Mtoto

Does that mean, I wonder, that you regard one of the two sets of ratings shown in the final two columns of the Little Owl etc tables as Van der Wheil's true ability rating?

George,

I do think the "other" ratings are the measure VDW used to judge ability. Nowever I also have some doubts about whether or not those are the ratings shown in SIAO. I can make two of those races work but can't marry up the rankings.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Thanks. You obviously regard Van der Wheil as rather a tricky guy, indeed perhaps devious wouldn't be too strong.

For the time being I'll continue my research on the basis that he was straightforward, even if not as explicit on certain matters as one might hope. Still, if his approach really does work, it was good of him to give us even a sniff at it.

Hopefully I may have something to contribute in due course - but judging by the number of items to be explored I could be some while!

JIM

When you say horses with less than 9 stone do you mean the last race or today's race, and when you say drop in class do you mean prize money or do you judge class another way

JIM
Would you happen to happen to have the par figures for hurdles and chases.

Thank you
Paul

HI paul
check last race
drop in class or money or last race OR aainst this race
see forum on win2win lots of info
sorry VDWites
good luck
jim

Nice to see some life being brought back into this thread

I'd like to make comment on 2 points by Mtoto and Garstonf which both really amount to the same thing.

Mtoto states:

quote:

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.

Grastonf states:

quote:

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.

Mtoto,
Whilst SIAO perhaps wasn't the most apt title for that letter, it's far from a waste of time!!
VDW discussed many aspects of his 'formula' in varying degrees but the one thing he never really discussed outright was how he evaluated form and by this stage I think he realised that many readers were missing this element, either because they hadn't delved enough into his previous selections or if they had they had missed the salient points regarding form. The SIAO article contains some very strong hints to this if people would only look beyond just his words:

'The form is impressive and note not only how it ran but what it had behind it, Silver Buck, Another Captain etc'

Garstonf,
Whilst I agree with your assertion that people tried to turn Roushayd into a system, I would argue (in my opinion) that the real reason the object of the exercise was lost was that once again, VDW gave the strongest hints to date about how he evaluated the form aspect for those who were still missing the salient points. Unfortunately many still seemed to miss the point of his thorough evaluation and homed in on the rising SF and dropping class elements. VDW was right, the object of the exercise was indeed lost!

George J

I wish you luck in your quest to discover VDW's ratings. I personally don't think they have anything to do with the Daily Mail's. However, to disguise the fact that you are using a newspapers' ratings the first thing to do would be to add a figure onto their figures. I have already seen this done with other newspapers. Points could then be added for things like C & D wins, SF etc. Deductions for BF (if you view that as a negative).
VDW would not reveal how his ratings were compiled, using the excuse others would sell them. If that was the case why didn't he sell them himself? One reason would be serious breach of the copyright laws.

Andy Capper

I think you have said basically what I was thinking. I just failed to mention the rising SF. I agree with you totally.

George,

If undertaking a comprehensive review of VDW's ratings then it may be worth you homing on Little Owl's race as a starter and in particular the ratings for Fairy King. Despite forecast favourite Wayward Lad comprehensively beating Fairy King on both the consistency and ability figures it is interesting that Fairy King scores better than WL on both of VDW's ratings (and also rates far higher than Mr Kidd who has a higher ability rating).

There are some salient points in the form of Fairy King that will help you on your way.

george could the third column be weight ajusted around a certain point still looking with vdw going on about horses not performing at his certain weight

ANDY CAPPER
wOULD YOU CARE TO DISCLOSE THE SALIENT POINTS IN THE FORM OF FAIRY KING

Garston

You may well be right, but if so it is surely a huge coincidence that each of one of Van der Wheil's two sets is exactly 12 higher than the Mail ratings for the Little Owl race, and that +12 point occurs in some of the other examples.


Andy Capper/Les

We've put the final two ratings in the Little Owl etc tables to one side for the time being, with the preliminary view that they are other peoples', doctored up to suit the examples and make the three less obvious selections (ie those where horses with higher ability ratings are left to one side) seem more credible. I think the key reasons for selecting Sunset Cristo as a bet, and Gaye Chance and Kenlis as likely winners but short of bet quality, must surely lie in the appraisal of the issues Van der Wheil summarised in the second paragraph under the Little Owl table. My current priority is to work out what in practice Van der Wheil meant by "a highly consistent horse" (last sentence of first paragraph of the "First Five in Betting" section of the March 1981 article).

PAUL

nO I WOULDN'T BUT THEY ARE THERE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LOOK.

ANDY CAPPER
What exactly is there for anyone who want's to look

Andy Capper,

Glad to see you back, and hope all is well with you and yours.

quote:

The SIAO article contains some very strong hints to this if people would only look beyond just his words:

Looking beyond just the words or/and trying to read between the lines is one of the biggest mistakes made with trying to sort out the VDW puzzle. VDW said read and understand what is there, that doesn't mean add in bits to make it make sense.

George asked if I think VDW was devious, I think he was reasonably straight forward. I think he had found a method of rating/measuring ability, and he was going to protect that idea, while hoping it could make him some money. I think he was just unlucky the person he used in trying to do this while a racing journalist, knew little about racing, and less about betting. He was a journalist, and used the ideas to promote and advertise himself and his newspaper. If VDW had approach someone like Colin Davey for example he could have made a fortune. So while VDW had a good "racing" brain, he lacked in business acumen and people skills. He was manipulate, and because of the manipuation was left high a dry. How could this bloke then announce himself as VDW the rich Dutch business man, hell fire, the bloke doesn't even have an accent!! Well not a Dutch one, strange that didn't ring any bells during the phone calls

Anyway back to the statment. Doesn't the Erin show with PK being the selection, winning form is very unlikley to be the answer? So while looking to see what was behind your horse, in actual fact what was in front of it is just as important. So while SIAO MAY have given some interesting pointers this for me is far outweighed by any idea BL MUST be out of form to stop him being the selection.

Be Lucky

quote:

Looking beyond just the words or/and trying to read between the lines is one of the biggest mistakes made with trying to sort out the VDW puzzle. VDW said read and understand what is there, that doesn't mean add in bits to make it make sense.

Mtoto,

Hope you are well.

I'm not saying add bits in.....

What I am saying is go beyond the text and do what VDW actually says, when he says 'note what Sunset Cristo had behind' why do so few people actually do that and check out the form?

It's only my opinion but I don't think it's possible to start to solve the puzzle without delving into the form book and doing exactly what VDW said 'check out the form of all concerned taking particular note... etc'. It's only then that you notice continually recurring themes in the form lines.

With the exception of the Roushayd example, nothing was 'laid bare' regarding form evaluation but the one example doesn't help us to spot the similarities, only by looking at others will we spot those.

VDW said he took the SCHB for the races to come section as he knew there was certain horses ready to win and how they were placed could give the game away. Surely this suggests that he was approaching evaluation from the perspective of certain horses rather than just pulling any random race apart and looking for a winner. What was it that alerted VDW to these horses that were 'ready to win'? I don't think that you can do that without studying the form and spotting the similarities.

Mtoto

quote:

George asked if I think VDW was devious, I think he was reasonably straight forward

I suggested devious might be appropriate IF you are right in thinking that the ability rating as explained in item 35 of "The Golden Years", and then used in the four tabled examples in the March 1981 article, the three examples from 5 January 1985 (Wing And A Prayer etc"), and the Pegwell Bay example in 1988, was a blind, and that the real ability rating was, I think you are suggesting, one or both the ratings given in the final two columns of the March 1981 article. Devious would be even more appropriate if you are right in thinking speed was the basis of the real ability rating, given that in item 47 of "The Golden Years" Van der Wheil suggested just a supporting role for speed in assessing ability in race analysis as distinct from identifying horses to follow.

quote:

Devious would be even more appropriate if you are right in thinking speed was the basis of the real ability rating, given that in item 47 of "The Golden Years" Van der Wheil suggested just a supporting role for speed in assessing ability in race analysis as distinct from identifying horses to follow

George,

With the above I do suppose it depends on how you read the article. The following.......What the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation. Doesn't really shout out he thinks it is only plays a surporting role. + I will ask you the same as I have asked many others. Why do you think he would advise folk to make lists of horse that lack ability? When telling us how to make the lists he doesn't mention THE ability rating, however early on he does say these horse do HAVE proven ability. I do wonder if that was a slip on his part.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

quote:

What the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation. Doesn't really shout out he thinks it is only plays a surporting role.

Van der Wheil shows in chapter 6 of "Systematic Betting" how sfs can be useful in evaluations, but not as an alternative to the ability rating.


"I will ask you the same as I have asked many others. Why do you think he would advise folk to make lists of horse that lack ability? When telling us how to make the lists he doesn't mention THE ability rating, however early on he does say these horse do HAVE proven ability. I do wonder if that was a slip on his part."


Maybe I'm missing something but the answer is surely obvious - Van der Wheil didn't advise folk to make lists of horses without ability. I've read several sections where he referred to lists, the earliest being item 19 of "The Golden Years". There he suggests restricting lists to "good handicappers" and offers several criteria, one of which is a previous speed figure of 80+. Do you know how many handicappers achieved a sf of 80+ in those days - Flat or NH? Very few indeed and without exception they had won or run very well in classy handicaps.

Van der Wheil wrote item 19 early in 1979, and I have used the three previous years for the following data to illustrate the point:

NH. We can presumably agree that the Festival is the most prestigious meet of the year, and in those days included six handicaps, though three were lost to weather in 1978. In the 15 Festival handicaps run at the Festivals in those three years, only six horses recorded sfs of 80 or more. Four race winners and two seconds.

Flat. The obvious counterpart to the Festival is the Royal Ascot meeting, in those days like the Festival six handicaps. 21 horses returned sfs of 80 or more - horses finishing in the first few in the Hunt Cup, Wokingham etc.

In sum, by suggesting an sf of 80+ as one of the listing criteria, Van der Wheil was ensuring that the pool from which the list was drawn was of horses with proven ability (not necessarily winning ability) at high level. That seems sensible to me for that purpose, but why should it make sfs achieved a better guide to comparative ability to the rating as shown in item 35 of "The Golden Years"? The item 35 ability rating has the advantage of being an average figure which is likely to be a better guide than any rating derived from one run, whether highest class of race won, best sf win, etc.

On the devious point, the second paragraph under the "Form Can Mislead" subheading of the March 1981 article would simply be untrue if the ability rating used was other than that shown in item 35 and repeated in the March 1981 article.

quote:

Originally posted by Andy Capper:
What I am saying is go beyond the text and do what VDW actually says, when he says 'note what Sunset Cristo had behind' why do so few people actually do that and check out the form?

It's only my opinion but I don't think it's possible to start to solve the puzzle without delving into the form book and doing exactly what VDW said 'check out the form of all concerned taking particular note... etc'. It's only then that you notice continually recurring themes in the form lines.

With the exception of the Roushayd example, nothing was 'laid bare' regarding form evaluation but the one example doesn't help us to spot the similarities, only by looking at others will we spot those.

VDW said he took the SCHB for the races to come section as he knew there was certain horses ready to win and how they were placed could give the game away. Surely this suggests that he was approaching evaluation from the perspective of certain horses rather than just pulling any random race apart and looking for a winner. What was it that alerted VDW to these horses that were 'ready to win'? I don't think that you can do that without studying the form and spotting the similarities.

Andy Capper

While collateral form has its place, it really is no different to how most people read form, and VDW's view was significantly different to most people's.
Would collateral form, for instance, have led VDW to consider Brashee a good thing to beat Cossack Dancer,(7lbs better off for a nk defeat), or would it explain why the margin was increased to 7 lengths in the race where VDW saw him as a good thing?
I think not, and I'm fairly certain VDW didn't either.