go to gummys home page
use menu bars on left
third one down is chat room
double click that
window will open
enter your name in first window
then click enter

SPEELED OUT

Hello Mtoto,

Thanks for your post on the Vintage Premium race.Very interesting indeed to see a few of your thought processes.

Fulham said in his analysis that I Cried For You was running over the wrong distance at York,which I agreed with and that Vintage Premium ran a decent race last time out,which I wasn't so sure about.

The way I looked at it at Ascot, Vintage Premium at his best distance didn't beat ICfY who wasn't at his ideal distance.Coupled with that he was outpaced 2 furlongs out and recorded his lowest Topspeed figure of his last 3 races.Superforms pace figures suggest it was the second slowest race on the card.I thought this was too negative.

Something in your post jogged my memory a bit though, about a way I experimented with years ago.I wonder if part of your expertise is asessing the likely pace of the race and which horses will be suited by it.You said ICFY wouldn't get the distance in a fast run race so your obviously looking deeper than just the bare ratings.You also said you could see some reasons (plural) why VP would run a big race so there is more to your method than that.

Whatever,well done on your recent successes.Oh by the way ,if i remember correctly,do you compile your own speed figures? Do you think that Topspeeds figures,for example, have flaws in the way they are compiled? I used to do my own figures but found the whole process rather tedious.I thought as long as I used the same source for my figures all the time it wouldn't make any difference who compiled them as they are only used as a guide.Do you think your figures contribute to your strike rate?

All the best

Swish - With all due respect, you did reply to my answers on how the markets were formed, with an inference that surely these market formers/or myself should be considering a few factors such as how fast a horse can run,etc. You asked how do others believe the markets are formed and I replied by giving you my view on how OTHERS especially within racing (journalists, bookies) come to their conclusions. I use other methods (given by VDW) that differ markedly from the generally excepted way of form study. I don't really care how others are coming to their conclusions to form these markets because the only useful purpose their conclusions serve is to provide the market. A great true ism in racing is that if everyone agrees then they are nearly always wrong.

Max - Statistics are always to be respected but if the formbook says otherwise then a trainer having had no winner recently at a course would not put me off. M Pipe has for some years been enormously successful and if he had the right candidate for such a race at Taunton as you mention then I wouldn't hesitate in backing it IF the VDW methods showed it to be a good bet. The missing link isn't in such statistics, but in a very logical approach to evaluating past performances. Ask the obvious question , how strong is the form of this run and that run and then ponder the best way to gauge form. I promise you it is very simple in concept but can get quite complex in operation. One clue is yet another VDW quote "the permutations are endless".

It sounds like you make it pay though, so why change a working approach ? It is though, different to VDWs and thus mine which is derived from VDWs.

Mtoto - Henbit/Blakeney and VDW wrote "Take just one example, the two Derby winners - and you can't get better class than that - Henbit and Blakeney. The official figures show the latter to be 8lb superior, but Timeform go completely opposite making Henbit 7lb better. Over a stone difference which makes a nonsense of calculations. Conclusion... regard ratings as a guide in association with other factors."

The point being that even if the official handicapper is right sometimes and Timeform others, I am not going to take their word for it which is afterall based on traditional form analysis, which VDW suggested was and still is deeply flawed. The only real difference between Timeform,Raceform,Racing Post,etc and the official handicapper is that his opinion is the only one that actually affects races run. He doesn't have to pick winners though. The real essence of how form very often works out is in the simple approach to gauging form that VDW used. Yes, if a 20 grand handicap is restricted to 0-90 horses then the form has to be carefully weighed up when considering the winner when he is upped to a 20 grand 0-105 race. The more relevant point is what else have the other 0-105 horses done prior along with the 0-90 ones. The permutations can get quite complex.

What's "flat-pak furniture". Is it that cheap imitation stuff you buy, like Tony Peach's books. It appears he wrote most of the VDW stuff.

How's the drip 365 going?

Yes, fair enough.
But why stick to the first 4/5/6 in the betting if these opinions are so flawed?
Now do you understand what I am trying to say?
Cheers
Swish

Good point Swish.

Guest.

The point I was trying to make re The Zetland Gold Cup was it WAS a 105 handicap with the best horses rated at 83. It was worth £20,000 to the winner, run in a fair time. Reading just the form, there was nothing wrong with the way the winner ran. The 4th won next time out, but the winner had an inflated ability rating based on that race. Without looking at the OR's how would you know these things? As the OR is only an opinion would you ignore it?

Bream.

Sorry to say there is nothing special about my s/f, except they are mine. I know how and where the going allow came from. If I'm not happy it reflects the true figure I can adjust it. When I compile my ratings it is done without looking at the horses names, or a betting forecast. That way I'm not influenced by any hype, or personal preferences. Collateral form, and weight don't come into the equation. After the race is rated I then assess the top 4/5 by reading the form. At no time does weight come into it. I then form a tissue based on relevant facts to the horse and it's chance of winning. In a perfect world I am looking for a horses that is the top 2 in both the ratings and tissue. Some times I will stray outside those perimeters, but not often. At Ascot I never expected VP to run his true race. For me some of the horses that finished in front of him proved he hadn't, but I was happy he would reverse the form at York. I think at 11/2 a place he was the percentage call. I never dutch, or hedge bets. This is possibly a weakness, on my part. I had the chance to hedge Mr Dinos at Newcastle when I took the 8/1.

Be Lucky

[This message was edited by Mtoto on July 18, 2002 at 12:43 AM.]

mtoto,

you say the zetland was weak and it was, the form from that course doesnt stand up everywhere.

in the right place under the right conditions that will be excellent form.

I've been catching up on the Thread as I don't always have time to go on everyday. I was saddened to see you becoming disheartened last week as you are one "Determined" individual and your always ready to help others. I would like to contact you by e-mail if possible, as i've some information that may interest you.
regards.

Barney.

I don't really expect you to answer this....... but why do you think it was a weak race?

I do agree this form has it's place and will prove of interest, but only in 85 D or slightly higher. Which is not a lot of help if the form is judged on face value i.e. 105 B £20,000, run in a good/fair time. There is nothing to be gained by reading the comments in running. The only thing I can see to ring the alarm bells is the OR's. If like Guest you ignore them, why do you think it is a weak race? While I except Redcar form may not be the strongest, it does often stand up (from the better class races) on flat galloping left handed tracks. So it is a little fool hardy to ignore it just because it is Redcar form.

Be Lucky

I think there is a danger of getting too specific about a particular instance.

In general I would expect the winner of a £20000 race to be better than the winner of a £10000 race. On most occasions I reckon this will be true, but not always. You have to be prepared to be wrong on occasions, life's like that!

I'm sure that not all winners of an 85C hcap would be of the same ability. It depends on the strength in depth of the race, as does judgement by race value. You could have a 5 runner 85C with runners rated 85,70,76,65,63 and a 12 runner 85C hcap 85,83,83,80,80,79,78,76,74,72,72,67. Most judges would percieve the second to be stronger, though that might not necessarily be the case. However, over a period of time, you would expect the winners of different 85C handicaps to be more or less equal.

The Zetland Cup form remains in the equation for a while but subsequent races may have shown it to be over-rated.

Rob

Rob.

The point I am trying to make is HOW do you judge the strength in depth without using OR's? I am only using the Zetland because it is a very clear cut example of how race value can mislead. Throughout the year there are many other examples. (Last years Leger for one) If someone can show me an accurate way of judging strength in depth without OR's, that is at least as reliable, I would be more than happy. Or give a hint, that I can understand. I thought Barney and Guest would be the ones to ask as both are adamant OR's are no value in judging class. Notice you used them in your example.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Drop me a line if you don't mind,

chazg100@yahoo.co.uk

Mtoto - You are asking a very important question, but the answer is straightforward if you think about the main points VDW put faith in.

Guest - a quick question.

When using prize money does the age of the horse count, i.e. a 3 y.old total wins= 50K and a 7 y.old total wins= 60K. Isn't the 3 y.old better?

Mtoto,

Thanks for your reply, again I found it very interesting.I have no idea if you or guest are right in how you are judging things.I remember Jock Bingham writing a letter to RFU with some examples of what he considered were VDW type bets.I got the definite impression that he was using OR in some way to judge class.However in "Be a Winner" VDW said JB hadn't gone all the way didn't he, though exactly what he was referring to I'm not sure .It is just a thought but would either yourself or Guest consider the possibility that you both could be right.Is it possible that VDW would have looked at things your way and then crosschecked with Guests way or vice versa.It does seem strange that both of you are succesful with your betting yet seem to be convinced that the other is wrong.I have a feeling ,no research as yet I'm afraid, that I may be able to see what Guest is getting at here and it would tie in very nicely with what VDW said.

Just briefly about Jock Bingham.I subscribed to his odds to service for a brief period.I think he called it "The ultimate conclusion" or the selections where based on a method of that name.I ditched him fairly quickly however.Not because I only had one winner at 7/2 from 7 selections with the others selections well beaten,but because in 3 races there where what I considered to be clear cut VDW selections on the method given in the "Spells it all out article".Whether we were all getting the same horses or whether he was keeping his strongest selections for himself and using his subscribers to cover the least fancied runners in his book I don't know.But when 2 of the horses,that I thought were VDW selections, won and the other was second with his selections well beaten I decided enough was enough and I could do better myself.

Cheers everyone

Hi Bream,

I'm quite interested in the selections Jock Bingham gave as part of his odds service, and have the details of those given from 25 March 2000 to 5 August 2000. If any part of the period for which you have details falls within that, it would be interesting to check whether the selections match.

mtoto,

do not judge the races or the opposition, judge the value of each horses individual performance.

you asked a question then answered it.

ITs not fair to say i am foolhardy to ignore the form just because its redcar, as I specifically said under certain cicumstances it would be excellent form.

[This message was edited by Barney on July 18, 2002 at 08:11 PM.]

All
when gauging how good a horses form is why
not look to see how other horses in the race faired,When the rp puts the raceform for the horse in a race it normally puts up how many horses had won or been placed in its previous race you could go back and see what races they had won, If some had won or been placed in better
grades it could be good form, could be worth an extra 10 mins checking.