Thank you, Bobajobber. It was worth joining the forum just to read this article. Amazing what you can see when things are presented in their simplest form. Cheers.
VDW Van Der Speil
- Thread starter Bobajobber
- Start date
Are you saying that the combined sets of figures VDW offered up in his reply Methodmaker are 3 representative elements of a horse's last 3 races, such as it's placing, it's position in the market and the position of the winner in the market?ArkRoyal
Hello Kev,
Chugging along and you?
No I am saying the original ratings as shown in the letter 'Narrow The Field To Gain A Winning Strip' AKA ERIN numbers are a rating based on all of the elements of consistency, so two sets of odds and 1 set of form as I originally pointed out.
VDW did not want to flaunt it to early, so if you are spelling it out piece by piece, then you would offer up in digestable chunks over a time, this ERIN number is never used in its rating as first thought, it consists of the elements needed to get to the next place, they need to be broken up/separated.
As you know, I had the 2nd numerical form in the Erin rating, why would I use it twice to confirm the 2nd numerical form, it took some unravelling, but it always bothered me.
"Once you see it , you will wonder how on earth you could of missed it, then you will have the same horses as myself"
This line is shouting out that it is something visual, it is believe me.
So Prominent King's would be (3rd last race from left)
4-2-2
5-3-2
7-5-1
Beacon Light
1-1-2
2-1-1
2-1-2
Mr Kildare
1-1
1-1
1-1
Decent Fellow
3-1-3
1-1-3
3-1-1
Monksfield
3-3-6
3-1-4
1-3-5
I've laid them out like that in an attempt to make it more of a visual picture, as you suggested it is.
I'm thinking that VDW suggested looking at several horses who ran 2nd such as Weth Nan to Derrylin and Spartan Missile to Strombolus so as to see how their last 3 placings picture looked.
Spartan Missile (bypassing his Fall when odds on LTO)
1-1-1
1-1-1
1-1-1
Strombolus (bypassing his fall in the Sun Alliance Novice chase when 12/1)
1-1-1
1-1-1
1-1-1
Weth Nan
1-1-1
1-1-1
1-1-1
Derrylin
1-1-1
1-1-2
1-1-2
There's various ways to get the Erin figures as printed in the letter, but it struck me that as you were saying the figure is never used as presented and consisted of elements that needed to be broken up to get to the next place, that perhaps it is more useful to break them up and look at them laid out as above, to see at a glance the form, the market position and the market position of the winner, rather than just a number that could have been reached in various ways.
I think it's interesting that only Prominent Kings last run shows any significant improvement in the figures from previous runs. Mr Kildare's stayed the same, Beacon Light's slipped a bit and Decent Fellow and Monksfied's very much went the wrong way.
Bobajobber
Mare
Tufnel,
Apologies for the delay in reply, almost a year to the day.
You will have to forgive me, my previous answers were not quite correct, I will try to explain a little why, give some clarity.
Harvesting numbers as you may well be aware, can send you down many rabbit holes, also remember nobody is giving you direct answers to this puzzle, you are very much on that journey by yourself and making mistakes in this scenario in my very honest opinion is the only way to get where you need to get to locate the answers.
I have made loads of errors, but in saying this, I was mostly in the right ball park, I was kicking the wrong balls around.
Many ask the question, why were the Erin numbers never shown again, the answer is simple
because they are not actually correct, they are based on only ONE element of consistency.
VDW spells his method out piece by piece remember, have most forgotten that he told us this or have they just completely ignored it.
From 'Narrow The Field To Gain a Winning Strip' to 'Flying Dutchman Believes In Consistency' , VDW focusses mostly on consistency.
I did explain in one post that VDW is spelling his method out in the same format as his formula, ie, Consistent Form + Ability, etc.
The interesting part is Letter 30 'Flying Dutchman Believes In Consistency' is a summary of what VDW has conveyed and he draws a line under this as if to say, there is enough here for you to understand it so far and shortly moves onto the class part.
Once you manage to create the first numerical picture, then you have the second numerical picture to contend with.
These numbers are important, do not let anybody say otherwise.
Apologies for the delay in reply, almost a year to the day.
You will have to forgive me, my previous answers were not quite correct, I will try to explain a little why, give some clarity.
Harvesting numbers as you may well be aware, can send you down many rabbit holes, also remember nobody is giving you direct answers to this puzzle, you are very much on that journey by yourself and making mistakes in this scenario in my very honest opinion is the only way to get where you need to get to locate the answers.
I have made loads of errors, but in saying this, I was mostly in the right ball park, I was kicking the wrong balls around.
Many ask the question, why were the Erin numbers never shown again, the answer is simple
because they are not actually correct, they are based on only ONE element of consistency.VDW spells his method out piece by piece remember, have most forgotten that he told us this or have they just completely ignored it.
From 'Narrow The Field To Gain a Winning Strip' to 'Flying Dutchman Believes In Consistency' , VDW focusses mostly on consistency.
I did explain in one post that VDW is spelling his method out in the same format as his formula, ie, Consistent Form + Ability, etc.
The interesting part is Letter 30 'Flying Dutchman Believes In Consistency' is a summary of what VDW has conveyed and he draws a line under this as if to say, there is enough here for you to understand it so far and shortly moves onto the class part.
Once you manage to create the first numerical picture, then you have the second numerical picture to contend with.
These numbers are important, do not let anybody say otherwise.
Thanks for the replyTufnel,
Apologies for the delay in reply, almost a year to the day.
You will have to forgive me, my previous answers were not quite correct, I will try to explain a little why, give some clarity.
Harvesting numbers as you may well be aware, can send you down many rabbit holes, also remember nobody is giving you direct answers to this puzzle, you are very much on that journey by yourself and making mistakes in this scenario in my very honest opinion is the only way to get where you need to get to locate the answers.
I have made loads of errors, but in saying this, I was mostly in the right ball park, I was kicking the wrong balls around.
Many ask the question, why were the Erin numbers never shown again, the answer is simple
VDW spells his method out piece by piece remember, have most forgotten that he told us this or have they just completely ignored it.
From 'Narrow The Field To Gain a Winning Strip' to 'Flying Dutchman Believes In Consistency' , VDW focusses mostly on consistency.
I did explain in one post that VDW is spelling his method out in the same format as his formula, ie, Consistent Form + Ability, etc.
The interesting part is Letter 30 'Flying Dutchman Believes In Consistency' is a summary of what VDW has conveyed and he draws a line under this as if to say, there is enough here for you to understand it so far and shortly moves onto the class part.
Once you manage to create the first numerical picture, then you have the second numerical picture to contend with.
These numbers are important, do not let anybody say otherwise.
Bobajobber It's always good to see you posting on the subject.Up to letter 30 VDW had given a couple of ways to crosscheck finding the probables. The 3 most consistent from the first 5 or 6 in the betting and the Cobnut method of noting the horses who had a placing of 1 to 4 in their last 2 placings, the 5 most recent runs and from these the 3 most consistent from the last 3 runs. He didn't specifically state that they have to be involved in both stage 1 and 2 and it's hard to see from the horses he highlighted in stage 3 as to if they should or shouldn't be in both, because he puts in the 3rd horse home and the fav (for info) in stage 3 even though the 3rd (Desert Prince) didn't figure in stage 2. So another case of VDW being somewhat ambiguous in what he meant.
But leaving that cross check point aside, as you say he does largely move on to ratings and his ability rating after those letters. Consistency is still mentioned though, the Saher and Aldaniti cross check is given, taking the 3 highest ARs from the 5 most consistent rates in the field and again in Spells It All Out he states that "horses who consistently perform better than others" whilst giving his "What is form if it is not that one performance is better than another?" thought. Again that statement can be taken in several ways. Does he mean an individual horse's performance is better than a previous one or does he mean it's better than another runner's in the field? Could be both?
As you're aware I've gone round the houses on the Erin figures. All the usual lines, were they just typos? If not were Decent Fellow and Monkfield's figure just the consistency totals calculated as he clearly indicated in the letter and the 3 probables were shown with different numbers?
And then if we believe the Erin figures were correctly printed and put there as a clue to another rating, how complicated could that rating be?
I found a way to get all 5 numbers, using a combination of the betting market, the runner's final placing in the race and the winner of the race's previous placing. But I only had that race to base it on. So I've no idea if it was the correct way or just coincidence. And using it for the present day has not really changed outcomes much. I applied it to lots of VDWs other examples and whilst it showed a lot of them had ratings under 8, many did not. Love From Verona springs to mind who had a total of 18 from memory. So effectively as I thought I had it, it was of no real use.
If as you suggest the Erin numbers given were not actually correct and were based on just one element of consistency, the only way I can see the numbers arising as printed for the 3 probables is if the most recent placing is added to the previous placing of the horse that finished ahead or behind the runner.
Prominent King 2nd to Drumgora who was 3rd last time out = 5
Beacon Light 2nd to Sea Pigeon who's last completed start was 1st = 3
Mr Kildare was 1st beating Oisin Dubh who had run 2nd on previous run = 3
Doesn't work for Decent Fellow with 6 or Monksfield 9, but again I could be forgiven for thinking their totals as printed were just the basic consistency totals from the last 3 runs. Every paper had Monksfield as 330 rather than 336 so 16 seems a plausible 'error' on VDW's part. Either way it does still produce the same 3 probables. But that doesn't mean I'd solved the issue.
Beyond that, and as I say I've gone into what I see as a lot of depth into the form book to try and find the correct answer, if it's there to find, I can't see many other angles. Especially if as you suggest that it is only based on ONE element of consistency anyway.
As regards the second numerical picture, am I wrongly presuming you mean the figures some have posted based around the winner of each of a horse's last 3 runs, where again 3 is the lowest possible?
Overall I have to think that as much of what VDW put forward seemed very basic in it's execution (adding up placings and confining to places in the betting forecast) the ideas certainly had good data to back them up, however simplified they appeared to be. Surely the Erin numbers were on the same lines of simplicity to execute too?
JennyK
Gelding
Interesting though the "probables"/Erin numbers issue is,
T
Tufnel, there is a second issue in the 1978 Erin letter that invites attention, VDW's "two methods of rating all five horses".
He tells us that using the two methods:
"the three starred horses came out best" (Beacon Light, Prominent King and Mr Kildare)
"Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it"
"Prominent King had the edge by one method and was level [with Mr Kildare] using the other",
so we have plenty on which to test theories.
I imagine it would have been frustrating for contemporary readers, and personally I think it would have been impossible to solve before the 28/03/1981 article and very difficult before 1985.
He tells us that using the two methods:
"the three starred horses came out best" (Beacon Light, Prominent King and Mr Kildare)
"Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it"
"Prominent King had the edge by one method and was level [with Mr Kildare] using the other",
so we have plenty on which to test theories.
I imagine it would have been frustrating for contemporary readers, and personally I think it would have been impossible to solve before the 28/03/1981 article and very difficult before 1985.
gerry
Mare
I have spent this morning reading this thread and enjoyed it honestly never read every comment took out what i found useful but some thing has struck me.
working out the best ability ratings then trying to find consistent form along with some thing some one has said on here which i use anyway but i respect his ability on horse racing.
If i had not known anything about it ever vdw it all seemed so clear what he was going on about and i have not tried it yet as just finished reading it all.
But surely it cant be this simple to work out the figures.
working out the best ability ratings then trying to find consistent form along with some thing some one has said on here which i use anyway but i respect his ability on horse racing.
If i had not known anything about it ever vdw it all seemed so clear what he was going on about and i have not tried it yet as just finished reading it all.
But surely it cant be this simple to work out the figures.
Chesham
Sire
Just a thought PK would have been ahead with Class Method of Rating Did VDW in include his Flat form when Rating PK? He also earned a decent Split Second in the Triumph Hurdle .
Prominent King had a notable career on the flat before switching to hurdles. His known wins include:
Prominent King's Known Victories Before the 1978 Erin Race
Prominent King had a notable career on the flat before switching to hurdles. His known wins include:
- 1975: A string of four handicap wins on the flat, culminating in a victory in the prestigious Irish Cesarewitch.
- January 1976: A win in a Maiden Hurdle at Naas.
- February 1976: A significant victory in the Scalp Hurdle at Leopardstown.
Again though, VDW's choice of phrase or words can be ambiguous. "Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it" could mean that both ratings had him out of it or the combination of both had him well out of it.
I'm partial to thinking it was both methods in isolation because he then says "Prominent King had the edge by one method and was level using the other" which seems fairly categoric that the 2 methods of rating were separate.
But I don't see how anyone could work out exactly what those ratings were or based on, though VDW did give some sort of approval of one readers suggestion that they would perform tests of recentness of form and speed.
Mr Kildare was no slouch on the flat either.
I agree PK had some top class handicap form on the flat over middle distances. And the Scalp hurdle win in 76 was clearly the benchmark for his winning class ability and the Triumph run had to be his 2nd best run also.
JennyK
Gelding
With regard to both the "probables" numbers and the two methods of rating,
T
Tufnel, all we can do is identify possibilities, which to be credible must necessarily find the numbers for the three starred horses and satisfy the three points about which VDW was specific.
In respect of the two methods of rating, the text in my opinion strongly supports your view that on all three points VDW was referring to two separate ratings methods. Identifying possible solutions is a matter of logical deduction though sadly I see no possible way of being certain that our conclusions are correct. I guess the best we can hope for is to find that they work with the relevant selections from the large number he gave.
In respect of the two methods of rating, the text in my opinion strongly supports your view that on all three points VDW was referring to two separate ratings methods. Identifying possible solutions is a matter of logical deduction though sadly I see no possible way of being certain that our conclusions are correct. I guess the best we can hope for is to find that they work with the relevant selections from the large number he gave.
Last edited:
Like others, I have tried to figure out what the two different methods of rating may have been based on his assertion that in both methods BL was well out of it, PK had the edge over MK in one method and level in the other. But sadly to no avail. Though I confess it's been a long time since I gave it another look.
VDW did of course make a point of saying that in his mind 'rating' and 'ratings' are two different matters. I'm not really sure what he means by that. The only thing that could make some sense of it, is that he thinks rating a horse's form is an overview appraisal that cannot be expressed numerically, where as ratings are a numerical evaluation based on one or a number of factors, most usually handicap or speed ratings.
And the problem was clouded further for readers because later in SIAO he did introduce two sets of ratings "compiled on different lines" so everyone assumed them to be the two methods of rating in the Erin letter. But how could they be, when VDW repeatedly said his ratings were not the answer, just a guide?
JennyK
Gelding
I think the point VDW was making,
T
Tufnel, is that there is a difference between having a method of rating and using its product, and the kind of ratings he sometimes deployed, from the Life and Mail, where he only had the product, not the method.
You are of course right that the two methods to which VDW referred in the Erin letter and the ratings in the right hand columns of the tables in the 28/03/81 article are different. The former were clearly part of his selection procedure, the latter were merely "useful" as a check on the conclusions of that procedure.
No way of knowing, of course, but I suspect that along the way VDW jettisoned using ratings as per the 28/03/81 tables and some of his examples from the mid 1980s. No mention of them in his major 1988 analyses.
You are of course right that the two methods to which VDW referred in the Erin letter and the ratings in the right hand columns of the tables in the 28/03/81 article are different. The former were clearly part of his selection procedure, the latter were merely "useful" as a check on the conclusions of that procedure.
No way of knowing, of course, but I suspect that along the way VDW jettisoned using ratings as per the 28/03/81 tables and some of his examples from the mid 1980s. No mention of them in his major 1988 analyses.
Just to follow that up on the rating issue. It can't be the AR as Beacon Light could not possibly be well out of it on that. PK did have the edge over MK, but given it was a 7 point advantage, that's probably more than just an edge for the race values in those days.
Could it be class of race? Well again, Beacon Light ran in much the highest value race last time of 39 when 2nd by a length, Mr Kildare was 14 and Prominent King was down on 6. And of course the other 2 horses Decent Fellow and Monksfield would have been 2nd and joint 3rd respectively, so it wasn't the class of race by race value.
How about the class of horses in the last races for all five horses, based on the finish and those horses last class of race?
Decent Fellow ran a well beaten last of 3 last time coming from a win in class 116 whilst the winner was coming from a 3rd in class 58.
Beacon Light was 2nd by a length last time coming from a class 43 win. The horse who beat him (who VDW specifically named) was from a last completed start in class 34 when winning that event. Although many months before.
Monksfield's last race was 6th coming from a 3rd in class 10, with the winner having previously been 3rd in class 5.
Prominent King last time was 2nd by 5 lengths coming from class 14 (2nd) to Drumgora (also specifically named by VDW) who had recently run a close 3rd in class 116.
Mr Kildare won last time coming from a class 6 win. He was some 8 lengths ahead of the 2nd coming from a 2nd in class 14.
The above at least has some relation to the idea of the 3 starred horses coming out best (BL, PK and MK) but does it really show BL well out of it and does it really show PK as just having an edge over MK?
I suppose there is the fact that on that data, only PK and MK were competing against horses coming from better races than they themselves were.
How many factors or data points could really be involved here in any rating or ratings though?
Could it be class of race? Well again, Beacon Light ran in much the highest value race last time of 39 when 2nd by a length, Mr Kildare was 14 and Prominent King was down on 6. And of course the other 2 horses Decent Fellow and Monksfield would have been 2nd and joint 3rd respectively, so it wasn't the class of race by race value.
How about the class of horses in the last races for all five horses, based on the finish and those horses last class of race?
Decent Fellow ran a well beaten last of 3 last time coming from a win in class 116 whilst the winner was coming from a 3rd in class 58.
Beacon Light was 2nd by a length last time coming from a class 43 win. The horse who beat him (who VDW specifically named) was from a last completed start in class 34 when winning that event. Although many months before.
Monksfield's last race was 6th coming from a 3rd in class 10, with the winner having previously been 3rd in class 5.
Prominent King last time was 2nd by 5 lengths coming from class 14 (2nd) to Drumgora (also specifically named by VDW) who had recently run a close 3rd in class 116.
Mr Kildare won last time coming from a class 6 win. He was some 8 lengths ahead of the 2nd coming from a 2nd in class 14.
The above at least has some relation to the idea of the 3 starred horses coming out best (BL, PK and MK) but does it really show BL well out of it and does it really show PK as just having an edge over MK?
I suppose there is the fact that on that data, only PK and MK were competing against horses coming from better races than they themselves were.
How many factors or data points could really be involved here in any rating or ratings though?
Chesham
Sire
Dick Whitford, Pioneering Handicapper, Ceased Ratings for The Sporting Life in 1984
Dick Whitford, a pivotal figure in the history of horse racing handicapping, concluded his tenure producing ratings for The Sporting Life in 1984 upon his retirement. While widely associated with the publication, his career also included a foundational role at the esteemed ratings organization Timeform. Whitford passed away at the age of 92, as reported in March 2004.
Initially, Whitford did not produce ratings for The Sporting Life. He was the co-founder of Timeform, alongside Phil Bull, in the aftermath of World War II. Whitford's innovative approach to form-based handicapping, combined with Bull's time-based methods, established Timeform as a leading authority in racehorse assessment. He served at Timeform from 1945 until his departure in 1949.
Following his time at Timeform, Whitford took on the role of racing manager and private handicapper for the successful racehorse owner Jack Gerber. This partnership lasted from the early 1950s until Gerber's return to South Africa in 1971. It was at this point in his career that Whitford joined The Sporting Life as their official Flat-race handicapper.
For over a decade, from 1971 until his retirement in 1984, Dick Whitford's ratings were a prominent feature in The Sporting Life, providing valuable insights to punters and racing enthusiasts. His work is remembered for its meticulous detail and significant contribution to the art and science of handicapping.
Dick Whitford's method for producing his ratings was called "Collateral Handicapping." During World War II, as an officer on a British patrol ship, he used copies of annual form books to create a universal handicap of all racehorses in Britain. He examined the results, plotting charts to link the horses and creating a single, composite handicap of all runners from 1941.
He assigned each horse a rating based on their best three or four runs out of seven, which he found showed that horses were "astonishingly consistent." This method led him to believe that racehorses were "almost exactly figurable."
When he partnered with Phil Bull, who had his own time-based rating system, the Timeform Ratings were created by coordinating both of their methods: Whitford's form ratings and Bull's time ratings.
Last edited:
Chesham
Sire
Robert Saunders Dowst was a prolific handicapper from the 1930s to the 1950s. His methods, which are still discussed and used as a foundation by some handicappers today, focused on finding consistent horses and treating horse racing as an analytical, rather than a speculative, exercise. He believed that horses with a strong, consistent profile were more likely to win.
Dowst's methods can be applied to today's racing, but with some modernization. His core principles were:
Applying Dowst's Methods Today
Dowst's methods can be applied to today's racing, but with some modernization. His core principles were:
- Win and Place Strike Rates: Dowst's primary rule was to consider only horses with a high career win percentage (at least 33%) and a high in-the-money percentage (at least 50%). These are still relevant metrics for assessing consistency. Today, this data is easily accessible through online databases and race cards.
- Exclusions: He had strict rules for which races to avoid, such as maiden races, races for two-year-olds, and races on heavy or slow ground. He also advised against betting on horses with a history of unsoundness or those stepping up significantly in class. While some of these rules may be less rigid today due to advances in training and horse care, the principle of avoiding races with too many unknown factors is still sound.
- Form and Class: Dowst used a points-based system to rate horses based on their career win/place strikes, class level, recent form, and weight. The horse with the lowest total score was the selection. This kind of systematic, weighted analysis can easily be replicated and even automated with modern spreadsheets and software.
He was certainly a renowned handicapper, and of course anyone buying the Life would/should have been familiar with his ratings.
But in the context of the 1978 Erin race, as far as I've seen from the papers, including the Life's form section, though granted I haven't seen the card from the Life for that race, his ratings were not in evidence. Neither were any speed ratings as many of the field had run so often in Ireland.
From what so many readers of the day said about the race in regards to public ratings, it seems clear none of the available sets would have had Beacon Light and Decent Fellow well out of it.
As said above, I don't think there's any evidence to say that the ratings VDW showed in SIAO for Little Owl, etc were what he was talking about when he said he used "Two different methods of rating" for the 5 horses from the forecast for the Erin.
As far as I can tell, nobody has produced a method of rating, never mind two, that shows Beacon Light, Decent Fellow and Monksfield well out of it leaving just PK and MK for consideration. Surely the only factors that could be used are those found in the form book at the time?
Then there's the VDW definition of what a form horse actually is. Again we can only go on the examples he specifically named as form horses. In the realms of "one performance being better than another" and for now taking that as a horse's own performances measured against each other,
I would say Decent Fellow, despite having the best winning class rating from all five horse's last 3 runs, was not a form horse in the Erin because his last race was a definite downturn from that Class 116 handicap victory over C&D almost 2 months earlier.
Monksfield's last run was hardly a better run than it's previous 3rd in class 10, so again no way a form horse.
Mr Kildare had won both races easily "odds on winner..not against much opposition" so can only really be a form horse. Just a question of how good that form was.
Prominent King had not run over hurdles much since 4th in the previous year's Erin. A long gap before going to Punchestown over the wrong distance down in class to 14 when 2nd to Credit Card. Then dropped in race class to a 6, but into handicap company carrying 12-7 against a horse carrying just 11-2 who had previously shown form when 3rd to Decent Fellow in the class 116 handicap. PK back to his distance beaten 5 lengths into 2nd was clearly a case of this performance being better than the previous race and the even the one before that. So a form horse.
Beacon Light had already had a bonanza season winning 3 conditions races, though beaten into 6th in his one handicap race in between. He won a class 74, then down to a class 43 and then went for a class 39 but was beaten into 2nd by a length albeit giving 4 lbs to the winner Sea Pigeon. The ground was heavy. Should have been no problem to BL. He was in form and facing a horse from lower class, who hadn't run over jumps for a while and was known for not liking heavy ground. VDW said this race for BL "had been a hard race against Sea Pigeon". The comments in the form book say Beacon Light led but was collared by Sea Pigeon and "hard driven" in the closing stages. If Beacon Light's last race was a downturn on his previous 2 races, the surely it wasn't a form run? Or to put it another way, set against the 2 previous runs, it has to be considered a performance that was NOT better than those other 2 races.
I've read his books. Lots of sense in them. And it's clear VDW based much of his own writings on Dowst's too. Almost verbatim in some areas.
Chesham
Sire
Paul Major's book, "Horse Sense: The Major Methods of Finding Winners," introduced a handicapping system that focused on a horse's performance relative to its assigned weight and the class of race. Major's method, which was popular in the mid-20th century, was a systematic way of identifying horses that were "well-in" or "ahead of the handicapper"—meaning their performance was better than their current official rating and the weight they were carrying.
Major's approach was a form of weight-for-age handicapping combined with class analysis. He assigned a rating to each horse based on its past performances, with an emphasis on its finishing position, the weight it carried, and the number of lengths it was beaten by. This rating was then compared to its current handicap rating to determine if the horse was a value bet.
The key components of the "Horse Sense" method were:
While the horse racing landscape has changed dramatically since the mid-20th century, the core principles of Paul Major's method are still very relevant. The manual calculations have been replaced by sophisticated databases and software, but the underlying questions remain the same:
How the Method Works
Major's approach was a form of weight-for-age handicapping combined with class analysis. He assigned a rating to each horse based on its past performances, with an emphasis on its finishing position, the weight it carried, and the number of lengths it was beaten by. This rating was then compared to its current handicap rating to determine if the horse was a value bet.
The key components of the "Horse Sense" method were:
- Class: Major believed in a horse's inherent class or ability. He classified races and horses to understand a horse's true level. He looked for horses dropping in class, as this often meant they were facing weaker competition than they were capable of beating.
- Form: This involved analyzing a horse's recent performance. He used a points-based system to quantify how well a horse ran in its previous starts, considering factors like finishing position, weight carried, and the quality of the field.
- Weight: Major's core idea revolved around the concept of a horse being "well-in." A horse was considered well-in if it had shown a level of form that suggested it should be carrying more weight than its current handicap mark required.
Applying the Method to Modern Racing
While the horse racing landscape has changed dramatically since the mid-20th century, the core principles of Paul Major's method are still very relevant. The manual calculations have been replaced by sophisticated databases and software, but the underlying questions remain the same:
- Is a horse "ahead of the handicapper"? This is the central tenet. Modern punters can use services like the Racing Post Ratings (RPR) and Timeform to compare a horse's recent performance figures with its official handicap mark.A horse whose RPR is consistently higher than its official rating is a prime candidate for Major's system.
- Is the horse dropping in class? Race cards today clearly state the class of each race. Modern handicappers still look for horses that have been competing in higher classes but are now entered into a weaker race. This "class drop" is a powerful indicator of a horse being well-placed by its trainer to win.
- Are there any recent "excuses" for a poor run? Major would have manually looked for reasons a horse's recent form might look bad (e.g., ran on unsuitable ground, over a distance that was too long, or was caught in a rough race). Today, this can be done by checking race reports and comments available on racing websites, which often provide details about a horse's trip or other factors that may have affected its performance.
DuckandDive
Mare
Chesham thanks for revisiting the OG's of handicapping. It's clear VDW was just an extension of their original work, which is fine, but I think he was slow to give credit to others when producing his own work, (no surprise there then).Around this time last year, I shovelled a spreadsheet together for Dowst and Paul Major's work, independently of each other. When
mick posted up the .pdf, I could see how it all came together. I never actually combined them, so, off to my excel workshop I go.... (bit like a shed in the back garden away from all the distractions).