Raceman - The age factor is yet another important factor, but once again there is no rule just a logical guideline. Horses can be improving at a rate of knots at any age between 3-5 years generally on the flat. Mostly the better class handicappers and group horses are lightly raced at 2, sometimes unraced in fact. They also tend to make their appearances at the better tracks and later on in the season at 2. However, trainers do make use of lesser tracks to give their charges easy introductions, but eventually these horses show their real worth when upped in class. If the class and form is good when evaluating a runner and it also fits the lightly raced, better tracks, etc criteria then you can be sure it is a good animal.

Of course some horses don't fully mature into top class racing machines until 4 or 5 years as admirably demonstrated by the excellent Godolphin organisation. Singspiel, Daylami, Fantastic Light, Sakhee they all improved tremendously for staying in training at 4 and 5 and I have to admit they are my favourite type of racehorse. They give their horses time to show their full potential unlike a certain other major stable who tend to go for the smash and grab 3yo classic career.

Even older horses tend to be just handicappers or listed/minor group class and of course their ability is based on many more runs than a lightly raced 3yo which brings me back to your question, which is better ? The answer is it depends on their form, because although a 3yo may have a high ability rating or even a low one in comparison to the older horse, the 3yo could be progressing well with it's racing or maybe not trained on since gaining the rating. This is why, contrary to what so many seem to think, the ratings are never taken at face value and a full investigation is required for each candidate. If the form backs up the ratings then it could be time to get the betting boots on.

Fulham - It is usually only the business end of a race that we should be concerned with as the further down the field you go the less reliable the form becomes. Horses who have met before and all finished out of the money very often met again and reverse placings if involved in the finish, especially in handicaps. Sometimes you will see a horse run well in 3rd and another with previously decent form finish down the field, but when they meet again the horse who didn't have the hardest time finishes in front of the other. Florida pearl springs to mind, he ran below expectations at Cheltenham and See More Business above his but when they met again under different conditions the result was very different, but entirely predictable.

Sea Pigeon had finished in front of Beacon Light in the Champion Hurdle of 77 but the finish mainly concerned Night Nurse,Monskfield and Dramatist. In 77/78 Beacon Light had been making hay in reasonable events against average opposition where as Sea Pigeon had only had the one run in a Chase where he fell. Chase back to hurdles is not very often a good recipe in decent class, though of course Sea pigeon did go on to improve dramatically thereafter. At the time though he had not achieved as much as Beacon Light. The point is, Prominent King did what he was asked in his build up coming out very well at the weights with Drumgora, where as Beacon Lights run came to end in a very busy schedule leading up to the big race against a horse that should have been beatable. Interesting also that PK had the 5th from the race Drumgora was 3rd in, behind when PK was 2nd FTO behind Credit Card.

Bad favs are in situations such as the above, where the form is suspect and yet the horse is made an even shorter price when upped in class for failing to deliver in lower class.

Guest,
you may have missed my reply to Determined about Mr.Mahoose and Half Glance,but if you don't mind could you name a few vdw good things of the past week or two,I know you put up Millenary last week,the reason I ask is to gauge how I am progressing at it,thanks anyway for all your contributions so far.

Guest

Yes, its the "very often" that poses the problem. Its only when there is a clearly identifiable factor, such as Florida Pearl's health state (which, at the time, I'd missed, despite it being explicitly discussed in the Post), that one can be more or less 100% confident.

Mtoto

Re Bedford - it wasnt just the class factor , it was the ability to quicken in that class that he lacked. Arguably the distance was also to short perhaps ie would have been interesting to see what he would have done over the marathon distance

pro (shortened from the professional !)

Fulham - Good point, but we never are 100% confident. The absolute certainty doesn't exsist in racing, but there are many occassions when we can be anywhere between 80-90% certain a horse will deliver.

Guest.

With the first race I think it shows the flaw at it's best. How can you have 2 horses of similar class (unless class is judged by race value) having to give lumps of weight away? Running well or even winning in one race doesn't make a horse class. As I said I don't look at weight, it doesn't come into my equation. If as Fulham thinks you are talking about PK's last race, I have already said I think it was a poor run. I can see no reason why the horse would not have won the race, if it was back to it's best. There would not have been a penalty for the Erin because of the win. There are no race comments to use as a guide. For me the question is, why run PK in the Erin after such a bad run? Is there anything in PK's past that makes you think he can do better? The answer is yes, and VDW bless his heart told you where to look. He also told you not to back PK last time. I think this is a very good example of how VDW works. IF I'm right, you don't have to make any judgement on BL in or out of form he just isn't good enough.

If the second race is the one I think. The winner would be the class/form horse, and I and possibly vdw would not have expected the favourite to win. He did point out BL had had a hard race, but he never said he was out of form. I think that is down to others who need a reason to throw him out. If left in he makes a nonsense of the ability rating.

Be Lucky

Sorry this posting now out dated but I think it still holds good

Thank you Guest for the reply.

As you say consideration of the horses' age is yet another guideline, which again can be open to even more interpretation.

VDW set down some good basic ground (which I follow very closely) which can be written in a few lines - but its the wider interpretation that cannot be clearly translated or even crammed into a single book. While this Tower of Babel grows we understand less and less.

Page 56 of todays Racing Post goes a long way in my opinion to concisely explain ratings but they are of worth only if used intelligently. VDW used a few solid facts but clouded them with smoke and mirrors. It is a method he advises not rules.

Consistent horses win consistently. Of course. So it is obvious when looking for a consistent horse to look for consistent form. Hence the 111,131, 211 etc and the adding of the last 3 form figures and the lower the result the better.

But ‘Form is an illusion’ because it does not measure the level of ability (class) at which that form line was achieved. So enter the ability rating and finding the value of the average winning prize. The bigger the number the better the class. The horse will win if the prize is big enough. It is fair to say that the more money involved the more serious the contest. Trainers sending out horses to run in an uncharacteristically high grade after a moderate prize placing is stretching the animal, so it makes sense that a horse dropping in class (prize) after such a run is to be respected. The comparison of the winner of the race not those in the race. The trainer’s placing of the animal is the key factor. If you want to know where the bus is going as the driver.

Money is the barometer of opinion. The experts have weighed up the ‘facts’ and given their verdict in terms of the betting forecast. They have studied their ratings statistics and figures. They have read the last 2 furlong comments in running and judged the draw and expect going. The winner will come from the 1st 5 or 6 in the betting. So it should. Yes big priced outsiders can be found but generally in large field handicaps. VDW finds them in small fields in non handicaps and the market of opinion agrees. False favourites can be found by checking capability verses the forecast probability .

The ‘missing link’ is to be master of your self.. First look at the whole puzzle once the pieces have been found, read what is there not what you think is there. Second, have temperament and act only when you are sure of the outcome.

Finally - How did VDW achieve 80% strike rate? Simple - he backed them all using the stepper idea. Interesting that he was not really a ‘dutch man’ after all in either sense of the word more of a peach really.

So; Find the principle meeting where there is the most money. Then find the 3 top value races if possible non-handicaps and with small fields. Circle all the horses, which have been placed 1,2,3 in their last three races. Add up and compare their figures. Next check their class by circling their Postmark figures. (My favourite rating) Then circle the first 5 in the betting. If you have identified more than 30% of the field move on to the next race. If under 30% of the field is selected then back ‘em all.

And that is VDW. And a bloody good read it is too.

Raceman,have you not just made a system out of it?by what you stated in your last paragraph,I also do not concur with your definition of the missing link,but that's only my opinion.

For anyone interested, the 8.30 at Kilbeggan gave a good example of a vdw type,sorry for not pre posting it.

edited cos I can't be bothered...it's on page 14

[This message was edited by Raceman on July 19, 2002 at 09:37 PM.]

raceman,

hello again long time no see,

a lot of horses with small stakes will not make you rich!!!

a few carfully selected animals can provide many times the national annual salary.

but of course we delete at a winner.


is your money made this year? or are there any left to win?

So why did VDW use multiple betting. Alex bird was happy with 10% etc etc. Boring........


Night night.

raceman,

i know its boring and repetative and monotonous
and there isnt much change in this particular method, but does it work?

raceman,

i think that you may have misinterepreted my post to you.

Do you thimk we are better off up and down the card or concentating on particular horses.?

Using the dutchmans recommended method of course?

The most concise, intelligent post I have seen on this thread for a long time. Well done, keep it up.

I won't deny it is interesting to see how others interpret VDWs writings, but some of the conclusions are just bewildering to me.

Mtoto - Again you are assuming that the handicapper has every horse right and therefore how can Drumgora and Prominent King be of similiar quality if the latter has so much more weight in the handicap ? Weight was and still is a great leveller, just as VDW stated, so there is one thing that you have chosen to ignore from VDWs method along with his ability rating. My interpretation of VDWs methods does not ignore anything he stated as important and it certainly didn't ignore the extra ideas that needed a bit of sorting out by ones self.

Beacon Light was the class/form horse in the race won by Sea Pigeon but he was one of those that failed. This sounded the alarm bells in itself, but when put against the rest of the opposition in the Erin Foods Champion Hurdle it showed that a false favourite had been put in place.

I assume you are again referring to speed figures specifically Prominent Kings fast time in the Triumph and lack of any figures on his 2 runs in 78. As pointed out previously, there were no speed figures for Irish racing in the Raceform/Sporting Chronicle form annuals so how is this significant? Yes, a good speed figure indicates a level of ability, but a low one does not imply a horse is lacking ability. Form and class are of greater concern, but it depends on how these two factors are interpretated.

Raceman - Class has nothing to do with Postmarks opinion and I realised quite a while ago now that when the so called experts agree it is usually bad news for the horse in question. Today I noticed virtually every man/woman jack of them on TV declare Mr Stoutes runner in the first a certainty. Based on what ? And as always the same "experts" slag off a genuine favourite later in the day who delivers much to their bemusement. Actually, the AtTheRaces channel provides a real insight into the average punters thinking if you have ever sat through "Your View". I have heard "punters" phone in to say they bet in 500 pound wagers regularly but ask what should they be looking for formwise ? And also many phone in to say they follow newspaper tipsters or suchlike. The answers they get are both predictable and useless mainly, but it is a reminder to myself that most people are picking their horses via niave practices some verging on incredibly daft.

The outline for your method, Raceman has some logical points, but in my view it bears little resembalance to what VDW showed us.

Two things have emerged after quite a few months of debate on this forum. Firstly is the amazing amount of people interested in VDW that choose to distort his methods or proclaim them useless just because they have been unable to figure all the parts out. Secondly is the point that, I and others who have figured out enough of the rest of the story, actually need not be worried about giving away too much of the hidden tale. Everyone either thinks they know enough anyway or they just can't figure out what is actually being shown and implied.
Still, it's no skin off my nose. Best of luck to all though in your gambling.

Pipedreamer - Mr Mahoose was a VDW good thing.

A couple of things: first, Barney claims to have identified 35+ "hidden factors", none of the experts has been prepared to make any critical comment on this number (other than Guest saying he hasn't counted them). If the number is this large I dont understand why not even one of these factors can be pointed to, if this were done the readers would have a much clearer idea about how a factor can be hidden. Second, in a recent post someone (Lee I think) in listing the behaviour of those down the road bracketed Barney/Guest by approach and selections, again I will take the lack of critical comment on this as tacit agreement by the experts and further assume that Barney's "for Jimmy/Swish" selections are also the selections that Guest would have proposed.

Epiglotis

Doubtless Guest and Barney will speak for themselves if they so wish, but I would venture two comments to prevent you from mis-interpreting lack of response:

1) there are certainly a number of factors to be brought together in understanding and applying VDW's methods, but relatively few of them can properly be described as "hidden". If we take the core of his thinking, the bringing together of "class" and "form" as he understood them, he was very clear as to how he judged "class", though left how to assess "form" for individuals to discover. "Form" could therefore reasonably be described as a "hidden" factor, but in my view there are not another 34 such;

2) as the bracketing Guest by "approach and selections", I have to say I was very surprised by Lee's comments. For whatever else they may or may not have in common, its perfectly clear from their respective postings that Guest has identified how VDW assessed "form" (the "missing link"), and Barney hasn't.

guest,

enjoy your sebatical, but dont leave it so long next time.

epiglotis,

it suits me that certain people think i am rubbish.

fulham,

I have held peoples hand and walked them through a couple of races, horse by horse to show how i interpret form.Guest has spelled it out AGAIN lately but some will never read what is said or allow the mind to accept the truth.

Thanks for the replies. I haven't time to develope the theme further at present and in any case I hope for some comment from other quarters before coming to a decision about whether or not this line of thinking is worth pursuing.

Barney

I'm not questioning your generosity in trying to help people, or indeed the level of success you achieve with your selections. But you regularly post horses as the c/f in their races which, quite simply, aren't, at least in the sense meant by VDW - recent examples include Conundrum and Tough Speed.