Come on Johnd
We are supposed to be narrowing the field
Cant see that 57% is good enough
Not when you could probably "trap the winner" from the 6 just as well using a pin

Also
People have had some strange interpretation of the probability part of the equation in the past

the whole mechanical part is the probabilty based on the percentages of each component
Even if some of the maths are suspect

greg and lee challenge,
has not gone to private emails,lee is on hols,as for consistency,what about currency and marker on my list to follow on the main forum,off the top of my head they are the only 2 of my horses that have run in the last few weeks,w11/2 and w9/1,they are hardly consistent,but when horses have ideal conditions they are to be feared.
why should a horse with form figures 3232000000 be ignored,take marker as an example off the top of my head his last 10 runs have been on the wrong trip/ground which brought its or down about 20+lbs,like i said there are some usefull things to take out of vdw,but i dont think consistency is one of them.
tc,
its just i dont have the time to look at jumps as well as sand in the winter,i think its easier to get a profitable angle on the sand.

tc,
dont know the figures but i would have thought if you are looking at using them,to look at younger horses only.
also,i dont think finishing distances count for much,look at dandys brave burt for example,beaten 50lths in its last 2 starts,but if you look more closely they were heavily eased over an unsuitable 6f,and clearly the other run, chester does not suit it only beaten 2 horses at chester in 2 runs,but this horse is worth monitoring closely

Greg,

Your thoughts on consistency are echoes of my own. Well done with the winners!

Greg,

I have to say I used to think along the same lines as you. Couldn't see the point of adding up form figures. The aim is to find good consistent horses, not just consistent ones. Where do these good consistent horses run, in good class races? I read JIB'S thoughts on this, and to an extent they sound logical. However if he would like to spend a little time checking the results of the big handicaps I think he would be very surprised. Consistent horses win more than their fair share. I suppose there is a slight difference between looking for a consistent horse and one that is in the lowest 3. For me a consistent horse is a horse with a c/rating of 12 or under. That is good enough for me, as long as other considerations are taken into account.

What is a good class race? Back in 78 VDW said look at races worth £3,000 or more to the winner. I think you need to look at races worth £15/£20,000 now.

The other considerations for me are the proven ability of the horse, and general profile. I always look very carefully at the course type, but leave the going and distance to the trainers description. I have said ever since I have been on this board I'm not happy with the ability rating as later suggested by VDW. I do feel there has to be an ability rating, but not that one. A horse is not selected/backed because it is consistent, it has to have the other eliminates to compliment the consistency.

Think someone said no one factor by it's self is good enough!

I can only speak for myself, but I do wish I had used the c/rating long ago. It would have saved me many losing bets.

Congratulations on the nice winners, but how did you know the trainer had worked out what was going wrong? If you could see the going and distance was wrong why couldn't he? Balding did say he thought the horse could act on the firm going and the horses had a record of 2 wins from 13 runs at 6f (neither on soft.) Was this the only time you have backed it? Again congratulations, it's not a selection I would have found.

Be Lucky

Boozer

As I said yesterday, "or 3/ It has been misinterpreted how he arrived at these figures, and as a consequence we are looking at it incorrectly"????
It is fairly certain that the figures are wrong when applied to racing generally, it also seems unlikely that they come up to scratch when applied to the first 5/6 in the betting across all races.
However, if you take the view that he didn't actuallyspell it all out until he said he did, ( A view I have long held, but then my view of consistency is diffferent to the mainstream), a different picture may emerge.I realise that this at odds with letter 13, but so are other interpretations.
In SIAO he said "Selecting races for the application of the various factors must be methodical too" and went on to explain that the method should only be applied to the higher value races.
As an exercise, I took the same criteria that I asked Tc to look at, and applied them to all the races at Royal Ascot,the 'Glorious' Goodwood meeting, and the Ebor meeting; not an exact replication of his method, nevertheless a good concentration of the type of races VDW suggested.
The following is the outcome, which can be checked by anyone:

HoRSES WITH FORM FIGURES 111 (1st 5/6 in betting).

ASCOT
BANDARI L
BLUE DAKOTA W5/4
ATTRACTION W6/4
GOODWOOD
PEERESS L
MATERIAL WITNESS L
*LUCKY SPIN L
*SILK FAN L
BLUE DAKOTA L
YORK
MEPHISTO W6/1
BAGO
*PEAK OF PERFECT' L
*ELUSIVE DREAM L

** 2 horses in same race

3 winners from 10 races, (12 horses) = 30%

3 MOST CONS FROM FIRST 5/6 IN BETTING WHERE AGREGATE IS 15 OR UNDER.

In the only 4 races from the above meetings where the 3 most consistent from first 5/6 totalled 15 or less, 3 of the 4 races were won by one of the 3 indicated for a s/r of 75%.

A far from exhaustive survey, small enough to be skewed either way by one winner more or less, but much closer to the kind of figures VDW suggested.
It should, of course, be borne in mind that consistency is only the first part of the method, and a study of the above results using the tools suggested by VDW may pay dividends.

Tc
Would it be possible for you to analyse the results you have using say 12k or class C and above, as the cut off point, and give us the results from the original criteria I suggested?

Another VDW contradiction, 'the method works in all grades and across codes". VDW stuff is very simple and as written/explained it doesn't work, there just isn't any way of getting round that.

Do any of the VDW specialists feel that the Robin Lloyd Betbetter selections (see elsewhere) are basically VDW-like selections?

Rico has put up lists with ratings.

Can you compare and comment, please?

Epi
The method works flat and jumps at all levels.
That is not the same thing as consistency.

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

mtoto,
as i said in an earlier post,i bet in different areas to vdw,i dont bet in high class races,so maybe it is a factor in high class races,i just dont know,but in my area of betting it doesnt,a winner pays the same at sandown as it does at soutwell,without looking at markers profile again,its first win on g/f was a maiden,which in my eyes does not count as liking g/f ground,a decent horse will win a maiden on any ground as long as the opposition is not up to much and i think the other run the trainer later said he was suprised he won on the ground.
it is the 2nd time i have backed marker this year, i also backed him lto,on hindsight was a bad race to back it in as the ground was heavy in places,but hindsight is a wonderfull thing,also the form is working out well as 2 out of its last race have already won

mtoto,
your comments on trainers is a little suprising,i am not on here a lot but what i can remember about your previous posts is that you know your stuff,but you surely cant think that trainers are doing the right thing all the time.
a horse i backed the other day salut saint cloud w4/1 i think,i took 2 trainers about 15 runs to finally step it up to 1m 6f,why so long?

take jonny ebeneezer,i backed it twice on turf when it won,cant remember the prices,but it had usefull previous form on turf,why did the trainer run this one on the a/w,it was odds on and lost,it had not showed any liking to the aw in its life,good trainer placement?,no way.
trainers make good decisions and they also make bad ones,but you cant think they do the right thing all the time

greg-

re trainers - in view of the above - do you think that it makes good sense - to restrict your betting to trainers in whom you feel that you can have confidence - similarly jockeys ???

I know that before I even look at a horse, I run my eye down the races, to see which top trainers and jockeys are at the meeting - and then ask myself the question - Why are they here ???

i wouldnt restrict my betting to certain trainers personally.
i do think there are a lot of shrewd trainers though,if anybody can work out barney curley they deserve a medal,through basic form lines his runner in the last at yarm today has a hell of a lot of ability,currently 9/1 betfair,but when this one wins is anybodys guess?

in regard to the why are they here part,that would all depend in my eyes if there are other suitable races anywhere else in the days prior or after the race in question

thanx greg !

realy good to see you on here !

the thread seems to be udergoing a mini revival - and it is the posts from the "solid " established members like you who wouldn't normaly be "seen dead" on the thread - that are contributing to this revival !

thanx again !

tc,
there is only one reason for the revival,your time and effort lately

an important factor in profitability is selectivity,there are not enough hours in the day to look through every race of every card,even though im not a fan of vdw,he does make some usefull points,a factor in vdw is selectivity,high class races only.
each to his own,personally i dont look at jumps,only aw during the winter.
during the summer it is almost exclusivley races at 1m or less.
also by being selective you can get to know horses,what will suit what wont suit etc

Greg,

The trainer of JE was probably v busy laying it at odds on on its aw debut.

I have learned that when I think a trainer has been stupid it generally means very much the opposite.

This coming NH season may I suggest the fun you will have laying jonjos less than 6/4 horses and backing the bigger priced ones.

jib,
it wasnt its aw debut,it was that it had never been anygood on the aw through its career,it was doing very well on the turf,but it was just a case of getting to a level as good as it was in in its younger days on the turf,but there was no reason for a sudden improvement on the aw,however well it was doing on turf