does that happen ?

unfortunately on occasions it does.

there`s one running this week who`s form is one hell of an illusion and VDW or not I`ve been waiting for this one for along time.

This thread doesn't seem in any outstanding way to be VDW-specific. Contributors discuss the merits of form in quite readily discernible terms. As Fulham has pointed out, we first have to decide whether or not to bet and as the majority of races are not confidently solvable they are not bet on. I'm really puzzled as to why anybody would think the 3:50 was worth more than a cursory glance. VDW said the punter is constantly putting the odds against himself. It strikes me that if you bet on the 3:50 you didn't understand what he meant and if such is the case it's difficult to believe you understand hidden factors, between the lines and all the rest of it. I think you'd better read the lines and consider the obvious factors before indulging in these fantasies.

Epiglotis - The point I think you are trying to make just doesn't hold up against what VDW showed us, even on the obvious level. He gave quite a few examples involving The Old Newton Cup including a quite detailed evaluation involving Roushayd. Unfortunately, because VDW decided to emphasise one or two factors such as race class and speed figures, many interested readers simply concluded that all they had to look for were horses dropping in race value after showing improved speed figures in ever increasing value races. The truth is there was much more to it than that, as VDW indicated with subtle warnings such as "please bear in mind that in practice all horses recieve the same attention". As an example, the 1987 winner Pipsted was given as a good thing but the basic race value/speed figure element was different to Roushayd.

Any race put under the spotlight by us the punter needs far more than a cursory glance. Things are never quite what they seem on the surface as with most things in life.

Determined - Heretic was beaten at odds on against a lightly raced stablemate after showing decent form first time up in a handicap. Takamaka Bay should surely have won last weekend at a short price against Optimaite, just as he did a few days before winning at Royal Ascot last season.

Epiglotis

I think you've put your finger on what, for me, is one of the on-going difficulties: how much time does one spend in analysing a likely race?

Taking yesterday's Old Newton Cup as an example, sorting out the basics - the consistency and ability ratings for seven horses (there being co-sixth favs. in the forecast), and noting which (on VDW's criteria) were "in form" - took no more than a few minutes, as in my view there were no particular difficulties with the "form" issue.

Sorting out those basics enables one to isolate the "class/form" horse etc., and at that stage it was fairly evident that the c/f was no "good thing". The question then was whether it was worthwhile to pursue the analysis to see if the 2nd or 3rd c/fs, or even a horse outside the first seven in the betting, offered potential opportunities. (Occasionally VDW did find a good thing from outside the first few in the forecast, as with the 1979 Leger winner Barney referred to earlier today.)

Yesterday I went further, examining the claims of the 2nd and 3rd c/fs, and briefly reviewing the rest of the field, before concluding that there was no bet. But all that takes time, and I suppose I spent half an hour on the race before judging that I was unlikely to find a bet.

As Barney has pointed out, however, I had not reviewed the rest of the field as carefully as I might. For while Sun Bird seemed "out of form" on his last run, VDW did from time to time, usually for clear reasons, disregard last runs in assessing whether a horse was "in form". And Barney is right in saying that a case can be made for regarding Sun Bird as "in form".

Even if one had reached the judgement that Sun Bird was "in form", there were plenty of contra-indications (some mentioned in my reply to you last evening), and personally I can't see him as ever emerging as a serious bet. (It is, however, interesting that had Sun Bird been regarded as being "in form", his ability rating was higher than those of the 2nd and co-3rd c/fs and, unlike the c/f, he had won at the distance. So my reply to you last night may have been premature, and a really capable VDW analyst just might have found him!)

But knowing when to leave an analysis and move on to the next is, at least for me, a genuine practical problem as yet inadequately resolved. There is a world of difference between analysing a race under time constraint before the "off", and studying at one's leisure the examples VDW gave us.

good evening,

vdw said to analyse the two highest value race on the main race card and the second card highest value race.I think that the reason for this is vdw understood the detail that must go into each analysis(i have previously said every runner in the race its whole career) and he knew that this cant be done in a quick glance at the morning papers.Making time available is also a prerequisit when studying the race and vdw said to study all the races, in that detail, whether a bet was found or not. This is the hard work part which many are not prepared to put in even if they are aware of some obvious factors.

If this process is followed correctly then even if no selection is made the notes can be refered to when looking at the actual result and understanding obtained quicker.There is just as much to find in the 2001 form book as the 1978 one

pick any race card with a suitable race look through the whole fields form and find out why it won. The reasons are exactly the same now as 25 years ago and always will be.

Pipsted was considered a good thing by VDW ?

I`ll start with the numerical picture taking the starting price for the forecast.

From the Ist 6 in the f/c the 3 most consistent were Kruthoffer (3), Gorgeous Strike (7), Lake Erie (7), Pipsted (12).

Top 4 on ability from the whole field were Primary (158), G.Strike (119), Slanghi Vah (78), Janiski (72).

The distance is wrong for both Primary and Janiski. Both are also not in form.

Next on ability is Pipsted on (65) and he now comes into the equation.

G.Strike and Pipsted with winning form last time in high value races are gaining many plus points.

Thats where I am at present.

Any comments,

As far as I know VDW said "consider" the most valuable races, not "analyse" them. I understand the logic behind the arguement that higher class horses can be expected to run more truely to form, so there is an element of sense in looking at higher class races, however the highest class races tend to be particularly competitive so that a large proportion of the runners will be in with a shout. I think the followers of VDW on this thread have this business of race value quite out of proportion and by limiting their searches to these few races they are putting the odds signifigantly against themselves. This is what I meant by the contradictory application of common-sense. Everyday during Royal Ascott the most absurd races were being posted up, then when the winners selected turned out to be so few, the contributors blamed their incomplete understanding of VDW instead of realising that they had chosen ridiculous races. Yesterday there were two horses that really stood out as unlikely to lose, Suggestive and Football Crazy, I have no idea of the value of the races they contested, it just isn't that important. If one horse in the field is clearly better than the others and has demonstrated it's ability to win the race under inspection why should I care about the race value? It's not my problem, I'm betting that's all, I dont care about prize money, stud value or anything on those lines, it's not my business. Naturally I prefer two obvious selections that are likely to win than to spend hours trying to evaluate the relative chances of closely matched horses. This seems to me really basic stuff and if the main thrust of VDW is in opposition to my thinking then it is quite clearly utter nonsense and not worth further thought.

How many runners were there?

spot on mate,i could not agree more.i look all across the board from group races to sellers.a good thing is a good thing,at least until the result is in.

Guest,

A couple of points, I find myself agreeing with you with the statement there is being beaten, and getting beaten.

Re Heretic, when he was beaten at Haydock there are 2 reasons for the illusion in form. One is the distance, the other is there to be found. It was a master piece of race planning, to lose without cheating. The horse ran on his merits, in fact he improved. The trainer made it hard for him, but he still showed his class by getting so close. I noticed all this, and even took Statajack's advice and used weight related ratings to confirm the facts (as I saw them). Did I back him, NO, why, I didn't see how he could win from that draw.

Now back to my usual self, I can see the same profile in Beacon Light and T Bay. Both beaten favourites, both had a hard race last time, and both had too many runs in quick succession. The difference is TB ran a poor race in defeat, BL ran a blinder. I think VDW would have rejected both for the same reason. At their BEST they were not good enough, based on what they had achieved on the race course. Still can't except BL was out of form, but the way you explained it he would have to be to reject him.

As I have said before please keep posting, your posting are well worth reading. They give an insight that few are willing to give. I'm sure many have learnt from them, myself included. All it takes is for one thing to drop into place, and who knows it may be the missing piece for someone. Doesn't mean it will make sense to everyone, and give too many secrets away. Barney's have me scratching my head. :-))

Top class racing at Newmarket this week, so best of luck to you all.

is it just me,or has anybody else noticed a lot of contradiction on this thread,barney it must seem like everybody is having a dig at you,but i must say this,after your recent posts.
i remember a while back,when swish said he dosent care about whether a horse is fav or outsider,if its a good thing he backs it,and you strongly dissagreed,saying only look at the first 5 in the betting,now an outsider wins a race you studied,now you say to study every horses lifetime form.IT IS CLOAK AND DAGGER

9 ran.

Both Pipsted and G.Strike were coming off high class winning performances which were far better than anything else shown by the opposition.

GS didn`t beat a great deal coming home by a neck. Had 7 lbs more to carry today which saw him trying to concede 22 lbs to Pipsted.

Pipstead put in a strong performance at Ascot against several in form horses yet had no more weight to carry on the day.

Epiglotis - Yes, a good thing is a good thing no matter what sort of race, but when dealing with good consistent horses it is better to be on them when they are going all out for the win. The method employed for the Old Newton Cup by VDw was a different approach to the one used for the most valuable races. The evaluation and establishment of form however never changes IE all of his approaches show a horse to be in form or not. A horse can't be in form for one method and out of it for another. I use his methods across the board and there are many good things to be had in maiden races. The consistency method though was intended for the better races.

I've opinioned before that if anyone is consistently finding winners and making a good regular profit then why do they need to find a new approach ?

VDW isn't for everyone and it probably isn't the only way, but it works for me and others so why should we change ?

VDW did say to study every race that a horse
has run and that this had to be done for every
horse in the race.If its a 30 runner race and
its a all aged handicap this would take along
time, and the race will probably be finished
before you`ve finished studying the form.
Or did VDW mean to look at only the first 6
in the betting in depth.
Also someone made the point as to why look
at only the highest class races when there
may be good betting oportunities in other races.
I think this is a good point and i have seen
no evidence to suggest that form works out
any less in lower class races.
In fact all the research i`ve done on winning
systems shows they do better in the lower class
races .


regards



Maggsy

Guest

Further to your last post, I am hoping that you will feel able to comment on two points.

First, in that post you wrote that "The evaluation and establishment of form however never changes". Is it your view that it was to HOW he evaluated and established form that VDW was referring when he mentioned the "missing link" in his article of 13/4/85, paras. 5 and 6?

Second, you have clearly looked in depth at many if not all of the 100+ examples VDW gave us. Taking those in the articles in "The Golden Years" and "Ultimate Wheil of Fortune" which he clearly identified as selections (the many described as "good things", "outstanding bets" and similar), have you found that all those you've looked at were "in form" from the perspective of what you are assuming was his method of evaluating and establishing form?

Thanks in anticipation if you do feel able to comment.

Thanks for the replies. The "Old Newton Cup" keeps being mentioned as if it were an integrated organism visiting once a year rather than a name that is attached to a race once a year. I take issue with this and suggest that the difference between a field of 9 and one of 16 is of greater moment than the name of the race. Guest: if it works for you fine, dont change it. Determined: is it working for you? if not why not change it.

Greg,
Hi, we haven't spoken for a while. But yes I agree. What is the point of sticking to first 6 in betting then when a 40-1 wins trying to look through its form to see why it won?
Yes, I agree if one is going to consider big outsiders in future races, but if not it tells you nothing because the next time a similar one turns up those who only like first 6 in betting won't even consider it anyway, pointless.

Maggsy and Epiglotis,
without a doubt lower class races are easier to work out (non-hcps anyway) . I said all this on page 1 of this thread. So we are agreed there.

Epiglotis,
I also thought Suggestive was nailed on using my interpretation of VDW methods + my own.
Having said that I have now decided C races are, in general, quite difficult as well, (It was a C race),
Cheers
Swish

Epiglotis.

Why keep to the better class races? I'm looking for good consistent horses, I find they usually run in the better races. Yes, Ascot is competitive as are all the better class races. In these races the trainers are trying to win so the horse will run on it's true merits. I much prefer to have my money on a horse that is trying and has the class to respond to any occurrence. This is not a prep race it is the real thing. Most of the strokes that are pulled are in the lower class races, at the lower class meetings. Of which there are far too many, most are just bookie fodder. I differ from vdw and Guest in as much as I will stick at the class meetings and not bother with the richest race at Catterick, Bath etc. I did very well at Ascot and the prices were very rewarding 9/1 winner from 12/1, 20/1 placed from 25/1, not to mention a few a lower prices.

The other day a friend e-mailed me about a horse that was running that night. At first glance it fitted the profile I look for. It was the class form horse, although I do use the word class loosely in this case. It was a course and distance winner, had won it's last race, good draw. Heavily backed, in short it looked a good thing. Except it was a low class race. This horse travelled well, moved up to challenge, the horse in front weakened and he didn't have the class (speed) to get out until the race was over. Finished 3rd, unlucky the form book will say. I know this can happen in big races but if you stick to the class horses they can often do something about it. A losing bet is a losing bet I want mine to be on class horses, if I have to have them! I don't even look at a horse unless it has form from an 85 D race. I prefer much higher.

Be Lucky

Thanks for the replies. Mtoto, I remember you saying that you never find making money boring, for me it's the opposite, I almost always find it boring and for sure wouldn't do it if I wasn't expecting to be paid. So my main concern is to spend as little time as possible on my selections. I'm sure that your method of operation suits you but I dont think it's for me.