My Saturday dabble is Melodramatic - 355 Sandown - 11/4 with Lads (EW).

Comeback Queen, Kelowna, Makaaseb, Rosaleen, Soft Shoe Shuffle all look to be outclassed.

Lady Aquitane is out of form.

Illusion and Shabiba have some apparently good form, but its' strength is questionable.

Sugar Mints form is difficult to assess and the trainer seems unsure of best distance.

Visit is the main fly in the ointment. A class horse running 2f more than last term, with strong trainer/jockey only enlarging the question mark.

Melodramatic was a close up 2nd to Rosa Grace LTO in a relatively fast time, and was perhaps beaten by the extra 2f. Course is a concern, but did run well at Newmarket.

went for a g hall type yankee? 4 races 3 horses in each race, do you think thats how he got his yankee up any thoughts folks?

Mad Rush wins like a goodun

tc

mad rush bottom ability,beats young mick top ability

Les

But he was one of the three consistent horses and, among them, had the best form.

If we can find one which is both the highest ability rated consistent horse and has the best form, like Van der Wheil's Little Owl and Sunset Cristo, I think we'd have one worth backing.

for gods sake let it be at hamiltons night meeting next saturday one non odds on winner would do me please mr vdw

Mad Rush and Suzies Decision Leicester 4.20 common theme.

Ability rating should not be a major concern a guide only or else there won't be many bets,Prominent Kings A.R. is a case in point,you have to think about it,how can a young improving unexposed horse have a high ability rating.

I tried to help ref Mad Rush but it wasn't picked up on.

through speed ratings or where they have been placed,does the races they previously contested have a record in producing winners in the race they now contest or how near have they ran to horses with exposed form which one did you use pipedreamer

Pipedreamer

quote:

Ability rating should not be a major concern

From what I've read so far, it seems to have been for Van der Wheil.

The six I've noted from "The Golden Years" Van der Wheil described as "certainties" - Ascenia, Diamond Edge, Parkhouse, Crown Matrimonial, Royal Bond and Little Owl - all seem to have been top on the ability rating.

I haven't yet checked out all the others, but while it is clear that some of his selections were much lower rated - I make Prominent King 7th - were they bets? On first reading I assumed they were, but in the March 1981 article Van der Wheil refers to one of the selections, Kenlis, as a "good thing" and "a genuine forecast favourite", but then goes on to make it clear it wasn't strong enough to bet because it wasn't clear on ability.

In fact, apart from Little Owl (top on ability) and
Sunset Cristo (2nd on ability but only "almost a certainty", not a certainty like Little Owl), the only selections I can see which Van der Wheil specifically states he backed were three at Cheltenham in 1981: Clayside (2nd on ability), Broadsword (2nd) and Little Owl again (4th). That would seem to tie in with the instruction in the March 1981 article "always mark off the four highest ability ratings".

GJ

According to one of VDW's final missives, Prominent King didn't have an ability rating, neither did Rivage Bleu, but VDW was still able to establish their class. Roushayd had won a 64k race the previous season, but VDW was able to establish his readiness from a 22k race. Go figure
Ability ratings aren't the Holy Grail many think them to be, a very good guide, but just a guide.

Johnd

I understand from item 36 of "The Golden Years" that "A horse does not HAVE to be top rated to be a sound wager" (his capitals, not mine). But so far the "certainties" and the "almost a certainty", and the three Cheltenham bets named in "The Golden Years" all had ability ratings in the top four as instructed to be marked off in the March 1981 article (item 39).

Reading the Roushayd book this evening I have found four more "certainties" mentioned in Chapter 4 (Roushayd, Pipsted, Three Tails and Park Express). So far I have only completed Roushayd using the same approach as the March 1981 tables, and he was top on ability. I've made a start on the next, Pipsted and she doesn't seem to fit, having the 5th highest, but from item 47 of "The Golden Years" it seems that one needs to work out a time/merit ability rating for 3yos as well, and I'm just about to do that. Maybe that will change the picture.

GJ
With respect, 'the picture' will always be wrong while-ever you think the answer is in abilty ratings/speed figures or any other ratings.
As he made clear in SIAO, the Roushayd example and so many others, ratings are a guide, and the real answers are in how he read form.
Save yourself years of angst and figure out the real reason he selected Roushayd, reading the form in exactly the same way he showed us in SIAO, then, when you truly understand that, you may progress beyond trying to reduce the method to simple arithmetic.

ps After-timed I know, but entirely verifiable.
In the other of VDW's favourite races, the Lancashire Oaks, there was a real racing certainty - and it won like one should!

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

Johnd

I don't think the answer lies just with the various means of rating shown in the March 1981 article. Van der Wheil makes it crystal clear that they provide a "working platform", and that then one has to appraise the form etc of those that seem probable at that point and there seems to me a particularly relevant paragraph two down from the Little Owl table in item 39 of "The Golden Years". And it was doing this latter that led me to the conclusion that none of the three consistent horses in either the Old Newton Cup or the Lancashire Oaks were up to his Little Owl/Sunset Cristo standards.

I am interested that, on the selections you, Les, Pipedreamer, Walter, John and Tuppenycat made yesterday, it is clear that none of you feels constrained by the horses identified by the "working platform" approach, and from your most recent post it sounds as though the appraisal of form is in fact the most important aspect of the whole. But if it wasn't a necessary part of his method, why did Van der Wheil describe how to put together such an elaborate "working platform"? And may I ask if you all achieve the level of success he claimed his method gives?

GJ,

VDW thought that class was vital. He gave the AR as a quick and simple way of understanding that horses have differing abilities.

He never wrote that the AR was the only method of class evaluation, and if he thought it was perfect he would never have recommended us to use so many as the top four AR rated.

In my case I use the industry measure of class, the OR.

When VDW first wrote the OR did not exist, so not unnaturally it is not mentioned by him. That does not mean to say that he would not exhort its use today if he were still active.

At the time VDW wrote the only people who could give an informed opinion on the relative ability of horses were handicap compilers. And in the days when even the pocket calculator was unknown that was a laborious and complex endeavour only practiced by a tiny minority of racing enthusiasts.

VDW gave the AR as a unique example of quickly understanding class in certain types of races. I think we all know how flawed it is but when it was introduced into the land of the blind, the one-eyed became monarchs.

What VDW did not explain, when exploring what for most was a new concept in racing, was that rigid adherence to any initial introduction will never lead to mastery of the the subject. In the same way that clinging to the side of the lifeboat in a cold ocean will in no way promote your survival if you do not pull yourself aboard.

GJ


There is nothing 'elaborate' about VDW's working platform, it is all based on simple common sense appraisal of the major factors which influence almost all horse races. When put together these FORM THE GUIDE LINES which put the odds in your favour, and indicate the areas where the winners are most likely to come from.
Thousands have beaten your path, and hundreds can identify the probables, but it is the bit beyond the 'automatic assumptions' that makes the real difference, and where many fail because of over-emphasis on the guidelines.
It is my firm view that no one regularly achieves the strike rates VDW claimed, but that shouldn't blind anyone to the efficacy of his method.

as for myself george i aint beating myself up any more i,m happy with the understanding i have i,ll just need to go with what i have and enjoy my racing maybe if we had done ten races on saturday we may have found a horse that fits the bill yes i knew that young mick was not a vdw selection but i had done the platform and wanted to use it even if it was my way and not vdws

ps i think that if young mick is placed well next time out you may get your good thing george

George,

Interesting to see someone making a real fist of trying to understand the VDW puzzle. Not only trying to understand but also asking some of the real questions needing to be asked.

You like others will be feed opinions that may or may not be relevant to solving this puzzle, and you must take each idea/opinion and form your own view.

Consistency, how important is it, and what is it? For me it is just the first filter, but an important one. As far as I can see only two horses fail to be in the lowest five for consistency out of all the VDW selections shown. Plain and simple it is important, but I think there is another first filter shown and talked about, improvement.

Ability, as you have noticed many of the horses selected FAIL to be in the highest four. On a quick count some 20% fail to conform with the highest four suggested in SIAO. Why is that? Some have resolved this problem by make the other consistent horses out of form in one way or another. This is fair enough , but very complicated. Complicated because not all of these horses fit the same sort of profile. Dropping in class in the last three runs, and being beaten in the last looks a good "guide" but it doesn't hold as some of the selections also have this trait, this just one example.

The other answer to this question may just be was the ability rating explained the one used in the early examples? I can't find anywhere that it is said it was, so is it just an assumption? Did VDW mention any other way of judging ability, that could have been used? I think it is quite interesting JohnD says VDW said Prominant King didn't have an ability rating, that isn't quite right. He said PK didn't have a WINNING CLASS rating is there a clue in there somewhere.

I do agree with JohnD when he says ratings are just a guide, although I don't understand why he thinks I use them as anything else. I just want that guide to be as useful as possible. I can't see how taking an average serves that purpose, it doesn't even show which was the best performance. How can the other columns of capability and probability be brought into play until you know which performance you are using to judge them?

Now I know I will never get to this 85% winners strike rate so it can be said I don't understand VDW or I would. The plain truth is I can't bring myself to back short priced horses. If I'm honest I would have backed Gaye Chance, but nothing on this earth would have made me back Little Owl, but thats just me.

Be Lucky

John/Johnd/Les/Mtoto

Thanks for the replies.


John

Hitherto I have used ORs as the basis for class, which of course wasn't an option realistically available to Van der Wheil in the late 1970s and early 1980s. So I am now checking to see which works the better - I haven't yet been working with the Van der Wheil ability rating long enough to have formed even a provisional conclusion.


Johnd

By elaborate I really just meant time-consuming. Working out the ability ratings and consistency aggregates and accompanying them with just the one set of ratings I use takes quite a while for a 16 or so runner race, and I can't help wondering why Van der Wheil bothered if it wasn't integral to his method. But I certainly take notice of your advice re not relying unduly on the "working platform" data.


Les

What interested me initially in Van der Wheil was that I saw on another forum the quote I now know comes from item 15 of "The Golden Years" that "the method I gave produces 85% to 90% winners Flat and jumps, year in year out". Having backed horses for years, I know that claim is, by comparison with what I achieve and I see professionals in the sporting press achieve, is huge. Johnd's comment about hundreds knowing how to find the probables but no one regularly hitting the level of success Van der Wheil claimed is daunting, but I don't see it as a reason not to put in the time to investigate things further.


Mtoto

Several points to think about in your reply, and I hope you won't mind if I get back to you in due course. But I haven't looked at as many examples as you may suppose, and so far almost all the selections I've looked at have been in the four highest ability rated. Pipsted and Prominent King are the exceptions. But I have noticed from an early item (13), and the March 1981 article, that Van der Wheil used a variety of adjectives to describe his selections which seem plainly to imply different strengths. So at the moment I am concentrating on the "certainties" and ones he specifically said he backed, and then plan to move on to what look like the "next bests", those like Celtic Pleasure, Rifle Brigade, Orchestra and Derrylin which he described as "outstanding".

Pipsted doesn't help, but an obvious possibility for testing is that the bets for Van der Wheil were those where the horse was in the top four of the ability ranking, and selections that were lower down (like the three consistent horses in the Old Newton Cup yesterday) were left. My gut feeling is that that must be too simplistic, but it is something I want to check.

mtoto good post,i had to lol,as I would have backed little owl but probably would have left gaye chance.

I think there is a tendency to over complicate his teachings/writings,ie the use of the word informness being a case in point,VDW to my knowledge didn't use such a word.

I don't like to aftertime,but I thought Suzi's Decision was a certainty at Newbury on her penultimate run and again yesterday,the public have now cottoned on to her,but the prices are gone.