That`s the wages again John thanks.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwEMxYggoKQ

I wondered about the 3 yr old maybe dismissed him a bit too early in the calcs always a dangerous thing to do. That`s the first two races at York gone to horses who stay further.

Well done WP!!

Cheers BC Im chuffed to bits with the outcome and glad he ran his race as it was touch & go for a wee while, id have been content enough with the place.

ASCOT 2.55
what a class act ARCHIPENKO form 5
class 75k 154k 10k
RPR improving 08 112 121
won 11/1
good luck

sorry 3 race should read 170k

Mtoto

In the ten years from Prominent King to Roushayd VDW used many ways of narrowing and evaluating the field. This was probably just a natural progression over time. In 1978 VDW's focus seemed to be on his 2 methods of rating. In 1980 he introduced his ability rating but by 1986 he seems to have phased out his 2 methods of rating. By 1988 the focus seems to have shifted to the class of race last time out.
What has remained constant in all this time is his use or interpretation of class and form. Class is a measure. It measures the value of a race, it measures a horse in terms of ability and it measures the value of form. Form is quite simply performance.
The other constant that followed VDW during this time was his formula but in Systematic Betting he added the word class in brackets onto the word ability. He introduced the formula in May 1979 with the words "If you care to put the method into a logical formula". The question is the method of what?

Garston

quote:

The other constant that followed VDW during this time was his formula but in Systematic Betting he added the word class in brackets onto the word ability. He introduced the formula in May 1979 with the words "If you care to put the method into a logical formula". The question is the method of what?

There was a much earlier use of class in brackets after ability, the third from last para. of item 36 of "The Golden Years".

Your first paragraph is a plausible interpretation of the texts and examples but my admittedly far from complete emerging picture suggests there is a better one - that the method remained constant over the ten years but with different elements emphasised at different points. Indeed in a booklet I've just read, "Systems in my Racing" by Tony Peach, there is a chapter about Van der Wheil which includes a letter from Van der Wheil to Peach which, admittedly retrospectively, supports that picture.

Hi just a novice but don't all horses have:-
class level
weight level
distance level
going
ie ability at which they can WIN
good luck

In the ten years from Prominent King to Roushayd VDW used many ways of narrowing and evaluating the field.

Garstonf,

I agree VDW did show a few different ways to narrow the field. Depending what you mean by evaluating the field I THINK I also agree. Although I don't think his final evaluations of class and form EVER changed.

In 1980 he introduced his ability rating but by 1986 he seems to have phased out his 2 methods of rating.

There can be no doubt he did introduce an ability rating in 1980/1. Whether or not it is the one he used before this is a matter of opinion, and I can see no proof he dropped the other ratings. Why would he, this was the one thing he wasn't prepared to explain (in detail), and it had stood the test of time?

By 1988 the focus seems to have shifted to the class of race last time out.

Not all sure this is really the case. I think it was just that he was trying to explain another angle.

What has remained constant in all this time is his use or interpretation of class and form.

Agree 100%

Class is a measure. It measures the value of a race, it measures a horse in terms of ability and it measures the value of form. Form is quite simply performance.

Again I agree execpt how does the ability rating measure form? This brings us full circle back to the likes of PK and Baronet. Neither had won a race that confirmed they could hold their own in races of that class. PK's best win a 24 now running in a 92, Bs best win a 38 now running in a 180.

Systematic Betting he added the word class in brackets onto the word ability.

Here I do agree that he was trying to show something that had been missed. The formula said ability, not ability rating, but how could it when the ability rating wasn't mentioned until 1980/1?

He introduced the formula in May 1979 with the words "If you care to put the method into a logical formula". The question is the method of what?

Surely the answer to that is the logic that applies to all the VDW thinking about finding WINNERS. However when this forumula was first mentioned he had only spoken about one method, apart from showing how to compile a list of NH horses to follow.

Be Lucky

George J

Just a quick question about your theory of the method being constant. Using the illustrations in Form-Class-Evaluation of Systematic Betting, would you have found Orchestra, Rifle Brigade, Celtic Pleasure, Battlement, Prominent King and Strombolus?

Mtoto

The evaluating the field part was just referring to the difference between the Erin and Spells it all Out where VDW used his 2 sets of ratings on just the first 5 of the forecast in the Erin yet he used them on the whole field in siao.
One reason why VDW might stop using his 2 sets of ratings would be that the information used to compile them was no longer available due to a certain publication folding.
The ability rating cannot be used to measure form but class of race can.
The reason why I asked the question (the method of what?) was because I used to think the formula was referring to The Method itself. It is not, it is referring to the horse but from your answer you already knew this.

Jim

If someone was to answer yes to your question and you accepted that answer as gospel then you would remain a novice forever. Consider a 3 or 4-y-o who has raced say half a dozen times or so. How would you determine the things on your list for this horse? Just something for you to think about.

Garston

Taking just one of those you name by way of example, in my view if one approached the 1978 Erin literally as per chapter 5 of "Systematic Betting", taking no account of what Van der Wheil had written earlier, I do not see that one could have found Prominent King. His entry in the list for the race would have been "Class 6 2m 2nd Prominent King". The logical conclusion would have been a comment on the lines of that made for Tender Type after the 1988 Old Newton Cup list as, like Prominent King, Tender Type had run in a much lower win prize money race last time out, and indeed in placing terms had gone one better.

And to take the point of view you are testing, I think the same is true of other letters/articles. For example, if one does the 1978 Erin exactly as the four tabulated races in the March 1981 article, and again took no account of what Van der Wheil had written before, similarly I don't see that one could have found Prominent King. He was neither one of the "three most consistent from the forecast" nor one of the horses with one of "the four highest ability ratings".

Similarly with the method in item 42 of "The Golden Years". Prominent King had one of the five most consistent rates and therefore would have made the shortlist, but his entry would have been ability 18, total last three 8, and I don't see how he could have been selected above other horses also on the shortlist - Beacon Light ability 46, total last three placings 4, or Decent Fellow (38, 7).

So either you are right, and Van der Wheil modified his approach, or the key lies in the phrase I've used above - "taking no account of what Van der Wheil had written earlier". My current working assumption is the latter, and I suspect the various letters and articles comprise a core method (summed up in the formula) and advice and illustrations as to what to look for when applying the formula in practice.

The ability rating cannot be used to measure form but class of race can.

Garsonf,

Agreed, but how do we know which race we are looking at to find the class to use? It isn't just the winning races, or even just the last race, or how do PK and many others fit in?

One reason why VDW might stop using his 2 sets of ratings would be that the information used to compile them was no longer available due to a certain publication folding.

That of course could be a reason IF he did stop using those other ratings. I don't think he did and following the logic I think I have found in his literature, the two big races on Saturday still narrowed the field down so that both winners would have been well to the fore in at least one of those ratings.

As far as I can see the only publication that ceased to trade that we know for certain he used was The Sporting Chronicle. Of the top of my head I can't think of any information it contained that couldn't be found in the RFU.

George,

So either you are right, and Van der Wheil modified his approach, or the key lies in the phrase I've used above - "taking no account of what Van der Wheil had written earlier". My current working assumption is the latter, and I suspect the various letters and articles comprise a core method (summed up in the formula) and advice and illustrations as to what to look for when applying the formula in practice.

I think you have got it in one. I think I was very lucky that SB was the first VDW literature I read, and had the time to think about it. It pulls the whole VDW saga together and makes sense of everything. For me at least it is the working manual, and without I would be lost, as I think many still are.

Be Lucky

mtoto are you saying that vdw changed his method from marking of top 4 ability horses in the race as a whole,to marking of top 4 ability races lto

quote:

mtoto are you saying that vdw changed his method from marking of top 4 ability horses in the race as a whole,to marking of top 4 ability races lto

Les,

No, what I'm trying to say is the last race isn't any more of an automatic marker than a winning race.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I'm glad to find that someone with your knowledge of Van der Wheil's work thinks I am on the right lines.

As regards Van der Wheil's ratings (as distinct from his methods of rating), ie the numbers shown in the final two columns of the Little Owl etc tables, have you or any other members of the forum cracked them to the point that you are able to work out ratings for Van der Wheil's other selections?

My assistants and I have between us spent some hours on them, without much success except to notice some correspondence between one of the two sets and the Daily Mail ratings. If there is an entirely subjective element in them I guess they will never be fully cracked, but if they are objectively derived from data relating to each horse, I am presuming some will have found the answer, and we will certainly get there in due course. Only then, of course, will we have a view on how material they were for the selections, or indeed whether exactly comparable ratings can be generated for current races.

quote:

My assistants and I have between us spent some hours on them, without much success except to notice some correspondence between one of the two sets and the Daily Mail ratings.

George,

A couple of questions if I may. First, I think the above is the second time you have mentioned assistants, can I ask are you looking at VDW from a personal, or professional point of view? Second, what made you go and get copies of the D Mail, why the Mail to compare the ratings? Have you been a member of any other VDW forums, as this has been mentioned before.

For what its worth, yes one race as shown in SIAO agreed 100% with the ratings shown by one of VDW's two sets of ratings. As it was only a four horse race I don't really find that surprising. The big doubt about these rating having any bearing must be Sunset Christo's race, SC was joint 2nd lowest in them, so he had five horse higher rated. The other thing that makes me doubt the Mail's ratings played a part is VDW said they (his ratings) couldn't be found in any publication. While I accept it is more than likely VDW adapted other ratings to suit his thinking, how do you adapted something when there is NO CLEAR knowledge of how the ratings are formulated in the first place? I have had the Mail for the last 40 years and while I have seen articles about Formcast I have never seen anything to explain how they are actually formulated. In fact I seem to remember Mr Taylor saying he would never explain the workings.

Be Lucky

after looking at the vdw ratings in the little owl grid i think i may have found the starting point of the ratings,if you look at mr kidds figures they are ab=13,con=12,first rating=34,secound=59,how mr kidds ratings fit are ,most consistent =12 or 21%,21%+the ability rating,13 = 34,the 3rd rating in the grid,34+12+13=59,the 4th number on th grid ,some other numbers fit this way on the grid one or two dont is it bad maths,vdw add ons,or done to make you think dont know

Mtoto

Its been a slack time in the office and as I pay the salaries I've deployed a couple of bright youngsters onto the task of collating data and building some spreadsheets, and latterly trying to crack the ratings issue. But my business has nothing to do with horse racing or betting in any form and the interest is purely personal. I'm lucky to have some help available though for things would take much longer if I was doing everything myself.

You ask why the Mail ratings. I started with just the March 1981 article and of course that led to "The Golden Years", and once I was satisfied there was something of interest a Google search threw up several other booklets all of which I now have, though I haven't yet started on "The Silver Lining" which only arrived today. When I saw the reference to Mail ratings in an article in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune" I got one of my staff to extract the ratings for the four March 1981 races from the local university library, as it seemed possible that one of the Van der Wheil ratings might be derived from them. I've also bought some second hand Haig annuals to see if those ratings are relevant.

The correspondence of ratings between the Van der Wheil Little Owl example and the Mail ratings for the race is striking, but as you say that correspondence is not carried through in any clear and obvious way to the other three. But I don't think your reasoning re the unknown constitution of the Mail ratings automatically means they weren't the base of one of Van der Wheil's. He may well have had general confidence in them but found one or two reasons for additions/subtractions which, from his point of view, made them even more useful. Logically, that might mean that a factor was doubly represented, because the Mail ratings compiler might have included it, and then Van der Wheil would have included it again. But the issue here may be what struck Van der Wheil as useful in practice rather than what stood up in terms of pure logic.


Les

I'd be a little surprised if the ratings were linked directly to consistency or ability ratings as their purpose seems to have been principally to provide a crosscheck to what those ratings help throw up. But I don't know, and you may very well be on the right track.

george was little owl rated 78 in the mail in its grid 36 divided by 3 = 12+78=90? cluching at straws lol