Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #181 on Feb 3, 2009, 8:33am »
Monster
I disagree with you here and think you are misconstruing Lee's position.
It is certainly the case that on his last run of the 1987/8 season Smart Tar won a class 146 (the Mildmay on 16 March). But the race where Pegwell Bay beat Smart Tar was on 21 October when both horses were making their seasonal debuts after lengthy breaks. Pegwell Bay went off the 2/1 favourite, while Smart Tar, described in the Form Book as a bit backward, went off the 10/1 outsider of six. The fact that Pegwell Bay beat Smart Tar that day did nothing to enhance him from Van der Wheil's perspective.
You ask "Why did VDW not give Smart Tar an abiltity rating but still took the trouble to discuss his profile for the Mackenson." The answers to that are (a) because in this tabulation Van der Wheil only gave the ability ratings of the consistent horses, and (b) he discussed all the runners.
I don't think there is any particular mystery in the Pegwell Bay example. Jim Thorpe and Pegwell Bay were two of the three probables with form and well above the third on the ability rating. And when the two are compared on capability considerations, as they were in Van der Wheil's discussions of each, there can surely be no doubt why he chose the horse with "ideal going, over his best distance" over the one where "the distance is wrong and ... requires much softer ground to perform well". Had the race been over 16f on soft, I have no doubt Van der Wheil would have made Jim Thorpe the selection.
Lee's discussion on which I think you are drawing relates to the Roushayd example, and he underlined it by reference to Byron, who won at long odds on 27/7/04. It is worth thinking about the direction of travel, class-wise, of Pegwell Bay and Jim Thorpe on one hand and Roushayd and Byron on the other, which provides the true significance of Lee's posts on the matter.
Lee Member Posted February 05, 2003 07:39 PM Hide Post Mike/All (who are interested),
Mtoto is right in that Smart Tar was amongst the first 6 in the forecast, but VDW decided not to include his ability rating. For information Smart Tar had a class rating of 55 going in to the Mackeson, higher than Pegwell Bay, but not as high as Townley Stone. So, if Smart Tar’s ability rating wasn’t mentioned, why was Townley Stones?
VDW gave his thoughts on the horses concerned but as Mtoto mentions he never categorically stated that any of the contenders were, or were not, form horses. I can tell you now that neither Townley Stone nor Smart Tar was, which should beg an answer to the above question.
Also, VDW stated that he wouldn’t have wagered on Pegwell Bay had the ground been heavy, why? Most will answer that he’d failed on both occasions that he’d faced heavy going. But in fact that is only half the reason for the comment. Smart Tar was a better class horse than Pegwell Bay going in to the race and had gone under to him LTO, on good/firm ground. VDW mentioned that Smart Tar would prefer the ground softer, and had the conditions suited Smart Tar there would have been further conflict.
Now look at the horses that beat Townley Stone and you should be able to judge why he was also NOT a form horse for the Mackeson.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #183 on Feb 3, 2009, 10:31am »
Hi Gorgejohn
Please don't shoot the messenger
Guest stated and not on the Gummy Forum that with regards to Pegwell Bay, not all of the horses were listed numerically, but went to the trouble of discussing all the horses. From Guests perspective it was one of the horses not listed numerically that held the key to the Mackenson. One member has asked what Guest was hinting at and I have replied.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #184 on Feb 3, 2009, 11:02am »
"SMART TAR: Has a lot of ability and has run in a better class than most in this race, but went under to Pegwell Bay last time out and there is nothing to suggest a reversal. Would also benefit from softer ground. "
Guest states it is staring us in the face? - We are looking at the Mackeson itself which was run on g/f ground over 2m 4f class 221 at Cheltenham in 1988.If im reading the hints kindly given by Guest - Lee - Monster correctly. It would seem that vdw was fairly ruthless when eliminating the class from the numerical picture Smart Tar does`nt even get an invite .
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #186 on Feb 3, 2009, 11:20am »
Lee wrote:
So, if Smart Tar’s ability rating wasn’t mentioned, why was Townley Stones?
VDW gave his thoughts on the horses concerned but as Mtoto mentions he never categorically stated that any of the contenders were, or were not, form horses. I can tell you now that neither Townley Stone nor Smart Tar was, which should beg an answer to the above question?.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #188 on Feb 3, 2009, 11:47am »
Page 65 tgyovdw : I find it interesting that Lesley Ann, another that Win implied was rubbish, has again given Wayward Lad a thrashing at Cheltenham, just as she did last year. ................................................................... One can only assume that Lesley Ann was a bit of a standing dish round Cheltenham & Wayward Lad though he could pick up valuable place money (larger than some win prizemoney elsewhere) struggled to win at the course.Bit before my time mind i only turned 44 in Jan id be in my teens when these two were racing.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #189 on Feb 3, 2009, 12:08pm »
Hi Walter
I have found the post
Guest Member Posted April 01, 2003 11:16 PM Hide Post
"Wayward Lad was beaten in lower class by a not very highly rated horse in the run up to Haydock. The big clue to Little Owl in addition to the obvious numerical picture was in VDWs clever reply to WIN of Brighton. VDW said "I notice Lesley Ann, another WIN implied was rubbish, has given Wayward Lad another thrashing at Cheltenham just as she did last year."
When one realises what VDW was NOT spelling all out, a lot of his seemingly strange comments become crystal clear. "
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #190 on Feb 3, 2009, 12:09pm »
Monster
I'm not trying to shoot anyone, just disagreeing with your interpretation of Guest and Lee in relation to the Pegwell Bay race.
Walter
Van der Wheil chose only to give the ability ratings of the consistent horses in the Pegwell Bay race. Why? One can only conjecture, but my view is that it was to give his readers a nudge re identifying the consistent horses.
My apologies for not replying as I forgot the thread where I posted. The Ahoy list was a list of horses from a booklet called 'Systematic betting' I was looking at these in depth and by chance or whatever I found certain traits that in fact run through every other horse mentioned in the booklet that I have looked at so far. You need the 1987 and 88 form books but it is money well spent especially as the information gleaned is very useful!!
Bold Gait
Don't know if you'll see this, I just noticed yours yesterday.
I don't have the booklet you mention, but I see at the back of 'Betting The VDW Way' there is this list...AHOY, ALWUHUSH, ANCIENT FLAME and ASSATIS. Would this be the list you are meaning? In the previous paragraph he is talking about the 2yo list, speed figures 40 upwards [what's the equivalent nowadays], not run more than 3 times etc. Do you know if this is the list these 4 horses are taken from.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #192 on Feb 3, 2009, 12:40pm »
Hi Georgejohn
Re Guest: It was Smart Tar who Guest thought held the clue as to why PB had the strongest form. (Have you heard the expression "Straight from the horses mouth") The Consistency ratings have noithing to do with establishing the Form horses.
Perhaps Guest is not correct, but thats the message. We can all decide for ourselves.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #193 on Feb 3, 2009, 12:42pm »
Walter
Van der Wheil chose only to give the ability ratings of the consistent horses in the Pegwell Bay race. Why? One can only conjecture, but my view is that it was to give his readers a nudge re identifying the consistent horses.
Just looking at the example in the booklet now - why does vdw star Gee-A 11* for consistency and leave Smart Tar out who has 8?. Neither horses ability rating is mentioned.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #194 on Feb 3, 2009, 12:55pm »
Walter
The * for Gee-A is a mistake, it is not in the original version of the article and was presumably an error by Tony Peach or his type-setter when they came to reprint it in "Betting the VDW Way".
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #198 on Feb 3, 2009, 1:08pm »
Lee & Guest agree along the same lines with this Post.
Posted April 15, 2002 11:47 AM Fulham - Stray Shot was not entitled to win his race just prior to winning at Huntingdon. Think about it carefully. Every situation is different but the reasoning remains the same.
Determined - Not ignoring you, just so many questions seem to appear from others. Lee Member Posted April 15, 2002 05:10 PM Fulham,
The last post from Guest probably contains the biggest nudge, directly, that has been given so far on this thread. Answer the question contained and you’ll be well on your way.
To uncover the hidden factor/s that are imperative to making this method work you don’t require past sporting newspapers. Of course they are very handy to have in order to check some points that aren’t available in the formbooks, such as race conditions etc, but on the whole the relevant formbooks are most important.
Posted February 26, 2003 12:01 PM Mtoto,
You asked me a question some time ago regarding Smart Tar which I said I’d get back to you on; better late than never – my apologies.
‘Smart Tar has a lot of ability and has run in better class than most in this race, but went under to Pegwell Bay last time out and there is nothing to suggest a reversal.’
‘Had the ground been heavy, I would not have wagered on him’ (Pegwell Bay)
The conditions that a horse fails on or indeed prevails on have to be taken in to account. Smart Tar failed last time out on ground that was not to his liking so this was not on its own an out of form performance. The reason Smart Tar was not a form horse in the eyes of VDW was when the conditions of his next race were taken in to account. Ie. Meeting the same horse over the same distance over similar going, and that is why VDW made the comment ‘there is nothing to suggest a reversal’. Had the going been heavy, Smart Tar still wouldn’t have been classed as in form. Instead there would have been conflict and the race would have been left. Posts: 374 | Registered: February 07, 2002
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #199 on Feb 3, 2009, 1:09pm »
Thanks for that Monster - In your opinion what would vdw have done if a horse that could be considered consistent but not starred was bet into the f/cast area during open market before the race?
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #200 on Feb 3, 2009, 1:10pm »
Walter
While I have a lot of respect for Guest; not least that he had put a lot of work into understanding VDW, and was prepared to put his money where his mouth was (Unlike so many who claim/have claimed proficiency ), I doubt you will find answers by searching through his postings, indeed I believe he is out of the game altogether now, which should tell you everything you need to know. Having had some correspondence with him at the time, I know that his approach depended greatly on this 'A' beat 'B' scenario, but it is absolutely pointless, with Pegwell Bay or many of the others, unless circumstances on the day are taken into account. Horses like Smart Tar run badly for a reason, and to accept that PB beat him on class alone is a certain way to the poor-house, in my very honest opinion.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #201 on Feb 3, 2009, 1:19pm »
Horses like Smart Tar run badly for a reason, and to accept that PB beat him on class alone is a certain way to the poor-house, in my very honest opinion.
Nobody`s saying that John - only vdw seemed to eliminate Smart Tar before the first numerical picture.I liked Guest myself - it would`nt surprise me if he had fell out of the game - he didnt get much encouragement for a boy that tried to help so many.
Thanks for that Monster - In your opinion what would vdw have done if a horse that could be considered consistent but not starred was bet into the f/cast area during open market before the race?
Hi Walter
I think that VDW evaluated every runner so there were not many surprises for him. Guest and Lee both worked from List and VDW mentioned Lists.
I can see the advantage that Lee and Guest would have working from previously evaluated races, when trying to figure out a current race. they would know the strength of form for each runner based on the ability ratings of horses beaten or beaten by and the class of previous race.
Last AW season I posted 11 winners from 14 selections in handicap races on the Flatstas Board. (The Google Doc. Link is on this thread for selections) The method used OR ratings as a basis for the method, which had more in common with Jib than Lee and Guest who do not use OR to determine class and Form.
Having now digested quite an amount of material from Lee and Guest I am of the opinion that their method of VDW analysis with regards to Form and Class is superior to the VDW adaptation that I used to find those winners during the Winter of 2008. I also came accross this post which might be of use.
Lee Member Posted February 26, 2002 09:38 PM Hi All,
Since my initial postings on the VDW thread I haven’t felt the need to contribute too much. The reason being is that whether you agree with him or not ‘guest’ has certainly got things sewn up, for which he has my total respect. I notice that he has mentioned that he has received some help in the past, as I did; however he has gone much further than I in his quest to seek the answers. That said I do know the important factors that go towards balancing class and form when it comes to VDW.
The problem with answering questions as to why Armaturk, or Bacchanel were worthy of support is that the answer will always appear to be somewhat vague. This is not that the person answering the question is doing so from within a cloud of mystery or secrecy, it is because to answer the question in full would give the game away, which is something that will never happen.
Guest has managed to do a wonderful job of answering questions that have been posed in a way that he has given, as far as possible, a full and straight answer. Better than I could have done, which is again a demonstration of his far superior understanding of the subject in comparison to mine.
To the likes of Determined and others it is worth noting that things aren’t that difficult (when you know how), easy for me to say I know, but it is something that should be remembered when studying VDW’s examples in order keep things logical and simple, because that really is how it is. When VDW stated that hard work was required in order to operate his methods he wasn’t hinting at just the odd hour a day to compile the numerical pictures for each race. No one thing is of use on its own, be it speed figures, of form ratings, or whatever, but there is in my mind one part of the jigsaw that is an essential part of the method. It has been mentioned by VDW, and it will form part of the ‘hard work’ element of the equation.
One thing that I think Guest has mentioned which is well worthy of a second thought is that the conventional methods of form analysis need to be put to bed before you’ll have any chance of understanding what VDW was trying to put across. Which is why if you are new to the game you’ll have a better chance of grasping his intentions far quicker than the likes of those that use such things as collateral form in order to pick winners, or losers! Posts: 374 | Registered: February 07, 2002
Guest Member Posted February 26, 2002 11:23 PM Mtoto - Part of my answer to your question re class/form has already been addressed by Lee. He is right in that there comes a point during discussion of VDWs methods that prevents one from explaining too much. Not because the other considerations are the holy grail, but because they are so simple and logical that it would almost certainly give the game away to everyone. You have mentioned before about discussing VDWs ideas in private so if you want to email me then here is the following email address guestmail00@yahoo.co.uk
Determined - Again part of the answer to your question is involved in the above and Lees last post. Identifying the higher rated ability horses is easy but we are really only interested in them if they are in form. Form is the big stumbling block as VDW suggested. The majority thought Beacon Light was in form, but VDW took a different view. When you understand why and how he formed that view, things will be much clearer.
I concur with the view that a speed figure of 90 at Ascot is better than a 100 at Redcar. It still only forms part of the jigsaw though.
Statajack/Mtoto - I agree with Statajacks view here re SR/GG. For a very similiar scenario check out VDWs evaluation of Aherlow/Cavvies Clown. Aherlow had already beaten CC and was then on 7lb better terms in the Feltham Novice Chase, but whilst identified as the most likely winner he was left as he was behind other form horses on ability (conflict) including CC. There were other factors though that showed Aherlow was potentially better than his bare ability rating.
Lee - I'm flattered by your comments, but I don't profess to know it all VDW wise. I have gone to extreme lengths though to understand as much as I could of what VDW was saying. As stated above, I agree with what you say about the hidden factors within VDWs methods. Posts: 748 | Registered: February 18, 2002
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #203 on Feb 3, 2009, 2:00pm »
monster
Hi Georgejohn
Re Guest: It was Smart Tar who Guest thought held the clue as to why PB had the strongest form. (Have you heard the expression "Straight from the horses mouth") *The Consistency ratings have nothing to do with establishing the Form horses*.
Georgie : Guest stated a few times that consistent horses were not necessarily form horses so why did so many think that they were?. If im on the right track with this i think a way into establishing the form aspects may be class & weight.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #204 on Feb 3, 2009, 2:39pm »
Today at 12:09pm, Walter Pidgeon wrote:Thanks for that Monster - In your opinion what would vdw have done if a horse that could be considered consistent but not starred was bet into the f/cast area during open market before the race?
Hi Walter
I think that VDW evaluated every runner so there were not many surprises for him. Guest and Lee both worked from List and VDW mentioned Lists. ...........................................................................
I cant find the actual quote monster but the reason i asked that question was Little Nugget vdw said he was`nt in a couple of paper f/casts i was just wondering if he had been bet into the f/cast area in the open market?. ............................................................................
From your latest post above
Determined - Again part of the answer to your question is involved in the above and Lees last post. Identifying the higher rated ability horses is easy but we are really only interested in them if they are in form. Form is the big stumbling block as VDW suggested. The majority thought Beacon Light was in form, but VDW took a different view. When you understand why and how he formed that view, things will be much clearer.
Hedgehog posted his thoughts in 2002.
Fulham i know you are more knowledgable than i but Beacon Light was finding each race more difficult as it decreased in class. Surely if the horse was simply maintaining its fitness level the task at hand would have become easier as it dropped in class. Why the trainer should make Beacon Light look so good prior to the Erin is beyond me.He must have been aware of BL`s dropping form.Why else drop it in class? Surely running in races of comparable or higher class prior to the Erin would have been better preparation."Train hard, Fight easy" I believe Marshall Zimarov said. Anyway that`s my view. I fully expect to be corrected.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #205 on Feb 3, 2009, 2:58pm »
If Hedgehogs views on BL are acceptable then it would be quite reasonable to assume that it works just as well in reverse. Which could help explain vdw`s comments "The result makes it appear he is capable of winning again before long".
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #206 on Feb 3, 2009, 3:25pm »
Walter
Actually it was Van der Wheil who effectively first said that consistency and form were not one and the same, in his discussion of the 1985 King George won by Wayward Lad. The horse to which he was referring was Burrough Hill Lad, who was in the first five of the forecast and had the joint second lowest consistency aggregate in the field, and of whom Van der Wheil remarked: "Burrough Hill Lad was not a form/horse in this race". Possibly because this came relatively late in the Van der Wheil material, some would not have picked up on it and probably assumed that consistency and form were one and the same, and thus Guest did them a great service by pointing out that they were not.
As I see it, in any given race one can have four types of horse:
consistent horses (as defined by Van der Wheil) who were also form horses (ditto)
consistent horses who were not form horses
horses who were not consistent horses but who were form horses
horses who were neither consistent nor form horses.
All Van der Wheil's selections from the main (March 1981 article) method were both consistent and form horses, as implied in the first term of his formula for finding winners: "Consistent form + ..."
For me, the pull of Van der Wheil is his 80% claim, which may have been justified or total nonsense. But leaving aside what strike rate the method achieves, for me there is an undeniable beauty in its logic for dealing with a field: first exclude the non consistent horses (because on his stats. consistent horses win a disproportionate number of races); if too many reduce them by identifying the probables within the consistent horses; then assess the probables for their form status and eliminate any that are not form horses; then assess the remaining usually 2-3 starting with the best of them (highest ability rating) to see which is the most likely of the 2-3 (and indeed by extension the field) to win (class/form horse); and finally assess the probability of the class/form horse winning to decide whether to back it.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #208 on Feb 3, 2009, 4:30pm »
Walter
The way I think Van der Wheil worked I would categorise all as consistent horses, as of course he said in the relevant article, and would regard three of them (Jim Thorpe, Pegwell Bay and Giolla Padraig) as form horses, too, with the other three not form horses.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #209 on Feb 3, 2009, 5:00pm »
The reason i asked George is that once the breakdown of the field in the Mackeson is read vdw does`nt have a lot of good to say about the starred horses - Pegwell Bay aside.
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Members]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/members.gif)
![[Admin]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/admin.gif)
![[Profile]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/profile.gif)
![[Logout]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/logout.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Add Bookmark]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/bookmark.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/KennethMore.jpg)
![[send pm]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/message_sm.gif)
![[Quote]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
![[Modify]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/modify.gif)
![[Delete]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/delete.gif)
195.93.21.34![[image]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/star.png)
2009 Tipping Challenge Winner 11,449.71 pts profit.... 10 months played. 
), I doubt you will find answers by searching through his postings, indeed I believe he is out of the game altogether now, which should tell you everything you need to know.
![[Move Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/movetopic.gif)
![[Remove Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/removetopic.gif)
![[Unlock Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/unlock.gif)
![[Sticky Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sticky.gif)
![[Make Announcement]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/makeannouncement.gif)
![[Bump Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/bump.gif)