quote:

Originally posted by ectoo:


Racing is far more sophisticated and complicated than the simplistic approach laid out by the Handicap book under the guise of the non existent dutchman.

So is algebra, unless you understand it, but, like VDW, it is based on very simple and logical principles which, once understood, make absolute common sense.
But, if those simple principles escape one through negativity, bigotry, or just plain ignorance, they may never come to terms with either.

Ectoo,

I suppose you do have the figures to back up your statement that the favourites from races with no/few consistent horses win as often as favourites from races with consistent horses?

If for argument your statement is correct, how does that prove consistency doesn't work? If only 30% of favourites win that has to mean 70% lose. Why is a consistent favourite the horse you would back, have you never heard of false favourites? A horse can be made favourite for many a strange reason, not the least because it is falls into one of your magic stats.

It is starting to get boring having to keep saying consistency is a STARTING point only. If you don't agree where/what do you use as a starting point? Do you ignore a horse because it is consistent, reading some of your posts (on here) it would be possible to think you do? You can't do though as most of your winning selections posted on here are consistent. I suppose that is just another coincidence.

Be Lucky

Consistency is just a coincidence Mtoto..it's there..like they all have four legs.

The market manages to get the same strike rate with non consistent field fav's as it does with consistent field fav's.

How is that done?..is the question.

The ability of a market to create a fav when there is no "consistency" must tell anyone that form numbers are a non starter when it comes to assessing chance of winning..or are they just lucky in the races with no consistent form.

are you getting my point here Mtoto?


JohnD..why post when you are clearly out of your depth even with a simple matter like this? Posting superior know nowt rubbish won't disguise your lack of racing knowhow you know

Get your Certanties posted ..certanties..what a foolish foolish statement you made there ..but it's your right to post owt you want.

well done..it made me laugh..nice one

Ectoo
I am not the one shouting for a lifebelt!

I think I'll shove a sixpence in the hat...

When I was a little lad of about 8 or 9, I would sit with my old aunties and grandmother watching the racing. And we would make our selections. The race would be won. And I did OK considering that I was using only one factor to make my choice: the jockey.

It had to be Lester Piggott or Geoff Lewis. Maybe Willie Carson or one of the other names if they wern't riding!



Now I am a little older.


This is my own understanding, but it does come off the back of following real time races. And more than that, real time races wherre one of the contenders had ALL the factors of a given criteria set.

Let me try to make a pont this way:

• Form figures alone will not predict the winner
  
• Position in the betting forecast alone will not predict the winner
  
• Ability Rating alone will not predict the winner
  
• Other ratings alone will not predict the winner
  
• Days since last run alone will not predict the winner
  
• Jockey alone will not predict the winner
  
• Trainer alone will not predict the winner
  
• Comparing the class (or value) of race alone will not predict the winner
  
• Looking at the opposition alone will not predict the winner
  
• Distance alone will not predict the winner
  
• Track alone will not predict the winner
  
• Going alone will not predict the winner
  
• How it ran LTO alone will not predict the winner

But together these factors (and perhaps others you may care to add) make a powerful approach, and I would say give a 50%+ chance of predicting the winner if used in combination!

The Consistency Rating

Let me tell you why I think the CR has its place. I shall start by boring you with my 'Flash in the Pan system'. When I was devising that, one of its factors was to have won or close up placed LTO.

After analysing the statistics, I noticed that if I put in just one other placed position in the last three LTO's increased the SR significantly.

You may say that the data sample was too small. Which it probably was. You may disagree for a whole variety of other reasons. That is your right. But for me, I have done the research and am satisfied by it. So without someone showing me contradictory facts, I will run with my research.

I noticed in an earlier post that Ectoo says that consistent favourites don't win any more often than inconsistent ones. This may be true. But I would have to say that statistic is taken using an isolated factor: consistency. My own reasearch was based on races where one horse matched ALL THE OTHER FACTORS I have listed.

Keep smiling everyone. It's only a message board!

BlackCat

what I am trying to get at though BC is this

pretend you have to make a forecast for every race like the RP do.

How are you going to do that just using VDW?..you can't..so..there must MANY MANY factors involved in weighing up a horse's chance than what VDW has to offer.

That is the point I'm making..predicting the fav in ALL races and getting a similar strike rate is no mean feat.

Let me know the which horse should be fav in a 10 runner race where the last 3 form figures are 555 for every horse and they all ran in the same value races on their last 3 wins...and all had won the same £ from the same number of wins.

Anyone like to say how they can use VDW methods to predict the above fav?? The answer should be using VDW that they are ALL the fav..in real life I think the RP would look a little deeper and a clear fav would emerge.

Don't bother replying JohnD..I just laugh when you reply..a bit like when Misty/Fly used to post..you knew he was hopeless but it still made you laugh

Ectoo,

The point you seem to be missing is that there ARE many factors in the VDW methods. Apart from Jockey/trainer stats and possibly sire stats what else is missing that you think is important? We have ........

Form
Ability, he did show more than one way to gauge it. Using this does involve speed so I won't make it a separate item.
Class of last race
Fitness, days since a run. A useful tool if you wish to look at low(er) class races.
Trainer intent, asking why this race, is it worth winning or a potential prep race, etc. Has the trainer taken the trouble to try and keep the weight down by entering the top weight?
Course suitability.
Improvement
Basic breeding, is this horses likely to stay.

When I form my tissues the only thing I add in is trainer overall form i.e. winners in the last 14 days and/or have the horses run as excepted? As expected by ratings, not the market.

There again I'm not looking for the favourite, I'm looking for the winner. When I find a horse I think is a clear winner I'm surprised (but happy) if it's not the favourite. What is a favourite, the likely winner, or the horse most think will win? If I had anyway of knowing whose money (if it is money at times) made the horse favourite I may then sit up and take notice of the markets. I have seen some very strange horses made favourite just because of the trainer. Trainer has a good record on a course so the horse must be trying. The horses form has all been on flat left-handed courses, but the trainer has a great record at Sandown or Ascot. LOL!!

Be Lucky

you missed my point Mtoto

I was using the ability to denote a fav as a way of showing that assessing horses is much deeper than any consistency, £ won etc.

VDW does not tell anyone HOW to assess breeding,trainer..any soft arse can say X is important..it doesn't mean owt without meat on it.

It's time you stopped worshipping this god and did your own thing Mtoto..you have more sense than the JohnD's of this world...mind you..who doesn't?

The more I read this forum the more I am convinced that selling booklets is at the back of it.

If one just uses the mechanical method one's got a laying system.

If one acknowledges the 'other factors' then no one can use them to make a selection before the off.

(However one can sound v clever aftertime.)

quote:

Originally posted by ectoo:
what I am trying to get at though BC is this

pretend you have to make a forecast for every race like the RP do.

How are you going to do that just using VDW?..you can't..so..there must MANY MANY factors involved in weighing up a horse's chance than what VDW has to offer.

That is the point I'm making..predicting the fav in ALL races and getting a similar strike rate is no mean feat.

Hi Ectoo

Believe it or not, I agree with you. (Although I think VDW has many more factors than perhaps you are aware of - it's not just the adding up bit).

However, I would say that is actually the point of the VDW method. You are not looking at every race. And many of the races you do apply the VDW principles to will give you a no bet or perhaps leave you with two or three selections.

In other words, we are not even trying to find a winner in most races. Just some races that have a horse that fits the criteria.

As I have said on this board many times in the past, VDW methodology is only one way. There are several contributors on Gummy's board that are capable of producing winning methods and systems, and have proven this.

This VDW forun is a forum dedicated to just one method. Perhaps by virtue of the fact it has been given its own forum has meant an undue emphasis on this one method.

However, the factors contained within the booklet have helped me. So, even though I realise that more experienced form students such as yourself may not find the method to your way of thinking, it is, imo, a very helful tool to those of us that take to it.

I know I keep harping back to my 'Flash-in-the-Pan system, but these selections, made over a 5 month period: a) showed a profit; b) had a better than 50% SR; and c) were made using factors identified in the VDW booklets... And d) where's this month's booklet selling commission cheque from Tony Peach?

BlackCat

Pd
I agree there is no clear selection in the ONC, though Flamboyant Lad came close,IMO.
In the Lancashire Oaks, Punctilious has better form than Playful Act IMO, and also has the benefit of a previous run.

hi everyone, in the onc, does grampion, have the profile of a possible vdw bet, playful act in the lancashire oaks?

Johnd
I can't agree that Punctilious has the better form in any shape.The weight is also a big minus,and I could not imagine VDW backing it,however Playful Act is different,ok in an ideal world it would have had a prep run,and that is the only small negative for me,but the trainer takes care of that doesn't he?

Any more views.

well called PD

sorry for posting..but credit where it's due

Posted 10.05 AAO

Haydock 2.50pm (GMT)
Luca Cumani has enjoyed a good record in the Old Newton Cup, Tree Of Life 2nd (1994), Zaralaska 1st (1997) and Alkaased 1st (2004). He is represented by Zeitgeist today and although he disappointed on his last start at York if you forgive him for that he does look to have every chance and the 12/1 looks appealing.
He had the look of a progressive handicapper last season and unlike others in the race will not have any questions to answer with regards to stamina.
His best effort on the ratings was when he was second behind Massif Centrale in a useful and competitive handicap at Leicester last October. He impressed with the way he travelled that day and would have finished closer had he not been stopped when making his run at the furlong pole.
Several end of season form guides highlighted Zeitgeist as one to follow in the big handicaps and although he has yet to make an impact this year he has been trained with this race in mind and conditions look right for him.
He was only two lengths behind Flamboyant Lad when making his seasonal reappearance at Newmarket and you would expect him to reverse the form today as he looked like he needed the run that day and he is seven pounds better off - yet he is trading at more than twice the price.
Racing Post Forecast: 12/1
Best Odds: Generally 12/1
Recommended Bet - Zeitgeist - 1 unit stake to win

Pd
Nice winner, though it was close, she never really looked like losing. Hope you backed it big!

Thanks guys,about time I posted a winner.I am sure thousands of people who have never heard of VDW also backed it,ie favourite for a big race on a Saturday.

I would also have viewed Motivator as a good thing except for the price.So what does it prove.

I must say that I did study the examples Lee put up last year and bought some formbooks,and did find them a help,but have not consistenty hit 80% + strike rate.

Good call Pd

And as modest as ever

Anyone up to backfitting Diamonds And Dust (N 1:20)?

Epi,
Too difficult for me that one,although Yo Pedro marked his card,I would like to see him over 7 furlongs,also noticeable that he was gelded since his last run.

A good race though with Mine and Polar Magic,is P.M. the unluckiest horse of the season?I couldn't find a bet on the card though.