Lee,

Could CVDW have meant when he pointed out the "closing stages", the "finishing positions" and who was where?

OT,

Now putting your finger on it is, unfortunately, not easy, and requires an in-depth study of his examples and a determined attitude. Of course, in hindsight it is very simple, and very logical. But, just reading this thread, racing being how it is sees that the many ideas that will enter your mind will send you down many wrong tracks!

Pkboy,

I’m not sure I understand the Q?

Lee,

Closing stages = Finishing position.

IE "The race was slow AND the finishing positions indicate hers was less of a test"

But she won, whilst FD came 2nd?

Lee,

yes, but beat what? and 2nd to what. Finishing positions?

pkboy,

correct - there is only one way to judge the performance in closing stages of a race, by the opposition that are also competing at this stage of the race.

Lee,

Form and class?

I get confused about consistency, is this race anything to do with indicating that First Division was consistent?

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

jib,
Thanks for the reply.A bad days racing today,nothing on,might as well start on the Hennessy later.

Did G.Hall ever indicate what he found,and did he ever respond again,there is nothing published in any of the booklets,after letter no 14.I just wonder did he write to the handicap book afterwards.

"Think about things logically, if a horse is noted as having 'qcknd inside the last' to make a race of it, what does this mean?

For instance, is it now a contender for the Derby?" : Lee.


Well given just that one phrase, which sounds suspiciously like a race report, all I could say is that this horse was running behind at least one other; had and used the power of acceleration to draw near another or others that were in front before this acceleration.

As for the Derby, there may be no link whatsover. We need more information.
The race report above could refer to the Grand National, a banded race at Southwell, or the Eclipse, for all we know.

As you often say, on its own, this helpful bit of info doesn't mean much.
However, I'd say 'twould be rare for a punter to be reading such, without knowing further essential details.

My point would be, that it would be better to keep and use every piece of the jigsaw, rather than **** one piece to the crapper just because it meant nothing on its own.

PKB,

I think Lee means the class of the horses that are fighting out the finish, (of course that leads to how he orginally evaluates that class).

The diference between Mtoto and Lee seems to be that Mtoto will use the sfs of the race to evaluate the class of the winner whilst Lee will use the previous class of the other placing finishers to evaluate the class of the race that has just taken place.

That way Lee doesnt need the sf, though the two methods do allow them to be frequently on the same horse as its not hard to imagine that both methods are more often than not running in parallel.

And yes this method if applied to lto would tend to demand good(ish) recent form(fig) from any qualifier. The question to ask them is how far back they are prepared to go. Mtoto wont back a horse whose CR is above 12, I dont think Lee has stipulated his inside leg measurement though I think we now know which side he 'dresses' on!

Lee,

Can I take it then that you think the basic/first method and the Roushayd method are two completely different methods? I work on them being the same but having a different main filter. That filter for the first being consistency and the other improvement. Apart from those differences, the logic is the same.

A little while ago I ask Fulham if he thought there could be two ways of operating the methods and coming up with the same (correct) answer. He said no. You seem to have a different way to both of us, so do you think there could be three?

I have never seen how you make the Erin work, so can I ask do you have BL as a non form horse? Can you make a logical reason for BL being well out of it, so not being considered? I know VDW said he was, but have you looked for the reason he may have thought this? As Decent Fellow wasn't in the running in the ratings I find it hard to believe Pk would be top, or joint top, based on his run against Drumgora. Again we have no way of know how either ran in their races. As I don't use the Racing Post, I can only think you think the answers to all the examples can be found in the last three races, and/or in the races won. I can't think of anything else the RP would give as a help. Do you think the answer to the Erin (or the 78 Cambridgeshire) can be found in using only those two bits of information? How do you get rid of Petronisi, he had a higher a/rating and arguably the stronger form if you work that way? (beating Baronet 3 out of 3 in that season) It is hard to dismiss him because he was 4th lowest for consistency as PK was in the same boat.

JIB,

The answer to your question is I go as far back as is needed to find what the horse is capable off and can it win this race. Reason for this is the VDW statement ability doesn't fade, it's there to be seen for all time. I think you have to go back 18 months to find it for PK. 12 months for Baronet although he had confirmed it in the 78 season but not in his last three runs, these just confrimed he was in good health.

Be Lucky

A horse is often raced above it's ability before being dropped to collect.What did vdw really mean by this statement.

I feel in the case of Greenhills joy and first division,The horse "Somebody" would have been a determining factor in vdw's analysis of those 2 particular horses.

Quoting directly from the horse's mouth, it seems to me that VDW did use Speed figs: -


""There are numerous time-based ratings available,, but I am going to use
those provided by Split Second and hope to show that their value may be more
than is evident on first sight.
During the course of explaining what now appears to have become known
as the VDW method, a definition and means of evaluating class was shown. The
way in which a rating is produced by the method did not allow recognition of
horses that had never won. There is a good maxim in racing which says 'never
back a horse that has not won*.
This does not obviate the need to have a proper evaluation of any race and,
unlike National Hunt, Flat racing is full of events catering for young two and
three-year-old horses.
Many three-year-olds have never run as two-year-olds and until it is
possible to get a full measure, as is the case with older horses, some means other
than previously shown is required for use in conjunction. I suggest the same
rating method is used, but with the youngsters, have as a further guide, a means
based on time. By providing figures which show performances at a given 9st,
Split Second gives a rating that can be utilised to produce a scale of
measurement which will show the relative degree of-merit. Each year in the
Handicap Book and other publications by the Sporting Chronicle, a list is give
of the best figures produced by the previous season's two-year-olds, (Other ages
as well, but for the moment confine attention to this group). To compile a guide
to merit, all that is required, is to use the figure given from this list and for
those that have not run as two-year-olds, or who have since produced a better
figure, use the present season's list.
What you are doing is to compile the rating on the best performance ever
achieved at nine stone. DO NOT convert the figure to take account of present
weight carried. I am aware that a major drawback may be seen in the fact that
these figures can be the result of achievement over distances from five furlongs
to one mile, but if you recall the formula, consistent form plus ability plus
capability plus probability, you will appreciate that this is only one of the
factors and in use, everything must be brought into balance.
Regular readers will have noted that the ratings given by Split Second for
any particular race are based on best performance during present season. But I
am going to suggest, that if his figures are used in conjunction with the method 1
have previously given, the figure representing the best-ever performance should
be used to calculate a rating for any race involved.
Readers who elect to use speed figures for adjusted ratings may care to
adopt the procedure'of making two sets. One based on best performance and
the other using present season's figures. When you find both best performance
figures and also present season's figures put a horse out in front, regard the
animal with great respect." : VDW ( from Golden Years).

Mtoto,

Whatever answer Fulham gave you to a question you put to him would always have as its priority the maintenance of his image as one of the wizards.

For that reason he would be both unwilling and unlikely to firstly give your query honest consideration nor secondly be prepared to give you an honest answer even if he suspected the uncomfortable truth.

It is a paradoxical fact of life that your cause is often better advanced by your enemies than by your allies. By taking only the serious vdw students who post on this thread (forgetting the likes of myself, a self acclaimed heretic) it is blatantly obvious that several different methods are at work.

I fail to understand why there must be a vdw version of the 'Nicene Creed' insisting on a monochromatic and disciplined simplicity when we know that racings palette is full of resplendant hues capable of delighting even the most severely visibly challenged.

Seanrua
VDW did use speed figures,but the statement "with the youngsters, have as further guide, a means based on time", surely kicks into touch any idea of them being the basis of his method?

JIB,

The question wasn't are there several different methods in operation. It was are there several different ways to solve the same method?

I have said before you are (and others) are very mistaken about Fulham and his motives. He is one of the most helpful people you or anyone could hope to meet. I also think he is honest and wouldn't try to put anyone away. If he says VDW didn't use s/f he really believes it. Non of this is to say I don't think he is on the wrong track, much as he thinks I am. We started this quest to solve VDW about the same time, he thought/thinks Guest is on the right track, I am not happy with some of Guest thinking. That in it's self doesn't show or prove either one is completely wrong I just think my answers are the slightly more logical. Unfortunately it does seem to give the doubters the ammunition to say it can't/doesn't work because we can't agree how it works. When I say we don't agree it is on the finer points. We do believe the c/form horse is the one most likely to win, we just don't agree how VDW found this horse.
No matter what some think Fulham is a major lose to this thread.

I think your last paragraph means there is more than one way to skin a cat. I can only agree with that. It doesn't change the fact that the latest ideas mentioned in these threads, handicap compression and Pipe at Cheltenham in November can be approached in more than one way. I'm more than happy with the way I work, using those two ideas and the VDW approach, I found just 2 bets a winner at 5/1 and another at 12/1. I much prefer to bet like this and not just throw money at a problem and hope. But that's just me, it takes all sorts.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,
In Systematic Betting,VDW detailed the Roushayd method under the title,Class,Form Evaluation.In the following chapter,he again used Roushayd to highlight the use of speed figures,but I always took it that he was using two different methods via the same horse to show how to select winners,hope this helps,I may be wrong,but I hope not.

Mtoto
Fulham; Helpful! Honest! A major loss to this thread!
I am amazed you can find your way home at night, let alone pick winners!

What is a "VDW" bet anyway?

Mr. Van der Wheil did not give a full, complete method away in his letters. He gave us helpful hints for people to find their own path. Helpful hints are plentiful on this message board, both inside and outside the Van der Wheil forum. JIB and his lists, Ectoo and his weight compressors, plenty of posters on the two systems threads, Gummy's bankers, etc...

We will never really know what his full methods were. Perhaps he only ever gave a way his least successful ideas!

What I believe he was trying to achieve by his letters was to help people improve. And it has certainly helped me. Perhaps you have discovered the way. Or perhaps you have discovered a different (better?) way.

Therefore, (imo), there is no such thing as a VDW bet.

Ectoo,

Unlucky with the lay, try this for tommorrow Fast Mix, the numbers game isnt everything.

A lay that is.