• 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

I did it my way

You have also noted that although he did not mention the 2nd numerical until later, he also explained that he had given enough to create it, which suggest that he had given it away long before mentioning the fact there was a 2nd numerical.
VDW also went to the trouble of telling you it was there and not covered up.

Bobba,

First the delay in answering you was because I had a personal problem that I couldn't just ignore. However now that seems to had been sorted out I'm ready to go again.

As I said in my last post why do you think this is where he is talking about the 2nd picture? I agree, but as we appear to have very different ideas about the 2nd picture, I can't really see why you think the "key" is the 2nd picture.

Reading your last post it seems to me you are saying it is something that can be found in Methodmakers letter(s) here I agree 100%. However you then appear to be saying it was the studying of form that helped find the "key"

I have said I think the second picture is simply the ranking of the consistent horses. Fulham agrees although we differ on how that ranking is achieved. So a simple question is what do you think the second picture shows, there is no need to go into detail just say what you think it shows.
 
No worries Mtoto,

I have already explained that the first numerical picture has to be confirmed, I cannot see how ranking horses confirms the first numerical picture.

In reply to methodmaker:

" I stated that consistent horses win a high percentage of races and now present a few form-figures from my own extensive surveys. Disregarding ALL factors other than the last three placings, my
figures show percentage wins next time:

111 33%, 121 32%, 221 31%, 321 29%, 132 26%, 313 24%, 213 25%, 214 24%, 204
8%, 302 8%, 404 5%, 000 2%.

Using Methodmaker's figures, which I accept, the first five produce 83% winners. My own combined figures from the three most consistent produce - 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%. I also stated in my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods. "

You can clearly see in the first part VDW mentions FORM FIGURES ONLY, in the 2nd part of the paragraph, he then brings Methodmakers figures into the reckoning and he even suggests that you COMBINE them.

You will notice when he explains his first set of FORM figures, he shows you ONLY ONE SET figures, when VDW brings in Methodmakers numbers all of a sudden TWO more sets of figures appear, now it does not take a rocket scientist to see what VDW is doing when it is pointed out for you ALL to see and it would not take much thinking to get the gist of it.


And to top it off.

"The first from March, 1981 when a comprehensive explanation was given ... "To
confirm what the figures say (numerical picture), it is necessary to study the form of all
concerned, taking particular note of class in which they ran, the courses they ran on, the pace and
going of respective races, distances won or beaten by and, most important,
how they performed in the later stages of each race".

And from Winning Ways to Bet ... "You should not need to be reminded that the class against which a
horse runs is not the same as the class of race in which they compete"."

Apologises for the CAPS and highlighting, but in order to push the point across, it is necessary.
Again, I see no suggestion of RANKING, my own theory is, you are assuming that his two methods of rating are that, surely all he would have to do is change the word rating to ranking.


Ekbalco was consistent, but it was seemingly inconsistent,work that out.
 
I have already explained that the first numerical picture has to be confirmed, I cannot see how ranking horses confirms the first numerical picture.

Bobba,

I fail to see how you can say the above when for me at least you have highlighted in the very next paragraph a very good example of why a 2nd numerical picture is necessary.

I also stated in my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods.

For me VDW mentions the two different methods to help explain away the % shown against the form figures, As many have queried how can 111 = 99% if there are more than three horses with those figures? But if those figure only relate to the best three horse with the three wins it puts another light on it.

I have no problem with this as VDW said right at the beginning he used two sets of rating when he explained the Erin. He later in SIAO said these two sets of rating were used to confirm the other data i.e the ability and consistency ratings. If the "key" is reading the form in some way how has Methodmaker helped?

I have yet to any proof VDW used form figures in any way accept to gauge consistency. Why would he when he said ..............Logically, the relative merit of form must be equated to the quality (class) in which it was achieved. This means there has to be at least two elements to jointly equate when judging the relative merits of one performance against another. FORM and CLASS. Form is what they did and class is the level at which it was achieved.

Again, I see no suggestion of RANKING, my own theory is, you are assuming that his two methods of rating are that, surely all he would have to do is change the word rating to ranking.

When VDW said start with the four highest ability ratings isn't that a case of ranking?

Ekbalco was consistent, but it was seemingly inconsistent,work that out.

Ekbalco had one of the lowest five consistency ratings in the forecast so I have no problem VDW viewed him as a consistent horse.

Be Lucky
 
Johnnymacc:

I see it like this chaps when vdw says he accepts methodmakers 83% from the first five,he's only confirming what he has already stated himself about betting forecasts.Then he goes and adds the percentages together to come up with say 99% winners from 3 horses with combined last three placings 111=3 but in reality they only have a 33% chance of winning.The maths actually don't add up.
Click to expand...
 
Pingman:

Bob,

I can see from the replies you have a very good understanding and a good way of putting answers and points across and hoping like VDW I suppose that posters will go away and work on it.

Like golf Bob, I can let some one know whats wrong at a moment and hope they work on it so next time we can discuss another point in the swing.

Ok crap analagy but what i am asking is, if I were to start looking at the PP on saturday apart from the obvious form aspect where some horses are outclassed and you could put a line through them, would you start from an Erin perspective, or the F/C or indeed the cobnut as it is another way of bringing and ranking and indeed narrowing the field.

A simple yes or no or pointer will be fine, not that I totally, understand the erin numbers at all but if you were to ask me for a golf lesson i would say grip stance and posture, it is from that combination that I could then give you added pointers but without those fundamentals you may as well not bother.

Either way great conversation and not to the point where everyone starts flexing there VDW muscles, you have been most helpfull when asked a question, which should encourage memebers to explore this subject.

I find it fasinating that still people want to discuss it and rightly or wrongly whatever you think from a personal point of view it helped me to form read a little bit better, there is no doubt that as I think Marvex said, the Formbook at the end of the season will be full of clues as to why and when horses won things and there lies the hard work.

regards

Pingman
Click to expand...
 
nicethread.gif


Don't want to re-invent the wheel, but, now having had a chance to re-read the books posted by Bobba, I can remember some of the passion I had when I followed the articles originally in the sporting handicap book. :-*

IMO the "puzzle" will always remain largely unsolved. however, the essence of information written and analysed/discussed, gives up some sound ideas when looking for winners. ;D

First five/six from a reliable betting forecast. (narrow the field)
Class of Race (divisor)
Class Rating of each horse compared to class of race.
Last 3 runs - (Likelihood ratio %)
Use of a reliable speed rating. (own one can be used)

Staking:

Objective/Aim per race (singles)
Consideration of backing more than one horse in the race.

Modern day extras. optional

Trainerform
Use of Weight Ratings
Courseform
Going preferences.

All this takes time and overall needs to be used on the better class of race, (Class 1,2,3 & 4)

The vanderwheil website mentioned earlier makes a good source of reference, IMO only serves as a starting point. (interesting tho)

No doubt VDW has written a lot more over past years but I feel with our own experiences and expertise gathered along the way, other factors and ideas can be applied with success too.
cheers_zps551ecf48.gif
 
Glad to see others getting involved, otherwise it just becomes a tennis match of opinion.

Pingman you could probably teach me golf better than me put an opinion across and be understood.

Do not get bogged down with the Erin numbers for now,concentrate on the 3LTO races, this seems to be overlooked by many,what are the numbers showing you now.
Most have the belief that all focus should on the race tomorrow, surely if you are to measure consistency, it has be over a period and not in a single isolated race, please think about it.

Surely if VDW was G Hall, then the information in it should be taken just as serious as all the VDW letters, it would appear have taken a lesser view, more fool you.


Mtoto,

You have completely ignored the facts that I have shown you about PAST FORM.

So you have ranked the consistency and the class in order to equate them together to create a figure, well good luck with that
shrug_zps45ea10e7.gif


You do show your displeasure if you feel others are mentioning something you believe VDW never mentioned, I throw that back at you with rank and ranking,the dilution of numbers to fit ones thinking,apologies, this is definitely not VDW.
shrug_zps45ea10e7.gif

VDW mentioned the top two races and the top three days since run, have you ranked them yet,...
LOL_zps31524c2a.gif



Thanks for getting involved D&D
goodpost_zps4d407be6.gif
and Johnny
goodpost_zps4d407be6.gif
 
ou have completely ignored the facts that I have shown you about PAST FORM.

Bobba,

Sorry but I seem to have missed the post where you gave those facts.

So you have ranked the consistency and the class in order to equate them together to create a figure, well good luck with that [image]

Not at all sure where you get that idea from. Consistency and class, are two separate commodities and I can see no way of making a logical figure by combining the two.

You do show your displeasure if you feel others are mentioning something you believe VDW never mentioned, I throw that back at you with rank and ranking,the dilution of numbers to fit ones thinking,apologies, this is definitely not VDW. [image]

If this isn't VDW can you explain how he finds his top four for ability when he has said rate the whole field, how can it be done without ranking the ratings.

VDW mentioned the top two races and the top three days since run, have you ranked them yet,... [image]

As VDW himself didn't stick to the top two races and I can only find one example of the days guide line being used no I haven't bothered.

Be Lucky
 
Mtoto,

I will put them up again, but leave what was in the middle out, so as not to cause more confusion.

"I burnt considerable midnight oil checking through PAST RESULTS and concluded that here was something to get my teeth into"


" I stated that consistent horses win a high percentage of races and now present a few form-figures from my own extensive surveys. Disregarding ALL factors other than the last three placings, my
figures show percentage wins next time:"


"The first from March, 1981 when a comprehensive explanation was given ... "To
confirm what the figures say (numerical picture), it is necessary to study the form of all
concerned, taking particular note of class in which they ran, the courses they ran on, the pace and
going of respective races, distances won or beaten by and, most important,
how they performed in the later stages of each race".

"If this isn't VDW can you explain how he finds his top four for ability when he has said rate the whole field, how can it be done without ranking the ratings."

Why would you need to rank them to find the top 4,surely it is just a case of taking the 4 highest numbers, by ranking them you are suggesting that you put a figure next to them like 1,2,3,4.

I have explained that the first part of 'Golden Years' concentrates on consistent form.
The only mention of class early is 'No Magic Formula' where he strengthens his case for consistency by explaining the type of races to focus on.

It would appear we are moving into a pushing toffee up hill scenario and may have to agree to disagree, but moving back to this line you posted earlier.

"If the "key" is reading the form in some way how has Methodmaker helped?"

I think we can both agree that form-figures are a measure of consistency, I have tried to explain that the first numerical picture concentrates completely on the individual horse, then surely that consistency has to be judged against the horses competed against or it is worthless.
Consistency can be measured in different ways, it does not have to be form alone and this is where Methodmaker comes into the picture, odds are a measurable consistency, we know this because VDW told us, the first 5 in the betting or 6 in handicaps.

Summary, whether you disagree or not it is no good just getting a measure of consistency or class from just the individual horse, you have to get a measure of those it ran against, without this, how can you honestly judge against future races.
"A school star athlete would surely meet its waterloo against Olympic quality runners".
 
Wiko:

thanks bobajobber, mtoto pingman johhnymac, this new discussion on vdw methods has inspired me to re read all the vdw books again....going through the examples g hall...intially gave his winning yankee.. and vdw early example appreciate all your excellent knowledge
Click to expand...
 
Pingman:

Bobajobber:

Glad to see others getting involved, otherwise it just becomes a tennis match of opinion.

Pingman you could probably teach me golf better than me put an opinion across and be understood.

Do not get bogged down with the Erin numbers for now,concentrate on the 3LTO races, this seems to be overlooked by many,what are the numbers showing you now.
Most have the belief that all focus should on the race tomorrow, surely if you are to measure consistency, it has be over a period and not in a single isolated race, please think about it.

Surely if VDW was G Hall, then the information in it should be taken just as serious as all the VDW letters, it would appear have taken a lesser view, more fool you.


Mtoto,

You have completely ignored the facts that I have shown you about PAST FORM.

So you have ranked the consistency and the class in order to equate them together to create a figure, well good luck with that
shrug_zps45ea10e7.gif


You do show your displeasure if you feel others are mentioning something you believe VDW never mentioned, I throw that back at you with rank and ranking,the dilution of numbers to fit ones thinking,apologies, this is definitely not VDW.
shrug_zps45ea10e7.gif

VDW mentioned the top two races and the top three days since run, have you ranked them yet,...
LOL_zps31524c2a.gif



Thanks for getting involved D&D
goodpost_zps4d407be6.gif
and Johnny
goodpost_zps4d407be6.gif
Click to expand...

Bob,

Thanks for replying to my bit, will give that some thought in the next couple of days as ever helpfull and a little nugget to boot to get stuck in to.

I think there will be more positive things come out of this thread than ever before, will you be changing your avatar BVDW
Click to expand...
 
It would appear we are moving into a pushing toffee up hill scenario and may have to agree to disagree, but moving back to this line you posted earlier.

You could well be correct, but I can't really see that is the only answer. I can't understand why you can't see we both have different interpretations of the written word and that doesn't mean we have it completely wrong. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I think you are wrong, but need to prove it to myself. I have to find the logic and make it work in enough examples to kill the doubt. We even agree on somethings, the most important being we ALL can learn from VDW.

The first thing that has always struck me is the way folk just ASSUME VDW used the ability rating as later explained when the Erin was explained. As I have said I have no doubt he (VDW) would have used some measurement to judge ability so what's the problem? For me he did, and he told us what he used two different methods, and he then when on to explain he used these methods to confirm what the other figures said when he gave us the SIOA selections. All the way through he keeps mentioning he used these two methods so isn't he confirming at NO TIME is he just using consistency and/or form individually?

However I agree 100% the class of the competition is very important when it comes to judging a performance (ability). I also accept at the time penalty value was a quick easy way to put a class on a race, but how does the ability rating show which race produced the required performance? If the bare race value is used for the last, or any of the races how do you judge if that race was up to standard?

Why would you need to rank them to find the top 4,surely it is just a case of taking the 4 highest numbers, by ranking them you are suggesting that you put a figure next to them like 1,2,3,4.

Here can I ask what you think the "stray" Erin numbers represent, why are some lower than others if it isn't a ranking?

Be Lucky
 
Pulsatrixp:

The Bangor 2.00 tomorrow is quite a nice handicap. Only 11 runners declared. Might be worth seeing if we can highlight the winner before the off?
I'll be perusing it tonight and then check things again tomorrow morning. Feel free to stick your oar in everyone. :)
Click to expand...
 
I know this forum is a little bit different to others, but getting a pre-race selection on the VDW thread may be too big an ask, even here! :D

Only joking fellas ;)
 
Pingman:

Well its no good joining in something and then, making excuses, I cannot burn the midnight oil, and cannot access the site tomorrow before the race so...............................................

lets be brave, for the last hour since the request i have had a look, tight tricky handicapp, and for what its worth my selection is

Buffalo Bob, ew to last the 3 miles at a decent price

Good luck it will be good to see more by tomorrow race time
Click to expand...
 
Pulsatrixp:

OK then. After some preliminary rating and a look at a couple of bookies present prices, it seems I must concentrate on the following horses. (in racecard order)

Alvarado
Sir Du Bearn
Quartz De Thaix
Kauto Relko
Monkerty Tunkerty
Lively Baron
Cotswold Charmer

More work to be done now. I'll be back later.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top