tractorboy
Mare
I remember seeing that too.
The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune - "From Start to Finish", "Entering the Straight"
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
mick
Sire
DuckandDive
Mare
Is this just "wheil" life? Is this just fantasy?....
Recent posts about systemise v methodise re-VDW got me rooting around some old storage boxes. I came across an old dusty paperback.
John White - 1992 ISBN 0-572-01789-8 There are updated versions available, but the point I'm making still applies.
What's this got to do with VDW you may ask? Page 16: Chapter: Calculating which races to work on, there's a table of points awarded to the prize money of the race. It then goes on to demonstrate using Postmark (now RPR), Topspeed and Distance, number of runners. Essentially, the better prize money, better rated horses, longer distances, low number of runners = The best races to use.
Once the race is established, based on the authors claim and research at Cornell University, with a reference to Braddock 1987 the book goes on to bonus rate each runner on, DSLR, Conditions (Wins over course, distance) and combining the RPR & Topspeed.
No mention of VDW but on page 43, prize money is used as part of a calculation by dividing/100 and rounding up/down. (£4993 = 50). Then form figures, and then the interpretation of each runner's win/place/unplaced form and any subsequent winners from their placed form lines. (Racecheck)
All this is plugged into a pocket calculator and hey presto, a rating is produced. I might put together a spready at some time.
Not all information is readily available, but the essence of VDW and other conditions/variables are in the mix and look rateable.
Recent posts about systemise v methodise re-VDW got me rooting around some old storage boxes. I came across an old dusty paperback.
John White - 1992 ISBN 0-572-01789-8 There are updated versions available, but the point I'm making still applies.
What's this got to do with VDW you may ask? Page 16: Chapter: Calculating which races to work on, there's a table of points awarded to the prize money of the race. It then goes on to demonstrate using Postmark (now RPR), Topspeed and Distance, number of runners. Essentially, the better prize money, better rated horses, longer distances, low number of runners = The best races to use.
Once the race is established, based on the authors claim and research at Cornell University, with a reference to Braddock 1987 the book goes on to bonus rate each runner on, DSLR, Conditions (Wins over course, distance) and combining the RPR & Topspeed.
No mention of VDW but on page 43, prize money is used as part of a calculation by dividing/100 and rounding up/down. (£4993 = 50). Then form figures, and then the interpretation of each runner's win/place/unplaced form and any subsequent winners from their placed form lines. (Racecheck)
All this is plugged into a pocket calculator and hey presto, a rating is produced. I might put together a spready at some time.
Not all information is readily available, but the essence of VDW and other conditions/variables are in the mix and look rateable.
Last edited:
TheBluesBrother
Dam
Is this it?I think i recall @Chesham making mention of this but when and where eludes me.
VDW - Systematic Betting
I downloaded an article a couple of years ago called Van Der Wheil Method, A Method by Van Der Wheil from Van Der Wheil Method Ignore all links TRIPOD, Gummy, VDW, Message board. May be of interest to VDW readers. DannyK Hi @DannyK That particular article has been around for some years now...
www.theukbettingforum.co.uk
Mike.
mick
Sire
TheBluesBrother my recollection is that in the post (s) concerned
Chesham was being very specific Re the method used by Lee.
JennyK
Gelding
PitmaticThank you. I'd not seen that post and it adds new light. Poor old Lee, finding himself in his words a "desperate gambler". Good for him that he realised it and had the stength of mind to switch his attention to the VDW mysteries.
The not 100% honest bit is difficult to assess. Did he mean he sometimes lied, ie gave false information, or that he didn't always tell the full truth? Big difference. But forewarned is forearmed, so thanks Pitmatic.
What I think is certainly true are Lee's pre-race posted selections on the Gummy archive , and that for me is reason enough to spend time on them.
I've been thinking about Lee's other post that you kindly re-posted yesterday and spent some time earlier re-doing one of my Roushayd Excel pages. I am not happy with the colours yet - don't like the light green and violet next to each other - but I'll play around with that later. But I think it brings together the Lee post from yesterday quite well. You'll see I have separated Roushayd's data from that for the key horses in each of his last three races and it is immedately clear that from the perspective of Lee's post he was hugely consistent, despite his last three places total not being in any way out of the ordinary.
As with any file I post, the data is accurate to the best of my belief, but like anyone else I can make mistakes putting data from note books into Excel.
OnTheNod
Mare
Folk have winning and losing runs though and sometimes they come altogether maybe Lees did at that time things happen like that in life, that is how some gamblers get hooked always even hoping for that good run again. I would trust nobody personally who talked with saying sore thumb winners.
Really interesting reading about the old horses from my teenage days , I remember these like they were yesterday. I never missed a meeting at Haydock and was there when Roushayd won .
Not sure who Lee is or what VDW is about but It was a very good call to say Roushayd was streets ahead of that field, especially considering he was giving 16lb to a horse that had only been beaten last time at Royal Ascot because he was zapped by sonic binoculars and would go on to be just pipped in a Cambridgeshire by a horse he had recently thrashed and then win a G1 International at York.
I mean with hindsight Ile De Chypre was a certainty off 94 that day, don’t think Roushayd ever remotely factored in any subsequent race he contested.
mick
Sire
Fair dues to Lee Re his pre race examples but some of his comments are typical of the type which cause trouble on VDW threads. I note his always some who spoil it remark but when on the receiving end of same then perhaps first look to yourself. ? I am certainly not comparing myself with Lee VDW or anyone else but over the past ten years in different threads on this forum i have posted every bet pre race with my reasoning presented in plain English which would enable any one interested to understand and investigate...........And during this period the avg price of my bets and winners has increased.
My take being there are no holy grails or missing links but if you feel you have one and use a forum to crow about it then explain it rather than indulging in hinting and double dutch and then complaining when some readers take exception to being left feeling they are at fault for not being able or willing to understand.............I would suggest that lack of this is a contributing reason behind the continued success of this thread and long may it last.
Last edited:
OnTheNod
Mare
Yes but it is always easy after the race to point things out, say they did not like the track much or had an off day all elements happen like that as well in racing, but yes i agree hidden form or way back course form use to be a good element for me in them days too.
hedgehog
Dam
Hello
JennyK Lee didn't so much lie as withhold the reason he bet. The Racing Post at the time didn't update a horse's runs record until the next day and I remember that Lee mentioned a horse as a possible selection but the evidence he used was only in the race results for that day and was not updated in the runs record for the selection until the next day. Now the Racing Post updates on the day of the race I think. It was not lying just not making the evidence clear.
Good luck and stay well
JennyK Lee didn't so much lie as withhold the reason he bet. The Racing Post at the time didn't update a horse's runs record until the next day and I remember that Lee mentioned a horse as a possible selection but the evidence he used was only in the race results for that day and was not updated in the runs record for the selection until the next day. Now the Racing Post updates on the day of the race I think. It was not lying just not making the evidence clear.Good luck and stay well
gerry
Mare
There is no doubt that ile de cheypre should have been good thing on that day and the main factor with roushayd and ile de cheprye was the fast ground as both needed it but ile de chypre later on done great time at newbury and i stated some where on here any horse that does under average times at newbury where very good indeed.
So there is a point of saying roushayd was the value bet and i could live with that but to say was good thing is nonsense.
Yes it dropped in class to run in that race and that gave it chance but after that it done nothing bar its second last race where it run good fourth at ascot in decent race where as ile de chypre got better.
The other thing about lee`s tips where the all dropped in class and i think chesham on his show of lees tips the had good speed figures or should say better ones.
But in the ones lee showed us there they all dropped in class but didnt have better speed figures. so wasnt as deciding as chesham thought possibly.
What i have looked at and makes sense is they all dropped in class and they all proved they can run on todays going and if there best higher class races where on same going even better.
So there is a point of saying roushayd was the value bet and i could live with that but to say was good thing is nonsense.
Yes it dropped in class to run in that race and that gave it chance but after that it done nothing bar its second last race where it run good fourth at ascot in decent race where as ile de chypre got better.
The other thing about lee`s tips where the all dropped in class and i think chesham on his show of lees tips the had good speed figures or should say better ones.
But in the ones lee showed us there they all dropped in class but didnt have better speed figures. so wasnt as deciding as chesham thought possibly.
What i have looked at and makes sense is they all dropped in class and they all proved they can run on todays going and if there best higher class races where on same going even better.
JennyK
Gelding
"Lee didn't so much lie as withhold the reason he bet"
Thanks,
hedgehog, and I hope you are right. From the selections I've reviewed so far, he didn't say a lot about why; presumably happy to let the results do the talking. But in other posts, such as the one
Pitmatic posted yesterday, he was very helpful.
All I need now is for my friend to code my Excel application to add the key horses' last race placing, SP rank and race class for all the races in my database. Well beyond my competence, alas, but he'll know how to do it.
Thanks,
hedgehog, and I hope you are right. From the selections I've reviewed so far, he didn't say a lot about why; presumably happy to let the results do the talking. But in other posts, such as the one
Pitmatic posted yesterday, he was very helpful.All I need now is for my friend to code my Excel application to add the key horses' last race placing, SP rank and race class for all the races in my database. Well beyond my competence, alas, but he'll know how to do it.
JennyK
Gelding
Hi
nagwa
I had a look at the race (7.00 Epsom) as there is not a single suitable sprint today (and too many tomorrow!).
I wasn't happy to see three 3yos in the field of eight, but at least two of them have winning ratings of sorts, so I could assess seven, leaving Cobalt Blue, who hasn't shown much promise but is with a good trainer, the possible wildcard.
All seven of the assessables ticked the Ability column (either had proved they had it or had run well enough for me to assume they may have progressed sufficiently, given their ages).
Three ticked the obvious Form column, Alazwar, Metahorse and Secret Strength, because of winning or finishing close enough, form lto.
When I activated the macro which highlights possible horses with hidden form, another three popped up. Gdaay, Little Boy Blue and Seductive Power. Having looked at them individually, the first two are what I regard as false positives - they have an initial feature which makes it worth checking for less obvious form but the checks soon suggest not. Seductive Power is more interesting. A decent performance on 05/04/23 over today's trip (though only four runners) then three runs over a mile, without doing anything exciting. Dropped slightly in class today in terms of field (on average ORs) maybe will do better but doesn't fit my current profiles for less obvious form so of no further interest.
That leaves the three okay on Ability and with obvious Form.
Alazwar has done nothing of note since winning on 03/09/22, until flagging himself as having obvious form lto when a close 4th. But that was in a very much weaker field than his win, off 8lb less in the ORs, and he was 6th in the betting ranking in a field of 11. The key horse (the winner of that race, Archduke Ferdinand), was the complete outsider at 33/1 and in his previous race had been 7th at 80/1. The form looks dire to me, especially as Alazwar is going way back up in class today.
Metahorse won a nursery last summer but only three runners so of very questionable worth. Since that win, like Alazwar, nothing until lto when 3rd of ten in a 3yo only, which always raise question marks for me. In that race he was 2nd favourite, which is something, but the key horse, Pearly Star, was 7th in the betting and 3rd the time before that when 5th in the betting. (Has been out since but only 6th of eleven). Form maybe a touch less dire than Alazwar. Like Alazwar, up in class today.
Secret Strength. At least won lto but was sixth of eleven in the betting and the key horse, Night Arc, was even more of an outsider, being 9th in the betting. In his previous race Night Arc had been 6th at 28/1. NA has been out since and came 2nd, but at 10/1. About as dire as Metahorse's form and like Alazwar and Metahorse, going up in class today.
Something will have to win, but none of the eight comes within a mile of my understanding of VDW's idea of "a winner in [rather than of] the race" and nothing I've seen from a brief look makes me think it would be worth putting in serious time on any of them.
So, honestly I haven't a clue which of this very poor bunch is less likely than the others to lose. I suppose the two who might conceivable surprise are Seductive Power (because of the drop in trip) and Cobalt Blue (because Varian doesn't usually train complete lemons).
nagwaI had a look at the race (7.00 Epsom) as there is not a single suitable sprint today (and too many tomorrow!).
I wasn't happy to see three 3yos in the field of eight, but at least two of them have winning ratings of sorts, so I could assess seven, leaving Cobalt Blue, who hasn't shown much promise but is with a good trainer, the possible wildcard.
All seven of the assessables ticked the Ability column (either had proved they had it or had run well enough for me to assume they may have progressed sufficiently, given their ages).
Three ticked the obvious Form column, Alazwar, Metahorse and Secret Strength, because of winning or finishing close enough, form lto.
When I activated the macro which highlights possible horses with hidden form, another three popped up. Gdaay, Little Boy Blue and Seductive Power. Having looked at them individually, the first two are what I regard as false positives - they have an initial feature which makes it worth checking for less obvious form but the checks soon suggest not. Seductive Power is more interesting. A decent performance on 05/04/23 over today's trip (though only four runners) then three runs over a mile, without doing anything exciting. Dropped slightly in class today in terms of field (on average ORs) maybe will do better but doesn't fit my current profiles for less obvious form so of no further interest.
That leaves the three okay on Ability and with obvious Form.
Alazwar has done nothing of note since winning on 03/09/22, until flagging himself as having obvious form lto when a close 4th. But that was in a very much weaker field than his win, off 8lb less in the ORs, and he was 6th in the betting ranking in a field of 11. The key horse (the winner of that race, Archduke Ferdinand), was the complete outsider at 33/1 and in his previous race had been 7th at 80/1. The form looks dire to me, especially as Alazwar is going way back up in class today.
Metahorse won a nursery last summer but only three runners so of very questionable worth. Since that win, like Alazwar, nothing until lto when 3rd of ten in a 3yo only, which always raise question marks for me. In that race he was 2nd favourite, which is something, but the key horse, Pearly Star, was 7th in the betting and 3rd the time before that when 5th in the betting. (Has been out since but only 6th of eleven). Form maybe a touch less dire than Alazwar. Like Alazwar, up in class today.
Secret Strength. At least won lto but was sixth of eleven in the betting and the key horse, Night Arc, was even more of an outsider, being 9th in the betting. In his previous race Night Arc had been 6th at 28/1. NA has been out since and came 2nd, but at 10/1. About as dire as Metahorse's form and like Alazwar and Metahorse, going up in class today.
Something will have to win, but none of the eight comes within a mile of my understanding of VDW's idea of "a winner in [rather than of] the race" and nothing I've seen from a brief look makes me think it would be worth putting in serious time on any of them.
So, honestly I haven't a clue which of this very poor bunch is less likely than the others to lose. I suppose the two who might conceivable surprise are Seductive Power (because of the drop in trip) and Cobalt Blue (because Varian doesn't usually train complete lemons).
Last edited:
hedgehog
Dam
Hello
JennyK I call the key horse the marker and it doesn't have to be the 2nd if the selection won it's previous race, it can be the 3rd so you'll need to have your friend check for 2nds and 3rds when he recodes your spreadsheet macro
Epsom 8.40, C5, !m4f6y, 3yo+, HOR 68 AvOR 64.7
ORC subset Red Royalist, Night Eagle, Naasma and Spritzin
RR - won LTO HOR 68 AvOR 60.5, LTO2 3rd HOR 70 AvOR 64.2 so comparable to current race, won with 9-11 now 10-0 - Full chance
NE - LTO 5th HOR 81 AvOR 75.4, LTO2 5th HOR 87 AvOR 78.3, won 10-5 now 9-10, won HOR 72 AvOR 64.6 comparable - Full chance
N - LTO 2nd HOR 72 AvOR 64.7, LTO2 won HOR 61 AvOR 56.5 which is it's best result, won 10-0 now 9-10 - half a chance
S - LTO 2nd HOR 75 AvOR 70.1 which is the best result, no wins, current 9-3 LTO 8-11 - Double chance as odds on
Minimum for Night Eagle 11-2
My selection Night Eagle and I got 10.5 on the exchange
Good luck and stay well
JennyK I call the key horse the marker and it doesn't have to be the 2nd if the selection won it's previous race, it can be the 3rd so you'll need to have your friend check for 2nds and 3rds when he recodes your spreadsheet macroEpsom 8.40, C5, !m4f6y, 3yo+, HOR 68 AvOR 64.7
ORC subset Red Royalist, Night Eagle, Naasma and Spritzin
RR - won LTO HOR 68 AvOR 60.5, LTO2 3rd HOR 70 AvOR 64.2 so comparable to current race, won with 9-11 now 10-0 - Full chance
NE - LTO 5th HOR 81 AvOR 75.4, LTO2 5th HOR 87 AvOR 78.3, won 10-5 now 9-10, won HOR 72 AvOR 64.6 comparable - Full chance
N - LTO 2nd HOR 72 AvOR 64.7, LTO2 won HOR 61 AvOR 56.5 which is it's best result, won 10-0 now 9-10 - half a chance
S - LTO 2nd HOR 75 AvOR 70.1 which is the best result, no wins, current 9-3 LTO 8-11 - Double chance as odds on
Minimum for Night Eagle 11-2
My selection Night Eagle and I got 10.5 on the exchange
Good luck and stay well
