Guest,

In reply to your last sentence, I`ve gleaned:


1. An anchor has been outed.

2. Tora Tora is alive and kicking.

3. A half wit is on the lose.

4. The Brasilians are not just better than us at football.

5. Finnaly, that old chestnut, there`s a strong smell of cow $hit in the air again.

Just off for some fresh air!

111
.

Fulham,

My comment regarding- when those who understand VDW's approach agree on a selection, its usually odds on - was based on an observation of this thread, which, owing to a lack of data, can not be taken as a exhaustive view. IMHO the methods are too intricate for those who fully understand them, to pick the exact same horses, as VDW said would happen, and although there is bound to be agreement at more reasonable prices, I think it fair to estimate that most agreement would happen at the front end of the market, which is where VDW told us to concentrate on.

All the examples VDW gave us to study are based on the appraisal of easily viewed facts but because the process is not systematic (in the sense of plugging data into, say a mathematical equation), I would argue that there is an inherent element of subjectivity in the evaluations.

Personally, I don't believe the ''uncertainties'' as you put it are present in VDW's examples, because his understanding of form and expertise ensured a strike rate that was close to perfection as one can get. The differences in views of those who have some serious understanding of VDW, I would venture to say, is down to them needing to learn more, if they wish to that is. I haven't studied the Gaye Chance race in detail but I suspect the reason VDW stated it was a good example of conflict was down to the permutations in the form study. I think you pointed out previously that VDW later said it was the class/form horse but he never at any stage stated it was a wager for him. I wouldn't use the term, poor or wrong judgement, but using the methodology the VDW way, to back Gaye Chance would show a lack in understanding of the full method.

Barney,

Having a nice hol? If one performance is measured to be better than another, there's no need for it to be reconfirmed for some cases.

If VDW decided not to bet because the conflict implied by one other horse having a higher ability rating was too great there really seems little point in discussing the worth of these ability ratings. It's quite clear that if a horse is to become a VDW selection it must be top rated by VDW's ability ratings, everything else in the process acquires the nature of a check on the horses credentials.

The VDW ability rating is no good on it's own. VDW himself said 'What good is class if the horse is out of form'.

There are many examples of VDW ignoring the top ability rating(s)if he considered the horse(s) out of form.

Cheers

Epiglotis

If it were that simple. If you ever get around to examining, say, the first dozen examples VDW gave, you'll see that only a small minority of his selections were top on the ability rating. By way of illustration:

his first ever example: top rated Beacon Light (46), fourth top rated (from first five in betting forecast) Prominent King, the selection (18);

his second example (chronologically speaking): top rated Alaskan Prince (21), third top rated (from the five runners) Rifle Brigade (7).

Thanks for the replies. Perhaps you can explain the meaning or function of this paragraph from a recent Fulham post:
posted July 23, 2002 07:56 AM  
If we take the Gaye Chance example as an illustration, VDW wrote "with experience it is not difficult to sort out the example", and he's surely right. A c/f with a lot going for it, forecast at 8/1. But he then goes on to acknowledge that there was "conflict", eg another horse had a higher ability rating, and advised that it be left alone.

Hi Epiglotis,

The paragraph you refer to, which is taken from 'the Golden Years' says:

quote:

---

With experience it is not difficult to sort out the eventual winner but this race is a good example of conflict and should be left alone

---

He doesn't actually say that Gaye Chance should be left alone specifically because another had a higher ability rating. In this example VDW was 'forgiving' an unplaced effort last time out because 'form shows it was out of its depth previous race'

I haven't studied this particular old race but my guess is that part of the conflict came with ascertaining the 'form' of Gaye Chance after running unplaced down the field in a class too high. Also without 'forgiving' that poor run then Gaye Chance would not have been in the first 3 for consistency which in this particular article VDW was highlighting horses that had everything lining up.

Cheers

The paragraph I referred to doesn't come from VDW, it comes from Fulham, as I clearly stated. Your reply casts no light on Fulham's motivation in posting something that he now states to be a false representation of the matter under discussion.

Epiglotis

Gaye Chance is, to my mind, a classic example of a VDW dilemma, and with respect I'm not sure Bensam is right.

In my view, having looked at the race in some detail, VDW was most certainly right when he wrote that "it is not difficult to sort out the eventual winner", ie to identify Gaye Chance as the probable winner as it was the class/form horse and had been very consistent with good form. Yet VDW went on to state that it was not a bet, because of the elements of "conflict", inter alia that another horse had a higher ability rating.

That is the kind of situation followers of VDW's approach face, if not every day then certainly every week. A horse is identified as the most probable winner, but there are doubts: should one bet?

In the case of Gaye Chance, VDW was unambiguous in his article: leave it alone, "no element of a gamble should be allowed to creep in". But it needs to be born in mind that the relevant article had the character of being a primer, and VDW may simply have been trying to put beginners on the right (cautious) road.

For my money, numerous other selections VDW gave where he implied a bet had been placed had as many (or more) elements of uncertainty than Gaye Chance. Hence the previous post. Was VDW balancing risk and value, and might he in fact have backed Gaye Chance because, unlike beginners, he could undertake that balancing successfully? Alternatively, did VDW have the experience and techniques that enabled him rightly to disregard elements of uncertainty that I and others find in other examples, thus making them clear bets, but unable adequately to resolve the uncertainties in Gaye Chance's case (and thus Gaye Chance would not have been a bet for him)?

Okay.

EpiG, you re going great guns, keep it up! I am nothing but admiration. JIB.

Thanks for the encouragement, I take heart from it.

Gaye Chance - I'm going to go through this race without spelling everything out, but hopefully it might help clear up some of the confusion that has been blown up about this race.

This race took place on 7th March 1981 at newbury on soft going. It was a 3 mile conditions hurdle class 61 and 15 ran. All horses except Gaye Chance were going up in race class, the highest of which was Fauloon who had last run 4th in class 41 over 2m 4f. Gaye Chance had last run on the 27th Dec 1980 in class 176 over 2 miles at Leopardstown in a handicap, but finished unplaced at 33/1. Previously he had rattled up 5 wins on the bounce at distances ranging from 2m to 2m 6f.

Top on ability rating was Fauloon (18) followed by Gaye Chance (16), Ella Mavoureen (15) and then Fort Belvedere (13). Others with reasonable ability were Run With Pride (12) but well out of form and Easy Fella (11) but he hadn't run beyond 2m 4f and hadn't beaten anything of note relative to the Newbury opposition.

Fauloon was consistent and had got the distance, but showed a downturn in form when upped to class 41 at Huntingdon on 12th Feb in a novice event. Sent off 4/5fav after 6 weeks off he led till 2 out but faded after and finished 4th by 9l. VDW said the form was not exciting. Well lets look at the form. We can see that the winner at Huntingdon was Glamour Show at 6/1 a horse who had won a few hurdles previously but not in much class and was 4th in it's last run in class 17. Not exciting certainly relative to Newburys race. The 2nd at Huntingdon was Tuthill Bond at 12/1 who was previously 4th in class 8. Definitely not exciting stuff. However, on Fauloons previous run at Cheltenham on 31st Dec he just failed to get up over 3m class 17 at evs fav against Royal Gaye 25/1 and recieving lumps of weight, but previously 5th in class 42 Long Walk Hurdle at Ascot. Formerly a good hurdler in previous years. So there is a conflict in Fauloons last two runs, but what were the reasons for failure last time ? We can't be totally sure and seeing as his 2nd last run was pretty decent relatively speaking, he had to be respected.

Gaye Chance was blatantly outclassed last time over 2 miles in Ireland. However, the 10 week absence had to be noted and previously he had shown progressive form at a range of trips only appearing to make hard work of it at shorter distances. He had won in class 23 over 2m 2 f easily by 15 lengths at 15/8 fav and then by a head at 4/5 fav in class 22 at Haydock both in November. At Haydock he had given 12lbs and beaten Vicompte a 4yo who was 11/10 2nd fav and had previously won his only hurdle race at 4/7fav easily by 2l at Newcastle class 7.
So here was an improving stayer back in a more realistic target who had the best overall form but was not totally proven against the likes of Fauloon. Ella Mavoureen and Fort Belvedere were consistent and had some ability but not against anything like Gaye Chance and Fauloon.

In my view, had Fauloon not shown the run at Cheltenham or not been in the race, Gaye Chance would have been a good bet. Maybe he made a book, who knows, but it is a good illustration of when to treat a race with caution and not bet the likely winner. We want to be on the highly probable winners. Check out Little Owl and Sunset Cristo on the same day with the same process and things will become clearer if you follow the thinking above. It's not spelt out but hopefully hinted at for anyone inclined to find the full picture. And it ain't rocket science I promise you.

Bensam,

I am well aware vdw states What is form if not one performance better than another. One of my doubts about the ability rating is it only rates some performances. Are you seriously telling me only winning performances are worth rating? I think a far better quote is Form is what they did - Class is the level at which it was achieved.

As for bouncing around the answers, I may be bouncing around YOUR ideas of what is the answer. I'm picking up more than a few winners on the way, or is that luck? As far as I can make out other people highlighted VP as a possible, but decided the risk was to great. You however, like me, went for it. Was your selection down to your greater understanding and mine luck? I have explained why I don't like this ability rating, there are more holes in it than a colander. It is better than nothing, and at times gets it right. There are many examples where it doesn't hold up, but they are just ignored.

MAY my luck continue

As I read it, you suggest backing Gaye Chance for a place on Betfair?

is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling that Guest is dieing to spell it all out for us?

I'm wondering if Three Legs is right and all this time Guest has been trying to put the joke across.

Mtoto - In VDWs reasoning that he gave as to why ratings should be treated as a guide only, he made reference to ratings compilers in which he said that whilst he did not wish to imply that their ratings had no value, they needed to be coupled with other aspects to have a worthwhile meaning. He went on to say that he believed the compilers knew themselves how to use their ratings to best advantage.

Put simply this means no compiler of ratings worth their salt would consider the blind top rated as the most likely winner anymore than VDW considered the top ability rated horse in a race as the one to be on. It is quite simple, if the horse is not in form then class won't do it much good. And even if it is in form, the ability rating element has to be confirmed by going thoroughly into the horses recent form with a strong emphasis on class and past form.

Anyone else who thinks I am just wasting my time by playing some pointless joke on the members of this forum are plainly dafter than they appear. And if they have read properly the majority of my recent postings and not yet figured out the factors to be looking out for then quite frankly I give up. You can lead a horse to water and all that.....

When are you all going to learn that there is nothing to spell out. Do you honestly believe that if there had been something, that after 20 odd years it would not be in the public domain?
Guest has spent years studying form and can probably read a form book the way a taxi driver reads a street map. Mtoto is equally good at what he does, albeit slightly different, Bensam is a wisher who would like to kid us on that he is half as good as Barney who is new to the whole thing. Off course Guest and Mtoto can pick winners and probably make the game pay, anyone who studies a subject for years should. Barney if he sticks at it will eventually do the same. But there is no hidden secrets, only people, for whatever reason, would like to think there are. This is why Bensam will never amount to anything, he spends more time bullshitting than Barney spends reading form. It's all a big joke, the only trouble is that is the people like Guest and Mtoto who don't get it. (NO sense of humour)