Thanks very much.
VDW examples analysed via the approach he showed in his 1988 Mackeson discussion (Pegwell Bay)
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
Straight away we can see that the Lupe at Goodwood that produced speed figures of 83 for Cistus (6/4 F carried 8-8) and 75 for Swiss Maid (7/2 J3F carried 8-3 btn 4 lengths) the pair 15 lengths clear of the 3rd horse.
Cistus did not better that figure in subsequent runs before the Sun Chariot, though did run twice in France.
Swiss Maid did record a better one at Kempton two runs prior to the Sun Chariot, which was 83 though over 7f.
It's interesting that although Swiss Maid was unraced at 2 and hadn't won a race, she was run in the 1000 Guineas and finished 8th of 16 at 33/1 after just one start. Comment says "lw, good speed 6f".
She was then run in the Musidora at York 2 weeks later over 2 and a half furlongs further as 7th fav 14/1 and ran well to be 4th beaten 4 lengths making headway 3f out then one paced final furlong. The 3 who finished ahead of her were 8/1 6th in betting, 11/4 F and one of the 4/1 J2Fs. All 3 horses had won their last race.
From there she went to the Lupe against Cistus showing her best form so far and then 3 weeks after that was dropped in class to win at Newbury over 1m 2f as 3/1 Fav.
Just 10 days later she was sent out for her 6th race of the season at Royal Ascot but back up in class and trip over 1m 4f, but was tailed off.
Then to the 7th run 3 weeks later and this time down in class back to 1m 2f in a fillies 3yo handicap at Newbury beaten a length and a half and a neck into 3rd with 9-4 (8/1) giving 20lbs to the winner Parrot Fashion (16/1) and 24lbs to the 2nd Lady Abernant (14/1) at least 10lbs all round.
Run 8 was after a whole month's rest, and now back up a fair way in class (69) at Kempton but down to 7f. She was 15/2 4th fav and beat the odds on fav by three quarters of a length leading 2 out and all out in receipt of 20lbs from that 2nd horse.
Just over a week later she was sent up further again in class (93) for run number 9, this time back to 1m 2f at Newcastle in a fillies & mares race where she was 9/2 4th fav in a field of 5 runners.
The betting and weights for this race was 2/1 Seraphima (8-13), 5/2 Sofala (8-7), 100/30 Double Lock (8-7), 9/2 Swiss Maid (8-10), 66/1 Jill (7-13).
The first 3 in the betting had all last run in the Group 2 Nassau Stakes class 142 over 10f at Glorious Goodwood in July.
Seraphima had finished 2nd there as 2nd fav to the 4/7 F Cistus who was an easy 4 length winner.
Double Lock was 3rd as 3rd fav.
Sofala was 4th as 4th fav.
The 3 beaten horses all finished within 3 lengths of each other.
Swiss Maid won the race close up, 2nd in the straight leading over 1f out, ridden and ran on well to win by 1 and a half lengths from Sofala in 2nd with Seraphima a further neck behind and another length back to Double Lock in 4th.
Jill was 15 lengths behind last.
So now we have two form lines to Cistus, one directly through their May Lupe meeting and indirectly through the 3 horses from Cistus's Goodwood victory.
The facts are that even though Swiss Maid had run 9 times by this stage, she was clearly improving with her racing and was surely a better horse than back in May.
Interesting that in the end, she was ridden almost exactly the same way at Newmarket chasing the clear front runner, but clear of the field until taking it up a fair way out and holding all comers at bay. And she even improved on that just a few weeks later in the Champion stakes against the colts.
Yep, you're spot on. It is def 88. My mistake.
The other point I think worth considering with Swiss Maid with regards specifically to the Lupe, is that it was just her 4th run. And what is more she hadn't even had one run until just under a month earlier.
Cistus did run at 2, winning twice at 7f & 6f and finishing 2nd in the Critérium des Pouliches (now known as Prix Marcel Boussac) the premier group 1 race for juvenile fillies in France, which is over a mile.
So the horse with the best form and class at the time won the Lupe.
Cistus certainly didn't stand still after that, but after her Group 2 Nassau win she struggled when upped to the Juddmonte (Benson & Hedges Gold Cup back then) outside of her own sex and whilst I haven't found any form comments for the Prix de l'Opera and the raceform race record of others in the race isn't necessarily the full story, it seems as if a narrow victory may have not been a comfortable one. A downturn from her pre York run?
Cistus did run at 2, winning twice at 7f & 6f and finishing 2nd in the Critérium des Pouliches (now known as Prix Marcel Boussac) the premier group 1 race for juvenile fillies in France, which is over a mile.
So the horse with the best form and class at the time won the Lupe.
Cistus certainly didn't stand still after that, but after her Group 2 Nassau win she struggled when upped to the Juddmonte (Benson & Hedges Gold Cup back then) outside of her own sex and whilst I haven't found any form comments for the Prix de l'Opera and the raceform race record of others in the race isn't necessarily the full story, it seems as if a narrow victory may have not been a comfortable one. A downturn from her pre York run?
JennyK
Gelding
Well, Swiss Maid presents a pretty little problem and thanks again to
Pitmatic and
Nellsman for providing the raw material for its solution. And as will become apparent later, if
Pitmatic has the Mail and Life forecasts for the 1978 Lincoln won by Captains Wings and would be kind enough to post them, I'd likely be even more confident in my view of the situation.
This thread started from the 1988 Mackeson, where in my view VDW spelt out his methodical approach more fully than previously, and indeed he never really added to it.
The approach set out for the Mackeson is not wholly unproblematic - in particular how "tight" we should be in adding the equivalents to Bishops Yarn in future analyses. But it offers a logical approach of almost scientific precision. It is NOT a system because there are judgements to be made, principally in respect of the impact of the "other factors", and it seems to me to be possible to take different positions on whether a horse should, or should not, be excluded on one or other of them. But taken as a whole, a very clear description of a method which generated several of VDW's 1988 selections - Roushayd, Braashee, Pegwell Bay and Nomadic Way - and very probably others which I have yet to check.
But that was 1988; Swiss Maid was ten years earlier, and by 1988 VDW had shown us a great deal of his methods, including clarifications on what he meant in the Erin letter by "the three lowest figures", how to deal with failures to complete, the ability rating, and how he assessed a horse's form status. I think it is important to remember that none of this was set out in 1978.
We also know that "G Hall" was not a bright reader of the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book who, literally, burned "considerable midlight oil" examining VDW's examples and reaching conclusions, but VDW writing under his actual name.
Why did he write the letter published on 11/01/79? My hypothesis is that he was disappointed that no one seems to have followed up on his 01/06/78 letter, despite the claim that the approach he showed had produced 29 wins from 32 bets in, presumably about six weeks. In short, the letter was to try to attract attention to "VDW's" approach, and provided him with the opportunity to reply to himself and make even stronger claims - "85% to 90% winners Flat and jumps, year in year out". This time it worked in that there followed a series of letters from the likes of Mr Hollis, Mr Duncan and Mr Chester (whom I assume were genuine readers and not further nom-de-plumes for Mr Hall). The rest, as they say, is history.
If we assume that the purpose of the Hall letter was to ignite interest, including a reference to the Spring and Autumn double, and a yankee including the Autumn double winner, was a good move, BUT the examples needed to be soluble from what VDW had written if they were to be credible.
So what had he written by the time "G Hall" claimed to have found the "key". Methodolgically-speaking, really just what was in the Erin article:
1) "the first five in the betting foecast in non-handicaps and the first six in handicaps, produce a high percentage of winners"
2) "If we add the last three placings of the respective horses in the betting forecast together, we have a numerical picture ... a high percentage of winners come from the three lowest figures"
Apart from adding on the last placing for horses who had only run twice, that is all any reader had at that stage, plus the even now not completely resolved question of whether the figures in the Erin were meant to be the addition of last three placings or something else.
The first selection Hall claimed, the 1978 Lincoln winner (not named but Captains Wings). Dates are important here. The Erin letter was published on 6 April; the Lincoln was run on 8 April, so any genuine reader had just a couple of days to mull the Erin letter before Captain's Wings won. I think Captains Wings was selected from the three lowest last three racings totals from the first six in the betting. I assume my notes are from the Life, and indeed Captains Wings was in the first six and equals in the forecast and of them he had the lowest last three placings total. I am hoping
Pitmatic has the Life and Mail forecasts and that in both CW is in the first six and one of the three with the lowest last three placings. (There were several horses in the field with lower last three placings than CW but none of them in the first six of the forecast I noted. My assumption would be less confident if three of them were in the first six of the other, I suspect Mail, forecast).
So, the first assumption is that CW could have been found by a genuinely independent reader by evaluating Captains Wings and the other two in "my" forecast - Le Soleil and Yamadori - and selecting the winner. (I have no data on the previous runs of LS and Yamadori. CW had won two of his last three, the better a class 57. Whether that marked him out from the other two I don't know. And of course different horses might have been in the mix if using a different forecast.)
By the time the G Hall letter was published, readers had several more VDW examples to consider: Celtic Pleasure, Battlement, Strombolus, Rifle Brigade, Orchestra and Derrylin. I will consider what an independent reader could have got from them, methodologically-speaking, in a further post, because that, plus what was available from the Erin letter, sets the framework for the other four winners "G Hall" claimed, Swiss Maid, and of course Baronet, Buckskin and My Therape. But it is worth pointing out again that, at that stage, VDW had not revealed what he meant in the Erin letter by "the three lowest figures", how he dealt with failures to complete, the ability rating, and how he assessed a horse's form status.
Pitmatic and
Nellsman for providing the raw material for its solution. And as will become apparent later, if
Pitmatic has the Mail and Life forecasts for the 1978 Lincoln won by Captains Wings and would be kind enough to post them, I'd likely be even more confident in my view of the situation.This thread started from the 1988 Mackeson, where in my view VDW spelt out his methodical approach more fully than previously, and indeed he never really added to it.
The approach set out for the Mackeson is not wholly unproblematic - in particular how "tight" we should be in adding the equivalents to Bishops Yarn in future analyses. But it offers a logical approach of almost scientific precision. It is NOT a system because there are judgements to be made, principally in respect of the impact of the "other factors", and it seems to me to be possible to take different positions on whether a horse should, or should not, be excluded on one or other of them. But taken as a whole, a very clear description of a method which generated several of VDW's 1988 selections - Roushayd, Braashee, Pegwell Bay and Nomadic Way - and very probably others which I have yet to check.
But that was 1988; Swiss Maid was ten years earlier, and by 1988 VDW had shown us a great deal of his methods, including clarifications on what he meant in the Erin letter by "the three lowest figures", how to deal with failures to complete, the ability rating, and how he assessed a horse's form status. I think it is important to remember that none of this was set out in 1978.
We also know that "G Hall" was not a bright reader of the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book who, literally, burned "considerable midlight oil" examining VDW's examples and reaching conclusions, but VDW writing under his actual name.
Why did he write the letter published on 11/01/79? My hypothesis is that he was disappointed that no one seems to have followed up on his 01/06/78 letter, despite the claim that the approach he showed had produced 29 wins from 32 bets in, presumably about six weeks. In short, the letter was to try to attract attention to "VDW's" approach, and provided him with the opportunity to reply to himself and make even stronger claims - "85% to 90% winners Flat and jumps, year in year out". This time it worked in that there followed a series of letters from the likes of Mr Hollis, Mr Duncan and Mr Chester (whom I assume were genuine readers and not further nom-de-plumes for Mr Hall). The rest, as they say, is history.
If we assume that the purpose of the Hall letter was to ignite interest, including a reference to the Spring and Autumn double, and a yankee including the Autumn double winner, was a good move, BUT the examples needed to be soluble from what VDW had written if they were to be credible.
So what had he written by the time "G Hall" claimed to have found the "key". Methodolgically-speaking, really just what was in the Erin article:
1) "the first five in the betting foecast in non-handicaps and the first six in handicaps, produce a high percentage of winners"
2) "If we add the last three placings of the respective horses in the betting forecast together, we have a numerical picture ... a high percentage of winners come from the three lowest figures"
Apart from adding on the last placing for horses who had only run twice, that is all any reader had at that stage, plus the even now not completely resolved question of whether the figures in the Erin were meant to be the addition of last three placings or something else.
The first selection Hall claimed, the 1978 Lincoln winner (not named but Captains Wings). Dates are important here. The Erin letter was published on 6 April; the Lincoln was run on 8 April, so any genuine reader had just a couple of days to mull the Erin letter before Captain's Wings won. I think Captains Wings was selected from the three lowest last three racings totals from the first six in the betting. I assume my notes are from the Life, and indeed Captains Wings was in the first six and equals in the forecast and of them he had the lowest last three placings total. I am hoping
Pitmatic has the Life and Mail forecasts and that in both CW is in the first six and one of the three with the lowest last three placings. (There were several horses in the field with lower last three placings than CW but none of them in the first six of the forecast I noted. My assumption would be less confident if three of them were in the first six of the other, I suspect Mail, forecast).So, the first assumption is that CW could have been found by a genuinely independent reader by evaluating Captains Wings and the other two in "my" forecast - Le Soleil and Yamadori - and selecting the winner. (I have no data on the previous runs of LS and Yamadori. CW had won two of his last three, the better a class 57. Whether that marked him out from the other two I don't know. And of course different horses might have been in the mix if using a different forecast.)
By the time the G Hall letter was published, readers had several more VDW examples to consider: Celtic Pleasure, Battlement, Strombolus, Rifle Brigade, Orchestra and Derrylin. I will consider what an independent reader could have got from them, methodologically-speaking, in a further post, because that, plus what was available from the Erin letter, sets the framework for the other four winners "G Hall" claimed, Swiss Maid, and of course Baronet, Buckskin and My Therape. But it is worth pointing out again that, at that stage, VDW had not revealed what he meant in the Erin letter by "the three lowest figures", how he dealt with failures to complete, the ability rating, and how he assessed a horse's form status.
Last edited:
Lovely informative post Jenny K, a very nice read as I sit on the balcony having a coffee and looking out over the beach.
Iirc VDW stated at the end of his Erin letter " and I paraphrase and may be mistaken
"go back to the beginning, it is all tied up with temperament and odds".
If I am right in my recollection then this would have been a significant comment in my opinion, in regard to the Erin plus the "G Hall" selections.
Iirc VDW stated at the end of his Erin letter " and I paraphrase and may be mistaken
"go back to the beginning, it is all tied up with temperament and odds".
If I am right in my recollection then this would have been a significant comment in my opinion, in regard to the Erin plus the "G Hall" selections.
JennyK
Gelding
Cheers,
T
Thomas.
It is probably as hot in the UK as it is where you are. No beach from where I'm sitting, but the flowers are looking lovely and we await the arrival of our evening fox.
I note your point, but the problem is, can the "odds" point be operationalised (apart from the first 5/6 in the forecast) and in particular, if it can, can it be done from the first seven examples VDW gave, which is all "G Hall" had. Frankly I've never understood the "odds" point except as expressed in relation to Little Owl, and possibly explaining not backing Beat The Retreat, where it may be a matter of judgement, or numerics. If the latter, it is currently beyond me.
Trying to figure out the 7.10 Windsor before returning to Swiss Maid et al. I make Get It the class/form horse but it looks hugely competitive, with maybe Haggas running a horse whose ability has as yet only been glimpsed. (Or, it may be yet another example of a Haggas horse being absurdly over-bet. Unfortunately those not connected won't know until about 7.15!)
It is probably as hot in the UK as it is where you are. No beach from where I'm sitting, but the flowers are looking lovely and we await the arrival of our evening fox.
I note your point, but the problem is, can the "odds" point be operationalised (apart from the first 5/6 in the forecast) and in particular, if it can, can it be done from the first seven examples VDW gave, which is all "G Hall" had. Frankly I've never understood the "odds" point except as expressed in relation to Little Owl, and possibly explaining not backing Beat The Retreat, where it may be a matter of judgement, or numerics. If the latter, it is currently beyond me.
Trying to figure out the 7.10 Windsor before returning to Swiss Maid et al. I make Get It the class/form horse but it looks hugely competitive, with maybe Haggas running a horse whose ability has as yet only been glimpsed. (Or, it may be yet another example of a Haggas horse being absurdly over-bet. Unfortunately those not connected won't know until about 7.15!)
Pitmatic
Colt
JennyK Sorry, unfortunately, I don't have any of the cards / forecasts for the 1978 Lincoln.
I was there on the day and I backed Yamadori (20/1), but to add insult to injury the friend I was there with backed Captain's Wings.
I have the cards / forecasts for the 1979, 1980, 1981 Lincolns - but not the 1978 race!!!
I initially liked the look of beaten fav Elmonjed. But then I looked into Haggas record with first time headgear on a 3yo gelding in handicaps and it wasn't good reading. Unlike many other types he employs the process on.
Last edited:
But what do I know? Stats stitched me up there. On basic level of beaten favs in handicaps wearing headgear next time, Haggas horses show a profit. But if it was a 3yo gelding he was just 1 from 7 and a loss.
Haymaker my bet looked desperately unlucky with no room to get through as he was making his run. But then the jockey put him there to start with instead of trying to move off the rail. Just another factor to mess up plans.
Haymaker my bet looked desperately unlucky with no room to get through as he was making his run. But then the jockey put him there to start with instead of trying to move off the rail. Just another factor to mess up plans.
Another factor I looked at before was the last 3 runnings of the race and how they fared on an AR basis. It's that pattern again of much lower rated horses dominating the finish. I'm thinking I see this pattern more often than one of the top 4 winning these handicaps.
But doesn't this race demonstrate once again the power of past markets?
We can view it as all sorts of trickery or just the way things are, but it's amazing how often a beaten good thing ends up in the winner's enclosure next time. Even when there are horses in the race who beat that horse last time.
But doesn't this race demonstrate once again the power of past markets?
We can view it as all sorts of trickery or just the way things are, but it's amazing how often a beaten good thing ends up in the winner's enclosure next time. Even when there are horses in the race who beat that horse last time.
Attachments
Last edited:
JennyK
Gelding
The methodological question is what if anything a reader could have learnt from studying the six selections VDW named in his letter published on 01/06/78.
Strombolus suggests two - that an incompleted run can (in at least some circumstances) be disregarded, and that, again in some circumstances, the first 5/6 in the forecast should not be taken as Holy Grail, unless one assumes that one needs to check every forecast. The first point does not bear on the "G Hall" selections; the second might.
Battlement/Baronet. Depending on the Mail forecasts, this could lead to what VDW later confirmed was the right conclusion, that "the three lowest figures" referred to in the Erin letter meant horses with one of the three lowest consistency totals not the three horses with the lowest consistency totals. (That is, if within the first five/six, there were three horses each with a total of 8, 8 being the lowest, but another on 9 and a fifth on 10, all five should be considered, not just the three on 8.)
Leaving Strombolus to one side, as probably not relevant to the "G Hall" four, Buckskin, My Therapy and Swiss Maid come from the two assumptions from the Erin letter - they were among the three horses with the lowest consistency totals from within the first five/six of the foreacast. Baronet may have been, too,but there were four with lower consistency totals in th field, though only two among the Life's first six. If either Rhineland or Mandalus were in the first six of the Mail's forecast, assuming Evesboy and Town and Country were also in the six, my current line of thinking needs modification.
But IF all four of the "G Hall's" were among the three with the lowest consistency totals within the first five/six of the forecast, there is a possible methodological answer to the question why Swiss Maid rather than Cistus. Because if "G Hall" worked from the Mail, Cistus was NOT one of the three in the first five of the forecast with the lowest consistency totals. Thus istus would not have been a qualifier for consideration.
Obviously speculation, with several IFs, and if either Rhineland or Mandalus made the first six of the Mail's Cambridgeshire forecast (assuming Evesboy and Town and Country were also in the six), my initial line of thinking falls.
In short, my first thought about Swiss Maid/Cistus is that on the deductions readers could reasonably make in 1978, Cistus would not have made the short list for those using the Mail, and the four selections including Swiss Maid did, and in their respective races stood out as the most likely of the three possibles.
Coming at Swiss Maid and Cistus a different way, I have to say that working the race via the 1988 Mackeson approach provides no way that I can see of preferring Swiss Maid. Both she and Cistus were form horses, Cistus was higher on the basic ability rating and the time/merit ability rating, and I can see no "other factor" reason VDW would have by-passed Cistus as he did, for good and clear reasons, Jim Thorpe to arrive at Pegwell Bay and Clifton Chapel to arrive at Nomadic Way. Both Jim Thorpe and Clifton Chapel were form horses and had higher ability ratings than Pegwell Bay and Nomdic Way respectively, but unlike the two selections, both had disqualifying "other factor" issues. I cannot see such a factor which would suggest by-passing Cistus for Swiss Maid.
Strombolus suggests two - that an incompleted run can (in at least some circumstances) be disregarded, and that, again in some circumstances, the first 5/6 in the forecast should not be taken as Holy Grail, unless one assumes that one needs to check every forecast. The first point does not bear on the "G Hall" selections; the second might.
Battlement/Baronet. Depending on the Mail forecasts, this could lead to what VDW later confirmed was the right conclusion, that "the three lowest figures" referred to in the Erin letter meant horses with one of the three lowest consistency totals not the three horses with the lowest consistency totals. (That is, if within the first five/six, there were three horses each with a total of 8, 8 being the lowest, but another on 9 and a fifth on 10, all five should be considered, not just the three on 8.)
Leaving Strombolus to one side, as probably not relevant to the "G Hall" four, Buckskin, My Therapy and Swiss Maid come from the two assumptions from the Erin letter - they were among the three horses with the lowest consistency totals from within the first five/six of the foreacast. Baronet may have been, too,but there were four with lower consistency totals in th field, though only two among the Life's first six. If either Rhineland or Mandalus were in the first six of the Mail's forecast, assuming Evesboy and Town and Country were also in the six, my current line of thinking needs modification.
But IF all four of the "G Hall's" were among the three with the lowest consistency totals within the first five/six of the forecast, there is a possible methodological answer to the question why Swiss Maid rather than Cistus. Because if "G Hall" worked from the Mail, Cistus was NOT one of the three in the first five of the forecast with the lowest consistency totals. Thus istus would not have been a qualifier for consideration.
Obviously speculation, with several IFs, and if either Rhineland or Mandalus made the first six of the Mail's Cambridgeshire forecast (assuming Evesboy and Town and Country were also in the six), my initial line of thinking falls.
In short, my first thought about Swiss Maid/Cistus is that on the deductions readers could reasonably make in 1978, Cistus would not have made the short list for those using the Mail, and the four selections including Swiss Maid did, and in their respective races stood out as the most likely of the three possibles.
Coming at Swiss Maid and Cistus a different way, I have to say that working the race via the 1988 Mackeson approach provides no way that I can see of preferring Swiss Maid. Both she and Cistus were form horses, Cistus was higher on the basic ability rating and the time/merit ability rating, and I can see no "other factor" reason VDW would have by-passed Cistus as he did, for good and clear reasons, Jim Thorpe to arrive at Pegwell Bay and Clifton Chapel to arrive at Nomadic Way. Both Jim Thorpe and Clifton Chapel were form horses and had higher ability ratings than Pegwell Bay and Nomdic Way respectively, but unlike the two selections, both had disqualifying "other factor" issues. I cannot see such a factor which would suggest by-passing Cistus for Swiss Maid.
JennyK
Gelding
Thanks,
Pitmatic
My rather tenuous line of thinking isn't holed by the Baronet race but the Battlement one raises a point of interest.
At the time of the "G Hall" selections, VDW had not discussed how to treat lasts, and that could be a reason for Battlement being considered as an 8 rather than Move Off with, ostensibly, 7. I don't think an independent reader would have treated MO as other than a 7 at that stage, but of course VDW possibly carried his thinking on that issue to the "G Hall" example.
My main thought on having studied the material you and
Nellsman provided and thought more about timing of examples than I had before, is that VDW's later description of method in the 1988 Mackeson piece is the one to focus upon with current races. It loosens up some otherwise seemingly over-arbitrary "rules" and puts the three main elements - class, form and the "other factors" into a logical and very workable format. One for which the data generation, courtesy of Excel, is relatively straightforward to automate.
PitmaticMy rather tenuous line of thinking isn't holed by the Baronet race but the Battlement one raises a point of interest.
At the time of the "G Hall" selections, VDW had not discussed how to treat lasts, and that could be a reason for Battlement being considered as an 8 rather than Move Off with, ostensibly, 7. I don't think an independent reader would have treated MO as other than a 7 at that stage, but of course VDW possibly carried his thinking on that issue to the "G Hall" example.
My main thought on having studied the material you and
Nellsman provided and thought more about timing of examples than I had before, is that VDW's later description of method in the 1988 Mackeson piece is the one to focus upon with current races. It loosens up some otherwise seemingly over-arbitrary "rules" and puts the three main elements - class, form and the "other factors" into a logical and very workable format. One for which the data generation, courtesy of Excel, is relatively straightforward to automate.
Last edited: