Class/form horses
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
JennyK
Gelding
It could mean that,
tractorboy, when the analysis would be even simpler, but I doubt it, because
adding two more quoted prices would likely have brought in Warner For Leisure, which would have changed the first numerical picture.
tractorboy, when the analysis would be even simpler, but I doubt it, because adding two more quoted prices would likely have brought in Warner For Leisure, which would have changed the first numerical picture.
gerry
Mare
looking at consistancy in couple differant lights today but as main focus on consistancy two horse stuck out with one not far behind.
The two where thunder roar and home free and not to far behind mister bluebird but will be interesting see how they run. wont get anyone rich quick though.
The two where thunder roar and home free and not to far behind mister bluebird but will be interesting see how they run. wont get anyone rich quick though.
I thin MB is a good bet. Thunder Roar has got no Mylan to worry about today and would have been a good winner on Sat but for that horse. But going to be odds on now in a handicap.
That's what makes it so difficult to keep disciplined at times.
Which makes me think about VDW's claim that he only bet on 20% of horses he "thought should win".
If you think about that statement, he must have had a final filter to leave him with his final selections to back, but if he did have such a filter and it worked to the extent of giving him 85-90% success, then surely those horses he left that he thought should win, could have been classed as horses not strong enough to back? And never classed as "should win" runners in the first place. Because if those "should wins" were not winning often enough to wager on, why class them as that?
And if they were winning often enough to be of significance, then why not back them too, if the prices were good enough?
Chesham
Sire
Can I ask how can you really think he was backing 80% winners at all prices if he was working as a Lace Trimmer in a factory when writing into the Handicap Book, remember he was still in his 40’s early and early 50’s when he was writing in. He was only 53 when he wrote about Right Hand Man etc
Last edited:
I don't believe he was. That's the point. The reasoning that you could find a shortlist of "should wins" and find a magic filter to turn them into 85-90% makes no sense to me because if his "should wins" are not winning often enough to back more than 20% of them, then they're not "should wins" are they?
And to compound that, if say his "should wins" were winning 50% of the time, and presumably they were not all short priced obvious favourites, then how could you know which ones were the ones to back and which to leave? Because if you knew an easy way to split them, why through them into the mix in the first place?
Good point Chesham a lace trimmer never heard of that occupation before. It would be interesting to know if his "associates " were aware of his success in the art of betting.
His methods had to be pretty elementary, considering he held down a full time job, and all analysis was done manually, which as we all know is very time consuming.
I'm pretty sure that he worked from lists, had his modus operandi and stuck to it, as Lee seems to do.
I would imagine studying the daily results ,was the starting point.
gerry
Mare
My two main ones won today but not sure what rossa was doing with mister bluebird out like rocket then pulled it well last when two of the four runners where slow away to should have kicked from start but stayed on agian to be second but the winner wonby country mile to be fair.
Two for tonight should go well i think waterof leigh and spirit of applause.
Two for tonight should go well i think waterof leigh and spirit of applause.
Hi T Tufnel,
Just a bit of information you may find interesting.
In the long handicap for the Irish Sweeps Handicap Hurdle run on Tue, Dec 28, 1976, the top weight was Night Nurse on 12-2 followed by Captain Christy 11-8, then Comedy Of Errors 11-7, Grand Canyon 11-5 (carried top weight 12-0 in race). Alverton was on 11-0 (carried 11-9). Further down is Prominent King on 10-9, Straight Row who finished 2nd was on 10-4, Fish Quiz 10-2 and Master Monday way down on 9-1.
For the Schweppes Handicap Hurdle to be run at Newbury on Sat, Feb 12, 1977. The weights published around Jan 13 showed Beacon Light top weight on 12-7, then Sea Pigeon on 12-2, followed by Flash Imp 11-10, then Alverton 11-9, Straight Row re-handicapped from his Sweeps 2nd, also on 11-9. Prominent King was on 11-8 followed by Fish Quiz on 11-6. Fighting Kate was the actual top weight in the race on 11-4. Weights were not raised for the Schweppes.
Now the following is a rough estimation of Master Monday’s official ratings. If we assume Night Nurse to be 100 when the weights were published for the Sweeps then by my estimates Master Monday would be;
Mon, Nov 1, 1976. Clonmel. Cahir Hcap Hdle. 6-11-6 OR 59.
Thu, Nov 11, 1976. Limerick Junction. Meadow Sweet Hcap Hdle. 6-10-10 OR 59.
Sat, Nov 27, 1976. Naas. Naas Hcap Hdle. 6-10-9 OR 59.
Thu, Dec 9, 1976. Clonmel. Wilderness Hcap Hdle. 6-11-1 OR 57.
Sat, Dec 11, 1976. Punchestown. Longtown Hcap Hdle. 6-10-13(7x) OR 64.
Tue, Dec 28, 1976. Leopardstown. Sweeps Hcap Hdle. 6-10-2(6x) OR 63.
Sat, Jan 22, 1977. Naas. Celbridge Hcap Hdle. 7-11-10 OR 73.
This might have been his mark at the time of the 1977 Erin but compare that to Comedy Of Errors probably still around OR 91.
After the Erin Master Monday was more like OR 84.
Finding actual Official Ratings for N.H. horses of the time is nigh on impossible.
JennyK
Gelding
T
Tufnel
The whole thing may have been a lie, but if so an extensive and extremely well crafted lie, because in writings over eleven years or so (not counting the foray into "best bets/next bets" some years later), VDW's body of writing is a model of consistency. Apparent inconsistencies prove not to be so the more one works at them, and apparent nonsenses make sense once one realises his position.
The bottom line is can one get anywhere near VDW's claimed strike rate when one properly understands his method? I won't be sure unless/until I do, but there is one piece of unarguable evidence that gives me hope: Lee's pre-race posted selections. And with due deference to Lee, I am pretty sure he was well aware that his understanding, though well ahead of any of the other Gummy contributors, even Guest, was incomplete.
The rationale for the <20 percent of horses VDW considered "potential winners" that he backed is simple and all to do with, as he put it, "temperament and odds".
In the large majority of races it is possible to identify the class/form horse by VDW's two main methods of rating: ability and form status. The class/form horse, when identified, is the horse "most likely to win" but what does that actually mean? There are no true probabilities in racing, but that doesn't mean judgements can't be made and expressed in probabilistic terms. Take the Cesarewitch, one of the big end of turf season handicaps. Twenty-four runners this year. The class/form horse (whichever it was, not a race I looked at) would, from the perspective of VDW's method, have been the likeliest winner - compared to any other single runner, thus the individual horse "most likely to win". But that would be true if, probabilistically, one judged its chances perhaps less that 10%, with all the others individually lower, but one of the twenty-three others much more likely to win.
VDW seemed to be waiting for those where the class/form horse was not only the one most likely to win, compared with any of his or her individual rivals, but very likely indeed to win compared with the totality of the rest. Having an 80%or more chance, to be precise. It is determining which class/form horses meet that threshold that I think constitutes what I've referred to as the fourth numerical picture. Easy enough, much of the time, to get to the end product of the third stage - the class/form horse. Quite another to determine whether any specific class/form horse is an "80%+ class/form horse, and I for one am not at all suprised that VDW discarded many class/form horses as not meeting the threshold. (As I did with Le Milos in the big chase on Saturday. NOT a difficult judgement to make.)
It is clear that not all "80%+" class/form horses won - in crude terms VDW's strike rate claim is that about four in five did. It is equally clear that plenty of other class/form horses not meeting the "80%+" threshold also won, and obviously if one could find a way of identifying those it would open up more betting opportunities, but first things first. For VDW it seemed that strike rate was central, and I can understand that, because losing runs sap confidence. He presented himself as someone with the temperament to wait for the ones where is his judgement the odds - an 80%+ chance - were there. He was dismissive of "value bets".
An unknown is to what extent books played a part; two or more horses collectively like to reach the "80%+" threshold must, I suspect, have played a significant role, given the number of bets VDW seemed to find.
As I say, it may all be one big lie. But if you look at Lee's pre-race posted selections, I think you'll find that he wasn't scoring much short of four out of five.
The whole thing may have been a lie, but if so an extensive and extremely well crafted lie, because in writings over eleven years or so (not counting the foray into "best bets/next bets" some years later), VDW's body of writing is a model of consistency. Apparent inconsistencies prove not to be so the more one works at them, and apparent nonsenses make sense once one realises his position.
The bottom line is can one get anywhere near VDW's claimed strike rate when one properly understands his method? I won't be sure unless/until I do, but there is one piece of unarguable evidence that gives me hope: Lee's pre-race posted selections. And with due deference to Lee, I am pretty sure he was well aware that his understanding, though well ahead of any of the other Gummy contributors, even Guest, was incomplete.
The rationale for the <20 percent of horses VDW considered "potential winners" that he backed is simple and all to do with, as he put it, "temperament and odds".
In the large majority of races it is possible to identify the class/form horse by VDW's two main methods of rating: ability and form status. The class/form horse, when identified, is the horse "most likely to win" but what does that actually mean? There are no true probabilities in racing, but that doesn't mean judgements can't be made and expressed in probabilistic terms. Take the Cesarewitch, one of the big end of turf season handicaps. Twenty-four runners this year. The class/form horse (whichever it was, not a race I looked at) would, from the perspective of VDW's method, have been the likeliest winner - compared to any other single runner, thus the individual horse "most likely to win". But that would be true if, probabilistically, one judged its chances perhaps less that 10%, with all the others individually lower, but one of the twenty-three others much more likely to win.
VDW seemed to be waiting for those where the class/form horse was not only the one most likely to win, compared with any of his or her individual rivals, but very likely indeed to win compared with the totality of the rest. Having an 80%or more chance, to be precise. It is determining which class/form horses meet that threshold that I think constitutes what I've referred to as the fourth numerical picture. Easy enough, much of the time, to get to the end product of the third stage - the class/form horse. Quite another to determine whether any specific class/form horse is an "80%+ class/form horse, and I for one am not at all suprised that VDW discarded many class/form horses as not meeting the threshold. (As I did with Le Milos in the big chase on Saturday. NOT a difficult judgement to make.)
It is clear that not all "80%+" class/form horses won - in crude terms VDW's strike rate claim is that about four in five did. It is equally clear that plenty of other class/form horses not meeting the "80%+" threshold also won, and obviously if one could find a way of identifying those it would open up more betting opportunities, but first things first. For VDW it seemed that strike rate was central, and I can understand that, because losing runs sap confidence. He presented himself as someone with the temperament to wait for the ones where is his judgement the odds - an 80%+ chance - were there. He was dismissive of "value bets".
An unknown is to what extent books played a part; two or more horses collectively like to reach the "80%+" threshold must, I suspect, have played a significant role, given the number of bets VDW seemed to find.
As I say, it may all be one big lie. But if you look at Lee's pre-race posted selections, I think you'll find that he wasn't scoring much short of four out of five.
Last edited:
Well done Gerry good calls, two good winners.
I don't think the method was all a big lie. But I suspect it's actual success in practice was heavily over played.
My point really is that whatever the final piece of the jigsaw was, and by that I suppose I mean along the same lines as your 4th numerical stage, if that was a clear factor he used to determine a bet or not, then why would he even bother to suggest that qualifiers at the penultimate stage had any significance to him as "should wins"?
If he had a clear process for finalising a bet, then that was the full method. Why was he suggesting the final stage was due to temperament and odds and something that came after finding his "should wins"?
I guess what I'm saying is, if you are selecting from a pool of winners, but that pool isn't a high enough ratio of winners to losers to make a profit, then finding a way to bet only 20% of that pool and turn it into 85-90% success must involve more than patience and odds. After all, his selections were winning at all manner of prices. What possible final process would sort the wheat from the chaff and turn a low strike rate into a high one? And why not note it earlier in the process to avoid wasted evaluaton time?