Sorting A Card Out

[Tufnel]

VDW referred several times in later years to his method of "sorting a card out".

In the 2 letters he sent to Peach in 1995 & 1996, which I believe Bobajobber bought, he mentions how anyone who knew the game could go racing knowing they would win, but said this was done "quite differently from anything I had shown to date" and that the 2 examples he gave in the first letter, Travado and Rivage Bleu were just examples of "what you would go to bet when you know how".

He also mentioned in one of the letters that he had in fact written 2 versions of Systematic Betting (a title he "didn't like") and the first version (which was not the one printed) included his "methods of sorting a card out but it had nothing to do with what had previously been explained."

His 2nd version of the book was the one printed which he says only cautiously advanced his methods. But at the end of the book, there's a conclusion page (below) which backs up what he says in the letter, that it was merely a scratch on the surface and didn't go into the deeper aspects of form, hidden form and the devious methods employed by some trainers. As well as mentioning many other ways to find the best bets, etc.



It's a shame that Peach had called a halt to discussion on VDW on the SF pages before Systematic Betting was published. Was this so that he could divert VDWs best articles to other books making more money for RF rather than putting them in the forum for far less money? I don't know, but clearly VDW didn't write any more further elaboration on his methods other than the letters and an updating of the Form Class Evaluation chapter.

I say a shame, because VDW clearly says in the last 2 letters to Peach that he "had intended to give everything away in due course", but Peach put a stop it.

Going back to the slections he gave in the Peach letters, where he added 4 more selections in the final one but didn't elaborate further on these Sandown Arthur's Minstrel (Best bet of the day) Ever Smile (2nd best for the day) and the following day at Newcastle Valiant Warrior (Best) and KIlleshin (2nd best). Some of these are perplexing to say the least. Ever Smile and Valiant Warrior seem logical to a fair degree and KIlleshin was running out of the handicap again following a recent bounce back to form (he was formerly a very good hunter chaser), so he didn't seem a complete leap of faith in terms of form, but Rivage Bleu from the first letter bothers me.

He had said in that first letter that in each case of RIvage Bleu and Prominent King that the "trainer told you they were really out to win", but personally I can't make the connection, other than perhaps from a weight point of view. Both horses were in very different situations though.

He also commented in the same letter that the majority of so called experts had little idea how to LOOK at a card properly

Prominent King had shown form at a level he could be considered worthy of entering the race he won, but Rivage Bleu had run 16 times in 3 seasons and until the Uttoxeter race where he finished a very distant 2nd to Harwell Lad the short priced fav, the closest he had finished to any winner was when 5th beaten 5 and a half lengths on debut in a Cheltenham bumper and more recently when 3rd beaten 13 and a half lengths at Sandown in a class 44 Novices Handicap Chase at 50/1 and a whopping 24lbs from out of the handicap, led until 4 out.

Now it surely has to be that the Sandown race is the race that earmarked Rivage Bleu for VDW, but the form came from an out of the handicap run (as did another horse he gave in the letters Killeshin) and the trainer went back to Novice NON Handicps for the next 2 runs which involved carrying more weight and the horse ended the 94/95 season with a run in a 10k Novice chase at Ascot at level weights with much better horses. He was rated just 66 at this point, having been put up 4lb for the Sandown run which was off of 86 instead of the 62 it should have been.

So then a new season starts, and Rivage Bleu is still a maiden and a second season novice chaser. First run is at Uttoxeter back into a novice handicap chase, and he is again out of the handicap, but just by 4lbs this time, and a claiming jockey is taking 7lb off his back so he runs with 9-7. Made the running and led until 7 fences out where the much better horse Harwell Lad went on and easily settled the race as 11/10 fav with 11-3. RB would have finished a very distant 3rd rather than 2nd if Jason's Boy had not have fallen 3 out.

I don't see any card marking by improved performance here, certainly not on distances beaten, but the form book does say he finished 2nd, and that was his best placing to date.

But how did the trainer "tell us he was really out to win" next time when heading to Cheltenham?

The horse was going up a bit in class rating and from a 0-105 Hcp to a 0-110 Hcp.
He was due to run from 9lb out of the handicap, but a pro jockey was booked and in fact the horse carried 2lb over weight as Upton couldn't do the 10-0 min on the day.
The top weight in the race was rated 104.
At Sandown, also a 0-110 Nov Hcp Chase Class 44, where he showed his closest finish in a handicap, the top weight was 114 and the winner was 87.
On the day at Cheltenham a 0-110 Nov Hcp Chase Class 33, Rivage Bleu made all and despite jumping right on a LH track, he won by 11 lengths at 12/1.

Now all this sort of investigation takes time and it takes much longer if you're not sure what you're supposed to be looking for. So thanks Mr Peach for not letting VDW go into any detail on these aspects of form evaluation and sorting a card out. VDW even commented on Jock Bingham's attempt to solve the puzzle, to the effect that it was a good stab but no disrespect to Jock as he hadn't been shown how to do it.

He does mention "evaluating the Ascot card" before showing us Zilzal and Braashee for Ascot 30th Sept 1989. He didn't say "I had two horses noted as on the boil" in fact he says he had just returned from a long summer break abroad and on his return looked at the card.

To my mind, when someone refers to the Ascot card, or any day's racing card, they are referring to the whole meeting, the whole day's races on the card.
Now some will say well he looked at the 2 highest value races only, and in this case the 2 bets mentioned were from the 2 highest class races, but the handicap race was only a few grand higher than several other races on the card. And how does one explain Rivage Bleu who's race was definitely not one of the 2 highest class events on the card?

If you go through all of the races on that Ascot card, which every event is worth in excess of 40 grand each, and look at the class in which the first 5 or 6 in the betting of each race previously ran in, it does tell a story, relative to the race in question.

I think that angle helps explain why, when talking about the Huntingdon card for Travado on the same day as Rivage Bleu at Cheltenham, VDW says "at the principle meeting Huntingdon, you could have had a field day".

I'm sure VDW must have had shortcuts to find probables for this approach, there simply isn't enough time in the day to go through every horses in fine detail. I just wish I knew what these shortcuts were.

 

[Chesham]

Rivage Bleu Was neaten By Harwell Lad who was Fav and won NTO Rivage Bleu ran again. LTO Harwell Lad had won and Was Fav in that race

Constant form (Look for a winner in a Race) Harwell Lad was a winner in a race who had constant form. Rivage Bleu Could not have performed better than he did in the race against Harwell Lad

No difference between Ahoy beaten 29 lengths by Unfuwain who was Fav and LTO won and was Fav

Constant Form (Look for a winner in a race)

 

[Tufnel]

Rivage Bleu Was neaten By Harwell Lad who was Fav and won NTO Rivage Bleu ran again. LTO Harwell Lad had won and Was Fav in that race

Constant form (Look for a winner in a Race) Harwell Lad was a winner in a race who had constant form. Rivage Bleu Could not have performed better than he did in the race against Harwell Lad

No difference between Ahoy beaten 29 lengths by Unfuwain who was Fav and LTO won and was Fav

Constant Form (Look for a winner in a race)

Yes, I've also noted those points before, but they'd been messing around with Rivage Bleu for so many runs and he was only 2nd to Harwell Lad because Jason's Boy fell 3 out, and I actually remember the race live (because I backed Harwell Lad) and he was in a different league to the others. The race was full of carnage and there's no way you'd have watched that race and thought, if that maiden way back in 2nd goes to Cheltenham he'll have a right chance in a chase there.

Ahoy was on one of VDW's lists, so that's a different case I feel. He was watching the horse and how it was placed, and there was a clear case of Ahoy being in well over his level against Unfuwain.

Rivage Bleu wouldn't have been on a list. However, I do think a big part of his selection would have been based on previously running a much better race at Sandown in a better class race than Cheltenham when 3rd and effectively 24lb overweight when so far out of the handicap.

I'm not saying Harwell Lad who was on a roll in that period was not a big factor, but there had to be more to it than just finishing a distant 2nd to a constant form horse.

When VDW says the trainer is telling you their horse is really out to win, it has to be based on how the horse was placed in the run up to the big day.

The points I would make on the placing was why did the trainer switch RB back to conditions Novice chases after Sandown where he was meeting better horses on level weights or close to it? And why did he push it up to a class 10k race at Ascot where it clearly had no chance before ending the season?

He wouldn't have known Harwell Lad was entered at Uttoxeter or that he was a big improver. And the entry for Cheltenham would have been made before Harwell Lad ran again.

It's plausible that the horse was trying at Uttoxeter, but it could very well have been a case of getting fit for the next day. After all, it would have been easy to pull the horse up after the mistake. But they kept going.

I'd say VDW's reasoning was based on evidence that his best run to date (or closest finish) over fences was at Sandown when almost 2 stone disadvantaged and he waited for another novice handicap where he could try the same trick, but not so far out of the handicap this time. I actually looked into the trainer's other runners over time and he was known for running horses well out of the handicap in better races and often getting them placed at big prices.

Either way, I still find this example very suspect. Could one find it and back it? Yes, I'd say it was feasible. Could you say it was the best bet on a Cheltenham card and second best for the day across all the cards? I think that's doubtful.

 

[Chesham]

So how did VDW no that RB was coming to the Boil ???
TF comment For the Harwell performance

“poor novice over hurdles and fences (broke blood vessel final start last season), showed he retains his ability, though held when blundering four out, left second a couple of fences later.”


Prior to Cheltenham the best rating performance according to TF Ratings was the run after Sandown

 

[Tufnel]

So how did VDW no that RB was coming to the Boil ???
TF comment For the Harwell performance

“poor novice over hurdles and fences (broke blood vessel final start last season), showed he retains his ability, though held when blundering four out, left second a couple of fences later.”

Given the Arthur's Minstrel selection from the same letters, you'd have to say he was looking back at least 6 runs to find a marker.

AM had shown very little in his 3 runs that season, but 6 runs back almost to the day the year before, AM was 5/1 for the Eider Hcp Chase at Newcastle (the race Killeshin won). He fell when making ground into 2nd 5 fences out carrying 10-0 (4lb out of the weights too). He then went to the Midlands National at Uttoxeter over 4m 2f again with 10-0 and 7lb out of the weights. He finished a close 2nd to Lucky Lane who was 14lb out of the hcp.

The following month he went for the Scottish National over 4m 1f as 7/1 Co Fav of 3 with 10-0 2lb out of the hcp. He was beaten 18 lengths into 5th and was put away until next season. But we know he has ability because his last 3 runs were all in progressively higher class long distance big field handicaps and he ran very well in 2 of them.

First run for the 95/96 season was in early Nov at Worcester down to much lower class 48 and under 3 miles in a small field of 4. Sent of 7/2 3rd fav he was close up until outpaced 5 out and never dangerous after beaten 16 lengths in 3rd to the bottom weight (4lb out of hcp) who was 13/8 fav on seasonal debut. Form last season was nothing special, so AM hasn't marked any cards at that point.

Next ran 2 weeks later up to class 68 at Cheltenham over an extended 3m sent off 9/2 joint 2nd fav with 11-3 in a field of 7. Held up but blundered at UR'd rider at the 7th, not even half way. The race was won by the other 2nd fav Dextra Dove with 11-5 who had arrived there via 3 wins on the bounce since June with class 44, 49 and the latest 74 at Sandown when 10-11F carrying 10-7.

25 days later Arthur's Minstrel went to Haydock up in distance to an extended 4m slightly up in race class to 70 with 11-5 in another small field of 6. SP was 11/2 3rd in the betting. Held up, blundered at the 14th, effort 4 out, beaten 3f out and tailed off last of the 4 finishers. The 6 length winner was High Padre sent off the 7/4 F with 10-6 having won his last 2 races class 38 with 10-9 at 8/1 and then class 74 with 11-5 as joint 3rd fav at 6/1. HP was carrying almost a stone less at Haydock and down slightly in race class.

So Arthur's MInstrel's last 2 races were won by progressive horses who were both winning for at least the 3rd time on the run. But what did AM actually achieve in those races? And what does the trainer do next?

He lets the horse down for 2 months. Something clearly not right with horse's fitness so they wait. They wait until it's almost exactly a year since he ran so well in the class 162 Hcp at Newcastle.

He goes to Sandown in a class 70 race with 11-2 after the jockey's 3lb claim and wins at 14/1 over 3m.

If you look at Rivage Bleu's last 6 races, it's the 4th last race that peaks the initial interest.

 

[Tufnel]

And just to reiterate what VDW said about his method of sorting a card out from version 1 of Systematic Betting that was different to version 2 which was published.

"The first book included my methods of sorting a card out, but has nothing to do with what had previously been explained. Perhaps some day I'll write another book and include it"

This clearly confirms to me that he had included the method in his first version, but took it out for the second version that he presented to Peach & RF for publication. He only says this was due to words of warning he received at the time, a warning clearly Peach was aware of and probably came from Peach himself judging by how VDW phrased the letter. Just what this warning concerned, we can only guess, but my hunch is it had something to do with the writing of future books, which were clearly making money for RF and VDW was perhaps not happy about this? So he kept these further methods back. And it's funny to think that as he says he had written the version with this other method/s included, it existed as a draft copy and has probably long since been discarded. I'm sure it would have been a very interesting read, though doubtless with plenty left for the reader to complete.

As he stated "nothing to do with what had previously been explained" and "done quite differently from anything I have shown to date".
Why are we trying to unravel the method using factors from the other methods?

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

"Why are we trying to unravel the method using factors from the other methods?"

We don't know what "quite differently" means. It could mean totally different from anything shown before, or it could be less radical, the addition of a completely new and to VDW very significant element to the existing method.

If it were at the less radical end, one pertinent question is what was available in 1994/5 that was not in the main VDW years - 1978 to 1988? The only answer I can think of is the ready availability of each horse's Official Rating, with the possible avenues that opened up. It is true that one could get the Official Ratings via Haig/Superform in the tail end of the 1978-88 period, but not from the Raceform/Chaseform form books and I don't know when they were added to the data in the Life.

It is an avenue I plan to explore over the winter when there is less Flat racing, but I have looked at them in the two of the six I have particularly worked on, Ever Smile and Valiant Warrior, and in my view they help a lot.

But there again, it might really have been a radical change of method, in which case it is going to be challenging to work it out.

 

[Tufnel]

T Tufnel

"Why are we trying to unravel the method using factors from the other methods?"

We don't know what "quite differently" means. It could mean totally different from anything shown before, or it could be less radical, the addition of a completely new and to VDW very significant element to the existing method.

If it were at the less radical end, one pertinent question is what was available in 1994/5 that was not in the main VDW years - 1978 to 1988? The only answer I can think of is the ready availability of each horse's Official Rating, with the possible avenues that opened up. It is true that one could get the Official Ratings via Haig/Superform in the tail end of the 1978-88 period, but not from the Raceform/Chaseform form books and I don't know when they were added to the data in the Life.

It is an avenue I plan to explore over the winter when there is less Flat racing, but I have looked at them in the two of the six I have particularly worked on, Ever Smile and Valiant Warrior, and in my view they help a lot.

But there again, it might really have been a radical change of method, in which case it is going to be challenging to work it out.

"Quite different" is open to debate, but "Nothing to do with what had previously been explained" seems quite categoric to me.

So let's say that probably rules out consistency rating and even ability ratings. And perhaps also the Erin probable figure, if it even was a thing.

The race class rating could be part of it though, as I think that didn't appear until after Systematic Betting (his version 2) was published, and his comment appears to relate to when he had written the version of SB that included his method of sorting a card. So he would be saying "previously" meaning up until that point of some time in 1988 and in respect of when he actually told us about that rating.

His comparison with Rivage Bleu and Prominent King makes reference to both "not having a winning class rating", which more than adds fuel to the idea that he was at least making some use of the class rating for this method. This also might help decipher how far back he was looking into a horse's past form. RB didn't have a winning class rating at any point up until 21 Nov 95 anyway, but PK did before the Erin in 1978, just not in it's last 3 runs.

Which begs the question, how many runs was he looking back at and/or what was the time period cut off?

I'm more or less convinced that he was looking at the form for ALL of a horse's runs within the last 12 months, rather than the last 3 races or any other set number. I think this makes sense in respect of highlighting signposts for further evaluation.

This would also explain the RB & PK comment on both "without a winning class rating" beyond their 3 last races. With PK you could only go back 3 runs as that was all he had in the book in the last 12 months. His closest finish had actually been 4 lengths when beaten by Credit Card first time out for the season at level weights, but his next run was beaten 5 lengths giving lots of weight to horse coming from much higher race class than Credit Card did, so easy to see which run was better.

RB's closest finish to a winner was the Sandown run when 24lb out of the hcp, which was 4 runs back but only 8 months earlier. But of course RB was never giving any weight to any horse in his handicap runs, and was at levels in his Novice conditions races. But the key point seems to have been his trainer thinking he could win handicaps from a long way out of the weights proper. Which he had tried twice in the horse's last 4 runs. The question is, which of those 2 runs was considered the better display? 3rd beaten just over 13 lengths at Sandown in class 44 from 24lbs out of the weights or 2nd beaten 20 lengths in class 24 from 4lbs out of the wights and with 7lb less than Sandown?

 

[Garry]

If it were at the less radical end, one pertinent question is what was available in 1994/5 that was not in the main VDW years - 1978 to 1988?

In the Sporting Life it was Trainer form.
These charts provided a detailed breakdown of Trainers' performances over the past 28 days.
They also showed how many runners a yard has had since it sent out a winner.

It would be interesting to see the layout of one of these if anyone has a copy.

The Racing Post also came into existence in 1986.

 

[Tufnel]

In the Sporting Life it was Trainer form.
These charts provided a detailed breakdown of Trainers' performances over the past 28 days.
They also showed how many runners a yard has had since it sent out a winner.

It would be interesting to see the layout of one of these if anyone has a copy.

The Racing Post also came into existence in 1986.

The thing is though, VDW was talking about the card sorting method in 1988, as well as the "easy cracking of the handicap" so I don't think it reads as if he had just come up with these approaches even in 1988, never mind 1995. These sound like they were well established ideas.

Yes, the publication of ORs and early class banding from A to H for all races would surely have not escaped his notice and purposes, but if we concentrate on what was available pre 1988 and also consider anything that VDW had not explained at that point, which I believe includes the race class rating which appeared for the first time in Systematic Betting and, despite what I said earlier, possibly could very well include the Erin Probables figure, which as far as VDW was concerned had not been cracked or even spoken of in the pages of the Sports Forum.

For info I make the Erin figures for the 6 selections he mentioned as follows:
Rivage Bleu 4
Travado 10 (Or even a 4 if you apply due consideration to the much higher class races Travado had run in when 8th and Fell after being 2nd to Viking Flagship)
Arthur's Minstrel 14
Ever Smile 8
Valiant Warrior 12
Killeshin 6

And to expand that picture further, if it is indeed relevant, here are the figures for each race using the order of the first 5/6 in the Life's forecast only.
21/11/95
Cheltenham 2:25
Polden Pride 8
Fixturesecretary 12
Zajira 5*
Titan Empress14
Rivage Bleu 4*
Cyrill Henry 5*
Blessed Oliver 14
Beaurepaire 20

Huntingdon 2:45
Martha's Son 5*
Travado 10
Coulton 11
Docklands Express 9*
Young Pokey 5*

16/02/96
Sandown 2:35
Philip's Woody 10*
Run Up The Flag 10*
Arthur's Minstrel 14
Bishop's Island 11*
Cuddy Dale 12
Yorkshire Gale 16

Sandown 3:10
Darzee 3*
Jadidh 8*
Lansdowne 11
Dominie 17
High Grade 7*
Danger Baby 12
Ever Smile 8*

17/02/96
Newcastle 3:00
Easby Joker 4*
Strong Deel 6*
Gnome's Tycoon 10
Northants 4*
Chief Raider 7
Valiant Warrior 12

Newcastle 4:10
Superior Finish 8
Vicompt De Valmont 9
Mr Boston 6*
Lord Relic (no runs for 413 days)
Killeshin 6*
Silver Stick 7*

3 from the 6 doesn't bode that well for the idea.

So how about the same forecast lists, but this time noting the best closest finish by each horse in the previous 12 months by class and distance won or beaten by along with weight carried?

Cheltenham 2:25 CL 33 (Nov Hcp CH)
Polden Pride CL 33 (Nov Hcp CH) 1st by 7l 11-3
Fixturesecretary CL 30 (Nov HDL) 1st by nk 11-5
Zajira CL 28 (Nov CH) 1st by 5 10-7
Titan Empress CL 23 (Hcp HDL) 1st by hd 10-0
Rivage Bleu CL 44 (Nov Hcp CH) 3rd btn 13.5l 10-0 (24oh)
Cyrill Henry CL 26 (Hcp CH) 1st by 4l 10-6
Blessed Oliver CL 20 (Mdn HDL) 1st by 15 10-8
Beaurepaire CL 20 (Nov Hcp HDL) 2nd by 2.75l 10-8

Huntingdon 2:45 CL 157 (G2 CH)
Martha's Son CL 314 (G1 CH) 1st by 7l 11-7
Travado CL 157 (G2 CH) 1st by 12l 11-6
Coulton CL 295 (Cond CH) 1st by hd 11-7
Docklands Express CL 51 (Hcp CH) 2nd 2.5l 11-9
Young Pokey CL 45 (Hcp CH) 3rd by 4l 12-0

16/02/96
Sandown 2:35 CL 70 (Hcp CH)
Philip's Woody CL 33 (Hcp CH) 1st by 1l 11-7
Run Up The Flag CL 104 (Hcp CH) 1st by 1.25l 10-5
Arthur's Minstrel CL 320 (Hcp CH) 2nd by 1.75l 10-0 (7oh)
Bishop's Island CL 52 (Hcp CH) 1st by 5l 10-11
Cuddy Dale CL 36 (Hcp CH) 2nd by 4l 10-10
Yorkshire Gale CL 105 (Hcp CH) 1st by 2.5l 10-0(4oh)

Sandown 3:10 CL 33 (Hcp HDL)
Darzee CL 21 (Hcp HDL) 1st by 6l 11-10
Jadidh CL 58 (Hcp HDL) 1st by hd 10-2
Lansdowne CL 24 (Hcp HDL) 1st by 6l 11-7
Dominie CL 25 (Hcp HDL) 1st by 6l 11-9
High Grade CL 40 (Hcp HDL) 4th by 5.25l 11-0
Danger Baby CL 25 (Hcp HDL) 2nd by 1.25l 11-2
Ever Smile CL 27 (Hcp HDL) 1st by 3l 10-11

17/02/96
Newcastle 3:00 CL 109 (Hcp CH)
Easby Joker CL 35 (Mdn CH) 1st by dist 11-9
Strong Deel CL 103 (Hcp CH) 2nd by 1.25l 9-11 (8oh)
Gnome's Tycoon CL 67 (Hcp CH) 1st by 4l 11-4
Northants CL 40 (Nov CH) 1st by 25l 12-0
Chief Raider CL 39 (Nov CH) 1st by 5l 10-10
Valiant Warrior CL 46 (Hcp CH) 1st by 3l 11-5

Newcastle 4:10 CL 225 (Hcp CH)
Superior Finish CL 213 (Hcp CH) 1st by 2l 10-9
Vicompt De Valmont CL 77 (Hcp CH) 3rd by 2.5l 10-5
Mr Boston CL 66 (Hcp CH) 1st 2.5l 11-10
Lord Relic (no runs for 413 days)
Killeshin CL 71 (Hcp CH) 1st by 3l 9-11 (10oh)
Silver Stick CL 71 (Hcp CH) 1st by 13l 11-10

That looks more promising.

 

[Tufnel]

I've been expanding on the data noted, and some interesting points are emerging. Some of them I've noted before, but in laying out the data as I have on the screenshots below, it becomes somewhat easier to see where the winner came from LTO and also what the first 5 or 6 in the forecast for the race to be run, have achieved in the previous 12 months.

First column is as yesterday showing the best performance achieved in the last 12 months, either as a winner and it's best class win or as a beaten runner but it's closest finish to a winner over the same period. Second column then shows the best non winning run on the same lines as the first column, so there'll be no 1sts showing. 3rd column is LTO race and 4th column should be easy to spot where the data comes from.

I've included other races on the Huntingdon card, to see what VDW was ignoring or leaving aside seeing as he said we could have had a field day there. Though, having done the Cheltenham card too (not shown) I'd say there were another couple of potential bets there also on the same day.





I could be barking up the wrong tree (again), but I'm finding this easier to sift through than before. Just looking at LTO runs and who ran in that race is obviously important, but it doesn't necessarily need to be the place to start.

Here's a race from today. I didn't look at the race in depth from this particular angle, and my bet on RFG was more ratings based, but I wished I had of done so having watched the horse with the best form from this data win a very well backed fav.

 

[Leodis]

T Tufnel, there may be some clues in the works of Marvex and Dowst. It is evident that VDW got a lot of his ideas from these.

 

[Tufnel]

But VDW explicitly stated on several occasions that his methods of sorting a card out had NOTHING to do with what he had previously shown IiE nothing to do with the 3 most consistent method from SIAO etc.

I’ve read Marvex etc and can see the obvious similarities to calculating ARs and CRs but VDW never gave us much info on the method I’m trying to unravel at in respect of Travado, Rivage Bleu, Arthur’s Minstrel, Ever Smile, Valiant Warrior & KIlleshin.

 

[Leodis]

Good luck with your quest, T Tufnel. It's difficult enough working out what he has written, let alone what he hasn't.

 

[Tufnel]

Good luck with your quest, T Tufnel. It's difficult enough working out what he has written, let alone what he hasn't.

Very true. And of course it could all be after timed BS.
The trick is clearly knowing what to look for and where to find it, because finding the relevant clues in past examples takes way more time than is available before a race that is due to run tomorrow.

 

[Tufnel]

One thing I would say about the data I posted yesterday. If you look just at the final 2 columns data, without reference to the other columns or the names of the runners, there is a lot to be gleaned about which horses you should be putting at the top of your list before checking the rest of their form.

Just look at that race at Catterick. Which LTO class/form line grabs the attention?

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

"But VDW explicitly stated on several occasions that his methods of sorting a card out had NOTHING to do with what he had previously shown"

Where? I am of course aware of the sentence in the short piece included in one of Jock Bingham's books that it has been reprinted elsewhere by Tony Peach, namely:

"This is done quite differently from anything I have shown to date."

but I can't recall any elaboration.

And "quite differently from" is not the same as "NOTHING to do with" what he has previously shown. IF there is no different formulation than the sentence in the Bingham booklet, what VDW wrote is consistent with yet another formulation of how, operationally, to find "the balance between class, form and the other factors which shows the good things". So maybe some of the familiar elements plus something VDW regarded as very different.

 

[Tufnel]

T Tufnel

"But VDW explicitly stated on several occasions that his methods of sorting a card out had NOTHING to do with what he had previously shown"

Where? I am of course aware of the sentence in the short piece included in one of Jock Bingham's books that it has been reprinted elsewhere by Tony Peach, namely:

"This is done quite differently from anything I have shown to date."

but I can't recall any elaboration.

And "quite differently from" is not the same as "NOTHING to do with" what he has previously shown. IF there is no different formulation than the sentence in the Bingham booklet, what VDW wrote is consistent with yet another formulation of how, operationally, to find "the balance between class, form and the other factors which shows the good things". So maybe some of the familiar elements plus something VDW regarded as very different.

Yes, he said "nothing to do with" once and "quite differently" once in those letters.

The confusion with the word "quite" is down to it having two different meanings, which is why I took it that VDW mean't the more extreme version when comparing to his wording of "nothing to do with".

See below.

 

[JennyK]

Cheers, T Tufnel.

Where did VDW use the term "nothing to do with"? I don't think it is in any of the booklets etc I have, so it looks as though there is something "new" to take on board. I agree that "nothing to do with" would seem to rule out the kind of less radical solution to the six that I thought might be the case.

 

[Tufnel]

Cheers, T Tufnel.

Where did VDW use the term "nothing to do with"? I don't think it is in any of the booklets etc I have, so it looks as though there is something "new" to take on board. I agree that "nothing to do with" would seem to rule out the kind of less radical solution to the six that I thought might be the case.

It was in the letter Hall wrote to Peach in 96.
And it seems clear to me that he is talking about when he wrote the 2 versions of SB in 1988, so the words "with what had previously been explained" was referring to what he'd written ("explained" seems a bit extreme in my view) up to that point. So race class ratings hadn't been revealed as such at that stage, which is why I think they are part of sorting a card, especially as he compared Rivage Bleu and Prom King in respect of both not having "a winning class rating".