VDW Systematic Betting

[Tufnel]

Hi @ Tufnel

remember writing this on Mtotos blog :

One thing I have noticed with regards to the V.D.W examples and so has Hedgehog, is pace.

V.D.W often says the horse "did nothing from the distance" - or "less of a test"

Green hills joy- won but less of a test (4th in the straight LED 2 out, Ridden and ran on well) not challenged in last 2 furlongs.

First division- Headway on inside 2 furlongs out, squeezed through over 1 out, ran on well inside final furlong.
The competition in this race who challenged for the early lead did so within the last 2F, in GreenHills Joys race any challenge was made and failed before the last 2 furlongs.

Shimshek- THE HORSE DID NOTHING FROM THE DISTANCE. When looking at the race before it shows a considerable downturn so 'not on' here.

When we look at his form, last time out 3rd class 70 ( led 2f out, ridden over 1f out,ran on)
Look at the horses around him, the first 4 home took the lead at some point during the last 2 furlongs.

Next time out, upped in class group 3 250, this was a downturn finishing 2nd how?
Maybe as the winner made all, Shimshek was a front runner who sat in 2nd from 2f out and finished 2nd ( nothing from the distance)
The winner had no recent form, and lower ability rated horse than Shimshek.
Pace should have suited Shimshek.

Failiq- dropped in class but did not get enough from the distance ( led over 7f ,led well over 1f out) yet beaten dropping in class by a horse moving up in class who was held up.

Failiq surely should have won but the pace shows he has not got the class of Billet.

Billets next race was described by Lee of having class in more ways than one.

Look at the amount of runners that challenged for the lead within the final 2f, Roushayd made headway 5f out and gave weight all round, I am not 100% why this was such a good performance by Roushayd disregarding the speed figure.

I agree those are the sort of observations I’ve made note of too. Baronet’s last 3 races before the Cambridgeshire show not only constant form but that the last 2 races showed lots of meaningful activity in the last 2 furlongs.

I suppose it would be helpful to others if Chesham and gerry just said what these sore thumb red herrings and things are rather than playing the very Gummy thread games they criticise. Lee confessed to a few wrong directions but explained why.

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

A Lee post from 2002:

"You are, I believe correct with regards to the Class Form evaluation that VDW gave in example of Roushayd.

It should be apparent that VDW gave this example not just to point out how an improving speed figure when raised in class is a good indication of improving form but also to give us an example how he evaluated class and form.

In it he makes comment about many horses and the races in which they ran. He makes comment about pace, how horses performed from the distance and much more. He makes comment of the horses that were deemed to be the most likely winners, but left un-backed. Why?

Shimshek ran in a slow race AND THE HORSE DID NOTHING FROM THE DISTANCE ........ Falique was second to Billet last time but had been dropped in class a long way and had not got enough from the distance..........Vouchsafe who was behind Roushayd in the Northern Dancer, where he showed improvement, and was dropped in class last time out to collect. Every horse in practice gets the same attention."

A couple of years later Lee wrote:

"No, it has everything to do with form i.e. a horses performance, but not in the way that is touted around on here.

After race comments also have no bearing whatsoever, bar of course stated facts such as the horse was reported lame after a race and such like."

It is worth considering why, when Shimshek had finished third in a class 77 handicap on 13/04/88 and then second in a class 255 Group 3 a fortnight later, VDW regarded the latter run as "a considerable downturn".

 

[Chesham]

I agree those are the sort of observations I’ve made note of too. Baronet’s last 3 races before the Cambridgeshire show not only constant form but that the last 2 races showed lots of meaningful activity in the last 2 furlongs.

I suppose it would be helpful to others if Chesham and gerry just said what these sore thumb red herrings and things are rather than playing the very Gummy thread games they criticise. Lee confessed to a few wrong directions but explained why.

I think that Imhave helped more than enough in the past with Lee’s Selections was the only person to lay out the last 3 races and the one that the Selection won In a spreadsheet with all the Prize Miney, Finishing position , OR,RPR and TS

My recent post was to say that I had spotted something that I was not even looking for. As you may know I carry out an appraisal each Tuesday which looks at the revised BHA Ratings. What I have spotted is that certain Races are going to have more reliable form going forwards.

Those well in on BHA Ratings will then go in a tracker and watched to see how they are placed . I share my Benchmark Ratings and detailed report every Tuesday on the Inner Sanctum Blog . The recent observation when looking at Lees Selections should reduce the wheat from the chaff when selecting races to analyse on Tuesdays reactions from the BHA Published Ratings

So I will be sharing the benefits of my Observation but don’t expect to do the same on the OS Part of the forum with 100’s of lurkers who never contribute anything.

 

[Chesham]

This is an example of a Benchmark Report. Hopefully my recent observation will only improve the races selected to Benchmark .

The Re-Anchored Master Race Summary​

Horse	TFR	Tfig	RPR	BHA (Off/Perf/New)	Gemini Mark	PR% (FSP)	EP (fps)	F3 (fps)	True Adv	Timeform Race Comments
Abundant	93	88	91	80 / 85 / 85	86.2	100.48%	51.58	55.45	-3.0 lbs	Without the headgear this time, was well backed and found a bit of progress taking on his elders for the first time; disputed lead, headed briefly halfway, went on 2f out...
Cloud Forest	92	88	91	83 / 83 / 83	85.0	100.11%	51.02	55.32	0.0 lbs	Down to a trip more in keeping with his pedigree for handicap debut, took a step forward, looking far more the finished article here than at Kempton.
Zatsgood	91	87	89	82 / 82 / 82	84.1	100.28%	50.23	55.38	-0.1 lbs	Bettered the form shown when runner-up here a fortnight earlier, closing the gap between his levels on all-weather and turf; in touch behind leaders...
River Card	93	89	91	86 / 85 / 86	86.5	99.26%	50.93	54.81	+1.0 lbs	Has presumably had problems, off 11 months prior to this handicap debut, but some of his 2-y-o form reads very well... showed much improved form.
Best Rate	85+	81	84	87 / 79 / 86	81.0	100.21%	48.68	55.35	-7.0 lbs	Wasn't seen to best effect; in rear, shaken up 2f out, headway when badly hampered over 1f out, not recover.

Structural Takeaways from the Cloud Forest Anchor​

1. The Clean Baseline: Because Cloud Forest absorbed standard tracking friction (+2.4 lbs of early drag) and converted it into a smooth, unhindered 100.11% FSP, his 83 rating is an ironclad reflection of par for this Class 4 heat.
2. Abundant's True Superiority: Measured against Cloud Forest rather than traffic anomalies, Abundant's 5 lb rise to an OR of 85 is completely justified, though his 55.45 fps closing kick proves he remains a progressive 3-year-old who will hold his form when stepping up in grade.
3. River Card's Re-evaluation: With Cloud Forest setting a stable benchmark, River Card's 91 RPR off an 11-month layoff looks even more potent. The handicapper actually dropped him 1 lb to 86, meaning Brian Meehan’s lightly raced runner is sitting on a positive True Advantage (+1.0 lb) the moment he strips fitter next time out.

 

[Tufnel]

I think that Imhave helped more than enough in the past with Lee’s Selections was the only person to lay out the last 3 races and the one that the Selection won In a spreadsheet with all the Prize Miney, Finishing position , OR,RPR and TS

My recent post was to say that I had spotted something that I was not even looking for. As you may know I carry out an appraisal each Tuesday which looks at the revised BHA Ratings. What I have spotted is that certain Races are going to have more reliable form going forwards.

Those well in on BHA Ratings will then go in a tracker and watched to see how they are placed . I share my Benchmark Ratings and detailed report every Tuesday on the Inner Sanctum Blog . The recent observation when looking at Lees Selections should reduce the wheat from the chaff when selecting races to analyse on Tuesdays reactions from the BHA Published Ratings

So I will be sharing the benefits of my Observation but don’t expect to do the same on the OS Part of the forum with 100’s of lurkers who never contribute anything.

That's obviously fine Chesham and I know you are a helpful fellow with digging out old posts and obseravtions. Though I just think it's a bit pointless to say something is obvious or sticks out like a sore thumb and post that all, but not really indicate what you are looking at. Because to my mind that is exactly what you and other critics of VDW forums have accused others of doing.

But to be fair I found it useful in that it caused me to look at those and the Roushayd races (as Lee was a big fan of studying those one) again as a reminder that the way a race unfolds and what each contender at the finish does or does not do at the 2f and 1f stages had a good part to play in VDW's form appraisals. In fact he said it was "most important.." and probably explains why the "key" as he referred to it as Hall does not provide as many bets over jumps as for flat. The jumps largely goes on obstacles as points in the race rather than furlongs. And it's no coincidence perhaps that in the same response letter as VDW he said "there can be long waits, just as we've had" until Love From Verona 12/1. Which is a horse who LTO had arrived at the last to win going away with a subsequent winner taking it up 3 hurdles out and a LTO winner making headway 3 out but not troubling the leaders.

I wish I'd looked at that aspect yesterday before siding with Nap Hand who LTO went clear early on with one other horse who was 11/1 and a LTO made all winner and they both filled the first 2 places. Not much of a test and I should have known that.

 

[Tufnel]

T Tufnel

A Lee post from 2002:

"You are, I believe correct with regards to the Class Form evaluation that VDW gave in example of Roushayd.

It should be apparent that VDW gave this example not just to point out how an improving speed figure when raised in class is a good indication of improving form but also to give us an example how he evaluated class and form.

In it he makes comment about many horses and the races in which they ran. He makes comment about pace, how horses performed from the distance and much more. He makes comment of the horses that were deemed to be the most likely winners, but left un-backed. Why?

Shimshek ran in a slow race AND THE HORSE DID NOTHING FROM THE DISTANCE ........ Falique was second to Billet last time but had been dropped in class a long way and had not got enough from the distance..........Vouchsafe who was behind Roushayd in the Northern Dancer, where he showed improvement, and was dropped in class last time out to collect. Every horse in practice gets the same attention."

A couple of years later Lee wrote:

"No, it has everything to do with form i.e. a horses performance, but not in the way that is touted around on here.

After race comments also have no bearing whatsoever, bar of course stated facts such as the horse was reported lame after a race and such like."

It is worth considering why, when Shimshek had finished third in a class 77 handicap on 13/04/88 and then second in a class 255 Group 3 a fortnight later, VDW regarded the latter run as "a considerable downturn".

Ah, but Lee posted an index of race comments and what they meant but later said he hadn't meant to lead people down the wrong path with that. He acknowledged race comments are largely opinion, and I posted about that too recently pointing out what is a fact in a race comment and what is opinion. Saying a horse is 3rd in the straight is a fact. Saying a horse quickened without recourse to sectionals is opinion.

But there's enough in the comments to get a picture of how the race unfolded in the later stages. And that is the important bit. VDW used the same word when bringing our attention to this factor.

Shimshek was a downturn when looking at the previous race (lower class) because he did nothing from the distance and the winner had an easy time of it with no serious challenge in the stages to note. Compared to the facts in the comments for his previous race where the first three home had (below) it's night and day.

Headway 2f out, led inside final furlong, pushed out
Headway on inside 2f out, led well over 1f out, ran on
(Shimshek) Led 2f out, ridden well over 1f out, ran on

I don't think VDW would have backed Prominent King without reading some sort of race report or comments on his race with Drumgora. He probably saw the Beacon Light one on TV anyway but that was all in the formbook. Raceform/SCHB had no comments for the TickNock hurdle and just because PK was 5 lengths behind Drumgora at the finish it didn't tell VDW how they performed in the later stages. And somebody actually brought that up at the time which is where VDW responded about how anyone could go out into the market place and acquire the information, but also saying that largely there was enough in the reports of the sporting/racing papers. I'm sure the Life or SC had a report on the Drumgora race the following day or so.

And to add to that VDW specifically said Beacon Light "had a hard race against Sea Pigeon". The comments in the race say hard ridden for both runners. I think hard ridden is closer to fact than opinion and perhaps is not as factual as led at the last or 2nd 2f out.

We don't really know what the red herrings Lee threw out there as a means to stimulate discussion. Just that he confessed he did do some of that and regretted it as a tactic to get folks posting.

I suspect it may be that after he posted the meanings of various race comments, he thought it was maybe too close to something he didn't want to reveal. But that's just speculation on my part and it could be something else. I guess we will never know.

But I do think where horses were in the later stages of a race is something that gets ignored even though VDW told us it was important. The trick seems to be in how that info is interpreted and used for the future.

 

[Tufnel]

This is an example of a Benchmark Report. Hopefully my recent observation will only improve the races selected to Benchmark .

The Re-Anchored Master Race Summary​

Horse	TFR	Tfig	RPR	BHA (Off/Perf/New)	Gemini Mark	PR% (FSP)	EP (fps)	F3 (fps)	True Adv	Timeform Race Comments
Abundant	93	88	91	80 / 85 / 85	86.2	100.48%	51.58	55.45	-3.0 lbs	Without the headgear this time, was well backed and found a bit of progress taking on his elders for the first time; disputed lead, headed briefly halfway, went on 2f out...
Cloud Forest	92	88	91	83 / 83 / 83	85.0	100.11%	51.02	55.32	0.0 lbs	Down to a trip more in keeping with his pedigree for handicap debut, took a step forward, looking far more the finished article here than at Kempton.
Zatsgood	91	87	89	82 / 82 / 82	84.1	100.28%	50.23	55.38	-0.1 lbs	Bettered the form shown when runner-up here a fortnight earlier, closing the gap between his levels on all-weather and turf; in touch behind leaders...
River Card	93	89	91	86 / 85 / 86	86.5	99.26%	50.93	54.81	+1.0 lbs	Has presumably had problems, off 11 months prior to this handicap debut, but some of his 2-y-o form reads very well... showed much improved form.
Best Rate	85+	81	84	87 / 79 / 86	81.0	100.21%	48.68	55.35	-7.0 lbs	Wasn't seen to best effect; in rear, shaken up 2f out, headway when badly hampered over 1f out, not recover.

Structural Takeaways from the Cloud Forest Anchor​

1. The Clean Baseline: Because Cloud Forest absorbed standard tracking friction (+2.4 lbs of early drag) and converted it into a smooth, unhindered 100.11% FSP, his 83 rating is an ironclad reflection of par for this Class 4 heat.
2. Abundant's True Superiority: Measured against Cloud Forest rather than traffic anomalies, Abundant's 5 lb rise to an OR of 85 is completely justified, though his 55.45 fps closing kick proves he remains a progressive 3-year-old who will hold his form when stepping up in grade.
3. River Card's Re-evaluation: With Cloud Forest setting a stable benchmark, River Card's 91 RPR off an 11-month layoff looks even more potent. The handicapper actually dropped him 1 lb to 86, meaning Brian Meehan’s lightly raced runner is sitting on a positive True Advantage (+1.0 lb) the moment he strips fitter next time

The way that race was run and where the principles came from in the later stages stacks up. The leader fell right away after the furlong pole and the winner went on the 2nd moved into his position in the last furlong. Nobody up front had less than a decent test.

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

I am guessing, of course, but I expect that everyone who has made a significant effort to understand VDW's approach has gone down the route you, and possibly formtheory, see as an explanation of VDW's comments in the Roushayd discussion; I certainly have. But hopefully you will come to find it is the wrong route. When Lee wrote: "have no bearing whatsoever" he meant exactly that, with the one category of exceptions. I am as sure as I can be without actually having asked him that Lee was not distinguishing between fact and opinion within in-running comments. ("Bled from the nose" and "struck into" come within the category of exceptions.)

Think about it in the context of the sentence in "VDW Update" published before the Roushayd races but not in "Systematic Betting" - first in "Winning Ways To Bet" by Methodmaker and republished in Tony Peach's "Betting The VDW Way". To be absolutely honest, I was one of those who, despite having read Mr Peach's first two VDW compilations, wasn't "reminded" of the point VDW made in "WWTB", but shown it for the first time.

Only one thing that happens "from the distance" in each race - VDW examples or yesterday's - matters when assessing form.

 

[Tufnel]

JennyK I just recalled also that when Drumgora ran 3rd in the Irish Sweeps behind Decent Fellow, Chinrullah made most of the running in that race with Decent Fellow coming from a long way back to go past that horse in the last half a furlong after the last.

I don't know how Drumgora got to his final position of 3rd due to lack of race comments in his races, but he seems to have been usually more of a prominent runner using a late challenge rather than making the running. The Tick Nock Timeform report seems to suggest he had to make the running that day. Perhaps somebody else has a race report on that Irish Sweeps hurdle for comparison, but he definitely didn't make the running that day.

 

[Outlander]

Anyone ever thought of gathering all the workings and writings of VDW together with all the published selections and there race history and feeding it to a decent AI and asking it to find the missing key, I would hate to think of you guys at it for another 40 years, if super computer artificial intelligence can’t find the missing link then maybe it can’t be found ?

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

Running styles, "pace" (other than whether a race was run slowly or quickly), sectional timings - all utterly irrelevant to VDW's approach, whether in 1978 or 2026.

Be clear, I am not for one moment suggesting that some, pursuing different ways of finding winners, don't find them useful, even essential. Just that VDW worked from class and form, as he defined them, and running styles, "pace" and sectional timings (or late movements in the market for that matter) have no relevance to an analysis from that perspective.

Come back to the question, bearing in mind what VDW wrote in "VDW Update", why was Shimshek's second in a class 255 a "considerable downturn" on his previous third in a class 77?

 

[Tufnel]

T Tufnel

I am guessing, of course, but I expect that everyone who has made a significant effort to understand VDW's approach has gone down the route you, and possibly formtheory, see as an explanation of VDW's comments in the Roushayd discussion; I certainly have. But hopefully you will come to find it is the wrong route. When Lee wrote: "have no bearing whatsoever" he meant exactly that, with the one category of exceptions. I am as sure as I can be without actually having asked him that Lee was not distinguishing between fact and opinion within in-running comments. ("Bled from the nose" and "struck into" come within the category of exceptions.)

Think about it in the context of the sentence in "VDW Update" published before the Roushayd races but not in "Systematic Betting" - first in "Winning Ways To Bet" by Methodmaker and republished in Tony Peach's "Betting The VDW Way". To be absolutely honest, I was one of those who, despite having read Mr Peach's first two VDW compilations, wasn't "reminded" of the point VDW made in "WWTB", but shown it for the first time.

Only one thing that happens "from the distance" in each race - VDW examples or yesterday's - matters when assessing form.

I'm not so sure. Pointing out that the winner and the second were involved in the later stages of a race is like pointing out the sky is above us.

I've already been going through the VDW examples to see how the idea stacks up. Greenhills Joy vs First Division. Look at how FD won his race. Certainly more of a test not just in the form of opposition but what each horse did in the last few furlongs in that race compared to the cakewalk GJ had. But also note FD was "hard ridden" to win very narrowly. Another factor against VDW making his probable an actual reason to reach for his wallet.

LFV won with a late run produced at the final flight to win by a comfortable margin. Killwarren 3rd fav led 2 flight from home passing the leader Tarbank 2nd fav who stayed in 2nd until the finish with no challenge from a key form horse in the race 9/2 in 3rd.

 

[Chesham]

The way that race was run and where the principles came from in the later stages stacks up. The leader fell right away after the furlong pole and the winner went on the 2nd moved into his position in the last furlong. Nobody up front had less than a decent test.

The Benchmark Example is just what it is and was posted before I made the Observation regarding Lee’s selections, The point is that I can improve the Races selected to compare The BHA Revised Ratings and to see if the BHA handicapper may have got his/her Revised Ratings wrong.

Of you Remeber Lee said it was a pity that the season had come to an end for Sanbuch . Now it is the type of race that I would choose to Compare the BHA Handicapper Revised Ratings to spot potential flaws and identify horses that may deserve a higher rating than he has.

In fact I don’t need to know anything about VDW as Lee probably did not reveal in any of his posts why he chose certain race to examine and add horses to his list to follow.

I think the choice of race to evaluate for potential future winners is what Lee did not spell out. You only saw the selections and not the reasons why the horse was on Lee’s List in the first place.

The way I see most VDW followers chose a race about to be run and then try to analyse the race from whatever take they have on VDW

With Lists it is far easier as you can see where the Trainer next enters the horses on your list. Sometimes they may not put the horse into a winnable race and likely putting a bit extra conditioning and putting the betting public off for when he does place the horse correctly

 

[Tufnel]

T Tufnel

Running styles, "pace" (other than whether a race was run slowly or quickly), sectional timings - all utterly irrelevant to VDW's approach, whether in 1978 or 2026.

Be clear, I am not for one moment suggesting that some, pursuing different ways of finding winners, don't find them useful, even essential. Just that VDW worked from class and form, as he defined them, and running styles, "pace" and sectional timings (or late movements in the market for that matter) have no relevance to an analysis from that perspective.

Come back to the question, bearing in mind what VDW wrote in "VDW Update", why was Shimshek's second in a class 255 a "considerable downturn" on his previous third in a class 77?

I really can't agree on those points. VDW mentioned pace in the Roushayd articles, about small field conditions events often not being "truly run". And he uses the word in the very long sentence I'm referring to and he repeated a couple of times which is as below:

"To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of the class they ran in, the course they ran, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and most important , how they performed in the later stages of each race"

He pointed out in big capital letters that Shimshek "DID NOTHING FROM THE DISTANCE" and of Greenhill's Joy that although winning her race by comparison to First Division's 2nd her run was "a slow race and the closing stages shows that hers was less of a test."

So he later reiterated that "To confirm" sentence again in the Pegwell Bay article but concentrated on the class element because he felt others hadn't worked out that if he was measuring class of horse by taking a median value of prize money won over races won and knocking off the 100s then perhaps he was doing the same for the value of each race for easy comparison. But there are clearly 6 elements he said to take particular note of but only the last one was said to be "most important".

If you don't take the above into account then you're reducing the VDW examples to a numbers game which could be seen as systematical.

I agree there are lots of numerical elements to finding the various factors and you yourself are very studious in confirming the findings, but to discard the things I highlighted above that VDW made a point of saying in his letters and articles as utterly irrelevant seems strange to me. How can anyone know what each runner does in the later stages of a race unless they watched it themselves? If a race reader in a form book says the horse took the lead in the last furlong or at the last hurdle, unless they are Stevie Wonder they are correct and it's a useful fact to know.

This below is further evidence that VDW didn't highlight or mention things for the sake of it where form evaluation was concerned at least.

 

[Tufnel]

The Benchmark Example is just what it is and was posted before I made the Observation regarding Lee’s selections, The point is that I can improve the Races selected to compare The BHA Revised Ratings and to see if the BHA handicapper may have got his/her Revised Ratings wrong.

Of you Remeber Lee said it was a pity that the season had come to an end for Sanbuch . Now it is the type of race that I would choose to Compare the BHA Handicapper Revised Ratings to spot potential flaws and identify horses that may deserve a higher rating than he has.

In fact I don’t need to know anything about VDW as Lee probably did not reveal in any of his posts why he chose certain race to examine and add horses to his list to follow.

I think the choice of race to evaluate for potential future winners is what Lee did not spell out. You only saw the selections and not the reasons why the horse was on Lee’s List in the first place.

The way I see most VDW followers chose a race about to be run and then try to analyse the race from whatever take they have on VDW

With Lists it is far easier as you can see where the Trainer next enters the horses on your list. Sometimes they may not put the horse into a winnable race and likely putting a bit extra conditioning and putting the betting public off for when he does place the horse correctly

Actually Lee said he thought around 50% of VDW's examples came from lists. But if you take into account that Lee also thought VDW kept records on his race evaluations, which VDW actually what told us he did by saying that "When you have followed the method for some time it is easy to turn back to your records concerning a given horse and it will help balance respective performances."

I think anyone reading and understanding the implications of it should be thinking with a little light bulb over their heads.

Turning back to a race you evaluated the way VDW showed and looking at the result surely shows you if what happened was in line with what the data or evaluation suggested would happen. Much in the same way he showed with using LTO race class as the starting point in the Roushayd races. If the race turned out as the evaluation suggested, it surely confirmed the form was solid?

So everything he said to consider in the evaluation of a race either by the consistency method or the LTO race class approach had a bearing on what happens next.

If VDW had not kept a record of his pre race evaluations he'd be starting from scratch each time and by the time the first race started he'd still flicking through the form book checking what happened in dozens of races involved in the form.

Btw anyone can check it out for themselves. But it is a lot of work especially without the form books. Searching online archives for race cards and race results takes longer, but I've found to be more informative in many respects because I get to see the cards as they were in the press on the days in question too which I also find interesting as well as helpful.

Baronet is worth looking at. Only won once in his last 3 races but every race showed him as a form horse in respect of the Cambridgeshire. He'd met Petronisi twice in those last 3 runs. But left him for dead in the big race. Petronisi was mainly a front running horse. Baronet was not.

 

[JennyK]

"Pointing out that the winner and the second were involved in the later stages of a race is like pointing out the sky is above us."

At one level, yes, of course, But if a meteorologist and I stood side by side, looking up at the same stretch of sky, they'd see more than I would.

And re "pace", I did qualify my comment.

In another post, Lee wondered whether VDW's approach, based as it was on numerical data, might at depth mean it was a super-system rather than a method, and I think he would have had in mind VDW's comments that once the method was understood, you'd have the same selections as him. That is an interesting speculation and I see the very title of the 2018 book edited by Ball and Rabern as pertinent. But neither Lee (as far as I know!) nor I are semanticists.

I am driving people about a good bit today following a death and the inevitable official steps that follow and won't be back home until early/mid evening. Don't think any delay in responding on my part to further posts is due to lack of interest.

 

[Tufnel]

Anyone ever thought of gathering all the workings and writings of VDW together with all the published selections and there race history and feeding it to a decent AI and asking it to find the missing key, I would hate to think of you guys at it for another 40 years, if super computer artificial intelligence can’t find the missing link then maybe it can’t be found ?

If you ask about VDW on a chatbot they seem to have already scraped the forums. And the results presented show tsome of the limitations of Large Language Models.