Did'nt settle but done enough to keep in the book

In the 340 I have both Highland Legacy and Saddler's Kingdom!

I wish one of them (preferrably Highland Legacy) would withdraw, something I don't necessarily regard as unlikely.

When dealing with stayers my researches strongly suggest that stamina takes longer to train than speed. What would be unacceptable for intermediate distances and sprinters is tolerated for stayers who are no less profitable for their more complicated careers.

Highland Legacy is a dreadful price and doesn't need the win to dispute any of the big staying hcps which are notoriously populated with lowly rated horses. On the otherhand Saddler's Kingdom. on just 80, wouldn't want the handicapper to drop him any further in case he gets himself barred from the tasty ones, he's the sort of price Mr Fahey plays on and is to my mind the more likely of the two. However for disciplinary reasons I will back both to $120 each.

I am v disappointed in Cape Hawk's (505S) quote. However I am hoping that the Stoute filly will draw enough support to allow me to get matched up at 5/2 before the off. Cape Hawk looks v strong, there are no negatives in his profile. At the moment he's to be backed to $120 as well but if I get any joy in the first race I will stick a bit more on.

whats your take on rob roy today jib i think a wait and see but slumming it

If those are your horses today John then i may have stumbled onto something else good luck with your bets today nontheless.

Following on from my previous post, the second person to cause VDW to put his foot in it must surely be Tony Peach. It was he who asked VDW to put everything he had wrote together in one piece. This resulted in the kludge known as Spell it all Out.
In siao VDW refers back to his form combinations giving a couple of combinations with slightly different percentages that was given before. No real problem there. In the next paragraph he refers back to his combined figures from the three most consistent but makes such a pig's ear of his explanation that the inevitable misinterpretation occurred resulting in undeserved ridicule.
The combined figures VDW was referring to, 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98% etc, are facts not probabilities as VDW inferred them to be in siao. The figures are from his own extensive surveys (or perhaps someone else's). He has not added the percentages of the last three placings to obtain the 99%, 98% etc.
If they were added then in the case of 3-3-4 the four would be 32% but he gives figures of 112 26% and 211 27%.
The percentages given by VDW were most likely true at one time but you will find in present day racing the figures are a lot less, probably nearer half VDW's figures. This is due to the changes in racing and in particular the introduction of All Weather Gallops. With the last three placing percentages being a lot less it follows that the combined figure percentages must also be less. This ultimately means that 85-90% strike rate is no longer attainable and a more realistic figure would be about 40-45% using the consistent form method.

Garston

As someone elses has suggested before
Perhaps these percentages were taken from the first 5/6 in the betting
And not the race as a whole
That would have been more believable

And concerning G Hall/VDW key
Again someone elses suggestion that only backing in races where the percentages add up to more than 80 odd percent would fit in with
F chester and the "a long way to the ultimate conclusion" statement

Lawrence Voegele's book arrived today, all the way from the U. S. of A. This from the back page:

"WHY DID LAWRENCE VOEGELE WRITE THIS BOOK?
...If you're a genius and have all the money you want, I guess you like other people to know how smart you are".

Such humility. I like that.

Oh yes... it would appear Statist wrote a few books, and from what I've read so far in "Clever Betting", I suspect this is not the one referred to by Vincent.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackCat:
Lawrence Voegele's book arrived today, all the way from the U. S. of A. This from the back page:

"WHY DID LAWRENCE VOEGELE WRITE THIS BOOK?
...If you're a genius and have all the money you want, I guess you like other people to know how smart you are".

Such humility. I like that.

Snap my book also arrived this morning

Boozer

In Racing To Win by Statistician it gives the following figures based on a full year of racing, Flat and Jumps.
131 33%, 121 32%, 111 30%, 311 29%, 221 29%, 211 28%, 231 28%, 321 28%, 122 28% and 421 27%. The book was published in 1987, so I would say VDW's figures were accurate enough for the period of his survey.

G Hall had cottoned on that VDW was using the top races for his consistent form method. I would suggest one would be hard pressed to find any of these high class races where the percentages DIDN'T add up to 80%.
My reading of G Hall's letter is that he was using the method as a pure system and that the key led to the selection.
Incidentally, G Hall's yankee works out at a return of 2715 points from an 11 point outlay. No wonder he finished the season with a nice profit.

F Chester's letter mentions VDW's percentages, exposed form, tests of speed and recentness of form, temperament and MOST RECENT GOOD FORM. It is not clear which part VDW was referring to with his long way to the ultimate conclusion.

Garstonf

I have long thought that VDW wasn't referring to any specific part of F Chester's own approach, rather to F C's theory "having found the right races, apply suitable tests to the first 5/6 in the betting".
VDW then went on, in the same paragraph, to tell us what those tests were. i.e. Consistent form + ability + capabilty + probability + hard work = winners.

Johnd

VDW had already indicated to F Chester and the other readers the right races in Numbers Game To Form A Picture. He had also told them that he applied TWO sets of ratings (or tests) to the first 5 or 6 in the betting forecast in Narrow The Field. F Chester was fishing for information when he said these two ratings could be speed and recentness of form. Unfortunately for us all, VDW did not take the bait.
I would say VDW only made his formula up while thinking of his reply to the problem caused by the key. VDW said there was no magic formula so why on earth did he give one.

quote:

Garston

As someone elses has suggested before
Perhaps these percentages were taken from the first 5/6 in the betting

Yes I am wrong
I think the suggestion of the percentages and the first 5/6 in the betting was refering to the 111-111-111 99% certain the winner comes from these 3 statement or maybe it was just Bad maths

My view on why the VDW writings remain unresolved after 30 years is that the writer tries to mix oil and water.

He introduces the reason why a horse wins the race then tries to resolve that with a statistical approach when in reality one has no relation whatsoever to the other.

VDW reminds me of one of those pioneer scientists from history, who having made an astute observation, ultimately drew the wrong conclusions from it.

An example that illustrates this contention is 'malaria', a disease from which I have had much inconvienience.

Early scientists noted that this disease was common to warm, humid climates and consequently, but wrongly assumed that the disease was airborne, baptising it with the name we know today. As a result of this erroneous conclusion dwellers of these climates spent their lives walking about with masks over their mouths in the vain hope that they would avoid contamination.

It never occured to the scientists that the mosquito needed a hot and humid climate to proliferate and was the vector responsible for the transmission of the disease.

So is VDW's mistake.

He spotted that it was the class horse that usually won the race, providing that it was fit an 'on', but he chose to look for the 'class' using statistics.

It may well be that the class horse is in the first six in the betting but it doesn't have to be. Just because bats and butterflies have wings doesn't mean to say they are birds. The class horse has class, its position in the betting is totally irrelevant, just as its last three finishing positions are.

A horse has a career, that career has to be developed by training, a racehorse doesn't just exist as a ready wrapped, immutable machine. When the trainer is happy that he has got as far as he can with it he will then look for an opportunity to win with it. He will look to find a race where the class of his horse is going to be better than its rivals. Statistics have nothing to do with this decision making process thopugh they may arise as a consequence of it.

It is no use looking for class from predefined areas that in reality have nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of class.

It is no use hoping that by applying rules, such as 'must have shown improved form in its last three runs', that you are wielding the net that will catch the fish when the true nature of class demonstrates that it cannot be constrained by such bonds.

To get anywhere with these methods a student must first understand VDW's mistake.

garstonf
Member
Posted July 21, 2004 02:24 AM Hide Post
About a month ago I gave a survey of all the races I had evaluated over a year on the flat. The results showed 82% of winners came from the first 5/6 in betting forecast and 61% of winners came from the 3 most consistent in that forscast. But the 3 most consistent was 3, 4, 5 or even 6 horses. If the consistency ratings were say 3, 3, 4, 4 and 5, then all 5 horses would have been included in the 3 most consistent. This gives a distorted view because if all races were like this then we would end up with 82% winners, the same as the betting forecast.

I have gone through all the figures and narrowed the field to just 3 using the following criteria; If the cons ratings were say 3, 3, 4 , 4 , then to separate which cons rating 4 to include, I have chosen the one at the shortest forecast price, if still the same then by win last time out, if still the same then whichever looked to have best figures on paper. I know this is not using the method as intended but all I wanted to do was end up with 3 horses. Firstly, to compare with the previous survey and secondly to arrive at the combined figures that VDW gave, for comparison.

The survey involved 340 races and just over 3,500 horses.

As mentioned above my previous survey produced 61% winners from the "more than 3" most consistent. Using just "3 only" most consistent produces just 52% winners.

VDW said that most readers will be aware of statistics regarding horses placed 1, 2, 3, 4 lto. I for one wasn't.
From my survey;

1 lto 745 runners 102 won 14%
2 lto 447 runners 64 won 14%
3 lto 354 runners 39 won 11%
4 lto 314 runners 26 won 8%
5 lto 305 runners 27 won 9%
0 lto 585 runners 27 won 5%

VDW's last 3 placings were; 111 33%, 121 32%, 221 31%, 321 29%, 132 26%, 313 24%, 213 25%, 214 24%, 204 8%, 302 8%, 404 5%, 000 2%.

From Racing To Win by Statistician printed 1987, it states My figures (statisticians) based on a full year of racing, flat and jumps are 111 30%, 121 32%, 221 29%, 321 28%.

As you can see the two sets of figures are very similar.
From my survey;

111 37 runners 7 won 19%
121 22 runners 3 won 14%
221 27 runners 1 won 4%
321 13 runners 1 won 8%
132 18 runners 2 won 11%
313 8 runners 3 won 38%
213 16 runners 1 won 6%
214 9 runners 1 won 11%
204 7 runners 1 won 14%
302 6 runners 0 won 0%
404 2 runners 0 won 0%
000 47 runners 2 won 4%

VDW's combined figures were; 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%.

From my survey;

3-3-3 2 races 1 win 50%
3-3-4 8 races 5 wins 63%
3-4-5 5 races 3 wins 60%
4-4-4 0 races
4-5-6 2 races 1 win 50%
5-6-12 1 race 1 win 100%
16-18-30 0 races

Other combinations include 3-4-6 5 races 2 wins, 4-5-7 4 races 0 wins, 9-10-10 3 races 2 wins, 12-13-14 3 races 1 win and the highest figs 19-21-21 1 race 1 win.

You would need at least 10 years of combined figures before any sense could be made out of them. The combined figures are from the "3 only" consistent horses in the betting forecast.

One thing puzzles me though, if the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term.
............................................


johnd
Member
Posted July 21, 2004 07:59 AM Hide Post
3 most consistent frrom first 5/6 in betting

Only one suitable race today, 7.10 Sand.

Warden Complex
Peter Paul Rubens
Camberwell
......................................................

Lee
Member
Gas,

I have yet to get involved in discussion about VDW's consistency figure percentages, either on here or anywhere else.

The apparent misunderstanding of this particular basic area serves to be true what I said yesterday, that those who purport to know anything about VDW are often completely ignorant to the facts.

Please don't take this personally, in fact the only reason that I'm responding is because of the obvious effort that you've put in, and that you have very nearly answered your own question.

VDW said that his methods were based on sound foundations that would ensure the future of his approach would remain constant. You have highlighted an area that hasn't changed – the first 5/6 in the betting forecast still produce over 80% winners – which should therefore remain an area that our attention should be focussed.

You make the following statement at the end of your post:

"If the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term."

It is here where the misunderstanding lies. VDW's consistency percentages were calculated on the above 83% winners from the first 5/6 in the forecast. Races where the winner came from outside the forecast area didn't featured in the equation.

For example, from these 83% winners, which came from the first FIVE in the forecast (non-handicap), a horse that had won each of its last three races won again 33% of the time.

Where there is three horses that won each of their last 3 races VDW calculated that the chance of one of them winning would be 99%, but again, only from the 83% winners that made up the first FIVE (non-handicap) in the forecast.

JohnD,

This is an interesting little race in which I think Peter Paul Rubens is the most likely winner, but not a back.

I'm not a stats person, but do have a look for really strong trends, and this race fits that bill. In the last 10 years the favourite has won 8 times! With the 3rd favourite taking the other 2. Cole has taken the race twice and so has Hannon, with Terry Mills taking it last year.
.............................................

Found this from my files.

Btw Blackcat i`ll show the boy that game when he gets home from school today he will enjoy that.
No replying to you on that other thread as yer non-de-plume can get left up there for months on end.

To get anywhere with these methods a student must first understand VDW's mistake.

JIB,

First can I say a very good/interesting post, but is the failure most have in working VDW really down to a VDW mistake, or a mistake of general assumption? The assumption of course being VDW used the ability rating later introduced as the measure he used when he thought up the well know formula.

It is no use hoping that by applying rules, such as 'must have shown improved form in its last three runs'

Again I agree, but is it VDW's fault that many have incorporated this into the methods to help them make sense of them? I can't see looking at some of the examples it was a part of VDW's thinking, much like your views on being in the forecast/statistics something that happened but not a requirement. While I can follow your logic about consistency and the forecast, I still think they have an important part to play. Nothing to do with class, but more in probability. As Garstonf's post shows (thank you Walter, as I seem to have missed it along the way)

If the cons ratings were say 3, 3, 4, 4, then to separate which cons rating 4 to include, I have chosen the one at the shortest forecast price, if still the same then by win last time out, if still the same then whichever looked to have best figures on paper. I know this is not using the method as intended but all I wanted to do was end up with 3 horses.

Garston,

Didn't VDW say he used ratings to separate/evaluate the c/rating? If this is so he could easily have cut the numbers down to three. If his top rated three also had the form figures of 111 that wouldn't make the 99% look so wrong. Of course using the three highest rating he on occasions could even have eliminated some of the 111 horses if they failed on class.

Be Lucky

Garston replied,


Lee

"Using Methodmaker's figures which I accept, the first five produce 83% winners. My own combined figures from the three most consistent produce - 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%."

Are you saying that in the case of 3-3-3 it is 99% of a sample of the 83%, because, it certainly doesn't read that way to me. There again, it wouldn't be the first time I have taken the wrong interpretation reading VDW.
Posts: 96 | Registered: April 05, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
Btw Blackcat i`ll show the boy that game when he gets home from school today he will enjoy that.
No replying to you on that other thread as yer non-de-plume can get left up there for months on end.

Good to see you're enjoying it too.

I got to level 8 once. I usually get dumped out at level 5 though.

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
My view on why the VDW writings remain unresolved after 30 years is that the writer tries to mix oil and water.

He introduces the reason why a horse wins the race then tries to resolve that with a statistical approach when in reality one has no relation whatsoever to the other.

VDW reminds me of one of those pioneer scientists from history, who having made an astute observation, ultimately drew the wrong conclusions from it.

An example that illustrates this contention is 'malaria', a disease from which I have had much inconvienience.

Early scientists noted that this disease was common to warm, humid climates and consequently, but wrongly assumed that the disease was airborne, baptising it with the name we know today. As a result of this erroneous conclusion dwellers of these climates spent their lives walking about with masks over their mouths in the vain hope that they would avoid contamination.

It never occured to the scientists that the mosquito needed a hot and humid climate to proliferate and was the vector responsible for the transmission of the disease.

So is VDW's mistake.

He spotted that it was the class horse that usually won the race, providing that it was fit an 'on', but he chose to look for the 'class' using statistics.

It may well be that the class horse is in the first six in the betting but it doesn't have to be. Just because bats and butterflies have wings doesn't mean to say they are birds. The class horse has class, its position in the betting is totally irrelevant, just as its last three finishing positions are.

A horse has a career, that career has to be developed by training, a racehorse doesn't just exist as a ready wrapped, immutable machine. When the trainer is happy that he has got as far as he can with it he will then look for an opportunity to win with it. He will look to find a race where the class of his horse is going to be better than its rivals. Statistics have nothing to do with this decision making process thopugh they may arise as a consequence of it.

It is no use looking for class from predefined areas that in reality have nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of class.

It is no use hoping that by applying rules, such as 'must have shown improved form in its last three runs', that you are wielding the net that will catch the fish when the true nature of class demonstrates that it cannot be constrained by such bonds.

To get anywhere with these methods a student must first understand VDW's mistake.

Jib
I don't believe that VDW was either mistaken or naive.
He knew that class was vital in any appraisal, a point he stressed many times, and gave us ability ratings as a useful guide to isolating the class horses. However, he also knew they weren't the panacea that many held them to be so went on, in great detail in the Roushayd examples, without using them at all, but still showed class to be the fundamental consideration it always should be, without any dependency on statistics whatsoever.
For much the same reasons, neither are consistency figures irrelevant.
VDW obviously went to great lengths to compile his consistency percentages, a painstaking project almost certainly done manually, to stress this point to the unaware. Furthermore he introduced them very early in his method (Hence he later said he gave us the method "a morsel at a time") as the bedrock starting point for any evaluation. Once again with later examples, he also showed us that not all good bets were necessarily from this area, but never suggested it wasn't a good place to start. That still holds true today, whatever or however the base percentages may have changed in the past 30 years.
He was also acutely aware that to go outside the first 5/6 in the betting was "putting the odds against yourself", and though he might have done so (only once as I recall) the same still holds true, probably more so today than then.
Far from being the cobbled together mishmash of thoughts you appear to think it was, in my eyes it is the same criteria (CONSISTENT FORM + ABILITY + CAPABILITY + PROBABILITY + HARD WORK = WINNERS) running through all his work, and revealed - over time -in precisely that order.
Each has an independent value, some may be put aside after careful evaluation but, unless they are used in every appraisal in the order he intended, then, imo, one is only using part of the method.