• 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

Handicap Class Droppers

The CJ handicap hurdle at Kelso was a type of race that VDW considered in the HH method.

Again, there was one factor none of the short listers had. So potentially negated. I wasn't brave enough to go for the one that would have been a goer but for that factor.

And yes, just watched it reel in the front runner who'd gone about 30 lengths clear.

It's difficult to know what to do with some factors in a puzzle when you've only got 6 examples to go on.
 
Hi T Tufnel,

VDW's Handicap Hurdle Method gave the following results today (Sunday).

Kels 2,20 Lost (4 qualifiers, 2 of which were non runners)
Kels 4,40 W10/3F (2 qualifiers)
Utto 3,15 W3/1 (2 qualifiers)
Utto 3,45 W4/1 (2 or 3 qualifiers)
Kill 2,10 (no qualifiers)
Kill 3,20 Lost (1 qualifier)

The method was solved by garstonf aka garry aka myself years ago.
It is just another way of narrowing the field.
The criteria for the qualifiers are found by the following;

1. Mark off all those that had run within 28 days.
2. From these take the 3 best placings last time out.
3. From these take those that were a course or distance winner (including of course a CD winner).

The list of winners VDW gave were NOT bets, just winners that fitted the above criteria.
As an example, in VDW's list, the race won by Windbreaker 12/1 had 5 qualifiers.
 
Garry said:
Hi T Tufnel,

VDW's Handicap Hurdle Method gave the following results today (Sunday).

Kels 2,20 Lost (4 qualifiers, 2 of which were non runners)
Kels 4,40 W10/3F (2 qualifiers)
Utto 3,15 W3/1 (2 qualifiers)
Utto 3,45 W4/1 (2 or 3 qualifiers)
Kill 2,10 (no qualifiers)
Kill 3,20 Lost (1 qualifier)

The method was solved by garstonf aka garry aka myself years ago.
It is just another way of narrowing the field.
The criteria for the qualifiers are found by the following;

1. Mark off all those that had run within 28 days.
2. From these take the 3 best placings last time out.
3. From these take those that were a course or distance winner (including of course a CD winner).

The list of winners VDW gave were NOT bets, just winners that fitted the above criteria.
As an example, in VDW's list, the race won by Windbreaker 12/1 had 5 qualifiers.
Click to expand...
Hi G Garry Yes I’ve seen that criteria before but I only use one of those requirements. And even that one is open to question these days given modern training methods and recourse to observation of dual code runners.

But I fundamentally disagree it was just a shortlist provider based on what VDW said in the article it was presented in. Yes, it shortlists runners on qualification factors but there is a solution that leaves one horse. He gave 6 selections over a number of days in December. Your solution is showing 5 races in one day.

There are several other factors that narrow the field to one selection or as VDW explicitly said it used “straightforward logical processes to arrive at the selection.”

If he’d given a list of probables, as he did with most of his other methods, that would be different. Giving a list of race winners and saying to readers solve that should give a list of the same horses alone if a reader solved it, surely?”

I have an initial 4 definitive stages in my solution, which as I say is still with a few odds and ends to tie up. But those stages cover all 6 selections. And there are further stages beyond that with some of them being in strong similarity to his other 6 puzzling selections he gave years later in personal correspondence with Tony Peach.

Yesterday I noted beforehand that I was backing 2 in the last race because his selections originally given as examples didn’t show a maiden amongst the considerations. I sided with caution because at the price I could afford to add him in. But it was the horse who wasn’t a maiden who won it so perhaps that was significant.

One thing I will say is that there is little comparison to his consistency methods or Roushayd approach. Key horses are also no part of it. VDW was talking about the need to evaluate different types of races in different ways when giving the puzzle to solve. I think there’s a very good reason he didn’t elaborate further than just the names of the races, the selections and their winning SPs other than the straightforward logical processes observation. Just as he didn’t give too much away about his other methods as he freely admitted in later years, it was but a scratch on the surface.
 
Hi T Tufnel,

There is possibly only one flaw in my solution.
If you check the Daily Mirror for Monday, December 16th, 1985. Going Behind Vintage Horse Racing In The Media - Old racecards from the printed media
First race at Kelso you will see the following line;

12 0102-03 ISLAY MIST Craig 8-10-8 (D, F)........B Hay 34* (a black spot).

Notice there is no data in any of the cards showing the days since any horse last ran.
I am assuming this is the case with all newspapers at the time.

Does any member know if the Daily Mail had this information at the time?

So whilst the data is there for steps 2 & 3, for step 1 you would have to consult the pull out returns from the Raceform Handicap Book or use a publication with that information at hand.
 
Garry said:
Hi T Tufnel,

There is possibly only one flaw in my solution.
If you check the Daily Mirror for Monday, December 16th, 1985. Going Behind Vintage Horse Racing In The Media - Old racecards from the printed media
First race at Kelso you will see the following line;

12 0102-03 ISLAY MIST Craig 8-10-8 (D, F)........B Hay 34* (a black spot).

Notice there is no data in any of the cards showing the days since any horse last ran.
I am assuming this is the case with all newspapers at the time.

Does any member know if the Daily Mail had this information at the time?

So whilst the data is there for steps 2 & 3, for step 1 you would have to consult the pull out returns from the Raceform Handicap Book or use a publication with that information at hand.
Click to expand...
Having reviewed all the horses who would have been looked at, I can see that even you said 30 days last run, it wouldn't have changed a single qualifier or affected the later stages.

For that reason at 30 days I see no reason to not back Juan Bermudez at Stratford in the first.
 
Garry said:
Hi T Tufnel,

There is possibly only one flaw in my solution.
If you check the Daily Mirror for Monday, December 16th, 1985. Going Behind Vintage Horse Racing In The Media - Old racecards from the printed media
First race at Kelso you will see the following line;

12 0102-03 ISLAY MIST Craig 8-10-8 (D, F)........B Hay 34* (a black spot).

Notice there is no data in any of the cards showing the days since any horse last ran.
I am assuming this is the case with all newspapers at the time.

Does any member know if the Daily Mail had this information at the time?

So whilst the data is there for steps 2 & 3, for step 1 you would have to consult the pull out returns from the Raceform Handicap Book or use a publication with that information at hand.
Click to expand...
Many cards did not display days since last run in those days. The Mail was one of a few.

I think the more relevant thing is, how long since a last run was too long for VDW in respect of this method.

I also think there is an important stage before looking at days since last run, etc.
Just 7 horses from all of those shortlisted in my stage 1 are eliminated on a days since last run factor.
 
Last edited:
"He gave 6 selections over a number of days in December. Your solution is showing 5 races in one day."

Surely it is partly a matter of race numbers, partly random, surely, T Tufnel

Subject to correction, there were 15 handicap hurdles in the relevant week, and as you say VDW suggested selections in six races.

Yesterday, six handicap hurdles and G Garry said there were selections in five.

IF the VDW numbers are representative, from six races you'd expect selections in 2 or 3. So more yesterday than on the rate that week back in 1985, but that's where random probably comes in. Maybe the VDW week was untypical, or maybe yesterday was. The two sets of figures don't strike me as plainly at odds.
 
JennyK said:
"He gave 6 selections over a number of days in December. Your solution is showing 5 races in one day."

Surely it is partly a matter of race numbers, partly random, surely, T Tufnel

Subject to correction, there were 15 handicap hurdles in the relevant week, and as you say VDW suggested selections in six races.

Yesterday, six handicap hurdles and G Garry said there were selections in five.

IF the VDW numbers are representative, from six races you'd expect selections in 2 or 3. So more yesterday than on the rate that week back in 1985, but that's where random probably comes in. Maybe the VDW week was untypical, or maybe yesterday was. The two sets of figures don't strike me as plainly at odds.
Click to expand...
Possibly. Though there'll be more handicap hurdle races around that time of year going permitting as opposed to late summer racing.

But it's only a small point. VDW said he set a puzzle that uses "straightforward logical processes to arrive at the selection."
He said before that "I give selections for the same period as above" and listed the winners. That clearly says they were the selections.

There's no way in my mind at least that he wasn't talking about selections he claimed he found and backed.
 
I don't have a view on that, T Tufnel. You could well be right but so could G Garry's view that the named winners were among other possibles that his HH method selected. With VDW one can't ignore his words, but neither can one take them entirely at face value.

Being NH, it is not in my area of interest, though it is potentially attractive because on G Garry's view the possibles could be found more or less instantly from the Life card, ie no need for the NH equivalent of my Flat database. Also, if memory serves, Marvex was very keen on handicap hurdles as being relatively easy to sort out.

As the volume of sprint handicaps reduces, I think I'll take another look at the six selections (and the other HHs that week in 1985 where seemingly VDW made no selections) and hopefully find the same possibles as G Garry. If so, the question is of course how to go from the possibles and make a profit. When I looked at the HH selections some years ago, I found it difficult to make any kind of case for some of them, but maybe with greater understanding of VDW's main ways of working this time I'll get a bit further.
 
JennyK said:
I don't have a view on that, T Tufnel. You could well be right but so could G Garry's view that the named winners were among other possibles that his HH method selected. With VDW one can't ignore his words, but neither can one take them entirely at face value.

Being NH, it is not in my area of interest, though it is potentially attractive because on G Garry's view the possibles could be found more or less instantly from the Life card, ie no need for the NH equivalent of my Flat database. Also, if memory serves, Marvex was very keen on handicap hurdles as being relatively easy to sort out.

As the volume of sprint handicaps reduces, I think I'll take another look at the six selections (and the other HHs that week in 1985 where seemingly VDW made no selections) and hopefully find the same possibles as G Garry. If so, the question is of course how to go from the possibles and make a profit. When I looked at the HH selections some years ago, I found it difficult to make any kind of case for some of them, but maybe with greater understanding of VDW's main ways of working this time I'll get a bit further.
Click to expand...
I agree VDW's view is not to be taken without some cause for concern on his honesty. I'm just saying that if he said he arrives at the selection using logical processes, that means one horse.

How does a list of selections without any losers constitute a short list of runners in each race? If he'd said "I give the possibles or short list for races over the same period" then that would be different. His wording is clear in my view. Far clearer than some of his statements as we know. He says "selections" and just one in each race.

I'm not saying you don't start with a shortlist. The first part of the process should be obvious. And it alone cuts out a lot of deadwood.

The next stage of the process does capture the winners he listed, but lots of losers too and it doesn't actually eliminate many horses left after stage one.
Which is why I am re-evaluating the days since last run factor. And if I told you it only eliminates 6 horses across the six races and they are all from just 3 races too you should see why I feel it might be a red herring factor.

So by the end of stage two still plenty of runners to whittle down and arrive at the selection.

Stage three knocks out another 7 horses across the 6 races and at least 1 horse in 4 of the races.

Stage four leaves between 2 to 4 horses in each race. And if we ignore the days since last run idea, you still have the same 2 to 4 horses remaining. Every other stage eliminates horses from getting through to this stage. But the days since last run does not. Coincidence? Maybe.

The following stages are where you actually start looking at what the remaining runner's have been doing. And I think there are 3 distinct types in the 6 selections he gave.

I just think straight forward logical processes to arrive at the selection means what it says. A logical way to whittle down the contenders until you are left with a clear selection or perhaps a close rival selection.

He only gave us 6 examples so who knows. I could be miles off. But I assure you it's not as simple as days since last ran and if it's a course and/or distance winner. That has logic, bit it's the sort of logic that folks like Clive Holt managed to make a small fortune from as somehow being a quick way to riches at the races.
 
"How does a list of selections without any losers constitute a short list of runners in each race"

It plainly doesn't, but such a list is not inconsistent with what I take to be G Garry's view that there was a short list of qualifiers on the criteria he has identified for each of the six races and that VDW only mentioned the winners. There is an obvious reason why he might have done that; the unfortunately named Windbreaker would be of a lot more interest as a possible single selection than if part of maybe a five horse book.

I am far from saying you are incorrect; just that I can see force in the shortlist of qualifiers idea.
 
JennyK said:
"How does a list of selections without any losers constitute a short list of runners in each race"

It plainly doesn't, but such a list is not inconsistent with what I take to be G Garry's view that there was a short list of qualifiers on the criteria he has identified for each of the six races and that VDW only mentioned the winners. There is an obvious reason why he might have done that; the unfortunately named Windbreaker would be of a lot more interest as a possible single selection than if part of maybe a five horse book.

I am far from saying you are incorrect; just that I can see force in the shortlist of qualifiers idea.
Click to expand...
Sure but if you look at what I said occurs in the stages on all 6 races, the day since last run has no effect on which horses actually survived the point before you actually start looking at form. It's an impotent filter for want of a better phrase.

Btw I'm pretty sure one of my elders backed Windbreaker when it won. For no more reason than the amusing name.
 
"It's an impotent filter for want of a better phrase."

Not sure I follow you, T Tufnel

I chose one of the six at random - Flying Oats - with the following outcome:

13 runners
Of the 13, 5 with one of the three lowest lto placings (1 x 2nd, 2 x 3rd, 2 x 5th)
Of the 5, 3 with last run <=28 days ago
Of the 3, 2 with either a course or distance win

The two qualifiers Flying Oats (w13/2) and Vitriolic (4th 11/4)

It seems to me that each of the three filters contributed to arriving at the two qualifiers. For example, without the<=28 days one, there would have been three qualifiers rather than two.

I'll have a shot at another tomorrow morning.
 
Have you looked at how many initially qualified runners in each race pass the 28 days or less test?
I don't even use the lowest placings filter. Or the course filter.

Stage 1 needs to be done first. It wipes out no hopers.
 
Two somewhat different routes to the same destination (more or less).

Actually I got the order wrong in the Flying Oats example, reversing stages 1 and 2 but in that case, subject to rechecking, it gives the same end list.

Using G Garry' approach, and making the assumption that distance is taken literally (maybe VDW accepted the odd half furlong plus or minus), as far as I can see there are no qualifiers in either of the two handicap hurdles at Huntingdon today.

In the 1.36 there are two who have run within the last 28 days so no need to select by finishing position, but neither qualifies on course or distance.

In the 3.41 there are four <=28 day lto horses so the second filter, three lowest lto finishing places, comes into play and one falls away. None of the remaining three qualifies on course or distance, Saucats being closest to qualifying in either race (race 19.5f, S had won over 18.5f).

So today no need to go any further.

A plus is that both races were checked within five minutes.

Does your approach, T Tufnel, reach the same conclusion for today's races?
 
JennyK said:
Two somewhat different routes to the same destination (more or less).

Actually I got the order wrong in the Flying Oats example, reversing stages 1 and 2 but in that case, subject to rechecking, it gives the same end list.

Using G Garry' approach, and making the assumption that distance is taken literally (maybe VDW accepted the odd half furlong plus or minus), as far as I can see there are no qualifiers in either of the two handicap hurdles at Huntingdon today.

In the 1.36 there are two who have run within the last 28 days so no need to select by finishing position, but neither qualifies on course or distance.

In the 3.41 there are four <=28 day lto horses so the second filter, three lowest lto finishing places, comes into play and one falls away. None of the remaining three qualifies on course or distance, Saucats being closest to qualifying in either race (race 19.5f, S had won over 18.5f).

So today no need to go any further.

A plus is that both races were checked within five minutes.

Does your approach, T Tufnel, reach the same conclusion for today's races?
Click to expand...
The 1:41 narrows down to just Cinnodin using my approach.

The 3:46 leaves Clever Relation and at a push Inca but both are maidens over jumps though Clever Relation is a middle distance winner on the flat. So I’d be inclined to leave the race, but if I had to pick one it would clearly be Clever Relation.
 
JennyK said:
Cheers, T Tufnel, and good luck with Cinnodin if a bet for you.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Just out of interest, looking back at the last race Clever Relation ran in, he was down to the last 2 for consideration in that race on my stage 4 but didn't fit the profile for stage 5. The other horse at stage 4 also just didn't quite meet the requirements (as I see them) but he looked very likely to be going on to win before falling 2 out. And the horse who was 3rd on the list of considerations was a fortunate winner having looked booked for 2nd at best.

Just a bit more info on how I'm working the method. But it could very well be different from VDW's own processes he used to operate it. 6 examples doesn't really cover all the bases. It gives clues but potential blind alleys of coincidental obervations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top