the booklets to understand VDW. Even then 99% seem to misuderstand what he is trying to put across.Hopefully next week with it being the Festival some ppl might put up bets they consider to be VDW selections.The methods should work well at the Festival because they are based on class and consistancy and there are probably more quility races at the Festival than any where else.

Sean rua

Determining the pace of a race can only be done by combining known facts with assumptions. First you have to identify the pace horse, this should be the one that leads the race and keeps on to the finish without weakening or fading, regardless of anything that passes it in the final 2 furlongs. Next you must assume this horse ran at a constant speed throughout the race, even though this is unlikely to have been the case. Now from the winning time and distances beaten it is possible to calculate the speed of the pace horse. It is also possible to calculate the finishing speed of any horse that finishes ahead of the pace horse in the final 2 furlongs.
As an example consider race 594 in the form book (Sat 16 Feb, 4,35 Ling) won by Alfresco.
The third horse Monkey Glas, lead, was headed inside the final furlong but kept on to the line. This is the pace horse. The winning time was 1m 35.20s and Monkey Glas was beaten a nk & 1/2l. 1l equals 0.2s so he was beaten about 0.15s. So his finishing time was 1m 35.35s and with the distance of the race at 1 mile this calculates to a speed of 37.76 mph. This is the pace of the race.
The winning time calculates to 37.82 mph but this is just the average speed of the winner. The winners' comments read; in rear, headway over 1f out, lead well inside final furlong. Again we must make an assumption and I have assumed Alfresco passed Monkey Glas 100 yards out. At 37.76 mph Monkey Glas would do 100 yards in 5.42s. Alfresco done this in 5.27s (5.42 – 0.15). This calculates to a speed of 38.83 mph. So Alfresco raced at a speed less than the pace, 37.76 mph and accelerated to a speed of 38.83 mph from about 1 1/2f out.
All these calculations can be mind boggling even with a calculator and a brain the size of a planet but if you use a spread sheet with the formulas already in, it is a piece of piss.
Next time out Alfresco and Monkey Glas met again. Monkey Glas set the pace at 37.16 mph, again Alfresco swept past him with a finishing speed of 37.50 mph. Both were beaten by the class horse in the race Jack Sullivan who had a 6lb pull on handicap over Alfresco and a 14lb pull over Monkey Glas. In his previous race Jack Sullivan had failed to go past Kandidate who set a pace of 36.98 mph.
Pace may be one thing but you can't beat class.

Sean

Pace is an important part of VDW's method as he made clear in SIAO, though very few actually realise it, and as a consequence it is rarely discussed by his followers
Like most of VDW's stuff, it isn't something to get tied in knots about, the beauty of his method is its simplicity, despite the mounds of junk you might read to the contrary.
His method still works with nothing more than the information in a racing paper, so leave others to sweat the sophisticated stuff if you want to progress at all quickly.


ps Nothing personal, Garstonf. The above post isn't aimed at you; at least you've had the sense to realise pace is important, but I'm not sure you're going the right way about it.
Incidentally, I hand timed the above race you'd mentioned, (not something I'd normally do, but I was interested in your conclusions), and Monkey Glas actually ran the last 2f slower than he averaged for the rest of the race. Not surprising really, as he went off like a bat out of hell!

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

That`s another piece of info i could pass on from the athletics that might equate to the horses. Runners are all generally running slower at the end of a race than at any other time during it, its how much they weaken individually that adds to the visual effects.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for the very useful replies. Plenty there to get my teeth int, I think!

Sorry I'm late replying; I was at Wolver yesterday for the marathon card of ten races! A long wet day has left me fkd!

I did back Jack Sullivan ( the class horse) and, sadly, that was my only winner of the day.
I also saw that Alfresco thing in the Lincoln trial race. He was useless.

Dunno about Monkey Glas, but over on another forum (TRF), where I make the occasional post, some people went absolutely bananas and ape-shit, when a bloke suggested something about "quickening" .
Actually, Walter has moreorless confirmed the validity of what the guy said, but i doubt whether the majority would agree or even bother their arse about it - even though it's crucial, imo.

One problem is, that not everyone has done the valuable time recording and calcs work that garstonf has. Instead, we get " race-readers' reports".
Now on TRF, there are a lot of people who work in the the racing media, and the last thing these lucky fkrs want is anyone rocking their boat. This, together with all the wannabees and all the bookies ( retired or otherwise) means that

any ideas ( like all those above) will be suppressed and crushed as quickly as possible.
Heaven forbid that punters were able to find out what really is going on in a race! ( Their attitude, not mine).

Anyway, as I'm still knackered after yesterday, I'm off to lie down. I will mull over the views expressed, and return to the task another time.

Thanks again to all !

quote:

Pace is an important part of VDW's method as he made clear in SIAO, though very few actually realise it, and as a consequence it is rarely discussed by his followers

JohnD,

This I can agree with, but it does raise the question as pace is important what/how did VDW assess the pace of the race? Bare race times only tell a small part of the story, going has to be taken into account as well as the configuration of the track otherwise they are meaningless. So what is left apart from speed figures (from a reliable source) to judge if any race has been run at a true pace? Now I'm not saying only form from fast run races is trust worthy, but VDW went out of his way to suggest it was worth looking for. Personally I think a good horse will have recorded a high s/f at sometime in its career. Here Black Jack Ketchum is the perfect example, many valuable wins but NEVER with a good s/f, well at least using the s/f I use.

VDW gave a method of judging ability he said he used for unexposed 3 year olds, he also said he complied lists of older horses to follow when they had recorded a good s/f on the better tracks. I can't understand why if he thought the method worked for young unexopsed horses many think it wouldn't work for ALL horses. It is also often pointed out this "other" method of judging ability is only used in conjunction with the usual a/rating. Looking at the To-Agori-Mou example could you (or anyone) explain how/why TAM comes into the equation with an a/rating of 43 when others have ratings ranging from 189 to 83 above him?

In this case doesn't it show VDW has forsaken the usual a/rating for the time merit method? I also wonder why VDW chose this example to show the time merit method in action as in all fairness there are very few unexposed horse in this race. 19 runners, only one maiden, only three horse with less than 4 runs. Apart from the maiden only three horses had won less than two races. Before showing the figures for this race VDW said.........Restricting attention to better class events which are usually won by better horses and using yardsticks to measure the true merit of each individual, should give a more realistic chance of success.

Now it could just be me, but the words TRUE MERIT do make me wonder if he is showning he knows the flaw in the usual a/rating doesn't show the TRUE MERIT as it had missed out TAM with a low figure even though it had picked up the other three?

I also fail to see why you are of the opinion I use ratings in a different way to VDW? I use them as a guide at not as the be all. When assessing Roushayd and making him the selection for the ONC, speed (ability) is only one part of the equation. I have also looked at the class of race and horse, + the course, I think I have used the FULL VDW formula. What I can't see is, if what the horse does in the last 2f of a race is important, what R did at Epsom doesn't fit. Now to make R the selection it doesn't matter to me, but if you think it is important and logical I think it would be a good idea to explain why. I think many would be interested to see how his Epsom performance was any better the the Newbury effort or his first run with s/f and Vouchsafe, not entering the equation.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Speed figures are a rating, and as with most ratings are prone to the compiler's interpretation, so essentially an individual opinion, and as such best used only as a guide. Pace is a separate issue, and can be judged with or without speed figures.
Regarding To Agori Mou, VDW advocated using s/f for unexposed horses, which every 2,000 Guineas has plenty of - no matter how you look at it. Ability ratings are again a guide, though not so useful with unexposed horses that haven't yet had the chance to show their true 'ability', hence VDW's insertion of another check.
Re Roushayd's Northern Dancer run I'm sure that, as you say, many would be interested in why his Epsom run was better than his Newbury run, but some of that 'many' chose to discuss such matters on a private board, so maybe that's where they should turn for their answer? .
Having said that, it isn't difficult to figure out, the clues are there in both SIAO and my recent posts, but need to be viewed simply. and without the prejudice of previous assumptions about ability ratings and speed figures that so many view it with.

Pace is a separate issue, and can be judged with or without speed figures.

JohnD,

While the above MAYBE true today, how did VDW judge the pace of the race without s/f? As said before he could have used bare race times judged against the bare standard times, but what about going allowances, etc? He did say use/take the fastest times on a given day but he still was interested in the fastest/best races on that day. How did he judge those races, by the s/f of 80+?

The MAYBE is down to the fact we now have sectional times for SOME races so it can be seen at a glance if the race had been run at an even pace. Without this aid we are back at square one, now can anyone tell if a race had been run at a good/fair pace without time? Visual, I don't think so. Many times I have seen what looked to be a good performance visually, only to see the time didn't reflect that.

Again I can understand your view that some go to "private" forums to discuss some things. However in this case I'm giving my views/reasons in plain English hoping you will do the same. With all due respect I can't just accept something because you think its logical, I wouldn't do that with VDW, or anyone else for that matter. I have come back to you as you have said Vouchsafe has nothing to do with R showing improvement along with the s/f. I have to say MOST seem to think V's presents has an influence on VDW's thinking here. You disagree with them, and my expressed thought about s/f being the reason, fair enough. However is this the main reason for the "private" forums, folk that just say your wrong I'm right, and I'm right because you don't understand, and I won't/can't explain why? I think it is, if a straight question is asked on that forum you will get a straight answer. It is then up to you whether you accept the answer or not. Either way it gives both parties something they can understand, and go away to think about.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I said that pace can be judged without s/f's, I didn't say it can be judged without time, despite your assertion.
Standard time comparisons were available in both racing papers at the time of the letters, Raceform/Chaseform, Superform, both weekly magazines, and no doubt lots of others, all contained going allowances at that time. Sectionals certainly weren't available then, and are only available now mainly on the AW tracks, which didn't exist through most his time, and in any case are overwhelmingly the type of races he wouldn't even have considered.
Re my understanding of Roushayd, it matters little to me whether you accept what I say or not. I am happy with it, it fits precisely, simply, and logically with what he wrote, and it's probably better that you don't, as it plainly isn't discussed on here for the 'secret society's' benefit.
Surely it's occurred to you that those who use Vouchsafe (and his a/r) to judge that race are clutching at straws anyway?

Standard time comparisons were available in both racing papers at the time of the letters, Raceform/Chaseform, Superform, both weekly magazines, and no doubt lots of others, all contained going allowances at that time.


Hang on, how does this fit in with VDW not using s/f as they are just someones opinion? When you look at the going allowances in these different publications they very often give different figures. The only fact is the actual time the race was run in the standard times and going allowances are the opinions and that is why s/f differ.

Surely it's occurred to you that those who use Vouchsafe (and his a/r) to judge that race are clutching at straws anyway?

I have never mentioned V's a/r but I can see the apparent logic of trying to compare the performances of the two horse when they meet at Epsom against the previous time they meet. I just think that logic fails because one of the horses has eased against its name.

What I can't see or understand is why you bother to post on a forum. There is never any discussion its, I'm right your wrong take it or leave it.

Hands up any one else who can see a logical reason why VDW thought R improved in that Epsom race, when s/f and V are taken out of the equation.

Be Lucky

quote:

Originally posted by sean rua:
I believe too that to know what a horse did in the last two furlongs then we need information about it,
be it first hand or second hand.

Sean, you also need information about what it did it against.

Walter has explained it perfectly with his running analogy. His comments about quickening, running on, fading would mean absolutely nothing without a reference point as to who he did that against. The local weightwatchers club funday or olympic class opposition, there is a world of difference. Moreover, class has to married with form. If Walter 'quickened' against an olympic class opponent what was the condition of that opponent at the time, was he in good form or was he patently unfit having his first race since serious injury. It's all relative.

Good luck to everybody at the festival.

Mtoto

Toys out of the pram time, again?
Once again you deliberately misquote me, (" how does this fit in with VDW not using s/f "), which is not what I said at all.
Also,as you well know, Guest and his acolytes have used Vouchsafes a/r to come to their conclusion about Roushayd's previous race, even though it doesn't hold water.

"What I can't see or understand is why you bother to post on a forum. There is never any discussion its, I'm right your wrong take it or leave it."

That's truly rich, coming from one who only comes here when he wants something, and addressed to one who has stayed around the whole time.
There is plenty of discussion, just not for those who would rather keep their thoughts to a private site.

I haven't been able to log in for months now, but it started to rain today and it looks as if meterology has come to my (temporary?) rescue.

Two points:

1st) There is one type of race comment which is a sure fire indicator of a horse that is going to win nto. Obviously it is a rare occurence, not even appearing once a week, but that is only to be expected, however its reliability at indicating that a horse has been brought to the boil is unquestionable. As far as I am aware no one has ever commented on this on any forum and certainly never on a vdw one. I am not currently inclined to be the first correspondent to do so but the subject is one worthy of more debate.

2nd) If the the OR is understood as a rating of class then the fact that on the flat there is exactly 100lbs of class between a C7 plodder and a G1 winner should be a significant aid in understanding whether a horse can beat its opposition in any given contest.

However the formula

finishing dist (in lengths) x 15 / race dist (in furlongs) = lbs

has to be employed to understand how a horse has performed against its previous opposition.

seen it all now john lets have a debate but i,m not going to tell you what on dear g_d almighty read that back to yourself john then have a good laugh

Lesh,

My second point is there to establish the sincerity of my post.

sorry john,i take you advocate the use of OR rather than ability ratings,and its this board that makes me crabbit

Yes Les,

My two points are linked. Forgetting the 'rare but deadly' race comment I principally draw atention to, I had hoped that the intrinsic value of a race comment has to be understood in the context of the ability of the horses that constituted the race.

The OR (on the flat) does for the concept of 'class' what Celsius did for the concept of 'heat'.

can i have a guess`comfortably,john?