For me Oulton Broad only rates a place bet.

as i thought you know absolutely jack s..t, i really did spell your name right did,nt i well i,ll be damned

Do I understand your latest post to mean you'll back Oulton Broad to win?
For the record Divet Hill is a win bet.

From investors profile " finished work, 8 months ago since then i have made the equivelant of 2 years wages."
Here was me thingking it was illegal to work for less than the minimum wage, investor must have been earning about £5 a week. And now he is wasting it on old form books, which he will have to learn to read first.

It's been fun but I have to go out now. Good night.

it,s a braubrich moonlit nicht the nicht,(i think that,s how you spell it) the sad thing is, i had to return to work a while ago i got slaughtered by the taxman from when i was self employed after me ahhh,but i work continental nights so i can still play the gee gees,by the way it,s going i should be able to finish again early next year,not that you need to know,anyway jimbo you stick to 2% of 10 bob and you,ll be fine,trust me

mtoto,

your ideas seem to be developing a bit,

have they always been so and are you just telling more of your method?

if you have son of love then love from verona is easy.

in the class in which they run, why is a true class 40 race different than a true class 100?
subsequently what identifies a class 40 race as better than a class 100 race.WITHOUT OR AND SF OF COURSE.

Bensam did you see my question?

Thanks for the feedback,agreed about the 7.10,getting there ?

Barney.

My method, and thinking hasn't changed. I use the same method I explained to Swish, and to yourself in my first posting to this group. The only slight change is I now look at non handicaps.

You ask what is the difference between a £4,000 and a £10,000 race. The main difference is class, in most cases a lot of the better horses couldn't run in the lower race. Penalty value has NOTHING to do with real class, although it may make the trainer try a bit harder for the bigger money. What is the difference between the to races? Mainly what happens at the 2f marker, this is were the class comes in. In the races of lower class, the leaders can get a breather. You may say yes, but they are all the same class (poor at best) but they are inconsistent or unproven. With the better class horses the real running happens in the last 2f, good horses run faster longer. you say judge this without s/f and OR's. I say you can't, often the race times are similar. This is because in the class races the last 2f are run at a harder pace and it takes more out of the horse slowing it down. The question then is how do YOU judge the CLASS of the runners. I will concede a few years ago the better prize money did attract the better horses. Now all sorts of things happen just to get runners, there are big prize races for poor horses. As I don't use race values may be you can tell me how a 40 can be better than a 100. If it can, isn't Guest in trouble? Hope it is a typing error for his sake.

As a matter of interest who is SL?

Be Lucky

vdw said on numerous occasions,"i like to judge horse flesh by what it,s achieved in public" read guests posts over the last few days,he,s very nearly let it go,i think this,ll be your last chance,i doubt very much he,ll cover the same ground again be observant,and you,ll reap the rewards

Let me know when you get home, let's go a few more rounds.

Just returned from my short break.

Unfortunately my `cryptic` expert failed to turn up.

I see the thread has gone mad again and although I`ve only had a very quick look I believe I may have read the most informative post yet, ie -

GUESTS COMMENTS ON GAYE CHANCE.

That word `relativity`,

Cheers,

I think you'll find the madness as productive as the sanity, if you dig into it's implications.

Barney,

By SL, I have to assume you're referring to Son of Love. I have not looked at this one at all, along with the many others, so unfortunately can't give an opinion on it. If it is what you are referring to, then those who have done the hard graft and followed the subject religiously might know.

I haven't been convinced that the effort required to study all VDW's examples and then implement the method properly would be worth my while, even though it has been proven to make a profit

Typically informative post, and this time short enough to read. Well done.

Hi,

The post by ‘Guest’ on Gaye Chance was a good logical breakdown of the two horses form going in to the race concerned, and showed the sort of depth that you need to be diving to. His first sentence did state however that he was going to do this without giving too much away, and that he did. Appraisal of a horse’s chance, form wise, can only be done in one way, which is by looking at what it can do, or in the case of most horses in a race, what they can’t do. Ask yourself the question, given that Fauloon was a couple of points ahead of Gaye Chance on ability, how did VDW come to the opinion that the latter horse was the most likely to win. Although race conditions such as the going and course etc. play a big part in the final assessment put those factors aside for a moment. Before we look at these factors we need to establish which horse is best, class/form wise and then form the opinion, along with such factors as I’ve just mentioned if the horse can win. Surely there must have been some proof in Gaye Chance’s form to suggest that it was the most likely winner. Surely it must have shown form at this class? Think simple and logical and the answer is staring you in the face.

In fairness what Guest wrote is nothing new. We have seen a similar example before in the shape of Roushayd, but in far greater depth; only if you care to go a bit deeper than what is actually on the page though. What was it that VDW purposely didn’t mention in the Roushayd example that seemed to be the mainstay of his methods? The ability rating was never mentioned, why? Because he wanted the reader to do some work for themselves. He even stated later in time that the object of the exercise was a waste of his efforts – because had it been understood it would have carried readers a long way.

vdw did mention that elusive factor on a few occasions but in a matter of fact way,nothing is hidden it,s how we as individuals interpret class and form,i believe there have been a couple of horses not mentioned that would,light a few more bulbs,but it,s all there..

bensam,

i was refering to your only "tip" so far,

was it the mackeson double where you gave the winner without even knowing who the other runners were to be?

or am i barking up the wrong tree?

JIB

I agree with much of your last, very thoughtful post, but would like to offer comments on two points.

First, VDW wrote less about some of the pertinent issues you mentioned, trainers, jockeys, breeding etc, than about other matters. This was, I think, because he was trying to focus attention on what he saw as the central issues of "class" and "form". But there are clear indications in his writing, and particularly perhaps his examples, that he was very much aware of the importance of the issues to which you rightly refer. Thus one could reasonably regard his Prominent King and Roushayd examples as illustrations of how trainers work in planning their horses' successes.

Second, I would gently suggest that its far from easy to sum people up from posts on a thread like this. I have had no contact with Statajack or Bensam other than through this thread. But I've had a lot of contact with your third "squirrel", Crock, and can assure you that he is every bit as serious a student of VDW's work as Guest, me or anyone else who posts here. Indeed, I can honestly say that it was Crock's imaginative insight, in the course of the exploration of some of VDW's historical examples in another forum, that has taken me further in understanding VDW's approach than anything else. Insofar as he has come under criticism on this thread, it seems to be largely due to one post, which provoked a reaction out of all proportion to its content or intention.

Regards.