I have said it before and I'll say it again. I'll even keep it simple for barney's sake. You are well named. CROCK OF SHIT!!!

Whaasuup!!!!!!!!!! Jimmy,

Simple questions to difficult for you

Gentle nudge in the direction of the two horse post.

Thanks Epiglotis,

Bensam's opinion not mine (unfortunately)

Cheers

As Epiglotis had already answered the question I, mistakenly, thought that you would not require the same answer from me. Obviously I was wrong. I should have known better than expect a crock of shit to understand something as simple as that.

What do you mean in your reply to me by "conventional form analysis"?
What is that? Is it, for example how fast the horses have ran and how much weight they have to carry. Is that included in the equation? Kindly enlighten us.

Also, believe it or not, I did already know that the market prices change according to weight of money.
You didn't think I knew that did you?
Yours
Swish

Hi Crock,

You meet some strange, offensive and clearly mentally challenged people on boards, but this one is usually relatively free of the kind of comments to which you've been subjected, so we can conclude that there is a degree of frustration around by those who have never bothered to study VDW.

I am in complete agreement with your view about the John Smith's, and by ordinary VDW processes one reaches - by stateable and logical processes - the conclusion that there was no standout bet but Vintage Premium and Kirovsky had real claims and the former, in particular, was very generously priced.

VDW made it quite clear that for him "class and form are the dominant factors". He set out quite unambiguously how he assessed class numerically, and left a puzzle which some have solved as to how he judged "form". But taking form in the ordinary meaning of the term works almost as well.

Applying the numerical way of assessing class produced, as you said, four horses rated well ahead of the field - I Cried for You, Lermontov, Kirovsky and Vintage Premium. All had ability ratings well over 100, whereas the next highest was 80, and the ratings for some of the horses mentioned as having possibilities were much lower: Leadership 53 and Rasm 42, for example.

As a horse in the first six in the betting, highest rated on ability, and probably, in most peoples view, in reasonable form, I Cried For You is the first horse for consideration, but clearly falls at an early stage on the ground you have given. A 7yo whose career profile suggests he is a 7f horse, who has only once won at a distance over a mile and never at 1m 2f, never mind the 1 2.5f of Saturday's race: not a chance.

Of the other three highly rated hores, surely no one would have considered Lermontov - no win since 1999; no first three placing in last dozen runs, and showed nothing in last race. No chance.

By contrast, Kirovski won lto over 1m 2f, a race of much lower penalty value that the John Smith's but at broadly the same level in terms of the class of the horses involved. And by contrast with I Cried for You, a horse clearly "at home" over 1m plus. Palpably in with a chance, though not very consistent, with a consistency rating of 17, well beyond the kind of threshold of most of VDW's selections.

Turning to Vintage Premium, he had an ability rating broadly comparable with Kirovsky's, is similarly clearly a mile plus horse, ran decently lto on ground too fast, and this season has been a model of consistency. Like Kirovsky, palpably a horse with a decent chance, and with a seemingly much more favourable draw, though not without question marks: in particular, would the ground again prove too fast?.

Among the four horses clear on ability, it therefore surely takes little effort to isolate Vintage Premium and Kirovsky as two with real chances (VP's better than K's), and reject the other two.

But what about the others in the first six in the betting? Two (Leadership as a relatively unexposed 3yo, and Rasm as a 5yo also relatively unexposed) might be anything, and could not be completely eliminated. But at the time of the John Smith neither had put in a performance comparable to the best by VP or Kirovsky. Beauchamp Pilot, clearly consistent, had yet to be tested over the distance, and is also a potentially improving horse. Kelburne had won a broadly comparable race (in terms of class and distance) to VP and Kirovsky, but had a much lower ability rating than both and out of form. Man O'Mystery had showed nothing in two broadly comparable handicaps this season, merely winning, under extreme pressure, a very soft-looking five runner.

I agree with you that there was no "nailed on" selection - there was a doubt about the going for Vintage Premium; both he and Kirovsky were well down the betting, and one or other of the three potential improvers in the first six in the betting might have come good. But in my view the price available on VP more than compensated for these doubts.

To have left the race alone would have been an entirely reasonable decision, because of the doubts. But anyone backing any horse except Vintage Premium, Kirovsky, Leadership, Rasm or Beauchamp Pilot ought to be asking him or herself serious questions about their ability to read the Form Book. And of the five, Vintage Premium was surely the most likely, and unquestionably the best value.

Fulham,
A well measured summing up of the John Smiths Cup, which Im sure will be useful to people in future. Interestingly enough, this appears to be the only thread on this site that actually looks at races after the event and tries to work out how certain horses won or lost and the possible reasons why. It does make you wonder when some people never bother to try and work out where they might have gone wrong, or indeed why they were successful. Does the same kind of thinking apply to other aspects of their lives as well? Another amusing aspect regarding these people is that a winner is down to their skill and judgement while losers are of course down to the failings of the system or tipster used. I am becoming convinced that they are even more deluded than us poor fools.
regards,

Hi Statajack,

I'm quite sure that you are right that it is worth seriously examining races after they have been run, and I'd go one step further, and distinguish between methodology and personal performance.

The latter can only be proven satisfactorily by pre-"off" posting, and to post "I backed X" after the event is neither convincing evidence, nor conducive to measured discussion because of the feelings of envy it raises.

The former, however, can be undertaken free of personal considerations, envy etc in a detached, way - indeed I don't think the word scholarly would be out of place.

Anyone unconvinced by my post on the John Smith could perhaps usefully ask themselves the following questions:

1) is any of the facts stated incorrect?

2) were all the facts stated available from Saturday's Racing Post?

3) do I disagree with ANY of the inferences drawn from the facts (and if so, why)?

4) have any material facts that bear on the conclusions been omitted?

If the answers are all "no", then it must surely be agreed that it was indeed possible to narrow the race down to two horses with proven capability and three potential improvers. If the answer to any of the four is "yes", we have the basis for a serious discussion from which we might all learn.

no

quite honestly the post race evaluation given could have applied to any number of runners in that race and anybody could have prepared something similar pre race leaving the relevant blanks in of course to fill in after the result was known.
it is all to easy after the event to bend the facts to fit the result and anything along the lines pre 3.25 on saturday of your post would give it that much more credability.
pick any race of a decent standard and a case can be made for the vast majority of the field.

heres how part of it could have looked before the result was known.

To have left the race alone would have been an entirely reasonable decision, because of the doubts. But anyone backing any horse except ???? ???? ???? ???? ought to be asking him or herself serious questions about their ability to read the Form Book. And of the five, ???? was surely the most likely, and unquestionably the best value.

Barney
Well done with cryptic 4.20b on sunday
nice 3-1 winner, Keep it up.

Michael.

Vintage Premium

Fulham,

Your summing up of the probables was a very good read as usual.

That said, I would like to refer back to the question Bream raised on the turnaround of form between VP and Rasm from Ascot.

Rasm was running for only the 2nd time this season at Ascot after a lengthy lay off. He is lightly raced and clearly open to improvement and is trained by a very capable trainer who has the ability to win these types of race with unexposed types.

The very fact that a turnaround in form was expected because VP had a far higher ability rating is hard to swallow.

One could argue that Rasm`s Ascot run was his best to date which in my opinion would make him even harder to discount so readily over VP.

Also, taking the view that Kelburne was out of form because of his Hunt Cup run given his good placing in that race is a decision I find hard to accept.

Further, Kirovski`s win at Epsom, again in my opinion does not compare with the opposition VP beat at Epsom ?

Beauchamp Pilot – I ruled out very quickly.

Leadership – in my opinion had the best form and carrying less weight was considered a good bet especially as I expected further improvement. Watching his Ascot run again plus various aspects of his form which a fellow poster has subsequently pointed out to me, I now know my analysis of `L` form to be wrong.

Summary – our opinion`s on several horses form differs which of course may always be the case but the one point I `d really appreciate further comment on from is the view that VP is more likely to win than Rasm because of the higher ability rating.
Put another way, do we have to be as direct as that in our race evaluations ?

Hi Crock,

Your last sentence,"Not only was it possible to highlight the winner,but even the forecast as well from that early numerical picture." led me to think you had picked the winner.I may well have contracted Crypticpost syndrome.Other board members would be advised to check if they've got it .The symptoms are reading things into posts which aren't there and going round and round in circles until the sufferer either dies of old age or gives up completely and seeks sanctuary in The Times crossword which is probably easier to solve.Just in case you have contracted it Crock,I am not suggesting that your posts are cryptic.

Hi Fulham

Thanks for your summing up of the Vintage Premium race.Very interesting.I,d like to give your last 2 posts a bit more thought before I comment further.

Swish - The answer to your first question is that by "conventional form analysis" I am referring to the generally excepted way of form analysis IE so & so is so many pounds better than another horse. In short, the markets are formed by popular opinion which is frequently wrong in racing circles.

The answer to your second question is that I presumed maybe not, seeing as you posed the questions in the first place. Why don't you give us your view of how the markets are formed and their relative worth ?

Max - Facts are facts and if they are there in the form after the race then they were there beforehand also. To be brutally honest, your ideas on what VDWs methods actually entail are a mile and a half away.

John Smiths Cup - For me there was no bet in the race. The 3yo had a lot in favour but couldn't be considered on a par with say last years winner Foreign Affairs at the same stage of it's career.

Determined
For what it's worth,the Magnet Cup,had you backed V.P. instead of Leadership,it would not have meant that you were on to a vdw good thing.I think you realise that it was a race with a number of possibles,and best left to run.
Move on there are much easier races,most days,keep the faith and good luck.

i take it that your rather aloof statement refered to my reply to fulham.he is a big boy and if he feels a response to my comment is needed i am sure he doesn't need you holding his hand.
i am sure you are a really nice guy deep down but i suspect lacking in the people skills needed to interact on the same level with others.this is all to evident in the schoolmaster approach you continue to display on the board,which in turn will only isolate you even further and confirm other members perceived ideas that the only friend you have is your keyboard.
whilst it is evident that you do have a comprehensive knowledge of the vdw concept i find it most crass and tactless that you should assume my ideas are to quote a mile and a half off the mark,who are you to say one way is any better than another.you sometimes offer an answer to a question or opinion and revel in the gratitude shown by the genuine people on this board trying to get a better understanding of vdw's method yet time and time again totally dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't fit guest's blinkered way of thinking.
you have no goodwill and for someone who has taken so much from the vdw teachings you give so little in return.
i have lost count of the number of times members of this board have asked you a direct question only to be given the runaround and spoonfed the usual tosh it is a sad state of affairs when someone like you who paportes to know so much
actually says so little.
either you have the answers in which case why not follow the guru and spell it out,there are plenty of members on this thread who work tirelessly day after day who would appreciate some straight answers,it really is perverse how you keep dropping silly cryptic hints like some frustrated crossword compiler.
personally i think you yourself do not have all the answers and that is why you continue to use the forum or maybe you just need a friend.
sadly with the chip you carry coupled with the arrogant attitude i doubt you will find either.

Bensam.

I agree with most of your last post, but there are a few points I would like to take up. First you say class is king, why do you think vdw didn't use OR's. They may not have been readily available, nor were the win % for the form figures. VDW did mention them as a possible guide along with s/f's and private handicapper ratings.

You say why are they important now, surely they are more important now. A horse lives or dies on the OR awarded. I'm not saying for one moment you take them at face value, but that is the same for everything. S/f, any rating, including any suggested vdw has to be investigated. That's why it is easier to stick with the better class horses, they repeat, and hold their form better. I would have thought vdw would have used all, and every means avalible to judge something as important as class. Race value was just the easiest at the time. Also then the better races had the best prize money, no £20,000 races for medocre horses.

Be Lucky

Max, some people will never understand the term sportsmanship. To some it is an alien concept and it is at times sorely missed on these pages, perhaps some might like to reflect on what that does for their value. JIB.

Hi Determined

Pipedreamer's succinct summing up is very much my view of the race.

Focusing on Rasm and Vintage Premium, Rasm beat VP by a length and a neck on 21 June, receiving 3lb. In the John Smith's the weight difference was the same: a line of argument was therefore that Rasm should prevail again.

Had that happened, it would have been no huge surprise. But there were reasons for doubting whether it would. First, there was the suspicion that the ground on 21 June had been too fast for VP, whose five wins had all been on good or softer. Second, there is the fact that, despite never having been out of the first three, Rasm had only got its head in front in a maiden two years ago. By contrast, inter alia VP had won three competitive handicaps, proving it had the will to win/guts, call it what one likes, when the chips are down. (Indeed, to my mind the Post comments on VP's last two winning performances convey the sense of a thoroughly genuine horse willing to win.)

I am not saying that it was certain, or even highly probable, that VP would reverse placings with Rasm: simply that it was far from unlikely.

As for Kirovski, his entitlement to consideration is based on the indisputable facts of his ability rating and "in formness" though, as I think I've suggested in my previous post, had VP and Kirovski been the only contenders I fancy most of us would have favoured VP.

On my view of things, the problem with the race as a whole was that questions remained, even after considerable analysis. The choice then was whether, at the prices available, there was a value bet, or one left the race alone.

The percentage call was, in my view, Guest's. For those who take VDW seriously, and achieve some success in its implementation, good VDW betting opportunities are like buses: there will always be another along reasonably soon, though there are gaps and sometimes several come together. There is simply no need to bet on more speculative opportunities. That said, even on my view of the race, where questions remained, to have backed Vintage Premium EW to modest stakes could hardly be seen as showing lack of temperament, and on this occasion paid off.