1000's ?

Investor,

The thing you won't accept is I am doing it how VDW showed, and judging by your reply the same way as you. What I'm not doing is using the same a/rating as you everything else is the same. Yes, I have assessed the class of the field both beat in their last race. Yes, Milan beat the strongest competition, but my assessment isn't based on a fragile a/rating. If it wasn't fragile it wouldn't have shown the wrong horse as being the strongest for the race in question. You way you have a 470 horse against a 635, and you had to stop and check your finding and this is where mistakes are made. If I'm wrong and you didn't use your ability rating to judge the strength of the competition in both races I apologise. If you did, did you go back through all the races to make sure none of the races reproduced the same sort of mistake that the Leger shows, 470 beating 635? If they did the a/rating your using as much use as a chocolate fire guard.
You ask why don't I come over to this new forum? One good reason is the way posting are deleted. I think that is an insult to all the other members and threads don't make sense. I can see no reason why you would want to delete your last post. Must be me but I can't see anything earth shattering in it.

Be Lucky

On Wednesday Pitmatic posted the horses shortlisted in the races indicated by VDW. In the two races for which the "shortlist" was more than half the field the winner was included, in the other three races the winner was not on the shortlist. If this first step in the VDW process doesn't work there's very little point in arguing the finer details of later stages. At the moment we have people who claim that VDW theory is an effective means of selecting winning horses and those who dont believe. As those who believe will neither demonstrate nor explain, this experiment of Pitmatic's is worth continuing. If VDW theory doesn't prove to be an effective way of productively narrowing the field, then one can forget about it.

About the "other" forum, have you seen Barney put up selections just before the off then when they lose delete them? How can anybody take someone like that seriously?

It's not clear to me which is the principal meeting. When I click for the day's cards I get Perth but as Perth's highest value race is worth only half of two races at Sandown I assume, from the VDW angle, Sandown is the "principal meeting". Anyway, today it's all a little moot as the shortlist for the 1:45 at Sandown is more than half the field, I've parenthetically included the 3:40 at Perth so somebody else can decide if it qualifies. As I'm often reminded that everything has to line up I've starred the shortlisted horses that are also in the top three by both ratings. This gives three clearly indicated horses today (if someone can be bothered they might like to check the form of these three and pronounce on their capability, etc).
Perth
(3:40 East Lawyer, Campadre, Sardagna)
4:45 The Lyme Volunteer, Be Upstanding, Next To Nothing
Chepstow
6:15 Penthouse Minstrel, Get To The Point*, The Extra Man*
Newton A.
6:30 Mixterthetrixster*, Wrags To Riches, Sweet Diversion
Sandown
2:20 Bridge Loan, Fracas, Merger*
Wolverhampton
4:55 Rare Coincidence, Seldemosa*, Spark Up

By way of control to the above I'll post an alternative means of shortlisting. Success in higher class races depends on the horse's ability so as a contrast I've looked at lower class handicaps and claimers in which one might expect the human ability to supercede in importance that of the horse. From such races I've taken the three trainers and the three jockeys with the best strike rate at the course, horses that have both a qualifying trainer and jockey are shortlisted. Again there are three clearly indicated horses.
Perth
4:45 Spanish Main
Chepstow
6:50 Kadam, Gold For Me, Master D'Or
Newton A.
7:05 Dinarelli, Foxmeade Dancer
Wolverhampton
2:45 Crawberry
3:20 Lakeside Guy, Balerno
4:25 Fly To Dubai

Epi

Taking up your point about the shortlisted horses I put up the other day.

It can be argued that by doing so this was only a snapshot of the shortlisting process - i.e. it was only one day.

The only way to accurately measure its success or failure would be by doing this over an extended period of time.

VDW did say that by going through this process you would put the odds in your favour - he didn't say it was a foolproof rating method (and went on to point out the limitations of any "rating") - then above all he added a "catchall" by saying that you must look carefully at the form of all of the horses in the race - as a means of validating those ratings.

From a personal point of view, I was around when the original articles were printed in the Handicap Book and have always thought that there is some merit to the shortlisting process - my problem is, how to go about seperating the shortlisted horses.

I can often get a race down to 3, 4 or 5 who I think are the "principle players" - fairly regularly the winner will come from them.

It is here where all of those who think they know the way forward start to say you need to get the form books in order to analyise the old examples.

That is fair enough, because no-one can expect a free ride.

This is why I don't contribute to the VDW very often - At this point in time, I haven't got the time or the stamina to begin to look at the old examples - and therefore don't have anything to offer that really goes beyond the "nuts and bolts" of the method.

My observation is that unless there is some massive "secret" I can't for the life of me understand what there is to lose for anyone to offer straight forward hints/advice about where to go next (other than get the books). By doing so it would definitely widen the circle of discussion and may be the catalyst for actually involving others who are at the "basic" stage - who if they make a little bit of progress might move on to the buying the form books stage.

Again I will stress that I haven't got an axe to grind in any shape or form.

I have all of the VDW literature, and my honest appraisal of my understanding of it (obviously not much beyond the basic level) is that generally it can put the odds in your favour.

A very woolly conclusion, I have to admit - but that's where I'm at at the moment!!

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

Pitmatic,

If you have the time put up your idea of races to look at today or tomorrow, bare in mind VDW did give some suggestions of the races to look for. Once you have your short list the idea is to find the best, most likely winner in that list. He gave several ways to help find this horse, several because every race is different.

I think on the day you put up your short lists the racing was very poor. The idea is to find GOOD consistent horses. As VDW said consistent horses can be found on most days but you are looking for more than consistency. The short list is just the first step and the first filter is consistency, then the list has to be sorted to find the final selection if there is one. Often there is nothing, even though it is consistent and VDW explained why. So you start with a list of good consistent horses and work from there. Form figures are just one way to find consistent horses, a quick easy way admitted, but nevertheless effective. After this on to step two FORM, because you are looking for consistent form horses. This is the first procedure that brings a difference of opinion, (in my way of thinking) does he mean horses that are IN form using the last three races as a guide or a horse with the over all form to win the race.

If you or anyone else want's to take it from there away you go, but first you have to decide what did he mean by form. Sometimes it's easy and the horse fits into both scenarios.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

Don't think I've time to put anything up today as too busy with other things. But, if I do find the time to I will - probably tomorrow though.

My mind is completely open - I see exactly where you are coming from in terms of the ability rating - and agree that at times it seems pointless as it only serves to confuse the picture further.

However it does seem interesting that VDW chose to begin the form reading bit of the method by starting with the top rated on ability and working downwards?

I have the feeling that I will quickly get out of my depth here, but I'll give it a go in order to try to stimulate some genuine VDW discussion for those in the same situation as myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Pitmatic:
Epi



From a personal point of view, I was around when the original articles were printed in the Handicap Book and have always thought that there is some merit to the shortlisting process - my problem is, how to go about seperating the shortlisted horses.

I can often get a race down to 3, 4 or 5 who I think are the "principle players" - fairly regularly the winner will come from them.

Pitmatic
Yours is the same dilemna which has faced VDW'ers since the early letters were published; a fairly straightforward task to estimate the probables, the crunch comes when one has to eliminate the horses not considered as 'a winner in the race', (which is often all of them, and, sometimes, a horse outside that group stands out as a bet).
Many have tried the 'buy the old form books' route and failed to reach the solution, even Lee, IMO the only one to actually demonstrate an understanding, admitted that after years of similar study he came across the solution by a stroke of luck.
Could I suggest a more direct route?
Buy the Racing Post on Saturdays, or any other day there is a major meeting, and study the results of all the appropriate races.
Bear in mind that you are looking for racing certainties, not horses with half a chance, and analyse the form of all the principals carefully to establish why the race went as it did. Despite what many think, not all 'good things' are short prices, and, hopefully, you will occasionally come across a horse that had all the attributes of a winner before the race, and at a decent price.
After a while, done properly, and applying the elements VDW set out, your knowledge will grow and you will begin to appreciate the truth in the statement "The majority of runners in a race are not actually out to win, but are being prepared to win". If and when you reach that stage, then is the time to buy the odd form book to check if his selections conform, though, then again, you might not need them .
If you choose to go this route, 3 pieces of advice:

1/ Always have an absolute faith that there is an answer, and that it is there to be found for those who believe enough to persevere.

2/ Look for simple and logical answers, those that didn't are still looking.

3/ When he said "You will have the same horses as myself" he meant it, without any qualification or uncertainty, so don't listen to those that dither or vacillate.

I wish you well.

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

However it does seem interesting that VDW chose to begin the form reading bit of the method by starting with the top rated on ability and working downwards?

Pitmatic,

The most interesting thing about SIAO for me is using this method I can't see how all the first 8/9 selections from the first set of examples are found. As you say he says start with the highest on ability taking the top 4. In these examples (SIAO) he sticks to that, ok on occasions by passing the top rated because the form isn't exciting. Also interesting is the horse he winds up with is the top rated on the other ratings. I don't think it is coincidence that in these examples the selections are all well to the fore in the rating that is being introduced. There would be little point if they weren't, this is a carefully selected set of examples. Is it another coincidence that he includes the 'other' ratings? Why bother if he really thinks they are not essential? So when he says start with the highest on ability which a/rating is he talking about? It can't be both, if the Erin and Cambridgeshire are any guide. SIAO is just a simple set of examples to show how to use this a/rating and to show the need to examine the form. As this other a/rating isn't as good as the first (the one he said he would never explain in detail) the need is even greater. I personally think this is the missing link.

If you give your races and short lists, I will give mine for the same races, to see if they are the same, or what horses we agree on. Horses in my short lists will show what I consider to be consistent form horses. As VDW was happy to stray outside the forecast so do I. This is an experiment that was shown on the other forum, and Fulham was quite happy to participate. If the chap who is accused of not giving anything away is happy to participate it shouldn't hold any fears for the likes of Investor. I will say now that the meeting I will be looking at first will be Sandown but not all the races. The race where Pipe and Nichols have all the runners will be left out, + any 3 year only handicaps. If you want to include them it will take me a little longer to put up my list as very few 3 years old have made it on to my data base. The chase I wouldn't look at as I'm not happy it will be a 'proper' race it may turn into a team event.

Be Lucky

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

Interesting results today. I'll update in the morning.

Mtoto

Will have a look at Sandown - will put my shortlists during the morning, as I use the paper Racing Post.

John D

Thanks for your best wishes and advice - I realise it is sound advice - I've already got my foot on the bottom rung, as I get the Racing Post everyday

JD cheers for the info re Day Flight.

Id been looking through some of my printed off stuff earlier this evening when i came across a post from Lee which was made in reply to JIB.
I dont know how to put it up & it`s too long to type out but im sure some members would find it of use.
Its dated 27/05/04 8.19 am if someone could put it up for them id appreciate it, thankyou.

Walter,

This one?


VDW clearly didn't change his methods in the latter years of writing; with the consistency rating remaining just as important as the day he mentioned it alongside Prominent King. In his article regarding the boxing day of 1986 he wrote:

"I find it inconceivable that anyone using my methods could not have had the eventual winners of both selected races down for consideration. In the principle race, the King George VI Chase, you should have been giving consideration to Forgive ˜N Forget, Desert Orchid and Bolands Cross...Kempton's other indicated race was the Feltham Novice Chase and those you should have been considering were Cavvies Clown, Master Bob, and Aherlow.

These horses down for consideration were the 3 most consistent in their respective races. That doesn't mean to say that he disregarded others in the field out of hand, which again is demonstrated throughout his letters and articles by way of example, but unless the horse was consistent he knew, from past research, that the odds were against him.

Improvement via speed figures came the following flat season with Roushayd, however, he also demonstrated using our old friend Desert Orchid from the NH season above that it was a method that worked for both rules, and it was a method that should not be ignored.

The method that relies on consistency as its driving factor is one that selects horses showing an upward curve of form: improvement. Most, but not all, of these examples are going up in class for the prize money. But VDW knew that this would leave him vulnerable to other types of winners, and so it is my understanding, from studying EVERY example he gave, that the Roushayd method was to combat this angle. In this method he isolates another 3 horses for consideration, the 3 that are coming from the highest class. Obviously sometimes they may also be one of the most consistent.

This gave him a way of answering most questions that are asked by any given race, when used in the types of races he suggested. By isolating the 3 most consistent AND the 3 that are coming from the highest class, you are seriously fishing in well-stocked waters. Deciding if there is a good thing amongst them is another story though!

In light of the above, even if you feel the consistency rating is worthless you should now be able to accept that he hadn't changed his method, but instead, published further, necessary elements. He did state later that he was going to advance his methods even further in systematic betting than he acturally did, however was warned against doing so.

The consistency rating isn't some system of selection; it is just a way of narrowing the field that, given other considerations, including making a note of seemingly inconsistent horses that had shown improvement in higher class, he didn't back against.

That`s the one m8 thanks.

WP & NFP

Appreciated. Thanks.

BlackCat

BC,
Out of interest which part or parts did you find most useful yourself?.

Hi Walt

Might have been the speed ratings(Timeform)?

I said on here a while back that a Maths teacher with a fair wage retired at an early age and made 10 times his wage using timeform ratings every week,He also stated to me many times he did not bet big
Sadly the old fellow has passed away but his son big kojak can confirm when he returns from holiday in oz,

So maybe with using 2 or 3 different ratings and they all fall into place you might get a high strike rate,

I still think its down to form reading and how the trainer places them and maybe most important time to go through it all

Crikey!

Discussion, an exchange of ideas, no bad mouthing cor blimey a forum!

Right I'm going to start reading again - though Investor, no secret posts or handshakes again please. If you post to help, then please leave it there - some may find it earth shattering, some may wonder what the fuss is all about, some may take the p*ss. Focus on the former and humour the latter.