VDW examples analysed via the approach he showed in his 1988 Mackeson discussion (Pegwell Bay)
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
JennyK
Gelding
Subject to working through the details of each runner's last three races to confirm the form horse/not form horse judgements in column L, this is how the Swiss Maid race works out through the ten years later 1988 Mackeson approach. (The Life forecast has been used for column F. In this case one would get to the same, rather long, list of possibles using the Mail forecast, too.)
No way I can see via the Mackeson approach that one would by-pass Cistus in favour of second on class/form Swiss Maid.
No way I can see via the Mackeson approach that one would by-pass Cistus in favour of second on class/form Swiss Maid.
Attachments
Last edited:
There are things in the original Pegwell Bay article that bother me, as I've said before. One of them is due to what VDW says when laying out the basics of the consistency ratings by saying "from the 3 most consistent mark off the 3 highest ability" which I've always thought is a bit of a nonsense of a procedure, especially if there are just 3 horses occupying the 3 most consistent. Even in the PB example where there are 4 horses due to a joint 3rd CR, this still doesn't eliminate any horse as there is a tie on one of the ARs so they all qualify.
Then when he says to note the top 3 highest last class ratings, and again we have a tie for 3rd place with Pegwell Bay and Smart Tar. But straight away he says "Observe that Pegwell Bay is the only one to feature in the three most consistent and has the best form. Punters should now be alerted to the fact that Pegwell Bay is gaining a lot of plus marks, and suggestions that he is a Newbury horse are negated by the significant jockey change."
So how at this stage has he established that Pegwell Bay has the best form of these 4 horses? The plus points are there yes, but how has any strength in form been established at this stage?
He then says almost in the same breath how the jockey change (to Peter Scudamore) somehow negates any idea that PB only likes Newbury. Again, this makes little sense to me. Scu was a genius in the saddle, but if there was any truth to PB only going well at Newbury, then even he couldn't change that.
So coming back to Cistus & Swiss Maid, ability rating wise we clearly have two horses ahead, but on last class of race there appears to be a discrepancy. But only if we don't consider the class of opposition in those races.
Swiss Maid's last race was her 3rd raise in a row and she met 3 horses who had all run in the same better class race than the Newcastle one. They had been 2nd, 3rd & 4th to Cistus in the class 142 Grp 2 Nassau stakes. But Swiss Maid beat them all comfortably enough.
Cistus went from the Nassau (142) Gp 2 to way over the top at York (492) to proven Gp 1 horses and down the field, then dropped to 166 at Longchamp for another Gp 2. The 2 horses she beat, from the pari returns shows Cistus as just under an 11/4 chance for the win and a 10/11 for the place. The 2nd horse shows as 3/1 for the place which means more like an 8/1+ shot, and the 3rd horse Calderina as 4/5 the place which suggests she was either joint in the betting with Cistus or just above her. And it's not even clear if there wasn't an even shorter priced runner in the field.
I've tried to find a fuller result for this race or even some footage but alas the closest I came was footage of the race Arc on the same day. I did find some potentially useful info on the galopp-sieger site. They have any runs with placed form for 1978 and any in France for 77.
Calderina had won a Gp 2 and a Gp 3 at Longchamp that year before running 3rd in the Prix de l'Opera, and also placed in a Gp 1 at Chantilly in June, a head behind Cistus who was in turn 2 lengths behind the heavy odds on winner Reine De Saba. She then won the Gp 2 at Longchamp, then ran 3rd in a Gp 3 on Arc trials weekend at Longchamp behind Tempus Fugit who'd been behind both Cistus and Calderina in the Gp 1 at Chantilly.
The 2nd horse in the Prix de l'Opera was Reine Imperiale but there's no other runs listed on the site. She was trained by JC Cunnington Jr who seems to have been one of the Cunnington training dynasty and trained at Chantilly. However I found breeding info to say she won 2 races in France including the Prix de Seine-et-Marne (pattern status unknown), but no mention of group wins.
Anyway, as we know G.Hall was simply fanning the flames with his "midnight oil" letter and be that he was posing as a mere novice, he could only point to the basics as outlined in the Erin letter by his alter ego VDW. Which made no mention of ability ratings.
The problem is, how far did VDW take this play acting? The key spotted had to be something significant in the last 3 runs of the shortlisted horses. And he said it was found by going back through past results. But how much was Hall's full knowledge of the method being allowed to manifest itself in those G Hall selections given?
I think also, that when Hall said he started to use the "system" just a few days after VDW's letter and he had a winner for the Lincoln but then things went wrong, that all holds up as a plausible scenario (if Hall really had have had no knowledge of the method). Hall saying that fortunately VDW elaborated in the reply to Methodmaker was VDW's way of trying to flag more clues. But of course, very few people, if any, have nailed down just what was able to be found at that stage with the info Hall said helped him find the key.
Anyone who has read the early letters from 78 to 81 must have recognised that VDW probably wasn't just writing in as Hall. There were several others who seemed to ask the right questions to prompt a response from VDW, even ones who VDW derided. I don't know if Hall had written to the forum before the first letter we can see in The Golden Years, or what letters the likes of regular contributor WIN of Brighton had sent in. But I'd say it's odds on VDW wasn't just writing as Hall, but also several others.
Another discrepancy I noted was where VDW said he by chance got sight of a letter on his way to Hong Kong and other places and he didn't expect to be back in UK until some time in August. Perhaps he cut his trip short because that letter detailed a string of good things at the July Goodwood meeting rounding off with Philodantes, etc on the Saturday Aug 4th.
How did he catch up on the form in barely a day at most to find any winners at what was, I believe, a 3 day meeting starting on Aug 2nd?
Then when he says to note the top 3 highest last class ratings, and again we have a tie for 3rd place with Pegwell Bay and Smart Tar. But straight away he says "Observe that Pegwell Bay is the only one to feature in the three most consistent and has the best form. Punters should now be alerted to the fact that Pegwell Bay is gaining a lot of plus marks, and suggestions that he is a Newbury horse are negated by the significant jockey change."
So how at this stage has he established that Pegwell Bay has the best form of these 4 horses? The plus points are there yes, but how has any strength in form been established at this stage?
He then says almost in the same breath how the jockey change (to Peter Scudamore) somehow negates any idea that PB only likes Newbury. Again, this makes little sense to me. Scu was a genius in the saddle, but if there was any truth to PB only going well at Newbury, then even he couldn't change that.
So coming back to Cistus & Swiss Maid, ability rating wise we clearly have two horses ahead, but on last class of race there appears to be a discrepancy. But only if we don't consider the class of opposition in those races.
Swiss Maid's last race was her 3rd raise in a row and she met 3 horses who had all run in the same better class race than the Newcastle one. They had been 2nd, 3rd & 4th to Cistus in the class 142 Grp 2 Nassau stakes. But Swiss Maid beat them all comfortably enough.
Cistus went from the Nassau (142) Gp 2 to way over the top at York (492) to proven Gp 1 horses and down the field, then dropped to 166 at Longchamp for another Gp 2. The 2 horses she beat, from the pari returns shows Cistus as just under an 11/4 chance for the win and a 10/11 for the place. The 2nd horse shows as 3/1 for the place which means more like an 8/1+ shot, and the 3rd horse Calderina as 4/5 the place which suggests she was either joint in the betting with Cistus or just above her. And it's not even clear if there wasn't an even shorter priced runner in the field.
I've tried to find a fuller result for this race or even some footage but alas the closest I came was footage of the race Arc on the same day. I did find some potentially useful info on the galopp-sieger site. They have any runs with placed form for 1978 and any in France for 77.
Calderina had won a Gp 2 and a Gp 3 at Longchamp that year before running 3rd in the Prix de l'Opera, and also placed in a Gp 1 at Chantilly in June, a head behind Cistus who was in turn 2 lengths behind the heavy odds on winner Reine De Saba. She then won the Gp 2 at Longchamp, then ran 3rd in a Gp 3 on Arc trials weekend at Longchamp behind Tempus Fugit who'd been behind both Cistus and Calderina in the Gp 1 at Chantilly.
The 2nd horse in the Prix de l'Opera was Reine Imperiale but there's no other runs listed on the site. She was trained by JC Cunnington Jr who seems to have been one of the Cunnington training dynasty and trained at Chantilly. However I found breeding info to say she won 2 races in France including the Prix de Seine-et-Marne (pattern status unknown), but no mention of group wins.
Anyway, as we know G.Hall was simply fanning the flames with his "midnight oil" letter and be that he was posing as a mere novice, he could only point to the basics as outlined in the Erin letter by his alter ego VDW. Which made no mention of ability ratings.
The problem is, how far did VDW take this play acting? The key spotted had to be something significant in the last 3 runs of the shortlisted horses. And he said it was found by going back through past results. But how much was Hall's full knowledge of the method being allowed to manifest itself in those G Hall selections given?
I think also, that when Hall said he started to use the "system" just a few days after VDW's letter and he had a winner for the Lincoln but then things went wrong, that all holds up as a plausible scenario (if Hall really had have had no knowledge of the method). Hall saying that fortunately VDW elaborated in the reply to Methodmaker was VDW's way of trying to flag more clues. But of course, very few people, if any, have nailed down just what was able to be found at that stage with the info Hall said helped him find the key.
Anyone who has read the early letters from 78 to 81 must have recognised that VDW probably wasn't just writing in as Hall. There were several others who seemed to ask the right questions to prompt a response from VDW, even ones who VDW derided. I don't know if Hall had written to the forum before the first letter we can see in The Golden Years, or what letters the likes of regular contributor WIN of Brighton had sent in. But I'd say it's odds on VDW wasn't just writing as Hall, but also several others.
Another discrepancy I noted was where VDW said he by chance got sight of a letter on his way to Hong Kong and other places and he didn't expect to be back in UK until some time in August. Perhaps he cut his trip short because that letter detailed a string of good things at the July Goodwood meeting rounding off with Philodantes, etc on the Saturday Aug 4th.
How did he catch up on the form in barely a day at most to find any winners at what was, I believe, a 3 day meeting starting on Aug 2nd?
JennyK
Gelding
"So how at this stage has he established that Pegwell Bay has the best form of these 4 horses?"
I think by the evidence he summarised in his table earlier in the article. Pegwell Bay had run in generally better races over the relevant distance than the other three and certainly had the best last run.
re the Goodwood 1979 selections, one thing we know for sure about Hall is that he did go on what to many, especially at that time, would seem like exotic overseas trips. I write "for sure" not because of what he told Mr Peach (much of which was not true), but because of the proof I have seen. One of VDW's friends (there is some reason for thinking of him as his best friend) lived in the West Indies and I have personally seen postcards Hall sent from there, the USA, Tahiti, Fiji, Australia, Ghana and South Africa (though none from summer 1979) as well as from nearer destinations like Malta, so there is no doubt he was someone who travelled quite a lot.
Sometimes Hall went on cruises, on one of which he apparently met his third wife, where dates would have been fixed, but not always, and the journey he claims to have started on 07/06/79 to Hong Kong, Singapore, Bali, Honolulu and Los Angeles gives the sense of being something individually planned rather than the first stage of what was mainly a cruise. That he might have been back in the UK in late July rather than August thus does not seem unlikely.
I think by the evidence he summarised in his table earlier in the article. Pegwell Bay had run in generally better races over the relevant distance than the other three and certainly had the best last run.
re the Goodwood 1979 selections, one thing we know for sure about Hall is that he did go on what to many, especially at that time, would seem like exotic overseas trips. I write "for sure" not because of what he told Mr Peach (much of which was not true), but because of the proof I have seen. One of VDW's friends (there is some reason for thinking of him as his best friend) lived in the West Indies and I have personally seen postcards Hall sent from there, the USA, Tahiti, Fiji, Australia, Ghana and South Africa (though none from summer 1979) as well as from nearer destinations like Malta, so there is no doubt he was someone who travelled quite a lot.
Sometimes Hall went on cruises, on one of which he apparently met his third wife, where dates would have been fixed, but not always, and the journey he claims to have started on 07/06/79 to Hong Kong, Singapore, Bali, Honolulu and Los Angeles gives the sense of being something individually planned rather than the first stage of what was mainly a cruise. That he might have been back in the UK in late July rather than August thus does not seem unlikely.
You wouldn't happen to know this guy's name would you? Or his nationality?
JennyK
Gelding
From correspondence I've seen, I've assumed their friendship went back a long way, though the name isn't mentioned. However, one of Hall's beneficiaries was a man living in the West Indies and I assume that he was the friend to whom Hall had made reference. I don't recall the name but you can find it from the will if interested.
If my assumption is right, and they were school friends or met doing National Service, the friend would likely have been British and at some point had emigrated.
If my assumption is right, and they were school friends or met doing National Service, the friend would likely have been British and at some point had emigrated.
JennyK
Gelding
Even with the latest reasonably full description of his methodical approach as per the 1988 Mackeson analysis, there are arbitrary aspects - top three on consistency/ability, three from highest class lto races etc - to VDW which trouble me as they invite the question why three (or indeed any specific number)?
In working examples through the prism of the 1988 Mackeson approach, it occurred to me that one could use VDW's components without arbitrary "rules" and what I now see as unnecessary "refinements" by going back to his original formula - Consistent Form + Ability + Capbility + Probability + Hard Work = Winners.
Leaving aside hard work, what do we know about the other four?
Consistent form. VDW gave "rules" but what did he do in practice? The very large majority of his selections had single figure consistency totals, those with 10 or more being (a) a small minority and (b) with a reasonably obvious reason for leaving a high individual component of the three to one side (examples include Love From Verona, Crown Matrimonial and Gaye Chance).
Ability. Some of VDW's examples were top on his ability rating, but others were not. There may be others but the only example I have noted so far as NOT in the top six on the ability rating was Kings Ride (of whom more later).
Capability. My assumption is this comprised the "other factors" in his "the balance between class, form and the other factors" formulation, and over the years he gave examples of unsuitable distance, going, weight and course type.
Probability. I take to be position in the forecast, the first five/six producing a high percentage of winners.
Re-ordering these to focus initially on those which are - from VDW's perspective - intrinsic to the individual horse - it is possible to work though a field until one isolates the class/form horse as per the re-worked 1988 Mackeson in the four attachments.
In the first, the only working column filled is Ability, which arguably VDW saw as the most important, and one obviously sorts by his ability rating, high to low, so from Townley Stone to Giolla Padraig. (I have opted to colour the top six green, not because any horse lower in the ranking could under no circumstances be the class/form horse, but to indicate it would be unusual. From a VDW viewpoint it would mean there were at least six other runners with greater ability and although none may be form horses there is obviously a chance the one or more may return to form and win.
In the second screenshot I have also filled the Form column, a simple yes or no applying VDW's form status rating approach. (All his selections from 1978 to 1980 were "form" horses.) This excludes four of the top six on ability, leaving Jim Thorpe as the highest ability-rated form horse, ahead of Pegwell Bay and three others.
In the third screenshot I have filled the Capability column as far as necessary. From the examples it looks as though VDW took things on trust where there was no contrary evidence - eg horses running over previously untried distances - and only disqualified a horse where to his mind there was clearly contrary evidence. Jim Thorpe in the 1988 Mackeson being a case in point.
In the fourth screenshot I have added the two considerations I now think of contextual - Consistency and Probability. I have coloured single-figure consistency totals green as we know from a VDW standpoint we are on safe ground. Ditto the first six in the forecast (I don't have any data for NH handicaps but for Flat ones with 12 and 16 runners about 85% of winners come from the first six in the returned betting and it is reasonable to think that a broadly similar figure would come from the Post's forecasts). Happily, Pegwell Bay gets green lights on both - he has a low single-figure consistency total and is in the first six of the forecast. If he failed to get a green on either, in my view that would not be a disqualifier - merely something one would need to consider when deciding whether or not to back him.
So, a solid class/form horse though not what VDW sometimes described as a "racing certainty" as he faced four competitiors who, although disqualified on either form or capability, were in principle of greater ability and one of them making good could not be completely disregarded. Nevertheless, undertandable that VDW backed him.
I am still checking VDW examples but the above simplifying and re-ordering of his 1988 Mackeson example seems to me to have three advantages. First, it achieves the same answers. Second, it avoids the more obviously arbitrary aspects of his way of working. Third, assuming one has the right databases, it is quick and efficient.
re Kings Ride, he was very low down the ability ranking table. The question is, was he a VDW selection (ie what he saw as the class/form horse in the race) or mentioned to draw attention to the force of consistency and being in the first six of the forecast? I'm inclined to the latter view.
In working examples through the prism of the 1988 Mackeson approach, it occurred to me that one could use VDW's components without arbitrary "rules" and what I now see as unnecessary "refinements" by going back to his original formula - Consistent Form + Ability + Capbility + Probability + Hard Work = Winners.
Leaving aside hard work, what do we know about the other four?
Consistent form. VDW gave "rules" but what did he do in practice? The very large majority of his selections had single figure consistency totals, those with 10 or more being (a) a small minority and (b) with a reasonably obvious reason for leaving a high individual component of the three to one side (examples include Love From Verona, Crown Matrimonial and Gaye Chance).
Ability. Some of VDW's examples were top on his ability rating, but others were not. There may be others but the only example I have noted so far as NOT in the top six on the ability rating was Kings Ride (of whom more later).
Capability. My assumption is this comprised the "other factors" in his "the balance between class, form and the other factors" formulation, and over the years he gave examples of unsuitable distance, going, weight and course type.
Probability. I take to be position in the forecast, the first five/six producing a high percentage of winners.
Re-ordering these to focus initially on those which are - from VDW's perspective - intrinsic to the individual horse - it is possible to work though a field until one isolates the class/form horse as per the re-worked 1988 Mackeson in the four attachments.
In the first, the only working column filled is Ability, which arguably VDW saw as the most important, and one obviously sorts by his ability rating, high to low, so from Townley Stone to Giolla Padraig. (I have opted to colour the top six green, not because any horse lower in the ranking could under no circumstances be the class/form horse, but to indicate it would be unusual. From a VDW viewpoint it would mean there were at least six other runners with greater ability and although none may be form horses there is obviously a chance the one or more may return to form and win.
In the second screenshot I have also filled the Form column, a simple yes or no applying VDW's form status rating approach. (All his selections from 1978 to 1980 were "form" horses.) This excludes four of the top six on ability, leaving Jim Thorpe as the highest ability-rated form horse, ahead of Pegwell Bay and three others.
In the third screenshot I have filled the Capability column as far as necessary. From the examples it looks as though VDW took things on trust where there was no contrary evidence - eg horses running over previously untried distances - and only disqualified a horse where to his mind there was clearly contrary evidence. Jim Thorpe in the 1988 Mackeson being a case in point.
In the fourth screenshot I have added the two considerations I now think of contextual - Consistency and Probability. I have coloured single-figure consistency totals green as we know from a VDW standpoint we are on safe ground. Ditto the first six in the forecast (I don't have any data for NH handicaps but for Flat ones with 12 and 16 runners about 85% of winners come from the first six in the returned betting and it is reasonable to think that a broadly similar figure would come from the Post's forecasts). Happily, Pegwell Bay gets green lights on both - he has a low single-figure consistency total and is in the first six of the forecast. If he failed to get a green on either, in my view that would not be a disqualifier - merely something one would need to consider when deciding whether or not to back him.
So, a solid class/form horse though not what VDW sometimes described as a "racing certainty" as he faced four competitiors who, although disqualified on either form or capability, were in principle of greater ability and one of them making good could not be completely disregarded. Nevertheless, undertandable that VDW backed him.
I am still checking VDW examples but the above simplifying and re-ordering of his 1988 Mackeson example seems to me to have three advantages. First, it achieves the same answers. Second, it avoids the more obviously arbitrary aspects of his way of working. Third, assuming one has the right databases, it is quick and efficient.
re Kings Ride, he was very low down the ability ranking table. The question is, was he a VDW selection (ie what he saw as the class/form horse in the race) or mentioned to draw attention to the force of consistency and being in the first six of the forecast? I'm inclined to the latter view.
Attachments
Last edited:
gerry
Mare
The brain is supposed to be the best possible computer ever invented so if thats the case why cant we work out what is the possible way to find most winners or at least alot of them.
The reason is trainers build up horses and let them down till they want to get it right for a certain race , Now we all do know that ofcourse but dont have the connection to every trainer in every race to ask that question before race then we would have the possibility to have good idea of the winner.
Thats why times or form or going or track dont work for the majority of races there is a hidden horse or two in just about every race that makes sure we get unstuck and we all know that to.
The point i am making is VDW to say he got 80% winners is absolutley nonsense to the highest degree there is no holy grail and for him to prove it after race is laughable at the least.
The only way to have even the slightest chance of winning is being in the know even some of the time is better than no time at all.
And even that dosnt gaurantee the winner just that its a tryer at least.
So now our brains have worked out its near impossible to beat i would not say bent racing but a game where you play games at with trying and none tryers maybe and its just a maybe its time to start looking a little closer at trainers and wonder what there doing with the horse i think will still be near impossible to work out but at least the brain is focusing on new data to unscrable this crazy game.
I would guess that every grand master at chess would find this game alot more difficult to master than chess , Infact i would think after trying for few years would come to one conclusion and thats all of them this isnt a game its corrupt and no end result which to them would be a game of chance.
So they would go back to chess and think god this is so much easier.
The reason is trainers build up horses and let them down till they want to get it right for a certain race , Now we all do know that ofcourse but dont have the connection to every trainer in every race to ask that question before race then we would have the possibility to have good idea of the winner.
Thats why times or form or going or track dont work for the majority of races there is a hidden horse or two in just about every race that makes sure we get unstuck and we all know that to.
The point i am making is VDW to say he got 80% winners is absolutley nonsense to the highest degree there is no holy grail and for him to prove it after race is laughable at the least.
The only way to have even the slightest chance of winning is being in the know even some of the time is better than no time at all.
And even that dosnt gaurantee the winner just that its a tryer at least.
So now our brains have worked out its near impossible to beat i would not say bent racing but a game where you play games at with trying and none tryers maybe and its just a maybe its time to start looking a little closer at trainers and wonder what there doing with the horse i think will still be near impossible to work out but at least the brain is focusing on new data to unscrable this crazy game.
I would guess that every grand master at chess would find this game alot more difficult to master than chess , Infact i would think after trying for few years would come to one conclusion and thats all of them this isnt a game its corrupt and no end result which to them would be a game of chance.
So they would go back to chess and think god this is so much easier.
DuckandDive
Mare
Reckon it boils down to Known (Formbook) and Unknown (Inside) information. As you say, if you have both, you're in good shape. Quite a few pro gamblers have a contact or trusted source to call upon for "advice, " if it tallys with their own research, then they increase their stake.
The bookies will happily accept more bets from the formbook type punters for a reason, and keep out the insiders, using the affordability checks as a way of identifying them and removing them forthwith.
A thread like this is always interesting to read, as it can spark some creativity in an area that doesn't get much coverage.
Biggest edge we have is to choose when/when not to bet. A no-bet and avoiding a loser, is as good a feeling as backing a winner, sometimes.
DuckandDive
Mare
Re-VDW, would you consider "narrowing the field" was more arbitrary, in order to maybe reduce the field and save time focussing on his main qualifiers?
Chesham
Sire
JennyK
Gelding
gerry "The point i am making is VDW to say he got 80% winners is absolutley nonsense to the highest degree there is no holy grail and for him to prove it after race is laughable at the least."
No question, as far as anyone knows he never proofed his strike rate claims.
I am a fair tennis player and won both the small hard court tournaments I entered, but I had difficulty winning any games when I played a Surrey county junior player, who in turn would be equally out of depth playing a Wimbledon champion. So who knows what someone with good judgement and a proper understanding of VDW's approach could achieve. Lee came pretty close to 80% in pre race selections he posted on the Gummy thread, before the races concerned. Admittedly over a shortish period. But if he can do that ....
DuckandDiveYes, and no longer necessary. Things have moved on, data processing-wise, light years since the VDW years. I can download more data for a given race in ten minutes than VDW could have in ten hours, and judging by the number of tables he has been posting of late, so can T Tufnel and, presumably, any subscriber to the data service he uses.
These days there is no need to compromise between narrowing the field early and looking at the whole field because of the time it takes to assemble the data. So why bother focusing only on the first six in the forecast, or the horses with the three lowest consistency rates from those six, when one knows sometimes that excludes the winner early, when one can as quickly work methodically through the field in ability rating order, knowing that almost all of VDW's claimed selections were in the top six and form horses on his way of rating form status?
gerry
Mare
Yeah i did find it interesting since joining this thread that he had some thing, As i already new that consistant horses exspecially in better races always done well even more so in the jump racing.
But i also found out that if horse A beat horse B and C , Then horse A and horse B came out next time then ran and both ran poor it didnt always mean horse C would come out next time and run poor it could still win and end up being the most consistant horse of the three.
As we have found collateral form dosnt always work out and its possible consistant form is more important it could be just next time the three meet horse C will turn tables just because it runs it race again and other two dont.
A other thing is with the false favs thats not a bad thing if your laying them but for it to be a guide to winners you still have the rest of the field to find winner not as easy as said.
But if 30% of favs win then maybe analysing the best 30% of the days favs is the way to go rate them till you wittle them down to best 30%.
Now you have the market and hopfully a nice bunch of horses to bet where you could get a nice percent of winners .
would it be enough to show decent profit possibly and would you do it at what time of day to get better guide of market not easy to answer as would not be able to study them all minutes before race for most.
Only way i think could work round this is get the races you think the fav should win but instead of betting horse bet the fav only that way your not
only betting fav but yoru just giving your edge on market of one getting gambled in by your original fancy.
But i also found out that if horse A beat horse B and C , Then horse A and horse B came out next time then ran and both ran poor it didnt always mean horse C would come out next time and run poor it could still win and end up being the most consistant horse of the three.
As we have found collateral form dosnt always work out and its possible consistant form is more important it could be just next time the three meet horse C will turn tables just because it runs it race again and other two dont.
A other thing is with the false favs thats not a bad thing if your laying them but for it to be a guide to winners you still have the rest of the field to find winner not as easy as said.
But if 30% of favs win then maybe analysing the best 30% of the days favs is the way to go rate them till you wittle them down to best 30%.
Now you have the market and hopfully a nice bunch of horses to bet where you could get a nice percent of winners .
would it be enough to show decent profit possibly and would you do it at what time of day to get better guide of market not easy to answer as would not be able to study them all minutes before race for most.
Only way i think could work round this is get the races you think the fav should win but instead of betting horse bet the fav only that way your not
only betting fav but yoru just giving your edge on market of one getting gambled in by your original fancy.
DuckandDive
Mare
That's a good way to go.
The combined data sets I use are on different websites and not downloadable, but free to access.
I think the availability of, and variety of information today compared to VDW'S day, is very significant in the context of his methods, indeed the vast amount of information readily available today, may take us further away from finding the solutions to his methods.
He only really had, if I am correct, the newspapers and formbooks, and then his own records. Lee said that he himself analyses the racing results at the end of each day, which is something VDW probably did as well.
Everything was manual and time consuming, what can be seen at a glance today would have taken much more time back then.
He only really had, if I am correct, the newspapers and formbooks, and then his own records. Lee said that he himself analyses the racing results at the end of each day, which is something VDW probably did as well.
Everything was manual and time consuming, what can be seen at a glance today would have taken much more time back then.
gerry
Mare
What you get analysing races after the days racing is that there always some races where you could not bet the winner on any known form wether its track going distance weight mark just could not bet it.
So what did that trainer know or was he really not exspecting it either .
Any way it happens alot and surely it can only win that race if it has lesser horses to beat and there surely was a false fav or maybe false first three in other words a poor race it managed to show some form and win.
So i think you really have to find horses where there form is so solid even if these outsiders improve they wont beat it and thats surely all about consistancy and class.
So what did that trainer know or was he really not exspecting it either .
Any way it happens alot and surely it can only win that race if it has lesser horses to beat and there surely was a false fav or maybe false first three in other words a poor race it managed to show some form and win.
So i think you really have to find horses where there form is so solid even if these outsiders improve they wont beat it and thats surely all about consistancy and class.
gerry
Mare
After analysing todays favs only done the two meetings this afternoon so at 30% winning you would exspect 2 to 4 horses no more as would then jump to high.
I only looked at first three in betting see if the two closest where meriting dangers which would throw fav out of being justified fav, And of course something bigger price could come and shock but at least would need beat a justified fav for the race.
So when i looked through them i got 4 and surprising as was not meant to happen one was second fav who i thought had enough to be a justified fav.
So here is the four lets see if they run well as they should do at least.
ROUGUE STATE 1 40 MUSSELBURGH.
This horse has been fancied last twice and beat running to free both at ripon but this track should suit better for that.
Went to omeara for last run and he put cheeks on to help and going by TS and RPR was far better run than last races so he might now have track to suit its style trainer going well and dangers look nothing special.
DUNNINGTON LAD 3 10 MUSSELBURGH.
This horse won twice at ripon making all and again i think this track should suit front running or being close up with pace.
Flying the flag for stable over flat this horse has nice jockey claiming 7lb which should help has had couple winners lately so could be good move bagging him to ride this.
Just noticed not fav now and that the beauty i mentioned earlier do you just put fav in these races or name horse lets see what happens.
LITTLE TED 4 10 MUSSELBURGH.
This is the one i thougth should be fav but actually second fav now third fav, Last time it won was here and i think ground ideal to run well.
Back to amile should suit and d allan on it for first time in while is interesting too.
The main reason i land on them is the horses round them in betting dont look as strong for what ever reason.
EY UP ITS THE BOSS 2 25 RIPON.
This is a other one who i just noticed is not fav now but was selection this morning anyway.
This horse run third two days ago in a race i fancied the winner strongly and won last time here so i think really strong reasons to be fav here.
Jockey on it has had winner lately when fancied so looks solid booking.
Trainer having ok season on turf too i think he will fancy this if ground dosnt get wet.
So will be interesting on two points today do my justified favs do well or do favs in finished forcast do well at end of race.
Well three points actually is it total wash out of favs or close to market and big price winners.
I only looked at first three in betting see if the two closest where meriting dangers which would throw fav out of being justified fav, And of course something bigger price could come and shock but at least would need beat a justified fav for the race.
So when i looked through them i got 4 and surprising as was not meant to happen one was second fav who i thought had enough to be a justified fav.
So here is the four lets see if they run well as they should do at least.
ROUGUE STATE 1 40 MUSSELBURGH.
This horse has been fancied last twice and beat running to free both at ripon but this track should suit better for that.
Went to omeara for last run and he put cheeks on to help and going by TS and RPR was far better run than last races so he might now have track to suit its style trainer going well and dangers look nothing special.
DUNNINGTON LAD 3 10 MUSSELBURGH.
This horse won twice at ripon making all and again i think this track should suit front running or being close up with pace.
Flying the flag for stable over flat this horse has nice jockey claiming 7lb which should help has had couple winners lately so could be good move bagging him to ride this.
Just noticed not fav now and that the beauty i mentioned earlier do you just put fav in these races or name horse lets see what happens.
LITTLE TED 4 10 MUSSELBURGH.
This is the one i thougth should be fav but actually second fav now third fav, Last time it won was here and i think ground ideal to run well.
Back to amile should suit and d allan on it for first time in while is interesting too.
The main reason i land on them is the horses round them in betting dont look as strong for what ever reason.
EY UP ITS THE BOSS 2 25 RIPON.
This is a other one who i just noticed is not fav now but was selection this morning anyway.
This horse run third two days ago in a race i fancied the winner strongly and won last time here so i think really strong reasons to be fav here.
Jockey on it has had winner lately when fancied so looks solid booking.
Trainer having ok season on turf too i think he will fancy this if ground dosnt get wet.
So will be interesting on two points today do my justified favs do well or do favs in finished forcast do well at end of race.
Well three points actually is it total wash out of favs or close to market and big price winners.
Chesham
Sire
Hi Gerry
The Price Disparity for Little Ted = 2.46 (market snap shot taken at 1.40
Price Disparity for Mr Stutter = 0.54 (market Snap Shot taken shortly after above
It can suggest the the BF layers want to take on Little Ted and are offering much shorter odds than the implied odds should be for Mr Strutter
The Price Disparity for Little Ted = 2.46 (market snap shot taken at 1.40
Price Disparity for Mr Stutter = 0.54 (market Snap Shot taken shortly after above
It can suggest the the BF layers want to take on Little Ted and are offering much shorter odds than the implied odds should be for Mr Strutter
Last edited: