Re VDW

Can I just say, as I started this thread originally, thanks to everyone who has partcipated. Even those who are not or never will be convinced!

Marchwood

Hello Mtoto

I will look back into the information and see whether I can cast any further light on Beacon.
From the Trainer's point of view, I would like to think that it was based on the horses very
promising run in the race last year and he felt
that a year older and trained for the Erins Race this year, he could produce the right result. It is this type of Trainer's thinking that leads to winners.

As for Decent Fellow, please remember this race was the first that VDW mentioned and surely was
in no small way used to show the Numerical Picture
(top 3 and first 5 or 6 in the betting forecast).
Therefore, Decent Fellow would not come into the reckoning! In the same way as Hati Roy yesterday!

Thanks as always for your response

Marchwood

From the latest postings and Marchwoods article there are a number of questions raised.

Firstly with regards to points raised by Fulham , it can be seen that Prominent King took a long time to find his form in his second season and regardless of how he had been placed prior to the 1976 Irish Sweeps event the fact was he hadn’t shown enough to warrant being 4/1 2nd favourite on the day. The fact that he was though had to be noted. He was then 4th beaten under 12 lengths in the 1977 Erins Food race beaten by the Irish Sweeps winner Master Monday who was on 19lb worse terms with Prominent King. The 2nd horse was the very talented Comedy Of Errors dual winner of both the Cheltenham Champion Hurdle and The Irish Sweeps Hurdle. A decent run then on conditions race terms , but as noted by Fulham connections had to wait for next season to get the show back on the road.

Without going into too much detail on PKs subsequent runs, for it is my intention only to nudge anyone interested in the right direction , I would just say that if you read the Prominent King letter again and the Little Owl correspondance also , do so with an inquiring mind. If VDW mentioned something it was for good reason though not always an obvious one. Sometime after the Little Owl/Sunset Cristo article , WIN of Brighton put forward his thoughts on VDWs evaluations. Along with totally misunderstanding how VDW was utilising the ability ratings , WIN suggested that Lucky Owl was a risky bet to make , hadn’t beaten anything and he had been fortunate in that Wayward Lad made his departure before the race was over. He then went on to infer that Little Owl had been lucky to win the Gold Cup as well. VDW defended his evaluations admirably pointing out that he noted Lesley Ann (another WIN implied was rubbish) had once again thrashed Wayward Lad at Cheltenham. Those looking closely and with an inquiring mind would spot something in VDWs reply , as on numerous other occassions , of real value that would help to clear some of the confusion.

A word on Beacon Light. He won his 2 races prior to Sandown held up with a late run yet made a lot of the running before Sea Pigeon took the spoils. So many seem to struggle with the logic of Beacon Light being a false favourite. Yes he had ability but was he in form ? At face value both PK & BL had finished 2nd last time but only one of them should really have done better.

To Mtoto – Decent Fellow was beaten a distance when 3rd of 3 and the placing was recorded as 10. VDW clearly stated common sense should prevail in the case of a horse finishing close up but last in a small field.

With regards to the false favourite Batswing on Friday it was yet another indication of how the markets come to be. Week after week , Big Mac , Alastair Down or Stato can be seen to be jumping up and down about the days steamer with all the firms reporting good money for it. Why ? It is plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the horse in question is usually the Pricewise selection in the Racing Post and bookmakers are simply covering all their bases by shortening the horse up and hopefully getting others on board as well. And so , like lambs to the slaughter or lemmings off a cliff , punters become bewitched by the magical money horse. Sure , now & then the tipsters get on a true live one but not enough to ensure most of the money stays in the bookies accounts in the long run. If only those who followed just stopped and thought about it , they could actually profit from this sort of situation. The connections Fulham mentions should not surprise anyone really. Personally I am not surprised so many “professional” tipsters can afford to own racehorses. Looking at how much they all charge for their services it’s a wonder they need to bet horses for a living at all. Food for thought there perhaps.

Guest

Please don't miss understand me. I am trying to look at the old races to see if I would come to the same conclusions as vdw. If I ask questions it is not to be argumentative, but out of a real desire to understand.

The Decent Fellow
The question was to show that the figures must be examined in detail.I am not sure I would have given DF a consistency rating of 10 for his last race. Agreed he finished last beaten 25 lths, but wasn't the distance beaten meaningless. He didn't have to improve or hold a place, he was third and last be it 25, or 2 lengths. If this was a prep race like the Ascot race before Leopardstown. In that race there where more runners and possible trouble (from the stewards) if the jockey had stopped riding.

Beacon Light
I am not saying he had not gone over the top. I just think a bit to much is begin read into his last defeat. The change of tactics could have been to try to kill the finishing kick of Sea Pigeon, from what I can remember he had speed. Another thing PK's trainer would not have known about this down turn in form, and had decided he could beat an inform BL. I can't see either of the last 2 runs would confirm that. The only other run was the 4th, was that good enough by it's self? I think I may have the answer, but would like to confirm it with someone as knowledgeable as you If you don't feel the board is the right place to post it, could you contact me direct my address is in the profile.

Regards

Just a quick reply to Mtoto and others.

Firstly , like yourself, anything I may say is not to be argumentitive just how I see things. Obviously if I know something to be incorrect I will point it out. As we all know , the written word can be quite cold in conveyance and personally my aim is not put anyone down who is trying to solve the VDW problems rather lend a hand.

As a punter it is down to us as to evaluate a race and decide if there is a winner in the race. The trainers place their horses and it is for us to sit and observe. We should only go in with the cash when all the evidence points to our candidate. It matters not to us that Prominent Kings trainer may not have seen Beacon Lights downturn. A trainer is only really concerned with his horses. We only make the bets when our evaluation agrees with the placing of the horse by the trainer. Remember , trainers are a lot like parents at the annual school sports day. As far as they are concerned their kids are better than the others and they can be too close to be totally objective. Of course we can be cold , logical and objective and this is what makes up the all important temperament. You only have to note the comments made pre or post race by trainers to see how they really view things. Some are far too confident and others may seem to put you away. The very successful Martin Pipe was recently asked for a comment about 2 of his horses chances on successive Saturdays. Of It Takes Time his quote was “Brother Joe is a good thing”. The following week of Wahiba Sands he said that “Best Mate was a certainty”. The results were very interesting when placed next to the above.

The answer as to Beacon Lights dismissal lies in getting the correct balance between form and class. This does mean taking into account ALL the fact(or)s. To be more specific would I feel give the game away , something I am not about to do , not because I can’t but because of what I have said previously about the way VDW put his brilliantly devised methods across. There was a reason as to why he didn’t reveal all.

Hi

The thread seems to have gone quite over the last couple of days. Although it does seem to have fragmented a little with another couple of threads with vdw related topics.

I hope that is not the last we hear from Guest, he has a lot of useful knowledge and is well versed in the vdw methodology. I wonder if he swerved Manx Magic for the same reasons as myself, or did he spot another weakness in the horse's form. Missing losers is nearly as much fun as picking winners.

Analysing the old vdw examples is hard work, and I am surprised at the amount of detail he must have gone into. Of the ones I have looked at it has not been possible to get the full story by just using the last three outing. They have all qualified under his consistancy rating but to get the full picture you have to go further back. Being a lazy person by nature I hope some of the others are a lot easier!

I don't know if I am pleased or not, but Pazuza seems to have lost some of his anger (frustration) and now admits it MAY be possible to get winners and make a profit using vdw. Hope to show you all and him it is very possible to do just that. It will never be a bet every day procedure though.

Regards

To me, because I still aren't as convinced as others about actual form figures, Flaxey Wood 2.10 at Plum fits my interpretation of VDW a treat. Note form figs 254-P59. Easily the class horse, easily the fastest horse. And my get out clause is they won't all win anyhow
Yours
Swish

Here is a picture of me when Whats Up Boys won:

Sorry,
Once again the picture thing does not work,
forget it
Swish

flaxly wood looks prepared for the race more than the others anyway
also weet a minute apart from the lay off but trainer is in good form

Here is a picture of swish when Whats Up Boys won:

Dear Tubs,
Thank you for solving the picture problem, for me. Most grateful. I may try a couple more later,
Yours
Swish

Well I was wrong about Flaxley Wood, and as it turns out, Marchwoods form figs, worked a treat with ZABADI (22121) winning at a smashing 4-1. I should have posted TOMCAPPAGH instead which won at 6-1 with form figs 9045 but I just thought I would post the certainty!!!!!!!!!????????
Yours
Swish

reveley strikes again gets the donkeys fit leaves the fancied ones

Hello Swish,
You are nearly there with the pictures thing don't give up, the reason it didn't show was because you had http twice in the url :http://http://www.time-communications.co.uk/gummypics/smile.jpg
I have some bananas going cheap if you want them.

Gummy

Ha Ha , Nice one Gummy! Have you any budgies going cheep?!

My God !! Swish is my mother in law !!

Good one John, and all this time you never knew!

Sandown 2-05

On the face of it One Knight looks home and hosed, but after looking in detail there are a couple of things I don't like about him. Is he improving? Fastest ever time in a much lower class. How good is the form of the last race? I would have expected it to be run in a much faster time. So what did he beat? second favourite finish lame, 3rd favourite has since proved he is a hard ride who does not put a lot into the finish. 4th favourite was ridden as if there is a doubt about him staying. All in all a worrying race, take it out of the equation and One Knight's figures don't look that good. The next question must be, why the doubt about Rouble staying in that race, or was the real worry fitness? If there is a worry on staying it will be found out today, I would not be surprised if Rouble reversed the form with OK today. Will that be good enough? There is the good genuine El Viejo to beat. He has done nothing wrong, in fact he has improved. He won his race on guts, expected to be cut down after the last. I am left with the decision is El Viejo a value bet, I think the 6/1 I've taken is a very good bet. I think the other 2 are very poor value, but that would not be a good reason to bet on it's own. To be a value bet it must have a good chance of winning, I think it has a very good chance


Regards

Guest.

I was wondering if you would pass some comments on the 2-05 at Sandown today. It was you that said if we understood vdw we would all back the same horse. After this race I must ask why? How many of you decided the class/form horse was an illusion? If you did, how many decided Rouble MAY not stay? How many decided El Vieso had done nothing wrong and was improving and in with a better than fair chance. Of course some of you would have taken One Knight at face value. Anyone that decided O.K's form was an illusion, could made out a good case for the either of the other 2. I am not for a moment suggesting there is anything wrong with the method, but it all comes down to the assessment of the form.

Regards