MTOTO
In a reply to Ectoo, you quote vdw '' 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.

May i ask how do you interpret time. When i try to intepret i find i am mainly 2nd guessing which then takes myself down the wrong path.


thank you
Paul

if your selection for a race is consistent and consistently shown market support in higher class races this must be a plus for your selection ie 3/1 s/b in a race say 5k more than today and at a better grade of track

and well said george been strugling to put this over in the right way

Wonderful stuff there, Walt!

I remember thinking this Guest fella was pretty switched on, imo.

Looks like any odds-on price beginning with an 8 is OK.
We always used to be interested in "8" in a price: a bit of superstition, no doubt, but the old fellas used to reckon pricing was based on the half-crown ( eight to a pound), so there could be something of a "trigger" or "signal" element to it all, perhaps.
I remember watching Barry Dennis at Ascot one day, in the early days of the Machine in the ring: as soon as the price of a certain animal went to 15/8, he yelled "hit it!" to his son who was on the phone. I always wondered what was wrong with the 2/1. Still not quite sure.
We'll have to ask the bookies on here about it, though I think they're all on btfr and trf!

Anyway, thanks again for that; I'm still doing the experiment with the short-priced/highly-tipped animals. It's early days, but it's just about holding its own. I'll try recording the price details of the winners.

Btw, it seems btfr is starting to crumble. Thank fk.

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

Btw, forgot to mention I think Les may be onto to something there.
Surely, if a jockey looks in the mirror and sees he's pulling away from the short-priced fav as he nears the line, then that must mean something re "what opposition has he beaten"?

I suppose when it doesn't count is when, like in last year's Arc, the hyped thing, Authorised, trailed in near last. Beating that thing wasn't really a feather in Dylan's cap, as the Derby winner ran crap that day.

Walter

That's quite interesting but, I think, a one off. Applying the same to the previous race in the March 1981 article:

Little Owl 111
Wayward Lad 211
Mr Kidd 11uL

111 = 33%
211 = 27%
110 = ? but say 20% max.

Total = 80%, which probably over-states the chance of the only other runner in the race.

33% = 2/1
27% = 11/4
20% = 4/1

Actual betting forecast - Evens, Wayward Lad; 5/4 Little Owl; 14/1 Fairy King; 20/1 Mr Kidd

So:

Little Owl 2/1, against forecast 5/4
Wayward Lad 11/4 against forecast evens
Mr Kidd 4/1 against forecast 20/1

On that basis, Van der Wheil wouldn't have been interested in Little Owl at "a price better than 3/1 on", and some fools who go for "value" would be investing on Mr Kidd.

Walter

All it shows, along with other examples which produce similar conclusions, is that the ingenious poster whose work you kindly put up struck unlucky (as when one finds the only chip of chalk when conducting a soil test in a field with otherwise acid soil).

quote:

here there is three horses that won each of their last 3 races VDW calculated that the chance of one of them winning would be 99%, but again, only from the 83% winners that made up the first FIVE (non-handicap) in the forecast.

so he is saying that when 3 horses have 111 form from within the first five in the betting...they win 99% of 83%

so he is saying they win 82.17% of ALL races when this happens

the best place to check that stat is at the Cheltenham festival probably

I will be very surprised if they win that many tbh...even more surprised if you could make a profit backing all of them

I wonder how many races a year it actually happens in Walter..will keep an eye open for them..just out of interest

EC,

Whilst of course you're right that the early pace of a race can have an effect at the end, I think VDW's fixation on this part of the race is because it's really the only part that allows us to make a SENSIBLE judgement.

What a horse does in the early part of a race doesn't really tell us much when trying to evaluate it from the basis of 'is it ready to win'.

If a horse blasts out and runs the legs off the field for 4 furlongs but collapses in a heap 2 furlongs from home, what of value can we deduce from that? Is that good form, bad form, indifferent form? Horses will run with different strategies, some forcing the pace, others content to hold the horse up. What a horse does in the early stages tells us very little because we don't know the context of how much effort others are making.

If a horse leads the Derby winner for the first 4f of a 12f race then it tells me bugger all. If a horse makes the Derby winner battle all the way to the line in the final furlong it tells me plenty (providing of course the Derby winner was in form).

What a horse does (or does not do) at the business end of a race is a great yardstick but to have any context you have to take account of the class and form of whatever the horse is doing it against! Surely that's only common sense! VDW's comments on horses like Sunset Cristo are highly relevant here. There is a world of difference between beating a good class horse thats in form and beating a good class horse that's gone off the boil completely.

quote:

What a horse does (or does not do) at the business end of a race is a great yardstick but to have any context you have to take account of the class and form of whatever the horse is doing it against! Surely that's only common sense! VDW's comments on horses like Sunset Cristo are highly relevant here. There is a world of difference between beating a good class horse that in form and beating a good class horse that's gone off the boil completely

If assessing form is what you want...then would it not just be a matter of relying on RPR's instead of using ability £ ratings of any kind?

playing devils advocate with that one.

what a horse does in the last furlong does depend on what has happened early though...to say as Lee did..that the early bit is of no interest...is a bit silly.

horses can run above form expectation if they are suited to being in the correct position within a race not run at even pace...many turf races are jog and sprint races for instance.

that horse you talk about chasing the Derby winner...might not be able to chase it if it had been tested early doors at true pace...he may only be able to push derby winner because he saved energy early on.

basically...you cannot simplify pace in that kind of way...it's nonsense

if you can't measure pace properly...then logically you are better ignoring it altogether..because you are just adding misinformation based on lack of full picture

now..I have no problem in measuring races in other ways..but seriously..what a horse does late in a race is totally connected to what it did early on..you cannot just pick bits like that and hope to actually have any relevance attached to a conclusion based on half hearted snap shots of races.

It seems as though any argument is put forward to justify owt VDW said..well...unless it makes sense and is logical..I will always question it...thats how I am.

I don't just treat VDW like that either...when people spout any type of generalised dyed in the wool stuff...I always challenge it

i'm just an awkward git

quote:

Originally posted by ectoo:

quote:

What a horse does (or does not do) at the business end of a race is a great yardstick but to have any context you have to take account of the class and form of whatever the horse is doing it against! Surely that's only common sense! VDW's comments on horses like Sunset Cristo are highly relevant here. There is a world of difference between beating a good class horse that in form and beating a good class horse that's gone off the boil completely

If assessing form is what you want...then would it not just be a matter of relying on RPR's instead of using ability £ ratings of any kind?

playing devils advocate with that one.

what a horse does in the last furlong does depend on what has happened early though...to say as Lee did..that the early bit is of no interest...is a bit silly.

horses can run above form expectation if they are suited to being in the correct position within a race not run at even pace...many turf races are jog and sprint races for instance.

that horse you talk about chasing the Derby winner...might not be able to chase it if it had been tested early doors at true pace...he may only be able to push derby winner because he saved energy early on.

basically...you cannot simplify pace in that kind of way...it's nonsense

if you can't measure pace properly...then logically you are better ignoring it altogether..because you are just adding misinformation based on lack of full picture

now..I have no problem in measuring races in other ways..but seriously..what a horse does late in a race is totally connected to what it did early on..you cannot just pick bits like that and hope to actually have any relevance attached to a conclusion based on half hearted snap shots of races.

It seems as though any argument is put forward to justify owt VDW said..well...unless it makes sense and is logical..I will always question it...thats how I am.

I don't just treat VDW like that either...when people spout any type of generalised dyed in the wool stuff...I always challenge it

i'm just an awkward git

EC,

For generalistic purposes, the SF's will tell us what we need to know about the pace. You know enough about speed figures to know that the early pace is the most telling factor in the final SF. If there is no true pace in the early part the SF will tell us that and we know to treat that with caution.

To be honest EC, I can't really believe that somebody with your knowledge really thinks that the early part of a race tells us as much as the end. It seems you're trying to go out of your way to show VDW's arguments as illogical when they don't appear half as illogical as your own

Class comes through at the end of a race not at the start and that's true of horse racing, athletics or anything else. Years ago I owned a greyhound that was never, ever, beaten to the first bend in a race in over 30 races. It was a great shame the races didn't end there

ECTOO
You are not being awkward, its good to question and i am glad you are hear to question, Its the only way to move forward and i wish i could put my points as well as yourself. Do not get me wrong there are others who can write just has well from a vdw point of view but we must have input from a different point of view or it becomes very stale going over the same old points of view when like me and do'nt really understand.
It must be really hard to put your points of view across to so many who are just not going to open there minds just a little more to try and consider that vdw can possibly be improved upon if they are not hiting a decent strike rate and a proffit

ANNDY CAPPER
May i ask ,how does the speed figure show that the early part of the race was run slow


Anndy your greyhound was'nt Curryhills Gara by any chance was it, that had plenty of early won the puppy cup around Romford if i remember rightly

Very interesting stuff! Thanks to All.

About greyhounds;

A bloke rang me up once; he wanted somebody to monitor video recordings of dog races for him.
He had a theory - which he reckoned he could use to make a decent profit - that
the dog that was LAST at the FIRST BEND would always be a "lay" ( a loser).
He could well be right for all I know; I didn't get involved.

One thing is for sure: that theory would NOT work for the horses. Many a good winning horse is last at the first bend. Just shows the power of jockeyship, I guess.

The race is an entity, but the bit that fills or empties my pocket is the final bit at the line.
Unlike for Michael Palin, the crucial bit is the arrival at destination, not the journey. They are linked, of course, but whether hare or tortoise, it's crossing that line first that counts for me.

As for that 111, 121 stuff, I'm afraid I don't really buy into that, except that I like horses that were 1st or 2nd lto, especially if they were favs lto.

Paul,

I have a feeling that AC is chatting about Speed Fractions here. These are big in the States.
When I go to the Breeders Cup next month, I shall be well and truly put in my place ( the dunce's corner ) by the American handicappers, who are well into the splits etc.

I'm afraid I'm well out of my depth with these, though I do follow the principle (just).
Turftrax was going to revolutionise things in UK, but something didn't go quite to plan. Perhaps, the "Powers that Be" didn't really like the idea of punters being able to see what exactly is going on.

Sean

quote:

As for that 111, 121 stuff, I'm afraid I don't really buy into that, except that I like horses that were 1st or 2nd lto

So did Van der Wheil. Of the 77 selections he gave from what I think of as his main method, over 60 had finished 1st or 2nd in their last completed run, and one or two where he excused a last run where, for example, a horse was run in a race where it was outclassed, had winning or runner up form in the race before.

On the matter of pace, has any member seen any properly compiled stats. on whether favourites fare any worse in slow run races?

Van der Wheil certainly mentions pace as a factor to be considered (second para. after the Little Owl example in the March 1981 article), but I haven't yet spotted anything in the examples I've studied which really suggests he was concerned about the extent to which the previous races of his selections were run slower or faster than average. Taking the Little Owl example, only the earliest of his three consistency runs could realistically be said to have been run to an average or better sort of pace. The next two were quite slowly run: in one Little Owl was alloted an sf of 19, which was very low even in those days, while the other was run so slowly no sf was allocated.

some great stuff put up boys thanks

quote:

To be honest EC, I can't really believe that somebody with your knowledge really thinks that the early part of a race tells us as much as the end.

I never said it tells you as much..I said without even considering the first part of the race ..you are only seeing part of the picture...so it is relevant....others here seemed to agree with lee that it has NO relevance at all...which as patently wrong.

You say class comes through at the end...it doesn't if a horse's energy has been used incorrectly during the race.

class...funny word really..basically class means the horse that can run fastest..for longest

so if you run it too fast too quickly...it won't show any "class" later.

I don't really want to get into sectional timing and all that tbh..it's a real ball-ache in this country..I've been down that raod and I ain't got enough hours in the day or the data to make sectional times for every race run in this country.

I am happy to leave it out altogether...and tbh..you VDWers would be best advised too as well..because his handle on it was pointless in the way he has described it..as I have said above

why worry about something you have no intention of doing thorougly?..and don't tell me that him just saying..watch a horse in the last furlong...is VDW covering it..it bloody isn't.

there are so many things that VDW supposedly covered and took into account...by just saying he did.

I can't understand why people go to all this length to try and justify what someone said...just build on what was there...there is no way it was the finished article.

it's this slavish hanging on words that seems a little odd to me..wtf good is someone saying...oooh yes..I take trainers into account...oooh yes I look at the last furlong, so I have all the sectional data worked out just like that...it's just plain daft making this stuff out.

the basics are to reduce the field...then decide which horse is most likely to win today..more time dicussing how thats done and less wasted on scratching lightly at the very large subject sect timing is..should be the order of the day

imo