• 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"

I think Sunday's are fine mick mick , as it is an entertainment business.

Saturdays are just too much for me, but Sunday flat is fine and the ITV involvement has improved prize money and field size.

I've always thought Mondays should be a blank day, but it's never going to happen.

The Racing League paid dividends with horses reverting back to thier prize money ceiling.
 
Pitmatic Pitmatic

Most of the different approaches VDW showed were designed to get relatively quickly to a manageable number of horses for serious consideration, and one can see the logic in wanting to do that.

The problem is that he chose examples that demonstrated the success of approach he was describing. If one applies them in all races, it quickly becomes evident that often one is simply writing off the eventual winner at stage 1. (This is certainly true in the larger field handicaps where although plenty are won by those at the front of the market, plenty aren't.)

The best sprint tomorrow is the 3.45 Ayr, currently sixteen runners. If I ranked them on any single consideration, position in forecast (which first requires a decision on which forecast), consistency totals, ability measures etc, and limited further consideration to the first few, I'd likely be writing off the eventual winner with that decision. For that reason I prefer to keep all horses in play until the end stage of the analysis.
 
JennyK JennyK i worked that Ayr 3.45 with Fools Rush In a possible off ratings but he is only 1-13 on straight tracks and coupled with his trainer having 5 in the race i concluded BLA. I am now awaiting this mornings Tue 48hr decs with an old acquittance Hot Scoop entered at Bev. !
 
Last edited:
mick mick

Not sure I like horses whose names seem to be making personal remarks about me.

That said, FRI comes out best on my ability measures, but as you say there are other, less happy considerations.

I'll leave finishing my analysis until lunchtime tomorrow given the uncertainties about weather and withdrawals at the moment, but as things stand I'll probably have a little on Manila Scouse, for essentially the same reason as I posted when I did last week.
 
There was a poster called GG, I'm sure a few of you will remember him. I think he was on this site, but I know him from previous sites where he found quiet a few of the VDW horses using ability and consistency ratings.

Arkle
 
"i do cringe at the names some get lumbered with and have some sympathy for the race commentators"

I agree. And I guess hardly any of us know what the arabic named ones mean in English. Hopefully those responsible for registering names do.

The one a few years ago that made me chuckle was Roger The Butler. I doubt an owner would get away with anything like that in these even more woke days.
 
The betting forecast was quite a powerful rating as, according yo VDW, 83% of winners could be found therein.

I totally agree with JennyK JennyK that it will mean that the winner of any particular race could be excluded solely by virtue of betting forecast position - if every horse is not looked at for their potential to win / throw a spanner in the works in some other way (hence VDW's suggestion to rate the entire field for ability and by him not excluding "highly consistent" outside of the betting forecast, I guess).

His basic method is, as JennyK JennyK outlines, a way of reducing a field to a relatively small number of potential contenders, where those inclined could "fish in well stocked ponds".

This could only be a good starting point in terms of the SCHB readers his initial letters were aimed at.
 
I don't want to divert off the subject matter, but Aberama Gold looks a horse that should be shorter than it's current 9/1.

Goes well at the track and down 1lb from it's 2nd in this race last year, which hasn't worked out, but although this is a bigger field size looks weaker to me.

The stable move probably won't show any upside, but certainly no downside either.

Probably more of a place horse, but I'm not an e/w player, so a 65/35 win bet on AG and the other old timer Tinto @ 8/1 or better, who wasn't totally disgraced in the Ayr Gold Cup last year and is now 7lb lower.

Both need to win here to get into the Stewards Cup, although there is the support race.

If they do happen to split, I've got one covering each side.
 
arkle55 said:
There was a poster called GG, I'm sure a few of you will remember him. I think he was on this site, but I know him from previous sites where he found quiet a few of the VDW horses using ability and consistency ratings.
Click to expand...
Whatever method we use making a long term profit ( i am talking over years ) is a difficult ask with the industry figs saying that less than 3% of the millions who attempt this actually achieve it. Betfair try to justify there PC by saying only 1.65 % of there customers pay it. Thinking back to the early VDW days perhaps part of the problem was his claimed success was to good and when people failed to emulate they became frustrated and despondent even those making some profit on balance by using his thinking. ?

Having unrealistic expectation is an investment trap which horse race betting well lends itself to, and perhaps one of the hardest lessons to learn is that before you even start thinking about profit you first need to reach the position of feeling reasonably confident that long term you will not lose money. I do not know about others but reaching that stage took me a very long time. !
 
I'd like to post this analysis of a race here, if that is okay JennyK JennyK ? I am using ideas from you and mick mick put on this thread.

Perth 4.50 C4 Handicap Chase max OR 112, Av OR 104.3

My ORC subset is Themanintheboots, Petrastar, Fabuleux du Clos and Starlyte

TMIB, LTO won a race with 12-0 so weight okay, CHSR 0/3, going is a concern and best win 8k total prize fund which was LTO av OR 92.3, Max OR 103, has won at the course on G/GS, 1 winner in LTO race, Trainer/Jockey SR 16%, Never tried going and distance before

P, LTO won with 11-2 and not won with the weight before so weight a concern, best win 10K LTO av OR 113.8, Max OR 120, Has won on Heavy C4, 3 course wins, 1 on soft, 1 over CD on G/GS, all wins wearing hood, has hood on today, Trainer/Jockey SR 33%. 0 winners in LTO race

FDC, won LTO on Heavy 12-0, so going and weight ok, best win 8K LTO av OR 90.6, Max OR 103, 1 win H/2m 7f range LTO, CHSR 0/0, 2 winners in LTO race both NTO winners

S, CHSR 0/0, LTO 3rd on GS carrying 1-7 so 11-4 with a 7lb claim weight should be okay, best win 15k av OR 103.8, max OR 113, C4, has won on GS, LTO 3rd av OR 91.1, max OR 108, going a concern, has tried soft at about this distance but didn't achieve a first 3 placing, 1 winner in LTO race a NTO winner

TMIB - Going and distance both concerns though won LTO - skip - half a chance
P - weight a concern but otherwise things seem to be lined up for it -maybe - full chance
FDC - weight and going okay, won LTO on Heavy, LTO race producing NTO winners - maybe - full chance
S - weight okay, going a major concern, LTO race producing NTO winner, best win in higher class and with comparable av OR and max OR - skip - half a chance


My selection, which will probably be wrong, is Petrastar.

I'd want 1+0.5+1+0.5+1 or 4-1 minimum

Just got 5.5 on the exchange so wager made

Good luck and stay well
 
mick mick any investment with human control is going to have traps especially when someone might dump a load of cash in to a fund and those that know whats going on keep quiet.

VDW talks about different types of traps. These traps trap the winners, I used Ascot Flat H'caps as an example and we have to bare in mind we all have different information in front of our eyes and the further we go with the stats the more likely we are to after time or manipulate the stats. With a little digging i found, top prize money 8% - last race prize money between 4K & 8K 32% - favs 26% - days since last run between 6-10 16% - LTO first 31% - O/Rating top rated 12%. At the bottom of the table is top on prize money. Just this little piece of evidence that can be fact checked on Horse Race Base tells you to be very careful with the ability rating especially when other obvious ratings offer much better results. I am not talking profit, just winners from winning ways to trap horses to consider for further evaluation.

Why would anyone even consider using ability ratings when the top rated only wins 8% of the time. VDW advised to couple the winning areas if need be but you don't have to. What you have to do is read the form book. We all read the form differently we all compute the data differently. VDW really is that straight forward.

Maybe the ability rating will find more winners if the figure is manipulated by dividing in to wins. The song some where over the rainbow springs to mind.


Arkle
 
Pitmatic Pitmatic

There are two problems with the kind of figures discussed in the early exchanges on winners from the betting forecasts in the early letters reprinted in "The Golden Years of VDW". First they are subjective, as different forecasts will produce different results (as VDW mentioned regarding his early example, Strombolus). Second, they are, we presume, for all races. It is of course a fact that the winner will come from the first six in the betting forecast, whichever one is chosen, in all six-runner handicaps.

Most of my stats relate to just a small subset of racing, sprint (up to and including 6.5f) handicaps in the UK. Most such races have single figure runners. if we take those with twelve or more, from 01/01/20 to yesterday there were 917, of which two were deadheats, so 919 winners.

Of the 919 winners

205 were 1st in the returned prices rank (22.3%)

141 2nd, (15.3%)

100 3rd, (10.9%)

76 4th , (8.3%)

90 5th, (9.8%)

65 6th (7.1%)

So 73.7% of the winners of middle/large field sprint handicaps in the UK since 01/01/20 have come from the first six in the returned prices rank.

If one had used a betting forecast that came reasonably close to the returned prices ranking, and focused on the first six, by that decision alone one would have missed the opportunity of backing the winner in about a quarter of the races.

And although I am sure the percentage would be higher for races with 7 to 11 runners, it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near 100% and just for cutting out just 1-5 runners for further consideration.

Position in the forecast in such races, assuming it is not far from the returned prices ranking, is possibly the best individual predictor of winners, in that by backing the favourite blind one would win a bit over one in five times. But that means nearly four out of five one would lose. As the average SP of the 205 winners was just over 3/1, quite a loss backing them all.
 
Last edited:
Pitmatic said:
His basic method is a way of reducing a field to a relatively small number of potential contenders, where those inclined could "fish in well stocked ponds".

This could only be a good starting point in terms of the SCHB readers his initial letters were aimed at.
Click to expand...
I feel the above sums up well with my only critique being at the time said readers where not really advised that far more was required to achieve simular results to those claimed by VDW. Perhaps we should have known better, but better still if this was made crystal from the get go.
 
JennyK said:
If one had used a betting forecast that came reasonably close to the returned prices ranking, and focused on the first six, by that decision alone one would have missed the opportunity of backing the winner in about a quarter of the races.
Click to expand...

Over the years there have been many systems/methods that incorporated the initial use of a betting forecast, followed by a variety of shortcuts to produce a short-list. The way I read VDW, he would use it more as a last check, after everything else had been factored in. I wonder if he would have let a selection go if it was quoted outside the top 6 @ 33/1?
 
I don't know about 33/1, DuckandDive DuckandDive, but VDW claimed a 20/1 winner in Desert Hero (page 23 of "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune"). DH wasn't in the first 6 of the forecast I used (probably the Life. may have been the Mail, notes not clear).

However, in the "Spells It All Out" article VDW wrote: "Taking all races, other figures show 83% of winners come from the first five quotes in the betting forecast. This also shows that selecting a horse which does not appear in this range is again tantamount to going against the odds. The only exception I make is when a highly consistent horse fails to show in this area of the forecast. It may be that the horse is outclassed in present company, but a check should always be made."

Desert Hero might have been regarded as highly consistent horse. I have his last three race total as 7, but not the three components.
 
JennyK said:
I don't know about 33/1, DuckandDive DuckandDive, but VDW claimed a 20/1 winner in Desert Hero (page 23 of "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune"). DH wasn't in the first 6 of the forecast I used (probably the Life. may have been the Mail, notes not clear).

However, in the "Spells It All Out" article VDW wrote: "Taking all races, other figures show 83% of winners come from the first five quotes in the betting forecast. This also shows that selecting a horse which does not appear in this range is again tantamount to going against the odds. The only exception I make is when a highly consistent horse fails to show in this area of the forecast. It may be that the horse is outclassed in present company, but a check should always be made."

Desert Hero might have been regarded as highly consistent horse. I have his last three race total as 7, but not the three components.
Click to expand...
I thought Desert Hero had 111 form figures and was a C/D winner as well, i know he carried a very light weight also.
 
Back in those days and pre the VDW letters i had confidence in the SL Bfc and part of the way i worked was to ignore it until i had decided there was one in the race i wanted to back, and i then used the final filter of must be Fc at a price less than the number of runners. This worked well enough enabling some losers to be swerved until the day my selection was Fc 16/1 in a 14 rn race so i did not back and it won 25/1.

From that day onwards i never let another's opinion dictate. The BFc and odds compilers do a good job on balance but the bottom line remains they are expressing an opinion for every runner in the race via a number and i only need to do so for one. It does take time and winners to get used to but these days when i have made the case for a horse the market is calling a 16/1 chance instead of feeling concerned i feel good. :)
 
JennyK JennyK

Desert Hero was selected by way of VDW as a means of him demonstrating another one of his methods - the main component of which was the tipsters' "summary of selections", in the Sporting Chronicle, where his shortcut was to take the 3 most selected horses for further analysis.

Position in the betting forecast and consistency did not appear to be a prime consideration in this selection method - he said that "Desert Hero was one of the three most popular selections from the Summary, it was a form horse, in fact, it was the class/form horse and for Split Second fans it was best on time".

This method was very shortlived, after Desert Hero's win in March 1983, as the Sporting Chronicle ceased publication in July that year.

The betting forecast or consistency rating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top