For instance will the Duke be another 10 star nap tomorrow in the Irish Champion Stakes or is he now beginning to show wear & tear?.

Paul

Using the rules of thumb I suggested will, like any other filter, mean you miss winners you might otherwise have backed, but my own researches suggest it will also mean you miss many more losers. That, of course, is only important if like me one is interested in achieving a very high strike rate, even if across relatively few bets. Johnd's point on this is also valid - it may well be more profitable to sacrifice strike rate for more bets and hopefully greater returns.


Walter

There are several Van der Wheil selections going up in class which did not win last time out (and of course one of Mr Hall's that Van der Wheil endorsed, Baronet). While all his selections were, in my view, the class/form horses in their races not all were bets. We simply have no way of knowing whether Van der Wheil backed either Prominent King or Baronet.


Sean

I think there is very much more to Van der Wheil than the rules of thumb I've suggested. Kenlis, for example, was a last time out winner going up in class but not a bet (Van der Wheil was specific about that). I offer the rules of thumb because I know that they are a true reflection of the large majority of Van der Wheil's strong selections and I believe that if anyone is interested it will pay them to examine all his examples, dividing them into four categories:

winners lto going up in class

non winners lto going up in class

winners lto going down in class

non winners lto going down in class.

Patterns that may be obscure when one takes all the selections together emerge more clearly, I suggest, looking at them in four categories. Whether these are the same as the pattern Trypod was referring to I obviously don't know.

[quote]Walter

There are several Van der Wheil selections going up in class which did not win last time out (and of course one of Mr Hall's that Van der Wheil endorsed, Baronet). While all his selections were, in my view, the class/form horses in their races not all were bets. We simply have no way of knowing whether Van der Wheil backed either Prominent King or Baronet.

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

Not being up on vdw george it was the only one that came to mind - it`s how he excluded the higher ability / out of form horses and also how far down the ratings he was prepared to go before horses fell out of the certs/good things bracket and became "most likely winners" or "you dont have to bet" types or " not too difficult to find the winner" types that i find interesting.

Walter

Some of Van der Wheil's selections were way down the ability ranking - the lowest I've found is his 1980 Lincoln selection, King's Ride, ranked 12th.

I think there are four reasons why higher ability rated horses are discarded:

1) those not regarded as consistent horses (11 of the 14 higher ability rated horses in the King's Ride example - 14 because although there were only 11 higher ability ratings more than one horse sometimes had one of these);

2) those consistent horses discarded because they are not probables (none in the King's Ride example but Decent Fellow in the Prominent King example);

3) those probables which are not form horses (three in the King's Ride example);

4) those probables with form who are viewed (for differing reasons) as inferior to another probable with form which has a lower ability rating (none in the King's Ride example but Jim Thorpe in the Pegwell Bay example).

My research suggests that Van der Wheil did not go below 5th ranking in ability for his explicitly stated bets or for horses he described strongly, ie as "outstanding" or "certainties". But a good many of his selections were lower rated. What is difficult, indeed maybe impossible, is to be confident about which of these, if any, Van der Wheil actually backed.

Thanks for that - I would say that (4) above is where i am George as that is where capability would get a sniff (for me) - i dont consciously take in the others as having been involved in the first hand messing of the appearance of consistency which i understand plays its part in probability i am fully aware why odds compilers are duped from time to time.The form aspect (3) is probably the area that causes most conflict between varying levels on a punting front - one man makes a horse out of form the other cant see it and says that cannot be - who is right who is wrong?.Its probably the man who`s right the most or can show most profit i dont know?.

Walter

I agree with you about (4). The Pegwell Bay example to me makes clear that for Van der Wheil capability issues - trip and going in this case - played a big part in his selection of Pegwell Bay over Jim Thorpe. In others he makes comments about courses which indicate that sometimes they also played a role (a horse suited to Kempton would not have been a bet at Cheltenham).

Thanks for some interesting posts there, gents!

George,

Dividing into categories is a good method for analysis, imo. Following advice from a very experienced punter, I used it to examine the results of a certain jockey.
It wasn't rocket science: all I had to do was divide his mounts into two: under 5/1, and 5/1 and over. This exercise was instructive.

Although I should probably do as you say with the vdw examples, I have to say that I won't be.
I prefer to analyse WLTO by dividing them into categories instead. Modern day techniques would be more my interest than re-working of the old booklet stuff. Just my personal preference, ye understand.

I feel Saturday's good racing at Leopardstown may be off due to the heavy rain. Otherwise, we'd have an intriguing one with DOM and NA. I don't think it's going to happen myself.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sean rua,

with the underfoot conditions at haydock on saturday can anyone find a consistent horse that goes in heavy or will we need to look for horses that run consistently well in heavy going for my pennys worth bollin felix looks to be the only heavy going consistent horse at haydock

Goerge

Do you by chance have the trainer stats at course of his strong bets?

Monster over on another forum sent me Foster's for Pegwell bay and all i can say it just confirmed what i had thought for years

When we get extremes in the going les its difficult to tell especially when some of the younger horses have yet to be tried on the underfoot conditions.

Has`nt Easterby`s other horse gone in the heavy as well les?.

Rab

No, sorry.

yes i see that wattie had been looking at the other two races it looks like reverence in the sprint who goes consistently well in heavy ground may need to be looked at again

They reckon the meeting is in a bit of trouble anyway m8.

Ive laid Scotland tomorrow at an average of 13/8
looking to win a grand so will be shocked if i dont collect.

if ireland and haydock are off it will be poor fair tomorrow

Les

There are some good races at Kempton.

Id like Ireland to be on to see if the Duke will hold his form if nothing else as the signs are there in the form book that he is at the crest of his peak and is ready for the downward journey (imo).

i would rather not have a go at kempton but looks as if i may need to

George,

Interesting, but a couple of questions if I may.

First, I take it by reading your post the probable's are only based on statistical factors i.e. form figures and/or position in the forecast? I ask because you have probable's that are none form horses. I don't really understand that, as the formula clearly says consistent form. I accept consistency is different from form, but form is at worst joint first in the formula. Don't you think the order the formula was presented in important? VDW did say all relevant horses were subject to being rated by two methods, this was said when he was talking about consistency.

In item three you say three of these horses (probable's) failed because they were not form horse. Can I ask how many probable's you had in that race, and does this mean King's Ride was the selection without recourse to the A/R? I.E. he stood alone as the only possible selection, if so are there any other races you have found from the VDW examples were this happens? Here I'm thinking about Love From Verona, and Son Of Love.

As said before I do think you are putting to much importance on a turn of phrase, why is "outstanding" any stronger than "a good thing"? I do accept some of the selections/examples didn't result in a bet for VDW, but he did clearly state this. He also gave a couple of examples for us to ponder, but I do have a slight problem in thinking the majority of his examples were not worth a bet.

Be Lucky