I thought my days of backing 2-3 in a race at 10/1 plus in 20 plus runner h`caps had gone when using the VDW methodology.

Guest with Defining, Champion Lodge and Lord Protector has confirmed they are out there which excites me.

That said, VDW said that " no element of a gamble should come into our evaluations ".

30 runner h`caps will always bring the `gamble` element into play but I can live with that.

I`ll be giving those 3 races plenty of research.



MTOTO,

Needwood Blade was one hell of a placement by his trainer. I so much wanted to back this horse on Friday last but bottled out. Hope you were on. Theres`s an ideal race for him to follow up on the last day of the season ( subject to the opposition of course ).


Cheers,

as i stated on another thread i have recently bought the vdw books and 4 by jock bingham,to see what all the fuss was about.having read the golden years there are a few points i would like to make,and would appreciate a few responses.
vdw claims a 90% strike rate,yet he says stick to the first 5 in the betting,this only produces 83% winners,so 17% of all winners are outside the first 5 in the betting?????.
some people said vdw never mentions official ratings,he does in the golden years?????
vdw says horses never lose ability,then why do horses go on the down grade,surely this is losing ability??????.
all replies would be appreciated.

your all online,reply would be nice to my first proper vdw post?

83% winners come from the first five in the forcast, when you go outside this area you are starting to put the odds against yourself.

Another way given to put the odds in your favour, is that consistent horses win a high percentage of races, letter 8 and 13, again this is a way to narrow the field and attempt to narrow the field of view in races.

I dont think in itself, a combination of the two is a winner finding method in its own right but VDW puts forward fine tuning in letter 39.

all this may seem old hat now, back then I suppose they were new ideas to a relatively uneducated betting public.

Good luck Greg, I hope you get the bug.

Dont be so impatient, bloody hell only just seen it.

Ability-

think of "Ali", his ability never can fade he has always been world champion and arguably the best ever.

When he was older though he strugled against players, who when he was younger, would not have deserved to get into the same ring.

his ability made sure he carried on though. The lesser lights, when he was in his prime, what were they doing in his old age?

Greg

Your first point is easy to answer. VDW didn't back in every race, but was extremely selective. The question is really what proportion of the races VDW bet in were won by a horse in the first five/six in the betting? We don't know the answer, of course, but it is reasonable to suppose that it was a markedly higher percentage than applies to races as a whole, because he only bet in races where a clear "winner in" rather than "winner of" the race could be envisaged by the application of rational principles.

As to ORs, VDW does not seem to have made much use of them, but in his day they were markedly more difficult to get. Instead of being freely available, as now, they could only be obtained at the beginning of the Flat season from the National and International Classifications, and during that Flat season and throughout the NH by painstakingly deconstructing handicaps in the light of the rounded ratings given in the weekly Racing Calendar.

As to your third point, I've always found that rather confusing, and am not sure what point VDW was really making. Its quite clear that in any activity involving physical effort, the period over which one can perform to one's peak is finite, albeit longer for some than for others. The number of top-flight footballers able still to command a place in the international team (or even the premiership) over 40 bears testimony to that. The Yavana's Paces and Persian Punches are as unusual as the Pat Edderys and George Duffields.


Chaz

No. The widespread confidence in Boreas yesterday suggested to me that some hadn't appreciated how outstanding Persian Punch has been, and remains, over his preferred distance.

so your saying horses do not go on the downgrade?

and why is there such a debate on dutching,vdw says is it not prudent to make a book,debate solved

nice answer on the forcast,cleared that 1 up,

Going against the first 6 in the betting and
backing horses with bad form figures are putting the odds against yourself as a general rule.
As Guest proved with defining there are exceptions.i know swish wont agree with this but
taking nothing else into account if you back a
horse not in the first 6 in the betting with 3
duck eggs they win 1.8% of the time and produce
a 62% loss.At the other end of the scale if you
backed a horse that was in the first 6 in the
betting and had won it`s last 3 races they win
26% of the time a produce a 8% loss.

Hi Greg,

VDW claimed that a minimum strike rate of 80% should be achieved using his methods, and went on to say that unless this was being achieved then you should evaluate your reading of form (that’s everyone then!). There was much written about the consistency figures and betting forecast but these were only the very elementary parts of the method used to narrow the field, and even went on to say that there are many ways that this can be done. It’s the reading of form that I believe is the so-called Missing Link. How to do this was held very close to his chest and was done so for a reason. Your observation that 17% of all winners must come outside the first 5/6 in the forecast is not actually correct. For example, just because 35 – 40% of all favourites win it doesn’t mean to say that one can’t attain a strike rate much higher than this by backing favourites. Hope that makes the point I’m trying to put across.

To be honest I think VDW overestimated the average punter assuming that they would understand and grasp what he was saying far easier, and in larger numbers than those that actually did. I think that is obvious from the contributions that have been made on this forum. Even ‘Guest’ who unquestionably has an extensive knowledge of VDW, and indeed racing in general, doesn’t as far as I can tell strike at over 80%. However, I’m sure if he was more selective in what he posted he could. I personally have never achieved an 80% strike rate at odds against. It’s achievable at odds-on but you’ll find to fewer bets in my mind and it becomes difficult to make decent profit without turnover.

If nothing else you will definitely learn something to the good by reading his material, which can’t be said about a lot of literature on the subject of betting on horses. Good luck with it.

with solid form study and good logic,there are 3 duck eggs outside the first 5 with chances of winning,but i understand your talking about in general.
chaz,if 83% are won by the first 5,the correct figure is 17% outside the first 5,

Fulham,

I’m not debating that PP isn’t a class horse given his ideal conditions, however, it’s worth asking why there aren’t an abundance of Group 1 races at 2m? The best racehorses are bred to compete at the middle distances. Rock Of Gibraltar he has never been, and that’s is what was meant by not “top of the class”.

Boreas had the class and was unexposed at the distance, and in my view was worth taking as a bet.

Greg,

Of course, you’re right!

Hi Greg,

I have read the few books on vdw I have many, many times. I don't know if I am the right person to ask. I would say if it was easy to understand, and straight forward, it would have been cracked by many more people.

Think Fulham has explained the forecast situation. Maggsy is of course correct in what he says about the statistics on placed horses, and the position in the forecast. Chaz may have a point about the form reading, but this is a very personal thing. I think for everyone to arrive at the same selection, it must be a far more mechanical. I think the order the filters are applied can give very different results. On one hand vdw says take the 3 lowest consistency figures, then somewhere else he says take the 4 highest ability ratings. He says take the first 5/6 in the forecast, then on occasions takes horses from outside the forecast. All I can say is read all the literature many times, and make your own conclusions. Much has been said about Mr Hall, he apparently solved the puzzle without any recourse to the ability factor. I don't believe that for a second. So was it luck, or did he just use the facts that were readily available to judge ability?

Talking of ability, could I ask Guest what ability rating he is using for the likes of Lord Protector? It can't be the conventional ability rating. I use speed, and I can't make it fit. I do seem to remember this horse was fancied for the Lincoln (by the trainer) and was well beaten. Thought VDW said only take notice of what was achieved on the track. However well spotted!

Statajack/ Pipedreamer.

If a thread could be filled with Spencer's bad rides, it would take at least 2 to accommodate his good rides. Boreas had run about 20 times, all his good wins had been on flat tracks. His main weapon is speed, what stops speed faster than an uphill finish? I waited until I had watched the race again before answering you. The horse was put in the race at the 2f marker, if he had his finishing kick he would have won. But, that's what it is all about, opinion.

Be Lucky

Having only just watched yesterdays race, may I just put forward my view of events.
Along with most other recent posters, I had Boreas down as a good thing, as he was a form horse, had the best recent class, had his ideal conditions, and was improving.
In retrospect, I feel that it was only the last part of this summary where I was in error, and this is what made the difference yesterday.
I felt that, as he had improved his p/m & s/f in his last race, it was reasonable to assume that his form was still improving, reading the form again today it is apparent that he had a harder race lto than the time before, and this was probably the only reason for his improved ratings.
Given that the horse hadn't improved lto, and had a harder race, it was perfectly reasonable to expect PP to achieve yesterday's 2 length turnaround on 3lb better terms. In other words, they ran, almost to the ounce, to the form of their last meeting.
As far as Jamie Spencer's riding, in my view he only asked the horse the same questions he had asked in his previous 2 races, only this time the horse wasn't good enough!
I was wrong, and I think I know why, others take a different view, which is their prerogative, but I will learn from my mistakes, will they?

since the fifth of september elsworth laid out the plan for persian punch. Identical to 2000.

In 2001 he had bigger ideas but it wasnt good enough.

Boreas main strength is not speed but stamina and he was certainly not ridden the same as his last race. If anyone looks at his previous 2 races he began to make headway at around the 4f marker and as Mtoto says was only put in the race yesterday with 2f to go. He was left with too much to do, simple as that. I suspect we all hold different views on this race but I'll just say personally its a bet I'd happily make again.
regards,

Mtoto - Obviously it is tricky to answer your Lord Protector question in full without revealing much of the basis of the method employed to find him.

What I will say is that whilst speed wasn't instrumental in isolating him, I did note that on my unadjusted topspeed figures he was 3rd rated behind Sir Ninja and Millenium Force. This was used as a guide after determining his achievements on the track. It's no secret that he had only actually won one race, a lowly maiden on the AW, but that wasn't the limit of his ability. There are still an alarming amount of VDW followers who want to use the ability rating as the be all and end all, but it is only of any use if coupled with good form. That is what VDW mean't about ability not fading. If the horse continues to show form as it gets older then the ability is still there, pure and simple.

horses do lose ability,ill give you an example that springs to mind
colway ritz-this is just off the top of head figures but if you look it up probably not far off the mark,hadnt won for about 2 years,dropped about 2 st in the ratings,managed to hack up then after coming down to such a low level,won another since,probably gone back up about 10 lbs for them 2 wins,but this horse will not get back up to its old mark ,it has lost ability,it will never be as good as it was 2 yrs ago,in my book thats lost ability,what do you call it?
i could probably dig out 50 such examples

Re Jamie Spencer,surely that is what he is paid to do,ie ride well.

Greg - Colway Ritz has actually shown that when it returned to form it still had the ability to win races when conditions were right. I bet plenty had proclaimed him gone when he was out of form.

The horse has to be in form (VDWs way) before the ability part comes into it.