How VDW decided between single bets and books

[JennyK]

While I don't have the forecast for this non-handicap race, I have a note that the first five (not sure what order) were Balmers Coombe, Broomy Bank, Keengaddy, Moifast and Wild Gamble, and yes, T Tufnel, Balmers Coombe did apparently start his previous race at 66/1. I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the first five as noted would have been from the Life's forecast.

 

[DuckandDive]

Kenlis - " good thing"

VDW highighted the main feature of this race; as he put it, "the relative ability of the whole field is like a blanket", with all nine runners with ratings between 8 and 12. I don't recall VDW ever claiming that the rating was overly precise and find it difficult to believe that he would have regarded the 12 as materially better than 11 or 10 - where does one draw the line? So far I have yet to find a race where VDW clearly went below 5th in the ability ranking for a bet; in this race no horse was lower than fifth.

Seems like the ratings steered him towards backing Kenlis.



The approach he used in this race is the one I prefer overall. ie: if a runners' (could me more than one) attributes align in each column, then this becomes a strong qualifer worth checking into further. ie: Going/Distance/Class...etc

No mention of Erin numbers in this example.....

 

[Garry]

HEREFORD 2,30

53/35P-1 Balmers Coombe 30* 9*
1-21211 Wayward Lad*
8-F2211 Wild Gamble 12* 4*
41313F Broomy Bank 11* 7*
414U43 Moifast 10 11
L15F54 Polar Express 8 14
43/5P2-P Cash Bonanza 0 - (point-to-point winner)
L04-86P Ejector Seat 0 -
U0/6P5F First Break 5 -
0-06170 Gemini Miss 16* -
UL6207 Hobgoblin 0 -
FL1443 Keengaddy 8 -
0L/R Miss Chingnu 0 -
7630/UP Pending 0 -
4F6/L-LF Ragleth 0 -
90FFFB Tichytino 0 -
*Wayward Lad runs only if Haydock is abandoned.
Probable S.P.: 3 Wild Gamble, 4 Polar Express, 5 Broomy Bank, 6 Balmers
Coombe, 8 Moifast, 10 Keengaddy, 12 Gemini Miss.

Forecast and Form placings are from the Daily Mail Card somewhere on this Forum.
Forecast is from the same.
Obviously, we need the Life’s forecast to match what VDW used.
Ability ratings (first figure after horse’s name) is calculated from the Form Book and are rounded down as VDW did. Again, we need the Life to confirm these, especially the 0’s.
Consistency ratings are applied to the first 5 in the forecast shown.

Wayward Lad would not have been shown if VDW had illustrated this race. Just like he didn’t show Jer (withdrawn at the start) in Sunset Cristo’s race.

Please feel free to copy and paste the data to match the Life (if anyone has it).

 

[JennyK]

Wild Gamble – “easy to find the winner”

VDW wrote about this race four years after he first – very briefly – discussed it. Having introduced explicitly the idea of class/form horse in an article dated 26/01/85, in April 1985 he gave more examples and in doing so referred back to the article published on 28/03/81, as follows:

“ … in every, repeat every illustration the winner was the class/form horse. These were Little Owl, 4/5, Sunset Cristo 5/1, Gay Chance 11/1 and Kenlis 11/4.

These were the five races which the text indicated for application of the method as I use it and you will see everything is true when you find the missing link.”

He named four winners, from the four races he illustrated with tables of data, yet referred to five races, the fifth, won by Wild Gamble, with no data table and covered in less than two lines. Should he have mentioned the fifth winner, or perhaps just referred to four races, not five? Was he telling us that Wild Gamble, too, was a class/form horse, or the reverse?

The horses with the top five ability ratings, with their consistency totals, were:

Balmers Coombe 30 (9)

Broomy Bar 12 (7)

Wild Gamble 12 (4)

Moifast 10 (11)

Keengaddy 9 (11)

Polar Express 9 (14)

On all I have seen of VDW’s work, he would not have considered any of those on lower ability ratings, and although the consistency totals for the first three were typical of VDW’s selections, we know he sometimes accepted totals in the teens, highest definite bet 16. So, none of the six would have been eliminated on consistency.

Of the six, only two were form horses, Balmers Coombe and Wild Gamble, so on the basis he had shown in the January and April 1985 articles, the former was the class/form horse, as noted by posters on the old Gummy forum, including Lee.

The fact that VDW did not add Wild Gamble to the four names in the 1985 article suggests one of two possibilities. Either, like Jim Thorpe in the much later 1988 Mackeson example, VDW by-passed the top on class/form because it failed on “the other factors” or he was clear that Balmers Coombe was the class/form horse but with such a doubtful profile that he thought the second on class/form was in this case the more likely winner. Either would explain why VDW said the race should be left from a betting perspective. If the former, Balmers Coombe would have been one of the majority of class/form horses VDW thought were not strong enough to back. If the latter, backing Wild Gamble meant taking a chance that the much higher ability-rated Balmers Coombe would not win what was only his second ever proper chase.

Which? From VDW’s other examples any question of by-passing because of “the other factors” would seem to turn on whether there was a significant disqualifier on trip, going, course type or weight in respect of Balmers Coombe.

The 07/03/81 race was over 20f on soft, on a speed course, and Balmers Coombe was carrying 12.00

Lto Balmers Coombe won over 16f on good, on a speed course, carrying 11.00, in his chase debut proper (he had run in a hunter chase the previous season), after what seems to have been an undistinguished hurdles career. Especially given his career prior to the win, there is nothing to support the view that he would be fine over 20f on soft carrying 12.00, but also nothing to suggest he wouldn’t be. The evidence suggests VDW only disqualified on “the other factors” where the evidence was clear cut.

Two other observations on Balmers Coombe’s win. First, winning first time out in a novice chase after an undistinguished hurdles career might be a sign that in chases the horse had found his best format. As regards the race on 07/03/81, that was the only proper chase evidence VDW had. Second, in his chase debut, Balmers Coombe went off joint 7th favourite in an eight-horse field, at 66/1, which suggests, though it does not prove, his win was unexpected by connections.

Conclusion. Balmers Coombe was the class/form horse but one VDW regarded as having a very weak profile, while VDW thought that Wild Gamble had a much more attractive profile and likely the more probable of the two to win. I think if their ability ratings had been reversed, VDW would have seen Wild Gamble as a very solid class/form horse and bet.

Perhaps the most important thing about VDW’s April 1985 article in general, and his reference back to the 28/03/81 article, is that it removed any doubt about the “key” or “missing link”; the importance of rating horses for their form status. And it was the two 1985, and the 18/01/86, articles that gave the means of working out his rating method.

 

[Pitmatic]

G Garry JennyK

The Sporting Life Card and betting forecast for Wild Gamble's race on 07.03.1981.

 

[Pitmatic]

JennyK

The 5 horses you mentioned earlier, from Wild Gamble's race, don't look to match the Daily Mail's betting forecast either (I'd forgotten that G Garry had posted the Daily Mail's betting forecast earlier).

 

[JennyK]

Pitmatic

Thanks. I know that when I started studying VDW's examples seriously I mainly noted the Life's but sometimes the Mail's. Not much difference in this instance and both the "odd" ones, Polar Express and Moifast, appear in the top five ability rates so fortunately the analysis is unaffected.

It has been quite revealing, re-visiting the five, and one conclusion I've reached is that VDW probably backed more of his selections as books than I had allowed. I am not suggesting he would have backed Balmers Coombe and Wild Gamble as a book, but I don't think he would have backed the latter on its own.

Checking through VDW's stated bets and the ones like the "certainties" where it is a reasonable assumption that he backed them, looking at the higher ability-rated horses when VDW says he backed a lower-rated one is interesting. Sometimes the higher rated can readily be discarded as not form horses, but sometimes not - Prayukta in the Cheltenham race where he backed Clayside is one such. In those cases, either VDW was prepared to by-pass an apparent class/form horse on a ground I had not hitherto supposed - quality of form - or he backed both as a book and only mentioned the one that won. We know, because he was explicit, that VDW by-passed higher ability-rated horses on "the other factor" grounds, but maybe also on quality of form, which potentially opens up another can of worms. One or the other must surely explain the Swiss Maid example. In that one a book of Cistus and Swiss Maid would make perfect sense.

 

[Tufnel]

Pitmatic

Thanks. I know that when I started studying VDW's examples seriously I mainly noted the Life's but sometimes the Mail's. Not much difference in this instance and both the "odd" ones, Polar Express and Moifast, appear in the top five ability rates so fortunately the analysis is unaffected.

It has been quite revealing, re-visiting the five, and one conclusion I've reached is that VDW probably backed more of his selections as books than I had allowed. I am not suggesting he would have backed Balmers Coombe and Wild Gamble as a book, but I don't think he would have backed the latter on its own.

Checking through VDW's stated bets and the ones like the "certainties" where it is a reasonable assumption that he backed them, looking at the higher ability-rated horses when VDW says he backed a lower-rated one is interesting. Sometimes the higher rated can readily be discarded as not form horses, but sometimes not - Prayukta in the Cheltenham race where he backed Clayside is one such. In those cases, either VDW was prepared to by-pass an apparent class/form horse on a ground I had not hitherto supposed - quality of form - or he backed both as a book and only mentioned the one that won. We know, because he was explicit, that VDW by-passed higher ability-rated horses on "the other factor" grounds, but maybe also on quality of form, which potentially opens up another can of worms. One or the other must surely explain the Swiss Maid example. In that one a book of Cistus and Swiss Maid would make perfect sense.

Quality of form is the balancing act, in my opinion. And I think it's a process that can override the AR perspective in trying to rate horses.

I took the view today that Illinois's effort against Los Angeles at York was a better piece of form than Sunway's to the same horse in the Irish Derby. And I also thought that Jan Brueghel made hard work of getting the better of Bellum Justum at Goodwood who was coming from a 3rd in a lower class race last time (behind King's Gambit who was behind Illinois at York) and had up to that point only won a maiden and a listed race. Of course after that Goodwood race Bellum Justum went to the states and won a grade 3 £830k race on turf, so perhaps was on the upgrade at Goodwood anyway. But even so, I couldn't have seen Bellum Justum running as well as Los Angeles did in the Irish Champion stakes today, so I can't say I would have changed my mind beforehand and I just think Jan Brueghel is clearly a talented improver who found a new level of form today and just got the better of my choice. I didn't check the ARs because it seemed clear to me that at the time of both the York and Goodwood races, Los Angeles was clearly a known better horse than Bellum Justum based on recent achievements race by race.

As regards the Wild Gamble/Balmers Coombe race, the small print in the race conditions is interesting because Wild Gamble winning a less valuable chase than Balmers Coombe did last time mean't he had a 3lb pull. Which may have also swayed VDW?

 

[JennyK]

"Quality of form is the balancing act, in my opinion. And I think it's a process that can override the AR perspective in trying to rate horses."

Could be, but I'll need to find more evidence among the VDW examples before seeing that as, for example, the reason for being sure enough to think VDW backed Clayside on its own. A book in such examples offers a safer way of proceeding, and his 29 out of 32 claim (if true at all) is much more realistic as a combination of win singles and books.

However true his claims, studying the five again, and some related ones as a consequence, has shown me in a way I had not previously appreciated how methodical and precise VDW was. Remarkable.

 

[Tufnel]

"Quality of form is the balancing act, in my opinion. And I think it's a process that can override the AR perspective in trying to rate horses."

Could be, but I'll need to find more evidence among the VDW examples before seeing that as, for example, the reason for being sure enough to think VDW backed Clayside on its own. A book in such examples offers a safer way of proceeding, and his 29 out of 32 claim (if true at all) is much more realistic as a combination of win singles and books.

However true his claims, studying the five again, and some related ones as a consequence, has shown me in a way I had not previously appreciated how methodical and precise VDW was. Remarkable.

It was some time before VDW introduced the AR, and up until that point the emphasis had been very much on consistency. Even after the Hall Key letter, there was no immediate jump to ability ratings.

I'm surprised that the AR was presented first and not the race class figure. After all, if one didn't know the ARs of those involved in the Erin race, but knew of the race class factor, the case for Prominent King and even Mr Kildare over Beacon Light was still possible to establish. In fact from personal experience and no doubt for others too, when the AR was introduced and one went back to the Erin, there was confusion as to how he bypassed not one, but several horses with much higher AR than PK and MK if the AR was so important.

I've always thought he specifically chose to use the Erin first because Drumgora was there in the race itself and hence more likely to be found as a significant factor in the form.

 

[JennyK]

"He did stipulate a 3 point+ advantage on the AR when doing the Boxing Day exercise involving Stray Shot, Zamandra, etc but it would seem that was just to demonstrate the power of the class/form combo from the first 4 in the betting."

T Tufnel

A belated thank you for drawing attention to this stipulation. We don't know whether VDW chose it because it suited his narrative in the relevant article or because it was one of his "rules of thumb". If the latter, it helps with both the Gaye Chance and Kenlis races, and indeed with the 1978 Erin.

With the benefit of being able to re-visit the 1978 Erin in the light of what VDW set out later, which in theory we could all have done from 1989 onwards, there is no problem in seeing how VDW by-passed six to get to 7th ranked on ability, Prominent King; form status. And with Prominent King the classs/form horse, holding a 3 point + advantage over the highest ability-rated of the other form horses in the field, that would have been a positive. The negative was the presence of six "better" horses in the field ("better" here merely meaning higher on the ability rating) and the risk of any of them returning to form. Overall, VDW's observation that Prominent King "looked a good proposition" seems right. Not a "certainty" like Little Owl, nor an "outstanding bet" like Celtic Pleasure, but in with a decent chance.

 

[Tufnel]

"He did stipulate a 3 point+ advantage on the AR when doing the Boxing Day exercise involving Stray Shot, Zamandra, etc but it would seem that was just to demonstrate the power of the class/form combo from the first 4 in the betting."

T Tufnel

A belated thank you for drawing attention to this stipulation. We don't know whether VDW chose it because it suited his narrative in the relevant article or because it was one of his "rules of thumb". If the latter, it helps with both the Gaye Chance and Kenlis races, and indeed with the 1978 Erin.

With the benefit of being able to re-visit the 1978 Erin in the light of what VDW set out later, which in theory we could all have done from 1989 onwards, there is no problem in seeing how VDW by-passed six to get to 7th ranked on ability, Prominent King; form status. And with Prominent King the classs/form horse, holding a 3 point + advantage over the highest ability-rated of the other form horses in the field, that would have been a positive. The negative was the presence of six "better" horses in the field ("better" here merely meaning higher on the ability rating) and the risk of any of them returning to form. Overall, VDW's observation that Prominent King "looked a good proposition" seems right. Not a "certainty" like Little Owl, nor an "outstanding bet" like Celtic Pleasure, but in with a decent chance.

Another factor that I think is significant is how it seemed he treated handicaps and conditions race form in the context of the type of race to be run.

For example, if it is significant that PK was switched to a handicap from conditions races in his last run before the Erin, and the horse he gave so much weight to Drumgora had come from a higher class rated race than both PK's last race and the Erin itself, why wasn't a similar feat (better given it won) by Decent Fellow over the very same C&D not a factor too?

One could say it was because Decent Fellow showed a downturn in his next race, but he also did that in the race before he won that valuable handicap at Leopardstown. I think it's to do with the type of races they were. In conditions races that season, Decent Fellow had been beaten at odds on and as the outsider of 3. But when switched to a handicap, even with a fair bit of weight in a higher class race, he won fairly comfortably.

The point arises with Beacon Light when he was 6th at Sandown earlier that season in a good handicap with 12-1 between several wins in conditions races. His first failure that season in a conditions race was against Sea Pigeon.

And it also arises in other examples of VDW such as Love From Verona, beaten in a conditions race a fair old way before switching to a handicap and winning 2 on the trot. There are others in that race at Kempton who's form was in conditions races and they had higher ability ratings than LFV, but a handicap race, by it's nature is designed to even out the field's ability to varying degrees. This point is one of my reasons why I don't think the AR rating is as effective in these type of races as many people think it should be. And VDWs selections often came from those out of the top few.

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

"Another factor that I think is significant is how it seemed he treated handicaps and conditions race form in the context of the type of race to be run."

I think your are right, but I don't find it easy to put my finger on exactly how, especially with non-handicap form. How, for example, did VDW assess Beacon Light's last run before the Erin, and Orchestra's penutimate run before the race on 15/04/78, and was he consist in those two specific cases? But with any specific judgement, more than one consideration might be relevant and then it would come down to which VDW thought were the most significant.

Another issue, I think, is when in a horse's season a race was run. VDW may have been more forgiving of poor performances in first runs than in later ones, perhaps Ascenia is an example, which would make sense as maybe it was more difficult for trainers to have horses ready first time out than it is these days. He may also have been more forgiving about poor performances in final runs of a season, Orchestra and Roushayd perhaps being examples, though there are obvious differences as well as similarities with those two.

Even though I have notes on most VDW selections, if I were making them now, instead of some years ago, I'd have noted some different things to what I noted then, and even if my notes were fuller I don't think it is possible to have a grasp of any example without access to the Raceform/Chaseform form books. Some Superforms are nearly as good, and for a few years they included data on ORs not included in Raceforms/Chaseforms. But the early Superforms (then Haig) were woefully deficien, often not even giving the full field for a race.

 

[Garry]

Once again, we must thank Pitmatic for putting up the Sporting Life card for Wild Gamble. Look at it and you will see that VDW did not evaluate that race at the time, hence the omission of its illustration as shown with the other 4 races. In my opinion the result was included as an afterthought to complete the first stage of the agenda.

 

[Garry]

.......but a handicap race, by it's nature is designed to even out the field's ability to varying degrees. This point is one of my reasons why I don't think the AR rating is as effective in these type of races as many people think it should be.

Hi T Tufnel,

I don’t do National Hunt (where the ability rating is meant to be applied) but so far, this flat season, I have evaluated 58 Stakes races and 59 Hcaps and kept up rolling statistics on certain aspects. One of which is the Ability rating.

The results so far are 28% of Stakes Races have been won by the horse top on ability compared with 15% for Hcaps. Taking the top 2 it is 49% Stakes compared with 20% Hcaps.

So, you are right in what you say.

 

[JennyK]

The table tells its own story, except I suspect some may have been backed as part of books.

Add in comparable selections from "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune", "Systematic Betting" and "Betting The VDW Way" and nearly 60% of what seem to have been bets were not top on ability in their races. As I have noted previously, by the mid/late 1980s some were as low as fifth on ability (eg Pegwell Bay).

 

[Tufnel]

The table tells its own story, except I suspect some may have been backed as part of books.

Add in comparable selections from "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune", "Systematic Betting" and "Betting The VDW Way" and nearly 60% of what seem to have been bets were not top on ability in their races. As I have noted previously, by the mid/late 1980s some were as low as fifth on ability (eg Pegwell Bay).

There’s a horse running in the principal handicap at Yarmouth today that is top rated on AR but she hasn’t won in over 2 years. The fav is rated in the top few and is giving weight away, but the amount or range of weight compared to last time at Epsom is much more compressed. But for the presence of the M Appleby horse I’d be confident the Godolphin horse would win this. Even with 10-2. The more exposed horses in here seem to have taken their quota of races this season.

 

[JennyK]

Something I noticed today while working on another VDW example. Mostly, in the Raceform Form Book the sfs for the first six home are given as the final line of the data for the race, so one would reasonably assume one could note a horse's sfs over a period by checking each race's data.

Not so. For some races, maybe those run abroad, there is no sf information in the data for the race. But the best of the year, whether or not shown in the relevant race data, is included in a list at the end of the Form Book.

To illustrate, the 1986 Lancashire Oaks winner, Park Express, a "certainty" in VDW's view, went on to win the Phoenix Park Champion Stakes on 07/09/86. No sfs shown. But in the Flat Speed Figures 1986 section at the back of the 1986 Form Book, she is shown as having achieved a sf of 94 for the race.

This is relevant if one wants to assemble the best sfs for the time/merit rating as shown in VDW's article on the 2001 2000 Guineas, where the first two home were highest rated on that rating.

 

[Garry]

Something I noticed today while working on another VDW example. Mostly, in the Raceform Form Book the sfs for the first six home are given as the final line of the data for the race, so one would reasonably assume one could note a horse's sfs over a period by checking each race's data.

Not so. For some races, maybe those run abroad, there is no sf information in the data for the race. But the best of the year, whether or not shown in the relevant race data, is included in a list at the end of the Form Book.

To illustrate, the 1986 Lancashire Oaks winner, Park Express, a "certainty" in VDW's view, went on to win the Phoenix Park Champion Stakes on 07/09/86. No sfs shown. But in the Flat Speed Figures 1986 section at the back of the 1986 Form Book, she is shown as having achieved a sf of 94 for the race.

This is relevant if one wants to assemble the best sfs for the time/merit rating as shown in VDW's article on the 2001 2000 Guineas, where the first two home were highest rated on that rating.

The same thing is in the 1985 Form Book.
Park Express ran 2nd at Leopardstown on Sat, Oct 26, 1985. Only 4 horses listed in the race, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th. No speed figures but the Speed Figure list at the end of the book shows Park Express achieved a sf of 80 in this race.
This is the highest speed figure achieved of all the runners in the 1986 Lancashire Oaks.

To calculate her ability rating you will definitely need the Sporting Life (or Racing Post).

 

[JennyK]

G Garry

I think there may be three things to take from the Park Express example, IF we assume that for 3yos VDW regarded the time/merit rating as more important than the standard ability rating.

First, it makes more sense of VDW's comment that Park Express was a certainty in the 1986 Lancashire Oaks. Having recorded an 80 as a 2yo, instead of being only 5th in the ability ranking (and chronologically the earliest of the three bets/certainties etc where VDW went below the top four on ability), Park Express now becomes the top rated on the possibly preferred 3yo only method. Working down the time/merit ratings, Park Express is the class/form horse, well clear on ability of the others. Using the standard ability rating, in my view the top rated on that, Mill On The Floss, would have been the class/form horse. (Examination of other VDW 3yo only races will be needed to check whether it is a reasonable assumption to assume he preferred the time/merit rating for such races.)

Second, another forum member has pointed out to me that with a sf of 80 achieved over 7f, Park Express would have met the criteria VDW suggested in the article reprinted as Listing Speed Figures in "The Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune", if of course VDW would have regarded Leopardstown as comparable to the seven UK courses he listed. Thus if VDW compiled a list from the best 1985 2yo sfs comparable to that for 1981 in the Listing Speed Figures piece, Park Express would very likely have figured. That would:

Third, provide support for Lee's view that many of VDW's selections resulted from lists he maintained rather than just being the outcome of appraising races without such lists.

Admittedly several ifs in the above, but the conclusions seem sufficiently plausable to serve as provisional hypotheses.