BC

I would suspect that the stats would be more appropriate running from say May in a typical flat season

I am back from holiday and there seems to have been a lot of activity in my abscence.I hope to post up more frequently in the future.

Ascot (York) starts on Tuesday,and there should be a few bets during the week.

BC,

I would also divide the lto days into 3 groups; NH, Flat Turf, and most importantly AW.

Class probably has a lot to do with it as the the higher the class the impression I get is that there are fewer horses running within 28 days.

Hi John

Yes, I'd agree with that. It strikes me with higher class races, the horses are often kept away from the track a little longer due to the there being less opportunity to find a suitable race. Also, perhaps because the prizes are bigger, trainers make absolutely sure the horse is ready to go if it is a targeted race, so the 'days' aspect becomes less important, (but not necessarily irrelevant).

BlackCat

Yes BC, and these sand horses seem to be running at least once a week!

It might just be a false impression on my part but on the AW I think the percentage of 28 days since lto will be bigger than 80% of all runners.

I suppose what I am getting to is this. In the case of the horse Epi quoted, Doctor Wood: he won at 40/1 having not raced for two years.

If horses fitting that criteria win only once in 40 runs, (2.5%), then there is no value in betting them. It may be that it is these animals that alter the other figures from 10.7% down to 8.0%.

In other words, for all we know, all horses running within 60 days might have a 10.7% chance of winning. But because we have sset a 28 day limit, horses running between 29 and 60 days are placed in the 8.0% camp because of the 'Doctor Wood's effect.

What do you think?
Do fresh horses stand more chance of winning than unexposed ones?
And if so, does the value in backing the unexposed make it worthwhile ignoring this?

Black'pondering'Cat

BC,

You would have to do a bar chart that covered from 1 to 1000 days for every runner and every winner.

JohnD,

I would like to say the fact that Ectoo has been posting on this forum has nothing to do with my lack of posts. I must admit I am more than a little disappointed with some of his posts, I thought he would/could bring more to the table. Unfortunately all he seems interested in is jumping on the prove it band wagon. I had hoped he would bring more in the way of debate. He did point out and try to prove (unsuccessfully) that in his opinion consistent horse were over backed thus losing any value from a betting point of view. He then gave three classic winners that all had that trait. I accept that the consistency factor wasn't the sole reason for these selections, but there again I don't think any VDW(er) would have suggested it would be a good enough reason.

The reason why this thread was so successful was because folk could come on there and talk about how they thought VDW worked. Yes, there are many versions about this, but if they are discussed maybe they can be sorted out. This is why I joined, and I think many others did with this in mind. I can see some feel/felt the need to after time, but who are they fooling apart from themselves. On more than one occasion these after timers were asked to explain themselves and often made to look foolish. There was no need for others to police this thread I think it was done by the members. This other forum has shown that ideas change and people will now discuss races, and selections before the off some times in great detail. This could have happened on this forum if they had not been driven away by senseless abuse. Here I would say JIB hasn't done this forum any favours by his attack on PB, who knows he may have been an asset. We may never know, and all he did was to put his view, JIB can do this all the time but because he doesn't agree the response is abuse.

JIB says he should have read the whole thread before any statements were made. WHY? I agree there are many interesting posts on here, but are they all right? There is no way they can all be right as there are so many different slants on the same subject. JIB himself seems to have the wrong idea about some of my posts, I have never said I disagree with the idea of a class/form horse. I disagree about the way some of the c/form horses are found. I disagree when horses are deemed out of form to make some of the examples fit in with their thinking. No matter what he thinks I think most reasonable questions have been answered or tried to be answered about VDW. It does become a little harder when folk want to argue when they haven't read the literature on the subject they are trying to discuss, hard, and at times pointless.

PB,

To many good people have walked away from this thread. Give it a chance and don't be put off. It was good, and could be again with the right contributors.

Carlos,

Would it be possible to contact me I have something I want to ask you. It has nothing to do with VDW so I don't want to do it on this thread. Mtoto44@aol.com

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

If you wish to defend PB that is your privilege, though you would do a better job if you got your facts in the correct order.

PB alleged that I was unfit to comment on vdw because I may not have read all the literature. In the same vein I regard him as unfit to comment on my contributions if he has not bothered to read all of them.

The fact that he is just another rectum trying to impose his unsound ideas by assuming the role of victim seems to strike a chord with you. I can only wonder what you find the attraction.

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
You would have to do a bar chart that covered from 1 to 1000 days for every runner and every winner.

Realistically, that's not going to happen from me. Certainly not in the short-term. Thanks for the reply anyway.

FORM
Yesterday at Cork 3.35 Right Key won a Group 3 race.
There were two other well backed horses in the race namely Magnolia Lane who had been been runner up to Scorpion on its debut and Who needswings who had been 4th to Fracas on its debut and subsequently won its maiden.

From a punters viewpoint I am pretty certain that many would have assessed both of those horses as worthy of support based on what they had ran against,however neither were at the races and the horse with proven Group 3 winning form won the day.

Is anyone prepared to discuss the way they view form and am I missing the point.I know in the past I would have looked upon Magnolia Lane and Whoneedswings as horses with a winning chance in the race.

Blackcat

Some figures taken from RSB flat regarding days
since last run.Unfortunately the RSB filter is for 31 days and not 28 days but i don't think that will make a great deal of difference apart from increasing the number of qualifiers.

Years 1986 to 2003

70297 races 766910 runners

50753 races were won by horses that had run in last 31 days

503693 horses had run in last 31 days


SO 72.19% of winners came from 65.67% of runners

Roughyed

quote:

Originally posted by Pipedreamer:
FORM
Yesterday at Cork 3.35 Right Key won a Group 3 race.
There were two other well backed horses in the race namely Magnolia Lane who had been been runner up to Scorpion on its debut and Who needswings who had been 4th to Fracas on its debut and subsequently won its maiden.

From a punters viewpoint I am pretty certain that many would have assessed both of those horses as worthy of support based on what they had ran against,however neither were at the races and the horse with proven Group 3 winning form won the day.

Is anyone prepared to discuss the way they view form and am I missing the point.I know in the past I would have looked upon Magnolia Lane and Whoneedswings as horses with a winning chance in the race.

Pd

I guess what you're really asking is how VDW read form?
Although Epi thinks it cliched, most of his work, IMO, was based on simple and logical concepts, (As, on reflection, are most cliches, ), which have been made difficult by those who believe that, were there not some deep and hidden meaning behind everything he wrote, they would understand instantly.
That is patently not the case, as is witnessed by the gyrations performed by many of his followers, and evidenced many times, here and elsewhere.
Not only did he tell us how he read form, (viz SIAO To confirm what the figures say, itis necessary to study the form of all concerned etc.....), he condensed into one straightforward sentence, and until one takes that on board, at face value, they will continue to wander the country lanes.
VDW was undoubtedly a genius in horse racing terms IMO, my view is that, as with many other sages, he came about that wisdom by viewing things in simple terms. How many of his acolytes do that?
I didn't look at the race in Ireland yesterday, but have had a quick look this morning. You appear to have given a lot of weight to previous runs against horses that subsequently performed well in better races. It may be worth pointing out that both horses you mentioned from other races showed considerable improvement in their following races; as it stands both ML and W were well up in class attempting something they hadn't shown capable of, whereas the winner wasn't. It is, of course, easy after the result is known, but I doubt either could have been VDW selections on evidence prior to yesterday.
As I have said on previous occasions, it is well worth looking at these better races retrospectively, taking particular note of how the principals had peformed beforehand, and how they had been placed.

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

quote:

Originally posted by roughyed:
Some figures taken from RSB flat regarding days
since last run.Unfortunately the RSB filter is for 31 days and not 28 days but i don't think that will make a great deal of difference apart from increasing the number of qualifiers.

Years 1986 to 2003
70297 races 766910 runners
50753 races were won by horses that had run in last 31 days
503693 horses had run in last 31 days
SO 72.19% of winners came from 65.67% of runners

Hi Roughyed

So using those figues, we have

10.1 winners for every 100 horses <32 days
07.4 winners for evrey 100 horses >31 days

This is roughly along the lines Epiglotis suggested.

And this also clearly indicates that there is an advantage to backing a recently run horse.

Are there any other days filters that can be applied to the same filed? For example 45, 60, 90 or 200 days?

Or even going the other way i.e. 4, 7, 15, 20 days?

This comparison may show where the length of lay-off (up to a given point) has a marked effect or where it has no effect.

Cheers,

BlackCat

Hi John

Picking up on your comment about sub dividing the races into NH, Flat Turf, and AW; what do you think would be a sensible 'days guide' for each?


Hi Boozer

Why "May"? And when would you run it from and to?

May to September; and then November to March (Cheltenham) perhaps?


BlackCat

BC,

I would need to see the results of each subset first before suggesting a cut off number of days!

However my suspicion is that the average lto days will be largest in NH racing mainly because the races are harder on the horses which need time to recover.

On the AW the average lto should be the least as there is no difficulty in finding a race with suitable conditions.

Without wanting to steal Boozers thunder you would want to wait until May because with the Flat season only starting in March you need to give the horses a chance to have a reasonably recent run before drawing up stats.

BC

Jib has answered

I suppose the early weeks of the flat would be biased in favour of horses that hadnt had a run inside 28 days

Dont know if it would have much impact on the overall stats though

Johnd
thanks for the reply,FORM the VDW way is the one area that causes me most problems,and unless I am mistaken,then it is the area where discussion on the forum is not forthcoming,or never has been.

Time will tell I suppose,I would not mind to set the ball rolling but am pretty naieve where form is concerned the VDW way.

Surely the best meeting of the year for the VDW aficionado? How about some pre-race thoughts from some of them?
IMO, Var should just about win the sprint, while Dubawi has the look of an authentic 'good thing'.

Hi BlackCat

Breakdown of number of days since ran with impact value figure

Ist run 4445/66213 IV 0.70
<4days 1624/12730 IV 1.43
4-7days 7534/69165 IV 1.19
8-15days 20714/209381 IV 1.05
16-31 20881/212417 IV 1.04
32-47 5411/61162 IV 0.94
48-79 3112/39368 IV 0.84
80-111 1037/15185 IV 0.72
112-223 3636/47330 IV 0.81
224-547 1781/29754 IV 0.62
548DAYS+ 122/4205 IV 0.29

Will breakdown into months later

Roughyed