good evening..i,m sorry for interupting your convesation with guest,obviously you have consistency i.e the numerical picture,but also you then get consistent form,a horse may be top on ability but not have the form on the day of the race relative to the rest of the field,or the probables,from what iv,e seen upto now this flat season,i personally feel that speed is a very good guide,but like the man said what is speed without form,i hope iv,e not confused the issue iv,e still got to get my head round n/h yet,daunting

what are you LOLin about,it would be nice to join in

investor,

can i but in on your but in?

i think that the reason that vdw indicated older horses, ie handicap chases and non hand chases is that if consideration is given to the age's of the horse's, then it is far more likely that there will be few suprises in store,form wise, from such horses.

From what i think I have learned, in these circumstances class and form will be a far more reliable indicator of the relative merits, of each animal as compared to relatively unexposed three year olds.Possible return to past performnces yes, improvement unlikely.

On the flat, if i remember correctly, VDW told us to "concentrate on the open age races" until a full understanding has been obtained.

perhaps there is a good reason for this?


but you probably know that already!

Guest

In the history of Roushayd, the question of how VDW handled the issue of performance in handicaps and non-handicaps arose, a matter in respect of which I have some uncertainty.

In calculating ability ratings, VDW seemed to aggregate win prize money no matter what the type of race, and use a single figure for a horse at any point in time, not a "handicap" ability rating and a "non-handicap" one. (Similarly he seems to have used a single figure for the aggregate of hurdles and chase wins, and not separate chase and handicap ability ratings.) But it is less clear to me that he treated handicaps and non-handicaps similarly (or indeed hurdles and chases) when assessing "form" for "class/form" purposes?

The example I have in mind covers Roushayd's late 3yo, first 4yo runs.

As you know, Roushayd won a valuable (class 641) handicap on his penultimate 3yo run. In his last 3yo race he finished 11th and last in a less valuable (class 167) Group 3, the (non-handicap) St Simon stakes.

If the last race had been in a class 167 handicap, the situation as regards "in formness" for his next race, his first as a 4yo, a class 50 handicap, would be clear. Perhaps its clear anyway, and Roushayd should not have been regarded as a "form" horse for that class 50. But I'm not wholly convinced that VDW would have taken that view, although as he made clear there were reasons not to back it.

In an earlier post today, you wrote that Roushayd had been "consistently a form horse". Would it be fair to infer from that that you share my sense that VDW would probably have regarded Roushayd as a "form" horse fto in 1988, though not one to be remotely considered as a potential bet?

Regards.

Investor

It was subtle but it worked, you`re in.

Don`t asked to many ? Everything has to be cryptic

111.

I can't wait for that one!

recently it,s been mentioned,that there is a framework around which vdw made his evaluations,when people get there heads around this,they,ll be up and running (in my opinion) obviously the time you put in is paramount,but the patterns are there obviously all the other factors must correspond,don,t get me wrong i,m still in early stages,but the foundation has been layed..

Investor

Don`t prostitute yourself by wasting time on the pieman, you`ll get nothing of any value in return.

Comply with VDW, stick with class.

111
.

giz a drag!!!

me too aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

three legs,

in the ultimate wheel of fortune on page 24 "must prepare to work" VDW details a method which he details selecting the principal non handicap chase, and then selecting the form horse if it is in the first three in the betting. He then gives a list of six horses which i assume all won.

he states "keep in mind that Form horses win a high percentage of races"

In this illustration there is no mention of CLASS, I havn't checked these horses out, but i do know that he selected lots of horses that were not the highest rated from a class point of view.

hope this helps !

Was that a recording ?

three legs,

he then goes on to say he bets on less than 20% of horses that he thinks will win.

he did not say if he had a bet on those horses or not.

but as you say, if it was the c/f horse, that is the line that if, when crossed, he then "gets the boots on"

but he was a good un wasn't he, money already in the bank, shares in companies around the world, three month cruises in the west indies.

I am only a novice in comparison and likely to remain so!

i keep interrupting people tonight,i do apologise obviously the said race was roushards seasonal debut and he needed a race or two before coming to the boil,hope this helps

It is a f**king recording !

three legs,

i must admit i am starting to have serious doubts about vdw.

I am thinking of finding a good thread and following that.Hopefully there will be posts for the rest of my life.

Or even double your life.

LOL

Hi Investor,

Thanks for trying to help, but the point you quite correctly make is one of the reasons why Roushayd was nowhere near a betting proposition in his first 4yo race. I'm using the specific example in order to raise a matter of technique, of wide relevance in applying VDW's approach, about which I'm far from certain.

Mtoto - Can I take it that you still don't concur with VDWs view that the class/form horse is the form horse with the most class ? As he clearly stated, this does not have to be the horse in the race with the highest class/ability rating, but the FORM horse with the most class and there is a big difference. Yes, it is true that when that class/form horse is also the highest class/ability horse in the entire field, the horse is seldom beaten, but it doesn't have to be top rated to be a good thing.

An unfit horse won't clock a good speed figure, as witnessed with Roushayd who was noted as backward in his 4yo seasonal debut, but he still showed form in all first 3 runs of that season relative to the races he ran in. As a winner of a top class handicap the previous season after progressing with racing at 3yo, he was unlikely to be fully wound up for a moderate class 50 contest at 4yo. However, his class was far superior to most of those in that race and he could not be conclusively discarded. VDW showed via a small insight into his evaluation process how the likely winner could be identified, but it seems the point of that was lost on so many. Rather than wonder why he let a potential bet go unbacked, better to think what information of use did he glean from the result?

I suspect your further elaboration on the horse A/B scenario suggests he see a difference in the placings figure scenario outlined. All VDW was mainly concerned with on this point was that the 3 lowest ratings from the first 5/6 or the entire field provided a well stocked fishing area. It matters not who has the lowest consistency ratings because only the study of class and form in depth will tell us who has the better credentials.

The ratings that VDW devised are all simple in both execution and logic, but when combined with in depth form study they do highlight potential winners. To go into great depth on this subject would involve explaination on a grand scale and whilst I wouldn't have the time to do so, I also wouldn't want to reveal all I have personally gleaned from VDWs writings.

There you go Investor, they`re queuing up to talk to you now.