epi -

I think these are the figures you want - let me know if I am wrong .

Later I am going to try a results breakdown - using a field split point of 12 !

STAKES


cl A 22 races av field 9.54
cl B 3 races av field 6
cl C 7 races av field 6.85
cl D 65 races av field 10.21
cl E 33 races av field 11.84
cl F 11 races av field 9.83
cl G 9 races av field 10.55


HANDICAPS

cl A 2 races av field 10.05
cl B 9 races av field 13.77
cl C 29 races av field 11.56
cl D 46 races av field 10.6
cl E 62 races av field 11.91
cl F 26 races av field 13.53
cl G 2 races av field 13


HURDLES

cl B 1 race -- 13
cl C 2 races av field 8
cl D 11 races av field 8.63
cl E 19 races av field 9.47
cl F 4 races av field 10.25
cl G 5 races av field 10.83


CHASES

cl D 10 races av field 6.2
cl E 15 races av field 7.73
cl F 6 races av field 9.5


curious to know what you are going to do with the info ??

tc

Thanks, that's exactly what I meant, though I was expecting more pronounced differences. I dont think the win/loss results of the three-in-the-forecast can be considered against race class or field size without recognising that field size varies with race class.

without commiting myself at this stage -

quote:

---

the win/loss results of the three-in-the-forecast

---

-

appear at a quick glance - to be affected by field size - in the "Handicaps"

more later !

N 4:35 Captain Miller

Tc
A few observations from the figures you provided:

Strike rate of 3 most cons. from first 5/6 in betting = 57%.
Nothing remarkable there, a lower s/r than the first 3 in betting, but compensated for by the higher return. Hardly sets the world on fire, though.

Horses with 111 form figures.
3 winners from 11 races (12 horses) = 27% (25%), some way below that indicated, although from a small enough sample.
Backing fav in same races would give 4 winners from 11 races = 36%. Again,the figures are below those in the letters.

Winners that came from the first 3 in the betting where the agregate form figures of the first 3 on consistency was 15 or below.
This should, of course, have been from the first 5/6 in betting. Apologies for that; any chance of the revised figures?

johnd -

quote:

---

Winners that came from the first 3 in the betting where the agregate form figures of the first 3 on consistency was 15 or below.
This should, of course, have been from the first 5/6 in betting. Apologies for that; any chance of the revised figures?

---

Sorry but being an idle sod - I cut and pasted your question - I didn't notice that you had said first 3 in the betting !

The figures I gave do in fact refer to the first 5/6 in the betting !!

re sample size

espesialy in view of the large disparity with VDWs figures - I want to confirm that my own figures are not just a blip !!

In line with normal sampling methods I am collecting a second sample of similar size, and will compare the percentages thrown up by each of the two samples :- this is a better method than simply collecting one very large sample featuring the same number of races, as it checks the consistency of the figures .

I wont bore members by posting daily lists - but will do a similar summary when the sample is complete !

Tc
In that case;
The percentage of winners that came from the first 5/6 in the betting where the agregate form figures of the first 3 was 15 or below. 8 winners from 15 races =38%.
Whichever combinations are used to make the agregate of 15 or under, there are strong indications in the letters that the percentage winners from these 3 should be very close to 90% yet the bald fact is the actual is not even in the same ballpark.
In the same races, one would expect a much better return from the first 3 favs! IMO this sample is too large to be dismissed as unrepresentative.

That leads to 3 possible conclusions:

1/ Racing has changed radically in recent years, and the incidence of consistency is nothing like it was????

2/ VDW's original figures are wrong, which would cast serious doubt on much of his other work????

or 3/ It has been misinterpreted how he arrived at these figures, and as a consequence we are looking at it incorrectly????

I would favour number 3 as the answer, though I cannot believe that amongst all the followers of 'the Guest method', Barney included, no one has actually checked these statistics.
Maybe he did view consistency differently?

ps I have also done some checking, but from a different angle. Will post the results in the next couple of days.

thanx john -

Before anyone starts getting pedantic - the 38% is represented by 5 winners from 13 races.

unless that is you are looking at the figures from a different angle from myself ???

I am now going to attempt some sort of filtering process - starting by sorting the races into various catagories, and looking to see if any catagory shows significant numbers which have winners outside the first 5/6 in the betting forcast !

I venture that if we are looking for a method - based on consistancy theory - then we should discount - those races which feature inconsistant horses !

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

Just ask Dandy Nichols !

JIB - that post is almost as - obfuscated - as some of VDWs -

one of your better ones :- I think !

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

quote:

---

Originally posted by john in brasil:
_Hoarse_I would just like to reiterate that in everything other than 'stud value' racing, consistency is illogical because it is bad business practice.In simpler terms..._it doesnt make sense._

---

You cannot be right JIB judging by the results so far
If you were we could eliminate the 3 most consistent

and select from the 3 most inconsistent
as it is there wouldnt seem to be enough in the consistency figures to gain any sort of edge probabilty wise

I wonder if the 3 most recent would fare any better

boozer - tho I like JIBs logic - I want to "play with the consistency figs a - lot further !!

I am blowin' my brains out trying to deal with the "3 most recent" - as it looks like this is "going to be" - the "Way to Go" !!!

figs like - "116" - are showing good returns !!- !!

still no conclusions tho !!!

I "STILL" can't deal with - "D.Nichols"- and feel that - if I could "understand" him- I would be a long way along the route to "solving" the handicaps !!

Come on "GREG" - Give us some clues !!

I am just going to make "Greg" -"happy" - by crossing out the - N.Hunt meetings !!!

tc

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

No Boozer,

As we have already discussed there are more reasons for running a horse than there are hairs in its tail!

At its ideal conditions (dist., going, class, opposition, track etc) the consistency of a horse could well be a single decisive factor. However when I asked if that was how Lee judged consistency he said 'no'.

There was some talk about how the horse performed at the business end of the race but that is too closely linked to my original question to be a satisfactory answer. However Lees method if indeed it has anything to do with consistency did v well whilst he was demonstrating its effectiveness if not its nature.

The other point I feel might well be worth bearing in mind here is the thunderously silent reaction that the old chestnut of the missing link being infact nothing more than some requirement regarding finishing distances.

Whatever it is I am sure it is safe to say it has bog all to do with totting up the finishing positions of the market leaders.

TC

Nicholls is a very interesting trainer
Tis a pity he doesnt run all his horse like Flak Jacket

A horse that won nearly all his races off the 66 mark??? While Nicholls trained him

JIB Wrote
"However Lees method if indeed it has anything to do with consistency did v well whilst he was demonstrating its effectiveness if not its nature."


Nah

Lee must have had some luck
What happened to the great Greg/lee Challenge

Notice how it all evaporates into private emails

I doubt whether I will ever see a VDW man prove his worth in public
They cant do it

Clones?

VDW couldnt/wouldnt do it
Wanted £10000 to take on all challengers
Sure,
Total Bluff
Better off playing poker

another thing while I am here

If a consortium were willing to pay £40.000 for VDW's services why did he settle for writing for the Handicap book for 50 quid

I have probably written all this bumf before
If I have please accept my apologies

But it still stands

Things i noticed with Nichols was his winners were ridden by Alex or Adrian,Very good strike rate with Kelly Harrison and watch for the ones that drift when he has alot entered in the race,
Basic info i know but ive had some good bets from them this year

Boozer,

Just to say Im with you all the way, I only hoped at the time before he went quiet Lee would give us his definition of consistency.

After heavy, sustained, and precise criticism The latest VDW tactic seems to be that neither the AR nor the CR are in fact what they were originally claimed to be.

I, for one, am curious as to their mutations. But like most things here its all smoke and mirrors.

Yep!
Lee is the man, if only we could wangle some decent info from him lol.
He did say however that he was prepared to help ANYONE! so id imagine you`d just have to get in touch & he`d help, long as you were prepared to work at it.

Give up easily, you lot, don't you?
Consistency is important, but only as the first part of the method, and not as the basis for a system; two totally different things.

N 4:00 Silvaline