George J

I fail to see the connection between the term good betting proposition and value bet. If you look in Narrow the Field (Erin) you will see VDW used exactly the same terminology, so I thought I would be clever and use the same. After all, that is what VDW was looking for.
In K Spiers' letter I think VDW was referring to those punters that would back a horse purely because it was a bigger price than what they reckoned it should be. Hence the term value bet.
With regards my phrase "looking to see if they are going to win", again I am referring to VDW's thinking. "The attitude of looking for THE WINNER has to be broken because from that stance you will always come up with something you are convinced should win. The successful punter evaluates unemotionally and with no thought of finding THE WINNER."
I hope this has cleared up any confusion.

Mtoto

It was VDW who described these various processes as methods but if you looked at a race evaluation using the 3 most consistent and one using the 3 most tipped and even one with a horse from a list. I would say on paper they would look identical.

My theory as to why VDW said the object of the exercise was lost and a waste of his efforts (referring to the Old Newton Cup) was because people turned it into a selection method, funnily enough called the Roushayd Method, with the first requirement being a horse that is being dropped in class. What is shown in Form-Class-Evaluation in Systematic Betting is a way of evaluating exposed form. VDW even tells us this. He shows us things to look out for and thing to be wary of.
There are probably people on this board who still think VDW is all about horses being dropped in class.

George J

Seeing as you have access to the Daily Mail, can you tell me if there was any form summary or guide for the Erin or was it just the basic racecard. Also, was there any C, D, CD, BF etc information. Finally, how much of the form figures was shown. Was it just the last 3 or 5 or 6 placings.

quote:

Surely that suggestion founders on the first sentence of the fourth last paragraph:

"Using two methods of rating all five horses [Decent Fellow, Beacon Light, Monksfield, Prominent King, Mr Kildare] I found that the three starred horses [Beacon Light, Prominent King, Mr Kildare] came out best."

George,

Why/how does it founder? How can the weakest horse consistency wise be a potential selection in a method that talks/uses consistency as the starting point? More to the point I don't understand why Monksfield was included among the horse to be rated, I haven't seen another example that suggests just using the first five in the betting. VDW said M was included, and that he failed, he didn't say why, just the other three came out best.

When looking at the Erin, or for that matter any of the examples, the solution found must hold good for many if not all of them. Otherwise you will be continually returning to examples when the solution found doesn't fit the next ones. Class and form is the one theme that runs through ALL the selections shown by VDW, this includes any selections found from lists to follow as well. Have to say the more I read your posts the more impressed I am at the effort being put in. There are some that say the old form books are not a necessity, they are. But you are going as far as to find the old newspaper cuttings so you can see exactly what VDW had to work from. I wish you the best of luck.

Be Lucky

Garston

I'm afraid that I can only answer one of your three questions about the Mail and the Erin, as unlike the Life where I have bought copies of relevant material we just extracted what seemed key data from the microfilm of the Mail held in the university library. The Mail entry for the race was very brief, with the runners (and my assistant thinks just the last three placings) and betting forecast (as shown by Van der Wheil - the Life has the same first five except Meladon for Monksfield). Definitely no ratings. He can't remember about Cs, Ds etc because he wasn't asked to get that.


Mtoto

I think we are at cross purposes but I'm not sure quite how.

Can we perhaps agree that the adding up of the last three places was NOT one of the "two methods of rating" referred to in the first sentence of the fourth last paragraph, because if it was the second sentence of that paragraph could not be true, ie Beacon Light could not possibly be "well out of it", having a lower consistency aggregate than Prominent King. And can we also agree that the "two methods" can't be related to position in forecast because Beacon Light was the forecast favourite and thus ahead of both Prominent King and Mr Kildare on that score.

Up to and including the sentence "Mr Kildare had only two placings ..." Van der Wheil has referred only to three methods of possible rating - the consistency one, possibly rating by position in forecast and the unknown rating which produced the three probables and generated the numbers 7, 3, 16, 5 and 3 for the five horses.

If you've agreed with me so far, the reference to "two methods of rating" in the fourth last paragraph can't be referring to any of these three - consistency and betting forecast as discussed above, and probables because low is clearly best on the rating and Beacon Light's probables rating is lower than Beacon Light's. So the "two methods of rating" must be additional to what had been referred to up to that point, quite possibly but not necessarily as per the two sets in the final two columns of the tables for Little Owl etc in the March 1981 article.

If we are still in agreement at this point, then surely what I wrote last night must be the case. Never mind that, through the betting forecast, consistency rating and probables rating Van der Wheil has got down to three, he now tells us that these two additional rating methods also show these three the best of the five. (So Monksfield and Decent Fellow occupy fourth and fifth places on these two ratings, though of course we don't know in what order.) He then says "both methods" showed Beacon Light well out of it, which can surely only mean against Prominent King and Mr Kildare, which is then confirmed by the statement "I was left with Prominent King and Mr Kildare". (So Beacon Light occupies third place in the two ratings ranking, better than Decent Fellow and Monksfield but "well out of it" against Prominent King and Mr Kildare.) Finally, we are told Prominent King and Mr Kildare were level on one ratings method, but Prominent King "had the edge" on the other, indicating that Mr Kildare came second overall while Prominent King emerged as best on the two methods.

Sorry to have gone on a bit but hopefully you'll be able to see exactly where we differ.

Finally, you say:

"When looking at the Erin, or for that matter any of the examples, the solution found must hold good for many if not all of them"

That sounds as though it should be right, but I wonder. I've been checking the "five most recent runs" factor as per the Cobnut Selling Handicap example, and that seems very hit and miss. Among the selections it does not apply to are Sunset Cristo, as I've already said, but also to Prominent King, as apart from three (Cooch Behar, Ballymountain Girl and Meladon) every horse in the race, and certainly the other four Van der Wheil listed, had more recent runs. Nor does it apply to two of Van der Wheil's three Cheltenham bets in 1981 (Clayside and Broadsword). It is looking more and more like a red herring and not at all central to finding selections.

went through some races today about 7 and as i think that the 2 vdw ratings are speed ratings lto and best see if we have any qualifiers today and i know these would not be vdw races just a wee bit fun kings collage boy 2.50 hamilton poor 4th on ability,optimus a seller and poor consistency ratings in the 7.45,best looking qualifier is palmerinin the 8.20 at sandown,top on ability in the 3 most consistent,top latest and best topspeed in the weekender sopalmerinit is then

Paul -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txkz8VLO3iE


Les - If you have read SB vdw names two horses as way of an introduction into one of his methods - Roushayd (flat) Desert Orchid (jumps).Interestingly both horses could make there own pace in a race if required.

Putting faces to some of these old names there are some other races to look at as well.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr_TRZgsKu0

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
Paul -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txkz8VLO3iE


Les - If you have read SB vdw names two horses as way of an introduction into one of his methods - Roushayd (flat) Desert Orchid (jumps).Interestingly both horses could make there own pace in a race if required.

Hi Walter,

Thanks for putting the Coe - Ovett races up... memory lane!! Fantastic.

I used to run at the time (well, still do - only these days it's more "jog" than run) and took time off work to watch the Moscow 800 and 1500 finals.

Cheers,

Id forgotten what a class act Coe was BC a tool of a runner and determined with it.

If you watch him at the end of the two Olympic 1500m title wins BC beating Ovett & Cram it was all they could do to get a handshake from him after the race so much was he still in the winning zone mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
If you watch him at the end of the two Olympic 1500m title wins BC beating Ovett & Cram it was all they could do to get a handshake from him after the race so much was he still in the winning zone mentality.

Yes, I noticed that too!!

I'm surprised he settled for "Lord Coe" and didn't go for PM!!

quote:

I think we are at cross purposes but I'm not sure quite how.

George,

To try and clear up a couple of points. First I read that example as VDW just took the first five in the forecast irrespective of ANY other factor. The consistency ratings had not be applied at that time, see SIAO where he says rate the WHOLE field. He then rates the five horses with a result of something like.

PK = 86 90
M = 86 89
BL = 80 85
MK = ?
DF = 80 84

M is then eliminated because of consistency. MK is kept as he has shown he has CLASS albeit on the flat + he has done nothing wrong over the sticks. These numbers are just to show a point., although I can get this ranking using the rating I think VDW used. If as I believe, these other rating are based on class and form there is no way MK could be in front of ANY of the other four based on jump form. Just look at the class of race they have run in (overall not just last runs) compared to MK's

The other thing is the "stray" figures that you call the probability figures. Here I do wish you luck because many who are really well versed in VDW have tried and can't find the answer. Personally I think they are a ranking of the consistent horse, but have nothing to do with probability. The proables are simply the consistent horse that top the ranking of the "other" unknown ratings. These I think are the original ABILITY ratings.

Be a little careful of trying to apply the logic behind the Old Fellow example. It is used to show even weak/poor races can be worked. The recent run factor I think ONLY applies to these races/horses as they often have a very short form cycle. He said look for good consistent horse running in good class race this type of horse USUALLY have a good break between runs

Be Lucky

Hi Paul
conformation of speed figure
present day is it same or better than OR figure
past was it better than raceform ratings
lots of faster than class methods in 1970-80
good luck
jim

Mtoto

I fear we are unlikely to agree on this.

First, the reference to "rate the whole field" is clearly re ability, the rating method for which Van der Wheil had not, in that Erin letter, described or referred to.

Second, you say the consistency rating hadn't been applied, but in the second paragraph Van der Wheil wrote"if we add the last three placings of the respective horses in the betting forecast together , we have a numerical picture ... A high percentage of winners come from the three lowest figures". This surely tells us that, early on, he must have been particularly interested in Mr Kildare, Beacon Light and Decent Fellow. He adds Prominent King, for a reason he doesn't explain but we almost certainly partly find out in item of "The Golden Years". He then applies another filter which excludes the hitherto interesting Decent Fellow, as it scores too high. That filter looks very important, and there are one or two other references in later letters etc to "probables". In my view the likelihood is that he then he used the other two ratings, with the results I've previously suggested.

Third, I'd be rather surprised if Van der Wheil took any account of a horse's Flat career when considering it for NH races (except maybe bumpers) as we know correspondence between Flat and NH careers is very hit and miss.

Overall, it seems to me that, having established what appear to be some boundaries as regards consistency and ability ranking, my most pressing need is to try to discover the criteria Van der Wheil used to select horses with one of the five lowest consistency ratings either outside the first five/six of the forecast or, as with Prominent King, within that segment, and second to discover the probables rating. How practicable these goals are remains to be seen. We are beginning to think that the two sets of ratings shown as the last two columns of the Little Owl etc tables are subjectively, rather than systematically, derived, and may even be dubious. If the probables numbers were derived subjectively, it won't be possible to sort out the method, but if derived systematically it shouldn't take long.

quote:

First, the reference to "rate the whole field" is clearly re ability, the rating method for which Van der Wheil had not, in that Erin letter, described or referred to.

George,

Read it again!!

6. Apply selected rating method to entire fields. Then read 13 Numbers Game To Form A Picture wher VDW says...........I also stated in my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods. How can the % be worked out before the ratings are applied.

Even though there was no mention of ability do you really think VDW would evaluate ANY race without considering ability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Yes,of course I agree that in the March 1981 article Van der Wheil wrote apply selected rating method to the whole field, and he also said he used two. But he surely makes it crystal that these follow the other steps, "to complete the working picture ... and ... assist in confirming other data", ie they are deployed late in the assessment.

My suggestion is surely consistent with that deploy late scenario. After he had got down to three via consistency and probables, he checks his ratings which confirm the three "came out best" of the five he was discussing (and presumably all the others he didn't name) and showed Beacon Light "well out of it" with the other two, and of whom Prominent King fared the better.

As regards whether Van der Wheil used his ability rating, I think it is clear that it wasn't one of the "two methods" because nothing that he then said about the relationships among the five would have been true. He may have used it in separating Prominent King and Mr Kildare, but at present this is a bit surrounded in mystery to me as neither was in the first four on ability, and although there are at least two examples of bets or "certainties" which were only 5th highest, would he have backed a horse as low ranked on ability as Prominent King? I don't know, but I am doubtful.

Of the 70 Van der Wheil selections and four endorsed Mr G Hall selections for which we currently have some details in our spreadsheet, 55 were in the top four on ability and would have been marked off as per the March 1981 article. Five were 5th ranked, and these include a bet (Pegwell Bay) and a "certainty" (Pipsted) which shows that Van der Wheil did not always limit himself to the top four. Of the fourteen ranked 6 or lower, one (Quest for Fame) needs further work and may look better when the sf-based "further guide" ratings have been pulled out.

That leaves thirteen, one of which (My Therapy) was one of Mr Hall's four to which Van der Wheil responded. That leaves twelve straight Van der Wheil selections ranked below 5th on ability, none of which is stated in terms as a bet nor described more warmly than "good thing". And we know from Kenlis that "good thing" does not necessarily equal bet. Whether any of the twelve (which include Prominent King) were actually regarded as strong enough to back seems to me therefore to be a very open question.

George,

For me at least this is starting to go round in circles, and I don't quite understand why. So all I can now do is wish you luck, as I think you will need it. I have tried to point you in what I feel is the right direction as I do feel, perhaps by mistake/accident rather than design, you did ask some interesting questions.

I stand by my remark about SIAO being a waste of time, and all the while you (or anyone else) refers back to it you will be trying to makes sense of some very muddied waters. I do feel that article alone is responsible for many misunderstanding what VDW was trying to show.

I'm 100% convinced the ability rating shown in SIAO ISN'T the one VDW used to measured ability. It was given as a means to an end. Quick, simple, and more importantly to take emphasis away from the true measure used. He did say he would NEVER explain how those rating were formulated, so he gave a substitute rating. This is why the SIAO article is so misleading.

If and when I can I will try to help (if you wish) with information you may not have. But I do fear in the main it will have to be of a negative view point, pointing out examples that don't fit, etc.

For what its worth I think PK was a very strong bet, and along with Baronet the sort of profile I look and hope for every time I have a bet.

Be Lucky and good luck

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

WALTER
Thanks for the coe and ovett video , it was top stuff to watch back then, genuine racing were there was a definate will to win . Reminds me of dessey winning the gold cup and dancing brave winning the arc

HI JIM
Thanks for your reply. Would it be posible to post on this board some more faster then class method's from the 70's and 80's

Hi Paul
work best with horses above 80 OR and RPR.
also horses with less than 9 stone good speed figure then dropped in class
good luck
jim