My friend and VDW

As far as last Friday's card was concerned he quoted four races but one and this is very important they had difficulty in establishing the winnner (TEMPERAMENT) so no bet!

I think you are reading more into what he is saying he is only using those matters related to the numerical picture which we feel is where VDW started the ball rolling!

My friend could not do anything last Saturday as, in his own words he was unavailable!

I will come back by tomorrow on some of the other
points you raise (after banking todays High Pitched winnings).

regards
Marchwood

Marchwood.

Hi, just to put the record straight. I am not trying to decry your titled friend. indeed if he has found a way of making vdw pay more power to his elbow. I am just a little confused. In your first posting it said take the 4 richest races, that produced 3 winners and a no bet. When I took the 4 richest races on Saturday it produced 4 losers, when I mentioned it I was told to look at other winners that came out of the 5th, 6th, and 8th richest races. Fair enough they won, but the question is if you went down to the 8th race on Saturday why not on Friday? there were races worth more than the value of the 8th on SATURDAY.
You must admit if you only flag up winners, without saying how many bets it gives a false impression.
The other flaw (for me) apart from no attention to ability, is this placing of the days since run in front of consistency. As long as the consistent horse is fit surly that is more important than days since last run. You say, you are trying to take the first letters as important. I except he didn't mention ability until later, but when did he mention days since a run, except in an example to show, many things could be used as guide to check on consistency and ability. He did this to prove the other ratings where not important.
To end he said put the odds in your favour, can I ask how many horses win when they are raised 2 or more levels in class? Not sure if it would be classified as increasing the odds in your favour.

Regards

Hello Mtoto

I do seem to have mislead you by mixing up two variations of the vdw numerical picture. Over
this weekend I will talk again with my friend to try and straighten it out. It may not be down to him; I make have to accept the blame for a bit of
a mix up.

Nothing intentional or just trying to make it look better than it was; but I agree as it stands it is not right.

Look at my condensed millennium version on the articles page; which is an attempt to offer a condensed version of the numerical picture.

One other point, why can you not put up your ability method for us all to learn from?

regards
Marchwood

Marchwood.

Ability is the main stay of my strategy, it is the first thing I check in ever race.
How do I do it, that is not so easy to explain as there are no set rules. When I started I thought about vdw's ability rating, and decided there was more to ability than races won.
I liked his other instruction, to study the past form, and see what had beaten it, or what did it beat. One of the first thing I look for is has it won a race of this class, if not it is not necessarily thrown out, because the next question is has any of it's opponents. If not the next question is who did what in the highest class and is that class good enough to hold it's own in this class. I think the easiest thing to do is give you some examples from today.

Quazar. Had not won in this class, but had won in a higher class than it's opponents, speed figure improving and good enough. Yes, it had the ability to win this.

Legal Light, had won a race of this class, on the face of it. On closer inspection the horses in the race where up to 12lbs inferior, so for ME it hadn't proved it was capable, add to this his best speed figures had been achieved in handicaps. For ME he is a top class handicapper and this is a big step up.

Comex Flyer, had run and won in better class than any of these opponents and better class than this race. Only slight negative fastest time in a much lower class, not bet as I made his true price 4/1.

As I have said before I don't use any statistic unless it has been achieved in the same or higher class. Unless it was higher class than all the rest and good enough to equate to the race in question.

I suppose numbers could be put to all these factors to accommodate the people that what to make it into a system. That would be for the individual to place the factors in order and put a worth to them. It doesn't take me long to cut a field down to 5/6 and put a price against them. The real time is spent on assessing the final 5/6.

Regards

[This message was edited by Mtoto on November 04, 2001 at 01:44 AM.]

Hello Mtoto

Thank you for this explanation. This type of assessment is what makes the difference between those prepared to work hard for their money with the time available and their own ability and those who have not got the time and are looking for an easier and quicker route.

I am not sure that a drop in class is as important as some people suggest. More important to me is the run where a horse shows an improvement in a higher class. I did an RSB exercise a little while ago which proved that more winners come from a step up in class of race
than did those from a drop down in class of race.

VDW's ability ratings are widely accepted but I have my doubts about their true worth. Taking
a horses winnings over its full racing career could be hiding a current bad season!

Does any other other reader use a different ability rating idea that they are prepared to share with the others?

regards
Marchwood

Marchwood

I am VERY surprised by your statement that horses going up in class win most races. That is the opposite to all the facts I have seen.

Would it be possible to see your figures?

The latest statistics I have seen confirmed that

36% of winners where dropped in class
37% of winner ran in the same class
27% of winners where raised in class

As for the time aspect of finding winners. I think most punters would gain by studying one race in depth rather than skimming 10, trying for ten winners. If you sit down quietly for 10 minutes, with practice, it is possible to eliminate the horse's with little or no chance from a card. I feel the fear of missing a winner is the punters biggest enemy closely followed by greed of course

Regards

Received by E-Mail from Marchwood
Hello Mtoto.

I felt I should clear up my statement that more horses being raised in class do better than those being lowered in class. The following relates to six year records between 1994 and 1999 and the total races figure each year has been adjusted to allow for first time runners or first time in Britain runners.

In Group races the total races run were 616 and of these 131 (21.27%) won in the same class.380 (61.69%)winners were up in class and only 105 (17.04%) winners down in class.

In Class A races there were 666 in total of which 142 (21.32%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 427 (64.11%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 97 (14.56%) in a higher class.

In Class B races there were 1027 in total of which 333 (32.42%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 557 (54.23%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 137 (13.34%) in a
higher class.

In Class C races there were 2846 in total in which 887 (31,16%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 1220 (42.87%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 739 (25.97%) in a higher class.

In Class D races there were 6895 in total in which 4042 (58.62%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 1675 (24.29%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 1178 (17.08%) in a higher class.

In Class E races there were 5160 in total in which 1831 (35.48%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 1390 (26.94%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 1939 (37.58%) in a higher class.

In Class F races there were 4690 in total in which 1558 (33.22%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 429 (9.15%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 2703 (57.63%) in a higher class.

In Class G races there were 1580 races in total; in which 393 (24.87%) had run in the same class in their previous race and 1187 (75.13%) in a higher class.

As the research shows my statement is fact in all races classes D and upwards. However, in the lower classes as is to be expected the trend
reverses. Maybe, Should I have made it clear that I do not bother with race classes below Class C; which I also believe is the type of race
that VDW would also be mainly interested in although I am aware that this type of classification was not in use in the late 70's.

It would appear that our personal correpondence course is now longer of interest to others and that maybe we have lost the thread somewhat!

Marchwood

Dear Marchwood c/of Gummy,
Several points here. Firstly When we say "class" I presume you mean A down to B, C down to D etc and not changes in prize money like £4000 down to £3000 which is what we were talking about earlier when we discussed the VDW thing? Am I right or wrong about this? Whichever the above is lets see the other one. Based on above though no wonder I like lower clas races then when I am looking for "class" drop, coupled with Marchwood confirmed earlier that speed figs work much better in low class races, which I already thought was true, but it was nice to see it confirmed.
Yours Swish

When you list all those up and down percentages in class how does that compare with how many runners were up ,same, or down in class in each particular race? The statistics arent much use without that information, (or are they?). In a twelve runner race, say, six are down in class, 5 same and 1 up. Statistacly its not likely to be the one that has gone up then is it? In fact we could do with knowing the total of all runners, won or lost that were up, same or down in class. Only then can we see a true picture. (I think!) It reminds me, although I am going off on a tangent, of what someone posted on the board that 53% of winners had placed last time, but how many runners ALTOGETHER HAD PLACED LAST TIME? Any way if 53% winners had placed 47% had not then. NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE. Yes I am pretty sure you need to know how many possibles there were to get a true picture. Get your teeth in to that one folks because it could be very important to every one of us,
Yours Swish

definatly not fed up with the thread its just that every time a new point arises it takes a couple of days for it to sink in.

swish's point about the number of threats in race is valid its just about deciding who the threats are.

These figures seem to be about the horses previous race regardless of what it acheived in that race. It doesn't strike me as being particularly relevent.

These statistics are based on horses winning their
last race and this being compared with the class that the horse ran in last time out. What I was out to show was that in better class races more horses that won were being raised in class than those being lowered which is an oft quoted requirement in many systems. It was
really an answer to our friend Mtoto in reply to his request for a sight of my figures.

My apologies, I misunderstood.

Dear Marchwood,
With all due repect you havent really answered any of my questions
Yours Swish

Swish

I am sorry about that but as I have said I was only looking at the winner of the race (which is
presumably what we are all looking for). The type of information may not be available through my source anyway. The aspect I was trying to cover was: whether the majority of winners of the races were stepping up in class or being lowered in class,
How many others in the race doing the same did not affect the ultimate result.The results of the research can only answer the questions I can ask.

Sorry, hope you get my point.

regards
Marchwood

Marchwood.

Thank you for the figures. I must admit to being very surprised. I have checked the source of my figures and have be assured they are correct. So could I ask, exactly what figures are yours?

I was also hoping you could tell what the vdw type selections where for Saturday. I made there to be 14 races of grade C or over, and possible selections in all of them. With the aid of my ability method I cut the selections down to 3 to 2 won the 3rd lost, but as I explained in a previous posting it was no bet due to the price being far too short. I wonder how you got on without any reference to ability, consistency by it's self is not enough. I am more than a little concerned that your article suggests that it is the focal point for the vdw selections. vdw said use both the rating, one without the other was meaningless, in fact he went as far as to say when you start to asses the race, start with the ability rating.

I know you have stated in your articles the views stated are not strictly pure vdw. I have said I have adapted some of the logic, to improve (in my view), the performance. I would never leave out, altogether, something as important as ability.

Regards

Hello Mtoto

My research is always done via RSB. I took each class of race and then looked to see which class of race the horse that won ran in last time.

I am not disputing ability but it was never mentioned in the first two or three letters of VDW; that leads me to believe that he either did not think it was important or he makes up the rules to suit the results!

I will look at Saturday but due to a major working project to do with a Public Enquiry which could last up to two years, things have to go by the board at times. Sorry!

regards
Marchwood

Dear Marchwood,
I must be honest, that it was too much to ask about the class change of all the runners. Is there any database, anywhere that could sort it out, probably not. I wish there was though. Also in my work I could not have coped, feeding every runner in to a spreadsheet/database. I just tried to find what lots of winners have in common, not what all the losers had in common. Even doing that I found it very mentally draining and at times extremely tedious. It is strange that your figs and Mtotos don't agree. Which one of you is right? I have already said my class drop theories did not work as well in High class races but then again neither do speed figs. Anyway, keep up your postings because its all damn interesting, and Mtotos, everyones for that matter, whether we agree, disagree or don't know,
Yours Swish

As I said my results were taken by myself using RSB and when time permits, I will check my way of doing things for the full 14 year period from 1986(when RSB started) up to 1999 the last complete year I have at my disposal.

Can Mtoto tell us where he got his info from; I will back RSB to win - I think!

regards
Marchwood

Marchwood.

I must confess my figures came from RSB as well, it just goes to show the answers can depend on the questions. That's why I don't put a lot of faith in statistics by themselves. I didn't only take winners, as any horse can win. I asked the % of horses that won when up. down, or same class.

Re vdw's first letters he didn't mention ability as such, he did say check to see how the horses had run in their last races. Who they had beaten, or who beat them, class of race, S.P, weight, etc. The horse he came up with is not one that would have been chosen by most of your adaptations. To be fair, on the face of it I can't see how he chose the winner, but that is another story.

As I have said I believe that the fundamentals as set out by vdw are the ONLY way to win consistently. If you can come up with sound logical ways of improving the basics so much the better. Missing out a major factor like ability to save the cost of a racing paper is asking for trouble. Quick and easy is the best way to the work house and I hope newcomers aren't taken in by a few results that happen to fall lucky.

I am sorry to say I hear your titled friend has changed direction yet again. He is now advocating a different set of rules that won on Monday, but his best 2 winners would not have qualified under the new rules. I think it may be better to wait until he finally decides which way to go before his thoughts are posted. It would cut out a lot of confusion for new comers and ammunition for the doubters.

Regards