• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

VDW hedgehog/stubble - trying to get lucky

As far as I am aware I am the only one to have mentioned about Weighing Race Horses on this Forum "


Chesham,

That may well be the case but why on earth would you think I would refer to you as a racing pundit? I was referring to Mr James Willoughby prattling on about sectional times and weighing horses. I then went on to betfair and the first thing I see is Mr Rowlands beating the same drum. Absolutely nothing to do with you. As you work in every different ways to me usually in very different race I don't see all your posts unless you come on a VDW thread.

Mtoto says Why would a trainer run an unfit horse in a good/ valuable race Perhaps Mtoto should consider that Roushayd was put in the Northern Dancer Race which was a bigger prize than The ONC, yet the bigger prize was not the aim of the Trainer, but the lesser prize.

As VDW said Roushayd had just run a race that showed he was in top form why would you want to know the weight of the horse?

Arkle

Mtoto hi. Tue Aug 27 2013 11.36 am, you wrote Hedgehog we have known each other through forums for some time now and i think you know i would never put you wrong on purpose. Why?

This is purely based on the fact I have some very different views on VDW and it has been suggested (on other forums) that I try to lead folk up the garden path.
It is quite sometimes since I had spoken to Hedgehog and I just wanted him to know I hadn't changed, simple real but have to admit I wish I hadn't bothered.

I do not no why, but in short it appears to me anyway that it seems you would prefer it if Chesham was not here for some reason.

As I have said unless it is on a VDW I very seldom find Chesham's posts so while he does give some interesting snippets the bulk of his posts of very little interest to me , but I can't see why you come up with I don't want him here.

As you say Chesham is quite new to this form but I have been in touch for some time now, possibly four or five years. We have contacted each other with PM's but as you know I much prefer to do my talking on the forum(s)

From a personal point of view it would be better if you didn't try to come up with conspiracy theories.

Hedgehog,

It seem you have missed the point, I haven't said ignore the forecast I use it all the time!! I have just said the forecast and or market can't make a horse a form horse, or improve the worth of the form.

Be Lucky
 
Mtoto


RE Hedgehog,

"It seem you have missed the point, I haven't said ignore the forecast I use it all the time!! I have just said the forecast and or market can't make a horse a form horse, or improve the worth of the form"


The Betting market can be a useful indicator especially when looking at LTO Races. VDW mentioned how many times do you see a Favourite lose only to enter the winners enclosure next time out.

One value that can prove useful and not necessarily looking at beaten favourites, is the LTO Sp/Runners Rank

Take the best class of Race Grp One

using Flatstats data base for UK Races,  Apply Filter Fancied in the market 




Summary Report 06-Sep-03 to 23-Aug-13
Runs 1021 £1 Win SP £-156.67 (-15.3%)
Wins 210 (20.6%) £1 EW SP £-324.05 (-15.9%)
Placed 471 (46.4%) Avg Win SP 3.1-1  
Expected Wins 234.65 (0.89) Avg All SP 4.9-1  
Earnings £65531620 £1 Win Tote £-147.50 (-14.4%)

Not surprising a loss 


Now apply one simple filter which uses the past betting market, they must also be Ranked 1 on the LTO SP/Runners Rank

Summary Report 06-Sep-03 to 21-Aug-13
Runs 185 £1 Win SP £2.61 (1.4%)
Wins 59 (31.9%) £1 EW SP £-15.42 (-4.2%)
Placed 106 (58.6%) Avg Win SP 2.2-1  
Expected Wins 58.51 (1.01) Avg All SP 3.5-1  
Earnings £17179472 £1 Win Tote £8.60 (4.6%)
Earnings Per Start £92862 £1 EW Tote £-4.16 (-1.1%)

So from using the LTO Market as an influencing factor,The Strike Rate has increased from 21% to 32% and now shows a positive ROI from a negative ROI of -15%



Good Luck

Chesham
 
Chesham "why do you think VDW gave any importance to SP, with regards the finishing performance of Vague Shot and Bin Shaddad when deciding if they should go on a list to follow."


Mtoto "The blunt answer to that is to keep the list manageable, as it was the last filter added. The speed figure first, meeting next, class of race , first or second in said race, last position in betting. "

The last post about SP/ Runners Ratio leads into this post

The method of listing Vague Shot & Bin Shaddad did not have the Split Second proviso as part of the rules just 1st and 2nd from the two highest class races, providing that either were in the first three in the returned SP Betting Market. So just two filters to go the list.

VDW was suggesting that the Form from such races would be more likely to work out in the future, providing the horses in question were placed by the trainer where they had the opportunity to win. I am sure that VDW did not make the SP Rule just to make the list manageable, he did so because it strengthened the reliability of the form.

From the same Systematic Betting booklet VDW describes Roushayds last three race profile and the SP of Runners was also noted by the side. I could understand if he made note of Just the winners SP in those three races, but he noted the Sp of more than just the winner. So along with what The Winners In A race had done before prior to winning those three races it looked at the SP as well within those races.

Incidentally, yesterday's Stat Of The Day Akeed Dubawi was SP/Runners Rank 1

Good Luck

Chesham
 
The method of listing Vague Shot & Bin Shaddad did not have the Split Second proviso as part of the rules just 1st and 2nd from the two highest class races, providing that either were in the first three in the returned SP Betting Market. So just two filters to go the list

Chesham,

I know you think I just disagree with you on principle, but here I do have to disagree with you. How I do think it may just be possible and there are two different versions of Systematic Betting and I can only go by the one I have but..... On page 46 it clearly states "To illustrate, let me once more turn to Split Second's
speed figures. Using the flat speed figures for 1987 three-year-olds and upwards. The first horse of note in the alphabetical list was Abathatc with a speed figure of 81 over 5 furlongs at York on yielding going."
Further down the same page he then goes on to say "It is also practical to increase the list from the current season's running and why not start with the first meeting of the 1988 season at Doncaster. Some criterion is required for selection, so consider only horses finishing first or second from either of the top two class rated races which were also in the first three in the market."
Now in all honesty I can see no reason why anyone would/could think the speed element has been dropped from the proceedings

We then have
I could understand if he made note of Just the winners SP in those three races, but he noted the Sp of more than just the winner. So along with what The Winners In A race had done before prior to winning those three races it looked at the SP as well within those races.

In actual fact he does only mention the price of the four winners. I do agree in the first example he does highlight the two horse that went of as joint favorites but doesn't mention their price or even explain why he bothered to mention them. Now you seem to think there is some subtle hint in this I take it as highlighting the two horses the exercise is about. Whatever, the fact that Roushayd's price or position in the betting isn't mentioned in the race that showed he was ready to win again doesn't really show it was of any consequence. Although I do think the important aspects of the race are mentioned class, speed , improvement.

Be Lucky
 
For those who might want to consider a slightly different way of looking at things

Quote Lee

""VDW had a fixation for consistency and the betting market for a very good reason. The latter is extremely efficient. Part of his method relies on the betting forecast; however, he also deems it necessary to quote the SP of nearly all his examples in his writings – so, as he said go back to the beginning and you’ll find it all tied up with temperament and the odds".

Lee Posted Two Selections Pre Race on the same day 29/07/04

My idea of the winner in the 5.35 is Lochbuie. In the 3.50 nothing stands out, perhaps Lucayan Legend, but there are plenty of negatives, of which the draw is just one.

I have backed Darasim for the Goodwood Cup.

My observation of those races when the last 3 race profile is looked at.

Lochbuie
15/04/04----- Won Class 53, 9/2 2nd Fav, Carried 8-8
6/05/04------- won Class 104 7/2 Favourite Carried 8-9
23/06/04------ 3rd (9/4 Fav) Class 155 Carried 9-7, up in class gave 6lbs to the winner Albinus,Jt 3rd Fav (LTO Albinus won and was 9/4 Fav)

29/07/04

Dropped to Class 96 7/2, Fav and carried 9-2

Darasim

28/04/04, ------- Class 290, 14/1, Carried 9-4 ,Winner Risk Seeker 11/2 2nd fav Carried 8-12

22/05/04--------- Class 267, 9-5, 2nd Fav, Carried 9-2, Won

17/06/04 ---------Pushed up to Class 1398, (20f),28/1, Carries 9-2 finishes 3rd giving 2lbs to the winner,Papineau 5/1 2nd fav, (LTO Papineau won a Class 632 and was 2nd Fav)

29/07/04 Dropped to Class 580, Carried 9-4 , 11/8 fav won

Lee also mentions 'Physical Weight " in other Posts and refers to a VDW Quote " Consider also that a Trainer will leave a high weighted horse in a race to prevent another charge suffering from raised weights. (You should ponder why the high weighted horse was entered in the first place) This suggests that additional weight even if in proportion is something undesirable."

Now take another look at Roushayd's three race profile. Remember that Lee said that it was the Roushayd Example that made him make the connections. There is a Strong consistency when looking at the Back Form



Good Luck

Chesham
 
Hi Chesham!
Brilliant post, I have looked all Lee's selections and what you are saying runs through each example.

Pastoral pursuits: Beaten by Maadid LTO at 7f, first run from break. Maadid 2nd fav, horse in third Peak to creak was Fav (sorry if bits incorrect going from memory)

Previously won last 2 races as Fav.

Check out Byron, Double Vodka, Let's roll (same previous race as D.V)
 
""VDW had a fixation for consistency and the betting market for a very good reason. The latter is extremely efficient. Part of his method relies on the betting forecast; however, he also deems it necessary to quote the SP of nearly all his examples in his writings – so, as he said go back to the beginning and you’ll find it all tied up with temperament and the odds".

Chesham,

I've been through all of this many years ago and after going back many times I STILL haven't found any proof that this (VDW using the betting was part of HIS method(s). If it was as I have heard it said many times why are so many still struggling to make a profit?

This is some of the the reply to Lee all those years ago. Why would anyone trying to explain the worth of a method not give the price of his WINNERS? I'm happy to be proved wrong but I can't find anywhere were VDW even comments on the position of the favourite in any race analyses, not even when he explains what to look for when assessing form. Although as stated earlier I have now found one example but still can't see what it proves. In fact the only time I have noticed VDW mentioning a favourite is in the Old Fellow and Soaf examples were he states he can't see how they could be the favourite. So I think it is fair to say he didn't think they added anything to the worth of the form.

We then have the slight problem of horse that ran in France as there are no SP returns shown for these horse how do we deal with them?

so, as he said go back to the beginning and you’ll find it all tied up with temperament and the odds".

Here I said why do you think the odds have to be the betting? Didn't he go out of his way to show the chances (odds) of certain form figures, in those days it must have taken hours if not days to formulate the figures, and keep them up to date.

A question I have asked many times, and still haven't had a sensible answer. Just in case I'm accused of fishing here, I will repeat that I think they are used to find the probables.

Be Lucky
 
mtoto said:
... I said why do you think the odds have to be the betting?

Didn't he go out of his way to show the chances (odds) of certain form figures, in those days it must have taken hours if not days to formulate the figures, and keep them up to date.

A question I have asked many times, and still haven't had a sensible answer. Just in case I'm accused of fishing here, I will repeat that I think they are used to find the probables.
Click to expand...

Hi Mtoto,

Hopefully I am not going off at a tangent but I am not totally clear I understand what you have written. :?

What is the question you have asked many times?
If I assume it is "Why do the odds have to be the betting?" then I believe that you are saying that you think the form figures, ie 111 = 33%, are used to find the probables. Is that correct?

All the Best
AR
 
Hi Ark

One person asked " If the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term."

Quote Lee ”

It is here where the misunderstanding lies. VDW’s consistency percentages were calculated on the above 83% winners from the first 5/6 in the forecast. Races where the winner came from outside the forecast area didn’t featured in the equation.

For example, from these 83% winners, which came from the first FIVE in the forecast (non-handicap), a horse that had won each of its last three races won again 33% of the time.

Where there is three horses that won each of their last 3 races VDW calculated that the chance of one of them winning would be 99%, but again, only from the 83% winners that made up the first FIVE (non-handicap) in the forecast."


Good Luck

Chesham
 
What is the question you have asked many times?

Ark,

The question basically is why bother to put in all that work working out the % for the individual figures and not taking say C/R of 6 as just that, if they don't play any active part in the methods. Yes, I do think they are used to find the probables. I also think the probables are one of the two methods used to rate the relevant horses.

Arkle

Mtoto, most are struggling to make a profit because of TEMPREMENT.

While I can agree with that, I also think basic form reading and/or logic is sadly lacking. Many are still trying to make it work as a system ie ONLY looking at horses that fit into their grids, or in the first three in the forecast etc.

Be Lucky
 
Hi Mtoto

I take it you mean The Numbers that appear in the Erin Example ie BL has a 3 which is different from if you had totalled up the last three Form Figures.

Pro gave a formula for arriving at those figures but it was incorrect and failed to find all the numbers in The Erin, also the data that he was using was wrong too. I am aware of a Formula to arrive at The Erin Numbers but is not something that I personally bother working out. Although the data withing the said formula has relevance, you still have to eliminate horses like Beacon Light and Mr Kildare types. Fulham also uses a Formula and if he was also George Johns I remember telling someone that the lowest Probable number you could get using his Probables device, was 2, he may of course have given a Red Herring or misunderstood the question that was asked, but the Formula that AARP aware of the minimum possible number is 3.

The Formula is not my work and therefore would not be able to divulge anymore information. I'm afraid These days I am on the Fence regarding the ERin Numbers, were they Errors or not. give someone a set of numbers and they will find away of arriving at them, a bit like Countdown on Channel 4.

VDW said that Beacon Light, despite coming out in the best three from the five horses and being marked with a star along with PK and Mr K, He also said that the same two methods of Rating put him well out of it when compared to PK and MR K.
BL & MR K had a lower Erin number than PK so they were not one of the Two Methods of Rating as PK's ERin number was the worse of the Three.



Good Luck

Chesham

Lee said his method of working Races from VDW Methodolgy was not complicated and that is my opinion also.
 
I take it you mean The Numbers that appear in the Erin Example ie BL has a 3 which is different from if you had totalled up the last three Form Figures.

Chesham,

You are correct these are the numbers I'm talking about. I do understand your reluctance to explain someone else idea but can I ask do you agree with Fulham a horse has to be a probable to be a selection? If you do have you found any races that don't fit with the formula given to you? I ask because everyone who has talked about finding the answer also seem to think a selection has to a probable. They say that but when I have checked out their idea there are selections I can't make probables. As I don't agree, and I personally don't have a problem if a horse fails to show in the probables column as I take it that horse has been trumped by the key to the methods ABILITY. But until someone is prepared to explain what they think the purpose of a probable is we can't go any further.

From Lee's posting I don't think he has ever looked at the probables one way or another. While I have always agreed Lee was very good at selecting winners I'm not really convinced they were always VDW type selections. It is the VDW methods I'm trying to get to the bottom of and not Lee's, and have to say I gave up thinking about lee's idea when he said VDW just took any horse that had a higher A/R than his selection as out of form. A very easy way to solve the puzzle but that only works in hindsight.

Lee said his method of working Races from VDW Methodolgy was not complicated and that is my opinion also.

While I do think the VDW methods can't be as complicated as Fulham would have it, I still don't believe there are many if any quick simple ideas at work in them. The words quick, simple, and easy, don't fit with these methods, if they did there wouldn't be so many different ideas put forward as solutions and someone would be able to prove beyond doubt how it works.

Can I also ask do you believe the two different methods used to find the consistent horses has to be the SAME two as VDW used to check the worth of the form as shown/explained in SIOA? Why can't they be different, are they doing the same job?

Be Lucky
 
Hi Mtoto (Most of this will not be new to you, but thought it worth mentioning for those who are struggling with certain parts)

My understanding is that Lee did not use a formula to arrive at the Erin numbers, but the way he looked at Consistency would have taken in the same data that the Formula uses, so would not need to know the formula or a numerical number.

This also in a way answers your next question, VDW mentioned about The Pubs Darts Champion who would more than likely come unstuck against a world class Darts player etc. For a seemingly consistent horse Some sort of measure is needed to establish the worth of that consistency. (The Class of Horse Competing)

Ability Ratings are used in the SIAO Examples and of course Alternative Ability Rating that you prefer is also a good measure, along with two other sets of ratings. In the SIAO examples he used his own Ratings but in Later examples he showed how the Handicap Ratings from the Sporting Life (Dick Whitford style Ratings) and Formcast from the Daily Mail.

He said that they were only a guide. However, although being Formcast Top rated, he did use the Sporting Life Handicap Ratings to show that the Class/Form Horse Canny Danny was half a Stone worse off with West Tip. ( West Tip had a Sporting Life Handicap Rating of 6 and Canny Danny 13. The Sporting Life Ratings worked on the basis that a lower figure is better than a Higher Figure, so 13 minus 6 indicates that Canny Danny is half a stone worse off ) Also noted is the fact that Canny Danny is physically carrying nearly two stones more than West Tip (Weight being a great Leveller, even if in proportion to the Framed Handicap) So there is more work need than just finding the Class/Form horse.

The next problem is a runner who has appears to have deteriorating form figures like Roushayd (346) but the form of the three race profile was was consistent in respect of the the three winners (Winner In A Race) won as their level of previous class of Form indicated before those races were run. Roushayd had been running in increasingly better class race where the form had been consistent and demonstrated in his last race that he was now ready to win if placed correctly by his trainer. ( It should be noted that the class of race already achieved and distance requirement was mentioned by VDW) You also will have a measure of Ability using the To Agori Mou method.

The VDW Methodolgy is not complicated but as you know Mtoto it does require hard work.

I have mentioned Lee's examples

Example of Pat Power's way of Working

3rd Nov 2003 C D Europe

Improving last 3 Speed Figures & LTO achieved highest RPR in a Class 250 (25K) race was dropped well down in class for 4th Nov race and had won with the weight before

Pat had his own take on VDW and was changing little bits and adding all the time as he tried new ideas out, until he became too ill.

Pats basic method for the CD Europe stage in his working of VDW was in handicaps to ignore all horses who had not shown form in their last 3 races and from the remainder concentrate on the 4 who came from the highest penalty value race and then similar to CD Europe was looking for improving speed figures and to see if they had run their best RPR figure LTO or were within 5lbs of it

Next stage was capability could they carry the weight, perform over distance, going and Track suitability


Good Luck

Chehsam
 
Nice post AGAIN Chesham!

Do you know what Pat considered as no form within the last 3 races?

I have seen many selections by him, but do not know the full story.

Am I correct in thinking Pat posted his selections pre race on a forum?

Does anybody have copies of Pats posts on file?

Thanks,
Paul.
 
formtheory said:
Nice post AGAIN Chesham!

Do you know what Pat considered as no form within the last 3 races?

I have seen many selections by him, but do not know the full story.

Am I correct in thinking Pat posted his selections pre race on a forum?

Does anybody have copies of Pats posts on file?

Thanks,
Paul.
Click to expand...


Hi Paul

Example in the CD Europe Race was a horse called Najeebon


Najeebon 11/10/03 Class 250 Won Carried 8-7 TS 85

Najeebon 24/10/03 Class 91, Carried 8-4 (Less Weight) TS 69
Pat would have seen this as a down Turn in Form, Also, weight, distance or going not the reason for downturn in TS Rating


Good Luck

Chesham
 
Hi all,

Cheers Chesham!

How are you getting on with your form horse theory Hedgehog?

Sounds very interesting!

I also have a theory, have yet to really give it a go.
Take care
Paul.
 
Hi FT, i think from memory Pat pre posted on the Tony Peach site. Pat also posted before the race started and had some nice winners and a following. Chesham will know more then me, but i think Pat was based in Ireland and from time to time posters who new Pat have posted on various forums and maybe if they are around still they may have what you are asking for.

Arkle
 
arkle55 said:
Hi FT, i think from memory Pat pre posted on the Tony Peach site. Pat also posted before the race started and had some nice winners and a following. Chesham will know more then me, but i think Pat was based in Ireland and from time to time posters who new Pat have posted on various forums and maybe if they are around still they may have what you are asking for.

Arkle
Click to expand...

On this subject has any vdw follower posted their picks pre race and long term.? It would be most interesting to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top