Mtoto

Why are you assuming the two sets of rating in Narrow the Field are performance ratings? The horses are rated before studying the form. Performance ratings can only come from studying the form book.

quote:

Why are you assuming the two sets of rating in Narrow the Field are performance ratings?

Garstonf,

The quick answer has to be what else can they be? Using the suggested ratings..This can be time, handicap ratings, form ratings, etc what do they all measure in one way of another, a horses PERFORMANCE = form. The rating VDW uses is a bare measurement of form and class so while he needs the form book to check on the other criteria, going, distance, course, etc. the rating now being suggested only uses winning form and doesn't take class of individual races into account. Here is one of the few things I do agree with JohnD about, although ability wasn't mentioned (apart from briely) or explained, to think he didn't use it is as big a mistake as thinking he did use this quick easy method later explained.

Be Lucky

Don't know just how much this has to do with VDW - - but If folk are suggesting that a good look at a horses chances , might result in a winner, then here are 2 analisis which might point the way .




AYR 3.20

M A L G U R U

£25 Each Way

* Take 11/1 or better
* Dont worry if the 16/1 and 14/1 are unobtainable
* Very few can get those prices anyway
* I am more than happy with 11/1 and 12/1

16/1 Sporting Bet
14/1 Paddy Power - Blue Sq - 888sport - Betfred
12/1 Bet365 - Boyles - VC Ladbrokes
11/1 Betdirect - Stan James

AYR 3.20 - NEILSON BINNIE-MCKENZIE HANDICAP (CLASS 6) (4yo+,0-60) 1m1f20y

9/4 Zabeel Tower, 3/1 Lady Valentino, 5/1 Oeuf A La Neige, 6/1 Grandad Bill, 8/1 Rock Haven, 12/1 Crosby Jemma, 14/1 Botham, 16/1 Jane Of Arc, 25/1 Anthemion, 33/1 Malguru, 50/1 Dance In Style, Fan Club, Templet

First impressions was simple. Oppose ZABEEL HOUSE who won over 7f last time as this is 9f and I know that
horses that win over 2 furlongs shorter trips have miserable records (there is one later on) when stepping up in trip. However there are serious fitness doubts about some of these. From 165 similar races Fillies with 1 run that season are weak (3-104) which hurts CROSBY JEMMA and LADY VALENTINO and all 56 with under 9 runs like
LADY VALENTINO lost. GRANDAD BILL and ROCK HAVEN have just 1 run this season and 6 weeks break and whilst there has been similar winners and neither can be made negatives there is a doubt about how ready both are. BOTHAM has 1 run this year and a 126 day break. OEUF A L NEIGE is an exposed 8 year old with just 1 run this year stepping up in trip and none of the 165 winners had his profile. JANE OF ARC is a filly unraced this year. ANTHEMION is a seasonal debutant 11 year old. Then you are into the big priced outsiders. So whilst ZABEEL HOUSE is weak statistically he is also by far the most guaranteed to be fit and that will be a big advantage against questionably fit horses. I think however there is one clever bet here at a big price in MALGURU


Bear in Mind The following

* This is a dreadful low quality 0-60 race
* Several here are potentially very unfit and out of form
* MALGURU has seen market support in this race at big prices

M A L G U R U stands out to me with a recent run and 3 runs this year. One thing he is not forced to overcome is a fitness problem unlike many of his rivals. I also think that in his 11 race career he has never had a chance to show what he can do - Until today.

* MALGURU is sired by Ishiguru who was a 5f sprinter
* The Dam stayed a Mile but this horse doesnt look a stayer on pedigree
* Consider that the sire Ishiguru has NEVER Bred a winner at 10f or more yet
* All 28 he bred that ran over 10f or more lost
* Consider also that the sire is 0-13 over the Jumps

Therefore has M A L G U R U been campaigned properly in his 11 race career ??

Runs 1-2-3

His first 3 races were getting handicapped for Alan Swinback

Run 4 (May 2007)

Redcar over 14 furlongs was way out of his stamina range and the racing post reported he "ran better than his final placing might suggest, maybe he did not stay" and I would imagine he certainly didnt

Run 5 (July 2007)

Still a 3 year old - Pontefract over 12 furlongs on soft ground looked far too stiff a stamina test for the horse

Runs 6-7-8 (October - November 2007)

Now in the care of curerent trainern AG Foster. Ran over hurdles for 3 races. The Sires never had a jumps winner before and was a 5f sprinter so why on earth should
this horse have stayed. I think you have to ignore his 3 jumps runs

Run 9 (March 2008)

Seasonal debut this year and over 2 miles at Redcar over soft ground . No chance of staying that far and easily ignored

Run 10 (April 2008)

Went over 12f on soft ground. Again far too long and easily discounted

Last Time out (May 2008)

These were his conditions. He ran in a seller at Musselburgh. Statistically he was poor that day but he ran a very promising 5th at 100/1. Ignore the winner as he
was different class and rated 82. MALGURU ran an excellent race just behind Boundless Prospect who would be odds on in this race and would win it. This is the first time MALGURU has had conditions he can win in his 11 race career
and I think 10 of his 11 races were races he had no chance of winning. I would have been happier if this had been a Mile but I think he will stay 9f especially in this class and I think he is a brilliant bet today.

Won 10/1 from 16/1Won 10/1 from 16/1

----------------

NEWCASTLE 8:40 - TARMAC HANDICAP (CLASS 3) (4yo+,0-90) 6f

5/1 Stevie Gee, 6/1 Inter Vision, 8/1 Geojimali, Johannes, 10/1 Barney McGrew, Ingleby Arch, Northern Dare,
14/1 Against The Grain, Tabaret, 20/1 Curtail, Trojan Flight, 25/1 Distant Sun, Gunfighter.

* This is a 6f handiap for 0-90 rated horses
* Newcastle had 7 renewals of this race but none since 2005
* All 7 winners had the following things in common
* They had at least 13 runs - at least 3 that season
* They were aged 4-5-6 - ran within 7 weeks and didnt come from 5f
* If that is repeated the winner will be one of these 4 horses
* Stevie Gee - Barney McGrew -Ingleby Arch -Distant Sun
* I want to take on horses with 1 run this year and long absences
* These types may not be as fit as many and all have 1 run and long breaks
* For thyis reason I am against the following
* AGAINST THE GRAIN - CURTAIL - GUNFIGHTER
* I dont want JOHANNES with 1 run this season
* Feel the same about TROJAN FLIGHT as well
* INTER VISION has to be a negative as he has just won over 5f
* There has been 224 similar races at this time of year
* Horses that win 5f races and run within 2 weeks were 1-51
* Thats an awful record for fit horses in good form
* 10 horses like INTER VISION had penalties and all 20 lost
* I dont see DISTANT SUN as likely to win
* I dont want TABARET with 2 runs this year coming from 5f
* I prefer others to NORTHERN DARE whose 2 runs this year
* I think he may have other targets later in the year like the Wokingham
* GEOJIMALI has a reasonable chance but all past winners ran more this year
* I am going to take on STEVIE GEE as he comes from a 7f race
* No past winner of this race did that
* I looked at 224 similar races and the results were not good
* 4 year olds with 13 + starts that came from 7f handicaps were 2-95
* Neither winner were similar types to STEVIE GEE
* He clearly has a sound chance from a good draw but isnt my pick
* I think he has a small disadvantage that most horses fail to overcome
* My shortlist would be these 2 runners
* BARNEY MCGREW INGLEBY ARCH
* No problems with INGLEBY ARCH and think he has a big shout
* I like BARNEY MCGREW at the prices
* He ran far better than it showed at York last time when hampered
* Watch the video and you will agree he could have finished much closer
* That was a much better race than this and a race that a past winner ran in
* At the prices I think BARNEY MCGREW is good value

Won 13/2

----------------------------------


I don't take credit for either, -

but I do think that the auther is little short of brilliant.


tc

TC

WELL DONE

Hi TC

VDW is still writing then!

Yes BC

But the VDW'rs have gone awfull quiet in the face of this sort of - before the off analyis.

Perhaps, they can't get round to the Hard Work element !



tc

Hi TC

May I ask if you would please check all your mail.

Kind Regards

reom

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE


WHY IS IT THAT THE VDW GURU'S CAN NOT POST A DECENT WINNER, BUT THE NON GURUS CAN

Mtoto

There are quite a few pieces of information in the Daily Mail that can be used to compile a rating to represent a horse's chances.
An important one, in my opinion, is the 5 year record for jockeys and trainers at the course. Other information included are form figures, days since last run, C & D info and Formcast or Spotform figures. There is also the record of favourites for each particular race.
In the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book we also had the 5 year record of trainers for the course, last time out raceform number, last time out finishing position (first 4 only), C & D info, Form Fancies, Best on Time, Form Plus or Speed Plus and Form at a Glance for the weekend cards.
I am led to believe that Formcast figures were not present in the Mail for the Erin card. Also speed figures would not show much if they only gave the maximum for a year previously, although that would not stop the Handicap Book producing a Speed Plus feature for the Erin Card.
In my view the two sets of ratings are more likely to be statistically based than form or class based as this fits in more with what VDW is trying to convey in Narrow the Field.

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
Form cycles are what
racing is all about, that and class". This must be important. "Marry the (two) and you will know what trainers are up to".

Very true Walter, though I think the original quote was by 'Win of Brighton', or some such?
Michael Stoute has no peers when it comes to readying one for a decent prize, and the appropriately named Flawed Genius (3.05H) looks a masterclass in racing and placing such a horse.

reom

I don't believe the pm facility has ever worked on this board. Stick your email address up and I'll contact you over the next few days.

Will have to delete this soon!

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

In my view the two sets of ratings are more likely to be statistically based than form or class based as this fits in more with what VDW is trying to convey in Narrow the Field.

Garstonf,

You of course could be correct, as could Fulham and others when they think the other rating could just be a set of yes, no, answers. If you are correct the whole method is reliant on stats untill the ability rating was introduced. Why then do you think VDW made the suggestions he did when suggesting only methods that rated form and class if the ratings are used properly? I say properly because VDW did say....This means there has to be at least two elements to jointly equate when judging the relative merits of one performance against another. FORM and CLASS. Form is what they did and class is the level at
which it was achieved.

Another thing that makes me doubt the ratings are based on stats is.........The final two columns in the illustrations are my own ratings and were, like the ability ratings, evolved by myself, so will not be found in any publication, etc. The object of the exercise is to balance ability with form and there are many ways to cross check the method as outlined. So unless the stats are based on an individual horses performance(s) why would he use them here?

Be lucky

what do you guys think of jim bolger the punters friend,i heard his interview today,he feels sorry for punters who are criticising him.

Mtoto

Unfortunately, VDW gave no figures to illustrate his two sets of ratings in Narrow the Field. So we cannot even make a judgement if they are the same ratings as in The Old Feller and siao, which do look as though they are on the same lines. The key word VDW used was evolved, so it is unlikely his two sets of ratings would be exactly the same over the years.
I have already shown how VDW's ability ratings and other form ratings put Beacon Light out in front and made the statement that VDW was not looking for the best horse. To illustrate further I will now do the same with Lyphard's Wish. In the past I could not see how this horse could be selected over Tromos but now I understand why.
Just 3 runners
Tromos; ability 184, Haig 92, Best SF 92
Lyphard's Wish; ability 38, Haig 81, Best SF 88
Warmington; ability 44, Haig 81, Best SF 81
Just for interest here are the 5 year trainer stats for the course.
Tromos, B Hobbs 41 wins 15%
Lyphard's Wish, H Cecil 62 wins 22%
Warmington, J Hindley 31 wins 12%
Class and form figures show Tromos to be the most likely winner, but once again, as with Beacon Light, VDW is not looking for the most likely winner.
So, what exactly is VDW looking for? Well he tells you in Narrow the Field. He is looking for a good betting proposition. This is not easy to comprehend and even more difficult to define but Beacon Light at even money and Tromos at 30/100 purely and simply do not represent good betting opportunities. In the Erin VDW had the choice of two horses worth backing and gave his explanation why he chose Prominent King over Mr Kildare.
Class and form ratings will usually point to the best horse and this will invariably be the favourite but rarely does this actually represent a good betting proposition.

Garstonf

Class and form ratings will usually point to the best horse and this will invariably be the favourite but rarely does this actually represent a good betting proposition.

I disagree with both those assertions.
Class and form ratings will often point to the best horse, but quite often it isn't favourite as can be evidenced on any days racing you care to choose, apart from the numerous examples VDW gave where that wasn't the case.
Similarly, the favourite in the race is often a good betting proposition, as a strike rate of around 32% should demonstrate, and VDW himself backed a number of market leaders.
VDW isn't about finding the value bets, it's about finding horses with almost no chance of losing, and prices just aren't going to tell you that.
As he pointed out, often the trainer indicates when a horse is ready to win, but prices - like ratings - are something he has no control of at all. The things that he has control of are the same ones VDW advised us to concentrate on.



ps I actually layed Tromos to a mate who thought he was a cert for the Guineas, long, long before I'd ever even heard of VDW. The horse just wasn't good enough.

pps
Take a look at last night's listed race at Windsor. The favourite duly won it, but the horse that was vying with him for favoritism all day had no chance - no matter what the price.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Pipedreamer:
what do you guys think of jim bolger the punters friend,i heard his interview today,he feels sorry for punters who are criticising him.

pd

It sucks for all those with antepost bets on the others, but JB should know what's best for the horse, and softer ground (Which is unusualfor a Derby) would greatly enhance his chance. Just shows how pointless it is dicussing these races weeks before the event, let alone putting money down.

Good post Garston

Makes sense with the trainer stats and price,

Do we need to be backing the supposed short priced good things when so many good bets arise every year,

1 thing im working on with the trainer stats is even though some appear to have a good strike rate do they know how to train a higher class winner

Good luck

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:

VDW isn't about finding the value bets, it's about finding horses with almost no chance of losing.

johnd, by default, a horse with NO chance of losing, [ say 20% in VDWs case ], MUST be a VALUE bet -

just nit picking -

Garstonf

Btw: "VDW methodology is not about picking the best horse"..

It is!
His whole method revolves around identifying the best (ie; the class) horses in the race, and then evaluating their chances of being best on the day.

Imp
Any winner that wins comfortably is a value bet, but can they be identified by price?

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

Garsonf,

While I can see your explaination/thinking works for the Lyphards Wish example can I ask how many others can be explained using trainer stats?

I have already shown how VDW's ability ratings and other form ratings put Beacon Light out in front and made the statement that VDW was not looking for the best horse.

Two points here. As you say BL is out in front using most other ratings, but doesn't that raise your interest that VDW had a method of showing they were/are wrong? Another way of looking at form and class that most ratings formulators haven't cottoned on to!! I have to agree with JohnD about VDW looking for the best/class horse in the race, to think anything else flies in the face of all he has written IMO.

JohnD says many thing I don't/can't agree with. I have a lot of trouble agreeing with..Any winner that wins comfortably is a value bet, so on the rare occasions I do/can agree it is only fair to say so.

Be Lucky

Johnd

By invariably I meant more often than not and not all the time, which is more in line with what the word actually means. I have just checked through my evaluations for the recently finished National Hunt season and found there were 27 horses that were both top on ability and top on form figures. Only 16 of these were returned as favourites (including joint favourites). Only 7 of the 27 won, 6 of these were retuned as favourites. So it looks as though I am completely way off with the whole sentence.
I am not trying to infer that VDW is about value bets. His evaluation shows if there is a good betting proposition present. Whether the price is acceptable or not can only be determined once the market is formed. Each race gives different problems and what represents a good proposition in one race will not necessarily be a good proposition in another. This is why the profiles of VDW's selections differ. You cannot equate Rifle Brigade with Celtic Pleasure or Battlement for instance.
I'm afraid I can't agree that VDW is about identifying the best horse or class horse. Basically, it's about finding good bets and I think he used many different ways to determine these.
Regarding Tromos, you are not the only one who thought he wasn't good enough. The horses' jockey had told a different trainer that Tromos was not the wonder horse he had been made out to be. But this was before he had won the Dewhurst. As you know Tromos never made the Guineas. Apparently his autopsy showed his insides were badly seared and this was taken as confirmation that he had been doped.