this is why post race ONLY analysis sucks Mtoto

Ectoo,

I'm not really sure why you have addressed that remark to me. I think if you go through the old posting you will find I have posted more than enough pre race selections and ideas. Here I will say telling me I'm illogical because I have ideas that don't agree with yours isn't really on. I don't agree that A/W form can be taken as read on turf, anymore than hurdle form equates to chases. Ok, the horse may have class proven on a different surface/discipline and should be respected, but no more than that.

maybe you like going round in circles..i'm sure some love it..what is it you want?...a diploma in VDW racing selections and why he picked em??

No I don't really enjoy going around in circles. I don't need a diploma, because due to ill health I was forced to make a living from backing horses. I'm still here making a living, and I will say I started with a far smaller bank than many think is necessary. So all this talk about not backing horses does get up my nose.

I'm happy in my own mind how these horses were selected. However I'm not happy about the way others advertise/explain the methods. I think even some of the better ideas touted don't do it justice, and some of the more ridiculous ideas just hold it up to ridicule. I have no axe to grind, and I certainly have nothing to do with selling booklets. My biggest problem is I can't just accept the way the methods are explained and/or presented. Beacon Light wasn't a none form horse, his form wasn't good enough, Baronet's last run like PK's has nothing to do with them being the selection. Anyone who bases the methods on these ideas is never going to get to the bottom of the methods.

The folk that are being held up as proof the methods work for me have sold the methods short. Guest now looks for lays, Lee ignores the big hcps that whatever anyone says, VDW didn't. Fulham is following Lee's lead, the way he is going I don't doubt he will get to the 80% strike rate, but the vast majority of his selections can be found using other methods.

Be Lucky

Ectoo

quote:

but you have completely ignored the one behind...because it doesn't support your case

Yes, I have completely ignored the one behind. But not because it doesn't support my case. Rather, because that is what my reading of the evidence suggests Van der Wheil did. And this point is for me fundamental. By all means criticise any aspect of Van der Wheil's method, and you may be right that there are better ways of addressing any or all of the issues with which Van der Wheil was concerned. But unless you are able to show, by reference to what the man wrote or his examples, that my interpretation of that method is wrong, you are in no position to argue that the conclusions I draw from my interpretation are wrong.

quote:

Thus, for Van der Wheil, the higher the win prize money, the higher the class

You should not need to be reminded that the class against which a horse runs is not the same as the class of race in which they compete

I addressed the remark to you Mtoto because in the previous post you were clearly showing the signs of deperation that I show re people backfitting what they think is correct to races where ..if they had viewed them before run would not have had the same conclusion.

I just cannot understand how people can be so keen on old races...where they didn't actually "know" the horses concerned...and did not have the luxury of comparing their pre race analysis to their post race analysis.

the only way I can understand an obsession with old races is that those keen on it are after going on Mastermind or summat.

let me get this clear...if this methodolgy works the same now...as it did then...then the examples from this season should be more important to look than those from 30 year ago....for one you "know" the horses better...2 have all the data...3 can make decisions before the race.

its a no brainer to me.

just looking at the listed race today..there is a lot to discuss

if people showed any interest in one race a week...like I have tried to encourage on those other threads...you would all have VDW ideas put forward before a race...and after...a veritable weath of present day "examples" to study..where you would have a damn sight more knowledge of the horses involved than the 30 year old ones

Thanks for the reply, George Johns. It seems i was right in what i thought re the shortened version of £s/Ws .

OK, it's your party and, afterall, this is the vdw show, so I'll try to follow what seems a strange way of doing things.

Am I correct in thinking that a race can be given this numerical class tag?
For instance, I'd think that the Grand National, the Cheltenham Gold Cup, the Derby (Epsom), and the Arc would be all class races.

But, are you saying that vdw advised looking at, say, the 1st three home in each of these races and checking each placer's figure? This as a means of establishing the true calibre of the race?

I think this may be an important element that I have been leaving out.

[quote]Yes, I have completely ignored the one behind. But not because it doesn't support my case. Rather, because that is what my reading of the evidence suggests Van der Wheil did. And this point is for me fundamental. By all means criticise any aspect of Van der Wheil's method, and you may be right that there are better ways of addressing any or all of the issues with which Van der Wheil was concerned. But unless you are able to show, by reference to what the man wrote or his examples, that my interpretation of that method is wrong, you are in no position to argue that the conclusions I draw from my interpretation are wrong.
.....................................................................

Taken from vdw`s 1988 Mackeson Gold Cup race evaluation:

Bishops Yarn : Only one previous run this season in much lower class;
beaten 15l, although by the great Desert Orchid, but only managed to hold off Golden Friend by half a length?.

quote:

Yes, I have completely ignored the one behind. But not because it doesn't support my case. Rather, because that is what my reading of the evidence suggests Van der Wheil did. And this point is for me fundamental. By all means criticise any aspect of Van der Wheil's method, and you may be right that there are better ways of addressing any or all of the issues with which Van der Wheil was concerned. But unless you are able to show, by reference to what the man wrote or his examples, that my interpretation of that method is wrong, you are in no position to argue that the conclusions I draw from my interpretation are wrong.

well this one brings up some good stuff

what you are saying is that if something deviates from what you see as "VDW" view of form reading..you won't be interested ...even if it makes more sense and actually helps you read form in a more logical way?

has it ever occured to you that reading form might be a little more complicated than what VDW stuff indicates?

I respect you believe how you are reading class/form...and tbh..it's interesting...but seems to be a misreading to me..obviously thats just my opinion...which doesn't mean you won't change my mind..I do have an open mind if I can see logic in a way of working.

I will be really interested in seeing you do some pre race analysis George...beceuse if over time you show that reading form in your way is successful I will be the first to congratulate you.

quote:

Am I correct in thinking that a race can be given this numerical class tag?

yes Sean..I think you will find that according to how VDW works..All Derby winners get the same rating...all Irish Champion Stakes winners get the same rating

this to me is very generalistic..because many races get weakened due to ground and injury instances

but a VDWer will tell you that this figure does not have to be an exact reflection of that races strength because it's just a small part of the analysis

but looking at how George works it's a large one.

something no one mentions re the going...and was highlighted by Benbaum the other day...that horse does not run best on slow ground..but due to a bad going description in France is credited for winning on Good to Soft when the ground was GOOD looking at the times

poor going descriptions throw large spanners in works..ask anyone that backed Benbaum believing he had previously won a very nice prize on slow ground...when he hadn't.

there are many instances of poor going descriptions..a big problem imo

not insurmountable though with a little closer study of the times

george does this make major cadereaux a virtual certainty although 5th in the ability rating

Les

I'll start a thread specifically to discuss that race...should be a good one

Ectoo

I entirely accept that there may be better ways of working than Van der Wheil's but until you posted about the success of your 10 star bets Van der Wheil's 80%+ claim was far and away the highest level of success I've seen claimed by anyone even remotely likely to be honest.

As far as I know, Van der Wheil never proofed any of his selections, and enough has been said on the "A time for great humility" thread to make one wonder how much truth there is in the whole business. But a quick reading of the March 1981 article interested me, and I've spent a bit of money, and a great deal of my holiday time over the last two months, putting myself in a position to try to find out how well Van der Wheil's main method works nowadays.

I have today deposited a small sum in a Betfair account and intend to back any selections I can find that seem to me to match Van der Wheil's bets, "certainties" or "outstanding bets" to modest stakes on a mildly progressive staking strategy over the next 12 months. If I get anywhere near the claimed level of success, the effort will have been worthwhile, and I'll start backing them very seriously. If not, then nothing much lost and I've had quite an enjoyable time doing the research. Simple as that, really.

if you used EPS..then Major Cadaeux comes out top I believe

good luck George

hope it works out

i'm sure we can discuss many more races over time...and get some winners

Most will be acquainted with the idea of looking for horses which are dropped in class. Often this is a race offering less prize money, but not necessarily so. The quality of horses engaged is more to the point.

Another forgotten/ignored quote.

Be Lucky

EPS?=

Walter

Thanks. I should have remembered that, and it certainly suggests Van der Wheil was mindful of horses behind non winners as well at times.


Sean

Yes, it does mean that any race can be given a numerical tag as you put it - and the general presumption is higher the number the higher class. As far as I can see, Van der Wheil made his judgements both about the class of the race, and the class of the runners, by reference to the numerical tag.

When assessing the class of runners he seems to have been principally interested in the form of the winner (when assessing a loser lto) or the second (when assessing a winner). But Walter's post referring to Van der Wheil's Pegwell Bay example shows that he was sometimes mindful of horses which finish behind a loser lto.

All I can say is that when looking at the 70 or so main method examples, following the approach Van der Wheil took with Prominent King (loser lto) and Sunset Cristo (winner lto) generates a consistent pattern.


Les

I haven't yet looked at the race to which you refer.

And please be cautious about the ability ranking point. Although it is - to the best of my belief - the case that all Van der Wheil's stated bets, "certainties" and "outstanding bets" were in the top five on ability, plenty of his other selections were lower down. Johnd has fairly pointed out that the rating is a guideline, and I'd imagine that Van der Wheil might well have backed some of those class/form horses with lower than 5th place in the ability rating ranking. At present I am trying to test how good his method is in current circumstances by looking for the really strong bets, so am not intending to get involved in backing any class/form horse below 5th ranking. But that is a personal judgement and when Johnd or others select a lower ranked horse they may very well be doing exactly what Van der Wheil would do.

quote:

Originally posted by George Johns:
Ectoo

I entirely accept that there may be better ways of working than Van der Wheil's but until you posted about the success of your 10 star bets Van der Wheil's 80%+ claim was far and away the highest level of success I've seen claimed by anyone even remotely likely to be honest.

As far as I know, Van der Wheil never proofed any of his selections, and enough has been said on the "A time for great humility" thread to make one wonder how much truth there is in the whole business. But a quick reading of the March 1981 article interested me, and I've spent a bit of money, and a great deal of my holiday time over the last two months, putting myself in a position to try to find out how well Van der Wheil's main method works nowadays.

I have today deposited a small sum in a Betfair account and intend to back any selections I can find that seem to me to match Van der Wheil's bets, "certainties" or "outstanding bets" to modest stakes on a mildly progressive staking strategy over the next 12 months. If I get anywhere near the claimed level of success, the effort will have been worthwhile, and I'll start backing them very seriously. If not, then nothing much lost and I've had quite an enjoyable time doing the research. Simple as that, really.

GEORGE
What do you mean by match. I THOUGHT EACH RACE WAS A DIFFERENT PUZZLE

Earnings Per Start les.

just looking at the listed race today..there is a lot to discuss.

Ectoo,

I have no problem with looking at today's racing, I do it all the time. As said the other day I'm not backing horses for personal reasons, and won't start until I can get my head right.

I did notice you had put up a race today and I did have a quick glance at it. I don't like small field races and the prices didn't really interest me so I gave it a miss. You say why the interest in the old examples? The interest is because we know from them the VDW selection with today's races we can only guess if there would have been a selection and if there was, was it a bet.

I have now worked the race and have to agree with George about the c/form horse. This of course proves nothing about whom is correct about how VDW worked as we work in very different ways using different A/R's. Judging by your response to George you also wouldn't be agreeing with me, judging on past encounters that would end with me being told I'm illogical.

I record all horse performances that are above a certain level. After the Vitznau was pulled out (and he wasn't consistent) I was left if only Atlantic Sport as a possible/probable. Here I will say I don't record races run in Nab Al Sheba because I can't make head or tail of their OR's, at times I think they just think of a number. That's not to say I just ignored Dijeerr I then used his British form and it was found wanting. If I backed short priced horses I would have been happy to back AS, but I'm not. If today's race had been at Doncaster I wouldn't have backed him because of D's form on flat tracks, but under no circumstances would I have backed D.

This race was worked in exactly the same way as I worked the Erin, so I think if VDW had worked the race he would have come to the same conclusion. But that can only be an educated guess at best. Once you have found the important traits any race old, or present day can be worked as long as you are consistent. If your not the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Be Lucky

MTOTO
What do you mean by TRAIT'S.

Would it be a distinguishing feature or quality