John,

Ok I'm game, could you explain how and where he would have found PK, Baronet and Rifle brigade? I can't see they would have made the short list using SIAO.

Rifle Brigade wouldn't qualify as he was running in the 2nd highest class race at Beverly. Newbury was the principle meeting and he took the highest two from that course.

PK fails on two of the main requirements for SIAO, he isn't in the lowest 3 for consistency plus he isn't one of the highest four on ability.

Baronet fails on not being in the highest four for ability.

For me SIAO is there to show how the ability ratings work and dare I say it to bring the method into a simple system that everyone can understand. I do agree there is more to it than just the initial ratings and he does go some way to explain why the ratings (any ratings) are not the be all. You still have to check other factors. I also agree VDW is about how he read form. The trouble being until we understand how the methods work how can we really know he did read form? I think it is fairly simple he was looking for consistent horses and/or horses the are improving. Then trying to work out if the trainer had also read the script and was placing his horses to their best advantage. Was he trying to win a certain race, or using the race as a prep for some other target?

I could be wrong about speed but I don't think so. If I am wrong and he didn't use speed I have to say I must have found another way to judge class that is very accurate and strangely enough also finds many of the examples. It also finds many of the same horse others including you come up with as VDW type selections. I could put this down to me just being very clever, but I think it's down to VDW. VDW goes out of his way to say many times speed by it's self is no good. Why? Why use it for the hardest type of horse to rate, why tell us it has it's flaws and then say it is one of the best ways to evaluate a race? Why not just say time isn't the way to go, forget it? He mentions it many times (to many?) but never says that.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Thought I might regret this when I started it . The answers are there, IMO, but I am not about to broadcast them, here, or anywhere else.
If you think that makes me another sop that needs to see his name in lights, so be it, though it doesn't, for reasons they would never understand.
Having said that, I will answer some of your queries in as practical a way as possible, bearing the above in mind.

"Ok I'm game, could you explain how and where he would have found PK, Baronet and Rifle brigade? I can't see they would have made the short list using SIAO"
Have you considered that, if for various reasons, the short list didn't contain 'a winner in the race' VDW would have looked outside that shortlist, exactly as he appears to have done with Roushayd and many others?

"I also agree VDW is about how he read form. The trouble being until we understand how the methods work how can we really know he did read form? I think it is fairly simple he was looking for consistent horses and/or horses the are improving. Then trying to work out if the trainer had also read the script and was placing his horses to their best advantage. Was he trying to win a certain race, or using the race as a prep for some other target?

The above, in my view, is fairly accurate, though there are much stronger clues in SIAO than your question indicates.
I arrived at many of these conclusions a couple of years ago, and even then, knew enough to spot an impostor when I saw one, though I didn't actually see the light until I studied some very helpful recent posts from Lee; IMFO, the only member who has shown enough understanding to merit the respect of an old cynic such as I.
Having said that, I didn't dust off the old form books, which many before me have proved didn't work for them, but applied what I had gleaned to contemporary racing, initially after the event, and eventually before. That in no way suggests that it doesn't fit VDW's examples, it does, comfortably, and without all the tinkering that so many have found necessary to make their's so, (Including your goodself ).

"I could be wrong about speed but I don't think so. If I am wrong and he didn't use speed I have to say I must have found another way to judge class that is very accurate and strangely enough also finds many of the examples. It also finds many of the same horse others including you come up with as VDW type selections. I could put this down to me just being very clever, but I think it's down to VDW

Speed is a very useful tool, as VDW demonstrated, and you have obviously convinced yourself so, but it isn't a fundament of his approach or he would have said so when he clearly indicated where the answer lay.
Imo the solution has also little to do with being clever either, just plain and simple logic, but a logic that escapes so many.
Maybe they should believe a little more of what he wrote?

John,

Why would you regret having a polite discussion? Interesting that Lee keeps coming up when the correct answer to VDW's puzzle is discussed. Pity he no longer feels the need to post! He was one person who felt that Guest had it wrong except perhaps for you and me. I do appreciate what you don't want to give too much away, but that is why I asked questions that could be answered without doing that.

Your answers don't really address why he even looked at Rifle Brigade when he did say stick to the better races. RB's race fell well outside his guide lines set out in SIAO. I can also see if a horse didn't fit his criteria he could well go out of the short list, but why not say that? I think the examples in SIAO were carefully selected to make sure they conformed with the simple rules (guide lines) he decided to set out to help those who were not using any ability guide. If the other ratings are not important why show them in this exercise? After all he did say everything was written for a reason

I can't see how Roushayd doesn't fit his short list for that race, in fact I think he is the only improver in that race. On this I may be wrong but I haven't found another one. As I have said before I think the Epsom race was the target, he failed but showed improvement marking his card as VDW said. Take out the s/f and I can't make that an improved run. What did he do in the last 2f in that race, not a lot? Can the form of tail enders really be taken at face value? Can the fact that Vouchersafe won his next race after finishing behind R mean anything? I can't see it when the horses that beat him didn't do anything to enhance the Epsom form, they failed why wouldn't he?

It is also interesting that Lee thinks a many of VDW selections came from horses to follow lists. How did VDW say he compiled these lists, I think speed was the main criteria or do I have that wrong?

Be Lucky

Rifle Brigade

Hi Johnd & Mtoto

I posted this on the 'other place'. Don't know if it will help...

With regard to Rifle Brigade. His race was worth £1,559, the second highest on the Beverley Card. I have no idea what this would be in today's money, so I've looked up the Christmas Hurdle. Then worth £8,526, now worth £58,000, a multiplier of 6.8. 6.8 x £1,559 = £10,601. Personally, I'd have thought that £10k would make it worth winning.

BlackCat

BC,

I have no problem with VDW selecting Rifle Brigade. The point I am trying to make is the change of emphasis in SIAO. Using SIAO RB's race wouldn't have been looked at using those guide lines. As RB was a given example isn't that in it's self a a change of emphasis? Add in he also was well down the ability ranking, isn't that yet another change? I just happen to think the first few examples are pure VDW, before he felt the need to 'dumb' the method down to make it easier to understand. Of course SIAO works, it was carefully selected to show the power of the a/rating and to get folk to think about the method. He introduces this a/rating and says stick to the top few. In the previous examples before a/ratings (as such) the selections where often well down on this rating. Many well out of the top few. Why do people think this was the way he worked the first examples as it doesn't conform to his guide lines now being set out? Trying to make it work is one of the reasons they are getting a false idea of how VDW looked at form. They have got to get rid of horses that would be the c/form horse using SIAO. They know as VDW gave his selections which horse they are looking for, the easiest way out is to make the other horse(s) out of form, non form horses what ever. Why can't the other horses not just be good enough?

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Firstly,I agree wholeheartedly with your comments made with regard to Lee.It took me a while to realise but he is probably the most knowledgable to this particular thread.

It has been said on many occasions that ratings are to be used as a guide,This of course means all ratings,You poo poo the FACT that vdw used the ability rating but clearly state that he did use speed.I agree that vdw used speed but he most certainly used the ability rating aswell.This is more than evident in his examples and it still holds up today in many many recent races.

You often go back to Pegwell Bay,Or why he went for horses lower down the ability ranking.There is a perfectly good explanation for this if only one applies themselves to the examples he gave by evaluating a race in the way we were told.If this practice is carried out methodically then eventually a picture will form and then it is time to take the race apart via ratings etc.I have spent a lot of time looking at the examples that vdw gave (not all of them) and to say that vdw didn't use the ab rating is clearly the wrong conclusion.He gave is equaton many times and "Ability" was clearly included.I agree that there are other ways of judging class.But ability,Speed,Form ratings won't find the good things alone,It is a balance of ALL the factors that will lead to the ultimate conclusion.

Investor,

I use the formula consistent form + ability as much as anyone. The only difference is I use another way to judge ability. In the time I have been using this incorrect a/rating I haven't seen any proof that my way is wrong. Yes, at times a winning horse that is top on ability fails my way, but it works the other way just as often. When they both agree it is time to sit up and take notice. However this doesn't prove one is correct and the other wrong. What does make me sit up is when in the early examples I have the selection near if not top of the ratings while this other rating has them well out of the top few. So far out VDW didn't recommend using them in SIAO.
I have no doubt that after he explained his a/rating most of the examples did favour this rating. In a fact the first three examples have the selection top rated. They were also top rated using the other method. I also think in most cases the other rating was in evidence so which one was he really using? The one he wouldn't explain or the one he was happy to. I said a long time ago I thought this other rating was a cross check he used and being only a cross check he was happy to explain it. The argument against my way, seems to rest squarely on Love From Verona and Son OF Love fair enough I can't argue as they both don't have a s/f. But where do they stand using the other rating, 10th and 8th. Both can be found by doing away with the a/ratings and using racing logic, but that doesn't prove anything one way or another. Presented with these races today how many would bother with them, I may have given the Leger another look as NOTHING had the proven ability to win a race of this class. They did think SOL was good enough to bring over for the Derby so possibly worth another look.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
okay,I'm going to aftertime but this is constructive and is relevant to this discussion.There was a good thing running on saturday namely genghis,Now thishorse was 6th ability rated in that particular race.When the form of all the others is taken into consideration his ability rating was far better than it suggested and EVERYTHING lined up in favour of the horse.Like i have said it is a BALANCE of all the given factors,You may or may not care to look at this particular horse.If you do and compre it to past examples you should see that there would have been no dout that this horse was primed and ready for the winners enclosure.

I wold be interested to see how you view one of the older examples but a good one.Namely Braashee.This horse is often classed as a roushayd and in a lot of respects it is,But it would have been found using conventional class and form.Remember Roushayd was top ability rated when going into the Old newton was Braashee.Let's look/

Free sweater 204
Roushayd 170
Quinlan terry 165
Nickel Plated 133
Braashee 114.

So there we have it he was 5th on ability.Did this proclude him from being a bet,Of course it didn't.it wasn't just speed that put him out in front although that was one of the factors in his favour,It was class and consistent form relative to the rest of the field that brought him to the fore.he also said that Cossack Guard was the only one that could get near him on a class basis.This horse had an ab rating of 41,Did that mean he shouldn't have even come into the equation.Again you have to look at all the form concerned and hopefully you will see why vdw made that statement in regard to Cossack Guard.

Investor,

I'm afraid both the examples you have put up prove nothing one way or the other.

I have Genghis top rated in his race, consistent and a form horse. I don't doubt VDW would have selected him. As you have questioned my honesty in the past I would point out there are members of this forum who know how I work and I'm sure would confirm this if required.

Braashee equally works for me using my method. In fact both are top rated in their races something that can't be said for the other ability rating. Working as suggested in SIAO I can't see how either of these selections would be found. I still can't see why the a/rating (yours) is being used in the Roushayd method. The beauty of mine is it is automatically in place for this method as well.

However I do agree the time to place the bet is when EVERYTHING is in place all the cogs fitting together. This doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. I'm busy going through my records now, trying to find ways of stopping a few more.

Be Lucky

mtoto
it is not MY ability rating it is vdw's and used in the correct manner it does work as it did with Braashee and al the examples i hve looked at.You cannot base a selection purely on speed as i'm sure your aware.But it is very useful when the horse is in form in very much the same respect as the ability rating.

I have to completely disagree wth you in respect of Genghis.This just brings home the fact that you have not looked at the form of all concerned taking into account there ability ratings etc.or more to the point you don't fully understand how vdw viewed class/ability,Otherwise you wouldn't have made the statement you have with Genghis.

I would be interested to hear your view on why vdw thought Cossack Guaerd was the only one to touch Braashee on a class basis when he was much further down the ab rating,Please don't say speed because that isn't the answer.

Mtoto
Again I will answer your questions, but qualified as previously.

"Your answers don't really address why he even looked at Rifle Brigade when he did say stick to the better races. RB's race fell well outside his guide lines set out in SIAO. I can also see if a horse didn't fit his criteria he could well go out of the short list, but why not say that? I think the examples in SIAO were carefully selected to make sure they conformed with the simple rules (guide lines) he decided to set out to help those who were not using any ability guide. If the other ratings are not important why show them in this exercise? After all he did say everything was written for a reason
As BC says, Rifle Brigade's race would have fitted loosely within the criteria set out, guidelines to which races to concentrate on which, though useful, are hardly scriven in stone. I would study some races not within those strict confines, so would you, and it is myopic to maintain that he wouldn't.
I have always accepted that he chose the 5 most suitable races on that particular day, whether he did or not has little relevance to the overall discussion IMO.

"I can't see how Roushayd doesn't fit his short list for that race, in fact I think he is the only improver in that race. On this I may be wrong but I haven't found another one. As I have said before I think the Epsom race was the target, he failed but showed improvement marking his card as VDW said. Take out the s/f and I can't make that an improved run. What did he do in the last 2f in that race, not a lot? Can the form of tail enders really be taken at face value? Can the fact that Vouchersafe won his next race after finishing behind R mean anything? I can't see it when the horses that beat him didn't do anything to enhance the Epsom form, they failed why wouldn't he

A few points here. Roushayd wasn't the only 'improver' in the race, Il de Chypre, amongst others, was; quite obviously, unless s/f are your only guide.
I am reasonably certain that VDW considered that Roushayd had this race as his objective, a point emphasised by how he read and understood form, which, oddly enough, he re-visited in some detail in Systematic Betting!
You introduce 'tail-enders' into the discussion,not me, no doubt because of your correspondence with the Guest faithful, who need them to make their understanding work.

"It is also interesting that Lee thinks a many of VDW selections came from horses to follow lists. How did VDW say he compiled these lists, I think speed was the main criteria or do I have that wrong?

Obviously I cannot answer for Lee, though I would suspect that his lists are based on VDW criteria, i.e. form for the more exposed, and speed, (Allied to form), for the younger, unexposed, horses.

And, from your reply to BC:
"Trying to make it work is one of the reasons they are getting a false idea of how VDW looked at form
Very true, as is evidenced today on this forum; all manner of contortions to justify what is, in essence, a simple and logical solution.

JohnD
i would agree in the main that it is a simple and logical solution,But not always.There are certain points,Factors whatever one wants to call them that have to come into line before a bet is struck.As you are probably aware you cannot just open the paper and find these horses the form has to be looked at wether you agree or not.

Going onto another point that has come upi recently,I have been in contact with an individual who is well known on here and other vdw forums that Guest was far from profficient in his execution of these methods.So maybe some have been led up the garden path,But there is only one way to find out irrespective of superior knowledge and that is by study of the examples.

Mtoto
Please excuse me,i didn't read your post properly r.e your remarks about Genghis.My apologies.

Investor,

Why exactly do you disagree with me about Genghis? Don't you agree he is a form horse, it can't be you consider as an inconsistent horse surely? I can only assume it is because you don't have him as the top rated on ability. That is because you are using a different a/rating to me, but that doesn't make me wrong. VDW had PK joint top rated but only 7th using the 'new' rating. Why do you think I haven't looked at the form of all concerned in the race? I agree I haven't looked at the ability rating that is in common use but why should I, what is it going to tell me that mine doesn't. Yes, there are horses in the race with good or better form but are they consistent at the moment? There were horses against PK that had better form but they were also passed over for the same reason. VDW said he rated all RELEVANT horses This rate all horses for ability was only introduced with SIAO. I agree a horse can't be rated purely on speed I thought I had said that MANY times.

Cossack Guard was close on a class basis purely and simply because he had run in the same race as Braashee last time out. All through these examples when VDW refers to class it is based on the penalty value of the last race. As CG was neither consistent, or improving I don't think he ever came into the equation.

While I accept one of us doesn't understand how VDW worked, you haven't shown me that it's me. I do think your understanding has been clouded by the likes of Guest making horses non form horses.

John,

As I said to BC I'm happy enough that VDW would have looked at Rifle Brigade. He came into the discussion because of the guide lines for selecting race in SIAO. People that follow those guide lines wouldn't have looked at the race. Tail - enders were bought in because you are saying Roushayd was improving based on form. I can't see how the form of tail - enders can be used to prove anything. Vouchersafe was being eased.
You say VDW's criteria for making lists. The only crieria I can find that he mentioned are set out in letter 19. Lists for 2 year olds and older horses set out in Wheil Of Fortune, and the lists recommended in Systematic Betting. They are ALL based on speed, of course form comes into it, but form based on speed. For NH, older horses as well as the unexposed younger horse.

Be Lucky

here's a question for you Mtoto and Investor-

horses that start at 7/4 and are fav win 35% of the time

4155/11768 = 35% ...loss of 5.7%ROI

That should be a big enough sample.

ok, the question

within those horses some had an average of 6 or more if you added their last 6 placings together whilst others had an average <2.5.

If consistent horses win more than inconsistent horses, do you think that those <2.5 average ( consistent)from their last 6 should win at a higher rate than those over 6 (inconsistent)?

the inconsistent ones should perform worse according to VDW

Ectoo,

When VDW is talking about consistent horses he is working on the 3 last runs. I can't see how the last 6 placing would effect his ideas. You could have the form figures 123456 = average of 3.5. The same figures in reverse 654321 would have the same average of 3.5, which one would you back, all things being equal?

Personally I don't like using averages anywhere in horse racing, be it in working out a/rating or standard times. If your question was based on the last 3 figures I would expect the lowest to win more often. But again these figures would have to be backed up with something more than the bare finishing position to be of any use to VDW. The c/rating is just the starting point not the final solution. Wouldn't you agree?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Couple of Grand National stats _

Last time out winners struggle (1-45)

Horses that won twice this season already have a bad record.

but -

Horses that had not been 1st or 2nd in any of their last 6 starts were just (1-73)

- (source Mathematician) -

of course this years winner buggers up the first stat

But generaly I am concerned , that the nature of big race handicaps , is that the trainer should try to conceal the horses form and ability, before the race , in order that the horse can come into the race at the best possible weight.

-

How can this be squared with the consistency rating argument ???

tc

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

ok Mtoto

You have stated that the last 3 places..IF they were consistent would win more often..in fact if VDW was correct about consistent horses winning more often ..then they SHOULD produce better results..but they don't

The same 7/4 fav's..these are the strike rates and ROI for last 3 finishing positions.

1st combination
111 = 69/205 = 33.66% = ROI = -10%

2nd combination
I've combined 2nd's& 3rd's in any combination or the sample starts getting small then you will say "the sample is too small
222
333
any combination of these =
133/370 = 36.9% = ROI -4.6

3rd grouping of places
I've used 456 mixed..again to encourage a decent sample..
444
555
666
any combination of these =
40/102 = 39% = ROI +3%

The last grouping is the remainder
7th placings or worse on each of the horse's last 3 runs..these should have a shocking strike rate if VDW was right

44/101 = 44% = ROI+16%

So it's quite clear that supporting CONSISTENT horses is a lot less profitable than supporting VERY inconsistent horses.

As most of us have been trying to tell the VDW contingent..the form figures have NO influence whatsover on strike rate or profit...except reduce it.

I know FOR a fact that Investor and the others won't accept facts like these as they would rather believe the fantasy of VDW..but the above clearly shows that last time out positions that are "CONSISTENT" are clearly overbet mainly probably by "mug" punters thinking.."oooh look it's won it's last 3 races"..I'll back it.

I cannot wait to hear how ANY VDW follower can now condone supporting "consistent" horses when they know for a fact they will always lose money doing so.

Mtoto
"The only reason vdw said Cossack Guard came close on a class basis was purely and simply because he finished 2nd to braashee lto".

You feel that that is the answer,As no doubt do most people,But because he finished 2nd behind B is only part of the story.And it is this particular part that eludes so many,But it is a very important part of the methodology when seperating one performance against another.

I have no problems whatsoever with Genghis,I misread your post Where you said words to the effect that vdw would have seen this horse as a good bet.But again there were a lot of factors running through this horses form that stood him head and shoulders above the others in that particular race on saturday.I would also venture to add,That although he was 6th on ability.He would have been found using the same elements that were used to establish pegwell bay as the winner.And again it was a balance of factors,As it invariably is with all vdw bets.

Ectoo
With all due respect you can put up what consistency figures you like it doesn't matter.It as been said that there is a difference between the consistency "rating" and consistent "Form" and this is what most people cannot understand.There are many horses with form figures of 111 or what have you,But they have to be in a position where they are capable of going one better.A study of form and also that of all the others in the race will determine weyher the horse is up to it.So in conclusion,Don't take consistency "ratings" at face value,Because if the horse doesn't possess the right qualifications them figures of 111 etc are worthless.