• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune - "From Start to Finish", "Entering the Straight"

With regards to the Best bet/Next best method which included Rivage Bleu etc…

Guest wrote this which I found interesting.


Of the six horses VDW gave in 95/96 the stand out was Travado who was the class/form horse, but so was Killeshin in his race. So these could have been found via the consistency and/or class/form approach. In fact further to that VDW compared Rivage Bleu to Prominent King stating that both horses lacked a winning class rating, but the trainer told you they were really out to win. But what does that mean?

Let's look from the trainers point of view. Before a race is run, all he knows are the entries and the value of the race and a rough idea of the weight to be carried if it's a handicap. He doesn't know the exact opposition and certainly not when entering the horse. So when does he know the info required about the opposition ?

Given the answer, it should then be seen how he might use the info for the future without recourse to knowing the final decs.
 
formtheory said:
Given the answer, it should then be seen how he might use the info for the future without recourse to knowing the final decs.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment but again the writer quoted has not given any answers while at the same time suggesting that he has them. ? I start working my races of interest off the 4 day decs which can prove frustrating but also informative Re jockey bookings trainers multiple entries and other aspects, but the biggest edge is nothing needs to be rushed.

Today we have 8 meetings and 56 races. ! My MO produced 12 races to consider from which my ratings showed 3 horses of interest. All three declared to run at the 48hr decs stage but i had already had ample time to spend considering there profiles. Going in for a second and final look became an easier ask and by early yesterday afternoon i felt comfortable with my end call that only one of the three should be backed.

This was Newm 6.20 Outrun The Storm B365 where the first to price up at 13/2 which i felt was good value as i had set my minimum odds at 5/1. Currently they are 7/2 so sometimes an additional advantage to be gained from working in advance. Its an on going process with Saturday already sorted in respect that Burj Malinka is now my only possible bet.

Relevant going changes aside the majority of the info needed to enable making these decisions was available as from the 4 day stage with ample time to then attempt to get the best from it. I suspect that the majority of backers will be starting from scratch Re todays racing and i wish them well with this but it would not suit myself.
 
Last edited:
Just a postscript to mine of 8.53 Wednesday, really, as the more I've looked the less clear things seem.

I've found a couple of Lee's later Flat handicap examples, from 2007 - Countdown (04/07/07) and Amarna (12/10/07) - and neither seems to have the same characeristics described in Lee's post which formtheory formtheory kindly posted. Also one of the "Systematic Betting" examples Lee advised checking, Pipsted, seems problematic.

So, either I haven't yet properly understood Lee's post or, if I have, his thinking there was not always an essential element of his approach. The way I applied it in the Double Vodka example, for which I posed relevant data, helps explain that selection and Top Dirham and Loch Buie, and numerous VDW examples, but Pipsted, Countdown and Amarna need more thinking about.

I have also checked the steps I used re Double Vodka with some of my own winners and mick mick's Final Watch, and not all the "Lee" elements were present in any of them, any more than they are in Mick's selection today. So, maybe, it will help identify horses which should be backed, but its absence in other cases, which have been postively selected either by me or Mick, most certainly does not prevent them from winning.

formtheory formtheory, if you happened to have the date of Lee's post about checking the "Systematic Betting" examples readily available, I'd be grateful for it, as it might of course have been before his 2007 examples and they may then simply be the result of him elaborating his ideas.
 
Re the Final Watch win prior to this i would imagine the 2lto run when he finished last would have sabotaged the basic VDW Consistency rating, or would he have after timed along the lines of clearly this can be ignored as the animal was running above class and lost two shoes during. Pre race my conclusion being he was no good thing but i felt able to let the better than expected EP 8/1 make the final call.

For myself the above is a frequent occurrence and while i could find fault with my own thinking it does prove profitable on balance, with my take being there is something worse than backing a loser and this is doing so at a perceived poor value price.
 
Last edited:
mick said:
Re the Final Watch win prior to this i would imagine the 2lto run when he finished last would have sabotaged the basic VDW Consistency rating, or would he have after timed along the lines of clearly this can be ignored as the animal was running above class and lost two shoes during. Pre race my conclusion being he was no good thing but i felt able to let the better than expected EP 8/1 make the final call.

For myself the above is a frequent occurrence and while i could find fault with my own thinking it does prove profitable on balance, with my take being there is something worse than backing a loser and this is doing so at a perceived poor value price.
Click to expand...

In line with that, I remember reading a run can be discounted, and the VDW consistency rating re-adjusted, if there was sufficient reason to do so. ie: your obs on FW.

That would of sure pissed off the hardened L3 run followers if the last 4 runs were 1102 and a 4* was noted instead of 13*.
 
DuckandDive DuckandDive As i recall he did make some reference to this via the Gaye Brief example which tbf he did not claim as a winner he had backed but he did claim it as the probable winner. The problem being i recall other post race examples where he dismissed a horses chance because of a poor run during its three most recent. So for the follower it becomes a case of working out when where and why.

Finding valid excuses for a poor run(s) plays a big part in my MO but i am not using the VDW CR. ! I note JennyK JennyK is attempting to find an acceptable workaround or interpretation and this option is open to all. :)
 
I’m enjoying reading this thread, a lot of the references I’m unsure of though.
From what I can gather VDW is a method of picking winners from around 1980s
It seems the method was a bit vague but so good at picking winners that people have been trying to decipher the fuzzy bits.?
Some people like a guy called Lee have cracked the code and proved it’s worth by picking loads of winners and proving them before the races.?
Although he cracked the code he carried on the mystique by not revealing the method in its entirety
Others are still trying to crack the code 40 years later
Although not being able to crack the code completely people have benefited from aspects of the method in their form study ?
Im a sceptical sod and my first instinct is the snake oil salesman factor , but obviously a lot more to it if it still generates interest 40 years on?
 
O Outlander being one who was involved from the get go i also failed to emulate his thinking via future results. I suspect that the continued interest is down to his claimed results being so good and his inference that others could obtain simular . My interest and contributions to this thread have little to do with matters VDW but are rather down to the active and constructive contributions its attracting.

While i failed to crack the VDW method the large amount of additional effort involved while attempting did increase my general knowledge Re why horses win or loss races some of which i was subsequently able to put to good use via non VDW ways, so i guess a begrudging thanks to him for that.!
 
Last edited:
Outlander said:
I’m enjoying reading this thread, a lot of the references I’m unsure of though.
From what I can gather VDW is a method of picking winners from around 1980s
It seems the method was a bit vague but so good at picking winners that people have been trying to decipher the fuzzy bits.?
Some people like a guy called Lee have cracked the code and proved it’s worth by picking loads of winners and proving them before the races.?
Although he cracked the code he carried on the mystique by not revealing the method in its entirety
Others are still trying to crack the code 40 years later
Although not being able to crack the code completely people have benefited from aspects of the method in their form study ?
Im a sceptical sod and my first instinct is the snake oil salesman factor , but obviously a lot more to it if it still generates interest 40 years on?
Click to expand...

Yes but was Lee trying to say some of his proofs were aftertimed when he owned up to not being totally honest is their proof the 12 or so examples were before the race which all won. If so he was good although he would not show us on here though when i requested he just disappeared. I am more than a skeptic myself.
 
Outlander said:
Others are still trying to crack the code 40 years later
Although not being able to crack the code completely people have benefited from aspects of the method in their form study ?
Im a sceptical sod and my first instinct is the snake oil salesman factor , but obviously a lot more to it if it still generates interest 40 years on?
Click to expand...
It does feel a bit "Bletchley Park" at times, especially if there's an intercept and someone alters the cogs and you have to start again!

Nowadays, I prefer to take the elements I like and cobble together a system/method that can be put into excel and data crunched.
 
mick said:
O Outlander being one who was involved from the get go i also failed to emulate his thinking via future results. I suspect that the continued interest is down to his claimed results being so good and his inference that others could obtain simular . My interest and contributions to this thread have little to do with VDW but are rather down to the active and constructive contributions its attracting.

While i failed to crack the VDW method the large amount of additional effort involved while attempting did increase my general knowledge Re why horses win or loss races some of which i was subsequently able to put to good use via non VDW ways, so i guess a begrudging thanks to him for that.!
Click to expand...
I agree mick mick some very good reading in the posts on this thread even if I don’t completely follow all the references.
 
I think the winner in a race is the start of his thinking its easy to analyse that in any race, A horse who got beat in 5k race then beat in 6k race then running today in 18k race is not winner in a race.
A horse beat in 10k race then beat in 14k race now running in 6k race is possible winner in a race. exspecially if improving form.
A horse winning 5k race then winning 8k race now running in 11k race is a possible improving horse who makes the race muddy water.
Now we have winners in a race does it like ground ,does it like distance, and big pluses does it like track is trainer going well.
Thats my take anyway in what i have read as i think there is to much put on consistant form. I do think consistant form is important but you cant do it on 111/112/121. as you could have 525/436/444 but as far as winner in a race that form could be more consistant than former.
 
mick said:
This was Newm 6.20 Outrun The Storm B365 where the first to price up at 13/2 which i felt was good value as i had set my minimum odds at 5/1. Currently they are 7/2 so sometimes an additional advantage to be gained from working in advance.
Click to expand...

Do you get the sense they're waiting for you to place your bet to mark their card!

Narrowed it down to 3, None of them have much consistency, but there's some hidden form in better class.

6.20 Newm RC.png
 
gerry said:
I think the winner in a race is the start of his thinking its easy to analyse that in any race, A horse who got beat in 5k race then beat in 6k race then running today in 18k race is not winner in a race.
A horse beat in 10k race then beat in 14k race now running in 6k race is possible winner in a race. exspecially if improving form.
A horse winning 5k race then winning 8k race now running in 11k race is a possible improving horse who makes the race muddy water.
Now we have winners in a race does it like ground ,does it like distance, and big pluses does it like track is trainer going well.
Thats my take anyway in what i have read as i think there is to much put on consistant form. I do think consistant form is important but you cant do it on 111/112/121. as you could have 525/436/444 but as far as winner in a race that form could be more consistant than former.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it referred to as constant form at one point , rather than consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top