Noticed a few winners going in the 4.40 tomorrow,best looking 1 to me is stoute's which is worth a bet if 8/1 or more is to be got,

Anyone else got a pick for the race?

Paul

Thanks, but no worries. I've picked up quite a lot from Johnd's posts on the archived forum, along with those of numerous other members, and hope to go on doing so.

time to look in your mirror with toms laughter in the 5.50 at goodwood tomorrow

George,

I asked the question because I feel apart from the basics very little of VDW is about figures. Sure it helps cut down the fields, but then is when the real insight kicks in. The little asides, and hints that are all important.

So in part I agree with Jimmy, accept I don't think VDW was given enough credit, as far to often to much attention is paid to the figures. As long as the horse fulfills one of the opening filters, by being consistent or improving, I don't feel the actual numbers play a big part. It doesn't matter if a horse is the top rated for ability, most consistent, shortest in the betting or forecast, highest s/f, it all boils down to what has the horse done on the track.

Be Lucky

Les

If tomorrow's race was of comparable class to Toms Laughter's last race, a class 436, I'd guess you would be right, but given it is a much lower class race I'm not so sure.

The runner up was the favourite, Strike Up The Band, who came into the race from a decent run in a class 112 which looks to have been just about his best performance of the season. I didn't look at that race so have no idea whether Strike Up The Band was a consistent horse or probable in it, where he stood in ability rating terms, or whether there were other horses coming to the race with better last time out performances. But although that form does nothing to suggest that, from the perspective of the runners, the class 436 race really punched its weight, so to speak, it wouldn't be bad form to bring to a race of tomorrow's class 130.

So while I think there are negatives for Toms Laughter tomorrow from a Van der Wheil perspective (and indeed the more general one of how often do wholly unexpected long priced winners follow up), I wonder whether the "mirrors" issue is one. Hopefully Vincent will advise us.

George Johns


I promised myself when I came on the board that I would stay away from this thread as I did not want to cause any bother. On reading your post earlier I thought that maybe I had missed something, but obviously not.
As someone who not only regards himself, but as someone who has proved himself in the application of numerical analysis I could not share your view. We will just have to agree to differ.
It seems that this board has not improved with age so we will leave it at that and I will return to where the posters are interested in making money and not just noice.

Mtoto

I don't know enough yet to offer a proper reply, but I think you may be wrong.

The most important thing I have taken from the material so far is not numerical but Van der Wheil's emphasis on trying to establish if there is a "winner in the race" rather than on looking for a winner of the race. It is not a distinction that had occurred to me before, and prior to starting to look into Van der Wheil's work I've always been concerned with the latter: study a race, think through which has the best chance, and when I'm confident about that back it provided it is not a silly price.

But Van der Wheil is saying don't think about what might win, think about what can't (logically) lose. And it is quite clear to me that the first steps at least in the logical chain he deploys to this end are numerical: consistency and probables. And from what I have seen so far, his approach to assessing form seems also very numerically based. But I am not far enough into form to be sure.

surely the class of toms laughter lto race will be the main factor in the race however much it goes up in weight i,ll be scraching my head if this gets beat

Les

There's no doubting the class of Tom's Laughter's last race, there very rarely is in big field 43k handicaps. However, he was specifically aimed at that race, sported first-time blinkers, and had 18lbs less to carry than he does tomorrow, on a very different course. Almost certainly, the only reason he runs here is that he is due a hefty rise in his OR, and there are few valuable 5f sprints before that OR kicks in from Saturday.
I wouldn't touch the race personally but, if there's no rain by the time of the race, Merlin's Dancer might just last home in front.

It doesn't matter if a horse is the top rated for ability, most consistent, shortest in the betting or forecast, highest s/f, it all boils down to what has the horse done on the track.

Precisely Mtoto, and no amount of collating or manipulating figures will ever change that.
How many trainers know their horses a/r, its consistency rating, its likely place in the betting, or any other of the figures that so many tie themselves in knots over?
They don't, but they do know their own horses!

George J

I'm sorry to drag you back but you said there were 4 probables in the Baronet race which you named as Town and Country, Petronisi, Evesboy and Baronet. You then said the numbers which match them are 5, 4, 6 and 3. I'm afraid you've lost me here. What are those numbers referring to?

Garston

Those are the numbers for the four horses which match the probables numbers in the first example Van der Wheil gave (item 8 of "The Golden Years").

Les

I mis-interpreted your initial post on the 5.50, thinking you were warning that, although Toms Laughter seems a good thing - comfortable winner of a class 436 dropping back to a class 130 just four days later - looking in the mirror should cause concern. I suggested that, subject to any comment Vincent may make, in this case what one sees in the mirror - first and foremost Strike Up The Band - is quite positive.

There is no doubt that today's race represents a huge drop in class, and sprinters often do hold their form well over short periods. So it would not be a shock if Toms Laughter followed up. But I agree with Johnd, and would not myself back him to do so. Good luck if you bet.

GeorgeJ,

If VDW was the master of class (ability), and if VDW was correct and the reason a horse wins is because it is better (faster) than the others then it is obvious that statistics cannot provide us with the answer, as a horses statistics have no influence on its class.

Statistics in racing result almost wholly from the human side of the process as they reflect the tactics and choices of those responsible for placing a horse in any given race.

By pursuing a statistical approach you will travel on a road that may at times run parallel to the one you wish to be on but it will never take you to your chosen destination.

John

I do hope I haven't inadvertently given the impression that I think the numbers are the totality of what Van der Wheil has to offer, for that is plainly not the case. But he does seem to be offering a particular approach to backing winners which, from my work so far, seems in significant degree to be based on numbers.

Currently I am trying to get to grips with how Van der Wheil assessed form, and among the hundreds of earlier posts I've been studying is one by Lee in which he discusses one of the horses which Van der Wheil specifically says was not a form horse (Burrough Hill Lad, in the King George won by Wayward Lad). Lee says that in his view the reason Burrough Hill Lad was not a form horse was Door Latch, the horse that Burrough Hill Lad ran behind last time. I need to figure this out (no pun intended!) but Lee can't simply be saying Burrough Hill Lad was not a form horse because he finished behind Door Latch, full stop, because that would make no sense. Implied in Lee's comment are surely ideas about class and performance that lead to the conclusion, and I will be surprised if those ideas are not at least in part expressed numerically.

george when i said look at your mirror in the toms laughters race i take it to mean look what toms laughter had behind it in that lto race a few horses rated over 100,this race is rated 86,and with its speed figure and rpr well in advance of its handicap mark thats why i,ll be scratching my head if this goes down saying that it sounds a hard horse to win with

quote:

but Lee can't simply be saying Burrough Hill Lad was not a form horse because he finished behind Door Latch, full stop, because that would make no sense.

Why would that make no sense George?

Les what if the 100 raters behind did`nt run to their mark for whatever reason?.In Toms Laughters last race the first 8 home were all drawn middle to high - all rated below 100?.

but still rated above these today,is the lto form totally worthless?

Anything could win this race imo les your horse included take a look at this race from almost exactly a year ago.


GOODWOOD
02 August 2007
Good

My Result Result

2:50 Audi Stakes (Registered As The King George Stakes) (Group 3) (Class 1) (3yo+) 5f

[off 2:52] £28,390.00, £10,760.00, £5,385.00, £2,685.00, £1,345.00, £675.00

Draw TRAINER Age Wgt JOCKEY SP OR TS RPR

1 Moorhouse Lad 14 B Smart 4 9-0 Ryan Moore 10/1 99 106 116
2 2 Enticing (IRE) 3 W J Haggas 3 8-8 Jamie Spencer 7/2F 112 95 106
3 nk Tax Free (IRE) 5 D Nicholls 5 9-5 Adrian T Nicholls 7/1 110 103 113
4 ½ Wi Dud (GB) 16 K A Ryan 3 8-11 N Callan 4/1 110 95 106
5 nk Prime Defender 8 B W Hills 3 8-11 Michael Hills 5/1 111 94 105
6 ½ The Jobber (IRE) 15 M Blanshard 6 9-0 J Murtagh 14/1 99 94 103
7 1½ The Tatling (IRE) 6 J M Bradley 10 9-0 Darryll Holland 16/1 103 88 98
8 nk Bond City (IRE) 13 G R Oldroyd 5 9-0 Seb Sanders 16/1 103 87 97
9 nk Tawaassol (USA) 1 Sir Michael Stoute 4 9-0 t R Hills 25/1 104 86 96
10 ½ Terentia (GB) 4 E S McMahon 4 8-11 Richard Mullen 20/1 102 81 91
11 hd Desert Lord 2 K A Ryan 7 9-10 b D O´Donohoe 16/1 115 94 103
12 3 Dazed And Amazed (GB) 10 R Hannon 3 8-11 Richard Hughes 50/1 100 72 82
13 shd Turn On The Style 7 J Balding 5 9-0 b Paul Hanagan 50/1 95 73 82
14 nk Celtic Mill (GB) 12 D W Barker 9 9-0 p Jimmy Fortune 20/1 104 72 81
15 1 Ajigolo 11 M R Channon 4 9-0 J H Bowman 66/1 97 68 77
16 3½ Classic Encounter (IRE) 17 D M Simcock 4 9-0 b1 Fergus Sweeney 80/1 92 55 65
17 1 Free Roses (IRE) 9 J G Given 4 8-11 T P Queally 66/1 90 48 58


17 ran TIME 57.32s (fast by 0.28s) TOTAL SP 126%

................................................................

Bond City has been really disappointing since but who`s to say he wont bounce back today with Frankie up & blinkers applied?. There are at least half a dozen with similar `lurking` potential - add to that Dandy Nicholls record in the race 6 wins 2 seconds from last 10 yrs makes it a watching race unless you have a strong take on it.