Black Cat: fine, but is this thread an investigative medium or a welcome to the Barneys?
In the race I mentioned two horses (at the cursory glance by which I assess races) were equally selectable, but one could find the winner by the number of days off. Number 4 of your factors is statistically unsound and goes against value. Surely the discussion of such matters is the (potential) value of this thread(?)

PB,

I wont be betting her either, in fact her TS and RPR make her look vulnerable, Favorita having already done better and Karliyna more than likely to do so before Stoute is finished with her.

Hi Epi,

Interesting points.

1. Could I ask, why do you say it is statistically unsound?

2. I should have thought that a horse with a recent good run under his belt is fit and well. If a horse has been off the track a year, he may need the run to get him going. He may have had an illness or injury, picked up in training that the trainer is using the race to get him over; etc.. Is this not a concern?

It strikes me that your way looks for value bets - a lower strike rate but bigger prices.

My way looks for a higher strike rate, accepting that I will ususally not get big prices.

3. On your point about the value of the thread - investigative questionning done perhaps a little more thoughtfully/tactfully would be appreciated by the less robust (me)

BlackCat

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
in fact her TS and RPR make her look vulnerable, Favorita having already done better and Karliyna more than likely to do so before Stoute is finished with her.

Indeed. The ratings that are being used to lend support, (in JIB's case, RPM & TS), as the booklets indicate, do not lend support. This would indicate a no bet, wouldn't it. (Perhaps Lee uses different ratings ??)

BlackCat

Corcoran not even placed

Black Cat: I posted about it before, 80% of races are won by horses running within 28 days, but 75% of all runners are running within 28 days. The influence of the first 80% favourably influences the odds for those who look for horses that have been "off". The shit spitting example is Doctor Wood on the 24th March, it was the only horse in the race that had run close last time out but because it was off for a year or two they gave 40-1. VDW deals in the kind of cliches that miss these ideas.

Hi Epi,

I had a look at Doctor Wood. He is a 10 year old that had been off the track 2 years and whose only other win was on his debut in 2001.

To be honest, given the above, 40/1 seems a fair price to me, and I can't see how anyone could have read the win, other than the trainer.

Did you bet Doctor Wood? If so, well done.

BlackCat

... and I take your point about 75% of horses are running within 28 days. Now you mention it, I think I have read your posts on this. But if you know that 80% of winners are running within 28 days, doesn't it seem sensible to be fishing in the 80% pool?

Perhaps it's me. Strike rate is important to me. I hate long losing runs, and perhaps it's just that I'd rather make other sacrifices to keep the winners moral going.

BlackCat

Black Cat: did you look at what the other horses in the Doctor Wood race had done?

BC,

If the ratings were the writing on the wall for Corcoran you might care to ponder on the worth of the twin pillars of vdwology; the AR and the CR.

On many many occasions I have drawn atention in some detail to the serious flaws incorporated in these two chimera. Far too often they simply do not represent the true situation.

Days

I have just done a very simple exercise based on Epi's figures:

There are 10 races, each with 10 runners, so there are 100 runners.

Using Epi's figures:
75 of the runners are running <29 days
25 of the runners are running >28 days

There will be:
8 winners from the <29 day camp [8/75)
2 winners from the >28 day camp (2/25)

8/75 = 10.7%
2/25 = 08.0%

Given what Epi is saying about the value of the prices drifting in favour of the >28 day camp, then the 2.7% difference in strike rate may well be over-compensated for by the additional drift in prices.

Is this where I say it is a stupid rule? I'll go as far as to say it is certainly worth further investigation!!!

Thanks for your help.

BlackCat

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

It's all happening tonight... can't keep up!!

Hi Epi
No, I only looked at Doctor Wood.

Hi JIB

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
If the ratings were the writing on the wall for Corcoran you might care to ponder on the worth of the twin pillars of vdwology; the AR and the CR.

On many many occasions I have drawn atention in some detail to the serious flaws incorporated in these two chimera. Far too often they simply do not represent the true situation.

Let us take the AR only for a second. The booklets specifically state that you need to have two other sets of commercial ratings (or ratings you are happy with) to lend support to the AR. This is shown throughout many (if not all - don't have them handy tonight) the examples. VDW uses 2 sets of his own ratings in addition to the AR, but states that any reliable ratings will suffice.

Personally, I am happy with the RPM. But as I've pointed out on the General forum, the TS rating does appear to produce strange ratings from time-to-time. So when I return to the wagering fold, I will probably look for another.

BlackCat

The booklets can piss in their pants, I'm not going to ****'em.

In other words, and in my opinion, and as I have stated on here before, the class 'rating' is not the AR. It is the AR plus two other independent ratings that indicate that you are selecting a "class" horse.

On RSUK, Alkibone was running a thread whereby he was selecting horses based soley on a ratings premise. He had 6 ratings, of which 5 had to agree. This thread did OK in terms of strike rate, although from memory, was not profitable without a staking plan. But the class/rating factor was the only factor being taken into account.

What I am getting to is that the AR by itself is not what is written in the booklets - as you will know from your 'complete works of VDW' collection.

BlackCat

Chat Noir: as Fulham was so fond of saying, "form is relative", you cant discuss Doctor Wood without reference to it's competition.

Black Cat: what do you say the ratings are/were?

Oooooh... I love it when you speak French to me!

Relative Form: Well that is certainly true, but I would have had to discount the good Doctor on the facts already stated. Berengario had won the previous November, and had a recent outing in a Class A Group 2 (where he was duly trounced). Ho Ho Hill had a recent placing btn 1/2L previous to the Doctor Wood race.

I would not have found Doctor Wood.

VDW Ratings:
He stated they were his own ratings, but also stated that it didn't really matter what ratings you used (I suppose, as long as you were comfortable that they are reliable).

BlackCat

Slife

Tomorrows race is the 410R.

However the top AR isnt in the first 3 consistant horses, neither is the 2nd top AR. Neither are they in the top half of the fc. In consequence I dont feel qualified to name the vdw selection.

Personally I feel that Tarraman will take this before moving on to listed class.

Hi John

I think that race highlights the differences between peoples expectations. What I mean by that is that I should think most VDWers would say it is a no-play race.

That is from their sticking strictly to the methods laid down in the booklets.

But as we see on the system threads and elsewhere, people find on-going success using their own methods. VDW is just one way. Not the only way.

I was thinking about Mr. Van der Wheils motives for writing into the forum in the first place. It was to get other people to share some of their secrets! He says in that first letter: "After all, none of us knows the lot, but with a combination of knowledge we can really go places". He was then challenged to first 'throw in some silver yourself'. His subsequent letter drew questions from other readers which led to more letters and on and on.

Personally, I think VDW would probably be horrified to see that his methods are considered by some to be the only "way, the truth and the light".

Epi pointed out yesterday that none of the factors I highlighted are particularly definitive VDW. I suspect that this is true. The difference is that the factors are worked to produce one successful (imo) way of working.

But, also imo, it is not a method that will work in the 4.10R That will need another approach.

BlackCat