this isn't on the subject really..but seeing as George has mentioned favs in slow run races.

here is a question I asked on another forum..tbh..no bugger really got what I was asking...or should I say..driving at

Do jockeys try harder on favourites than they do on other horses?

GEORGE
Any thoughts why a speed figure is not given in miles per hour.

because they easier to deal with in a number relating to a poundage table

well thats why I like them in that format anyway

Ectoo

quote:

the basics are to reduce the field...then decide which horse is most likely to win today

3.45 Class 125

Consistent horses

a) three lowest scores from first six and equals in the Post forecast: Carniolan (4), The Jostler (6), Harrison George (8)

b) other "highly consistent" horses (from inside or outside the first six and equals in the Post forecast): of two possibles Dunn'o (10) doesn't qualify but Keep Discovering (11) does.

So four consistent horses.

Probables

As there are more than three consistent horses, the probables device is deployed, eliminating Harrison George. Thus three probables for consideration.

Form assessment

Taking the three in ability order:

Carniolan (AR 71)

3rd last race - 2nd class 34
2nd last race - won class 78
last race - won class 65

form horse

Keep Discovering (AR 67)

3rd last race - 9th class 249
2nd last race - won class 91
last race - won class 88

form horse

The Jostler (AR 65)

3rd last race - 3rd class 49
2nd last race - 2nd class 69
last race - won class 91

form horse

So three probables with form.

Does the class/form horse stand out like a sore thumb? Not in my view. Taking ARs in conjunction with form, none of the three emerges clearly, so no standout class/form horse to check against Van der Wheil's requirements for winners last time out rising in class, and no bet.

Sadly, inconclusive, as about 10% of the races I've looked at over the last few weeks have been.

ECTOO
I THINK THAT THE HARDEST A JOCKEY CAN TRY IS WHEN HE HAS WON RACE . I guess if the same jockey won 2 races over the same distance then he would have tried harder in the quickest timed race unless of course the horse was never off the bridle.

Has to fav's if they are still winning at 33% i would have to argue the answer is no because 67% non favs win more.

I suspect that the question is not that straight forward though

Paul

I should think Ectoo is right re the scale of sfs, but I've never really used them and do so now only as a supplementary ability rating in the circumstances where Van der Wheil suggested we should (item 47 of "The Golden Years").

ECTOO
Yes ,but why is there no raw sf in mph for those that do not want to add or subtract weights.

i'll read that post George tomorrow

Paul..it's easier to add subtract weight when the rating is itself in lbs rather than mph is it not?

if a horse runs a speed figure of 120...straight away I have a mental picture of where it sits on ladder re class...if I said it can run at 37.65mph...it don't really register as easily

it really is just putting speed into an easy to read...adjustable figure

Goerge

I have had an hour with the 2.35 Scarborugh stakes tonight...nearly frazzled me brain

I think Benbaum will be pulled out due to the ground...even though none of the decent animals here really have shown a preference for slow ground

His win in Longchamp will kid some on that he won on GS...but the times that day pointed to Good...which Benbaum has always needed

I came dowm on Galeota as having a balance of form and ability ..and will maybe get away with the going

last run was poor but that was on teh AW round that nasty Kempton bend

Galeota is 3/3 at Donny as well

I'm not betting in it..just interested what you think

sorry Paul

mis read your post

thought you wanted an easily adjustable figure for weight...when you want exactly opposite

off to bed..buggered

Sean,
I certainly wasn't talking about speed fractions. I don't know enough about them and we don't yet have them here. If we ever get that kind of data, I'll look at it then.

EC,
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.

What the horse does at the business end of the race (and against what) isn't just some peripheral thing tagged on the method. It is (IMO) THE MOST CRUCIAL part of the method. It's the bit that everything else hangs around.

The cornerstone of the method is about form and class. VDW went into plenty of detail about how he viewed class but little about how he viewed form. It's his statement about what happens at the business end of the race that explains all that.

You think he was wrong, that's fair enough, we are all entitled to our opinion but plenty on here are interested in uncovering his methods and so I'll continue to try and point them in the right direction. It's up to everybody to decide for themselves if there is merit in the method but surely to do that you first need a good understanding.

At the end of the day most people are less interested in their perceived logic of a method than they are in if it works. I've no axe to grind either way with VDW, as a person I've never met him and I couldn't really give a toss if the method was his, Lawrence Voegle's or even Colin 'bloody' Davey's

You are blinkered mate, if VDW said it then it must be bollocks!! The daft thing is if you'd never heard of VDW and I presented you with a few paragraphs of how it works then you'd say it was entirely logical. You are letting your judgement get clouded by a limited understanding of the method and letting your own bias get in the way of seeing the bigger picture.

A simple statement about what happens at the end of a race has been turned into all kinds of gobbledegook about pace, sectional timing etc. The simple truth is it's just about measuring the worth of the form shown. If Steve Ovett sprinted away from a fit Coe & Cram at the end of 1500m it would be good form. If he sprinted away from me and my cronies in the boozer it would look a damn sight more impressive but would mean sod all in the context of an olympic final. And do you know what, as an ex county sprinter I reckon I could have led him for the first 200m

EC,

As a final thought, now the dark nights are on their way, why not spend the winter trying to unravel VDW's methods and then making an educated judgement based on the whole picture.

I'll send you all the booklets and all the appropriate form books on loan for the winter and even try to point you in the right direction. You never know you might learn something new even if the method isn't for you.

You can then come on here and argue from a position of strength.

How about it

GS

While consistency. ability, and class ran in all have an important part to play, the method cannot be reduced to simple arithmetic, and without evaluating the form in the way VDW prescribed, you will always just be fishing amongst the probables.
How they performed in the closing stages etc. clearly shows Keep Discovering as the likeliest winner, though not far enough in front of Carniolan to constitute a good thing.

AC

Interesting comparison between Ovett and Coe; using form your way, would Seb Coe have been considered out of form when he was defeated by Steve Ovett in the 1980 Olympic 800m final before reversing the result in the 1500m?
Of course not, as neither were such as Wayward Lad and Baronet when they trounced horses they had finished behind in their previous races. A beats B doesn't always work out, whatever the sport - nor does it with VDW.


ps.
If you wish to educate someone on VDW, at least choose someone with enough humility to recognise they don't already know it all.

Johnd

I'm glad to see that we agree on the 3.45 - plausibles but nothing that should be backed, at least on its own. At the moment I'm leaving book possibilities to one side.


Ectoo

I haven't had time to look at the other race and with a busy morning in prospect probably won't, but will post again before the off if I do. (I chose the handicap because from a quick glance through the card it seemed to me the most likely race to throw up a Van der Wheil selection, but alas it didn't.)

Walter

For what it is worth, Fastha comes out as best in on the ratings I use as a crosscheck, as I'm still failing to get anywhere near cracking Van der Wheil's. Keep Discovering comes out second best with Slugger O'Toole third.

Good luck with your bet.

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:
GS

While consistency. ability, and class ran in all have an important part to play, the method cannot be reduced to simple arithmetic, and without evaluating the form in the way VDW prescribed, you will always just be fishing amongst the probables.
How they performed in the closing stages etc. clearly shows Keep Discovering as the likeliest winner, though not far enough in front of Carniolan to constitute a good thing.

AC

Interesting comparison between Ovett and Coe; using form your way, would Seb Coe have been considered out of form when he was defeated by Steve Ovett in the 1980 Olympic 800m final before reversing the result in the 1500m?
Of course not, as neither were such as Wayward Lad and Baronet when they trounced horses they had finished behind in their previous races. A beats B doesn't always work out, whatever the sport - nor does it with VDW.


ps.
If you wish to educate someone on VDW, at least choose someone with enough humility to recognise they don't already know it
all.

HEEEERE'S JOHNNNY
GLAD TO SEE YOU HAVE STOPED SULKING.

THE WANDERER RETURNS ,SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO NOW, JUST LIKE iNVESTOR YOU CAN NOT KEEP AWAY YOU LOVVVVE IT

Walter

I hope they have, because that proves its crackable, but I didn't see any posts on those lines as I read my way through the archive. If you or any other member can point me in the right direction archive-wise, I'd be grateful.

quote:

09, 2008 09:40 PM Hide Post
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.

Thanks for that, George. 60 from 77 is good enough for me!

And, I accept, too, that about 80% of winners come from the top five in the betting. So, I think we're getting somewhere.

Still don't know what to make of this "Last furlong" business, to be honest.

Well, I've looked at today's card and i don't see any VDW selection today.

In the 235 Donc, I make Benbaun a likely, but I'd sooner back
Turn on the Style or Loch Verdi, EW.

Personally, I don't think the 3.45 is the vdw race, but I make it between
Keep Discovering and Carniolan, with the Jostler to come third.
If forced at gunpoint to bet, I'd go for Keep Discovering EW.
Doesn't seem fancied yet, but I'm just wondering about this top six in the betting mallarkey:
does it mean the actual betting order at SP? If so, that's a bit last minute, imo, and reeks of back-fitting.

Sorry,
I meant to put up the SRs, just for a reference:

Keep Discovering, 36% , wlto
Carniolan 40%, wlto
The Jostler 20%, wlto

Carniolan didn't look as hot on TS.

In the main race of the day, nothing had won or come 2nd lto.

Benbaun, 35% SR
Turn on the style, 25%
Loch Verdi , 22%.

No clear bet for me from any of this lot.

Walter

Thanks. It seems as though Guest established that one of the two sets was based on Haig/Superform, and I'll certainly have a look at that.

I think the Lee post you've put up relates to the two methods of rating referred to in the Prominent King letter, rather than the two sets of ratings (plural) given in the final two columns of the four tables in the March 1981 article. These two pairs are, I think, different, and it is the latter than eludes me, despite some initial hope that one was based on the Mail ratings. Still, I'll get to work on Haig/Superform as soon as I can track down copies of the right books.


Sean

Well at least the four of us who have commented on the 3.45 are discussing the more or less the same horses, irrespective of our approaches. At the moment I stop once it is apparent to me that there is no clear cut class/form horse, as my priority is getting the bet/no bet decision right in the 90% of cases (over the last couple of weeks) where there is, so I've no view on which of the three probables with form has the best chance. As Walter seems the only one of us to have had a bet, albeit to modest stakes, I'll be hoping Fathsta pips all three.