Your posts in my opinion are as equally important as Guest`s and I`ve no doubt Guest (in my opinion) enjoys his discussions with you.

Keep posting.

Cheers,

Guest


As regards new sources of information, my comment was simply one of historic fact, not my opinion on the value of that fact. It is the case, for example, that nowadays ORs, if one wants to utilise them, are published for nearly every horse every day in the Post. It was so much more difficult to derive ORs in VDW's day, and indeed often (particularly with NH racing) impossible. Similarly, sfs are certainly more conveniently accessible nowadays and, I suspect, for a much wider range of races.

As to whether this greater availability of data has changed the price of fish, that is a different question. For Mtoto it clearly has. For myself, the data used by VDW remains central, but I think that ORs as a set of ratings can be a useful cross check in some situations.


Crock/Barney

Thanks for your thoughts on the relative significance of Roushayd's runs towards the end of his 3yo career. I'm not sure that among the three of us we haven't got four opinions, because I find myself torn on this one and tend to wander between two!

I may not have properly understood one of Barney's posts on Roushayd, though. Am I right in understanding you to say that Roushayd was out of form at the time of the second run of his 4yo career? IF I've understood you correctly on that, your view would seem to differ from Guest's (again, assuming I've properly understood that) that Roushayd was consistently in form. On that point, I share Guest's view, though I also agree with VDW's conclusion that he was not a betting proposition.

Regards.

fulham,

1) roushayd was in form relative to the race class 50.

2) he was out of form in the context of the chance of victory in the class 77 race.

Now then, what two opinions are you torn between regards handicap and non handicap races?

Hi Barney,

Had Roushayd ended his 1987 season with his 600+ handicap win, then there would have been no conceivable doubt that he was a "form" horse for his first run in 1988.

In fact, as we know, he ran once more in 1987, finishing 11th and last in a much less valuable race that the 600+ handicap, albeit a Group 3. Taking that run in isolation, in Roushayd would have been "out of form" for his first run in 1988, despite the fact that the Group 3 was a palpably higher class race than the class 50 handicap he contested fto in 1988.

But should one take that run in isolation, or does one "excuse" it? That is the issue on which I find myself in two minds, but tending to the latter position.

Regards.

Fulham,

the fact that he performed so poorly in that race only tells me the "bus driver" new where he was going.

Do you think that roushayd was selected as a horse to follow from one of the methods hinted at?

namely, look for a good handicapper which has run well on one of his last two outings and then follow him taking carefull note of how he is placed.

i cant remember the book that was in but i think its pertinant in that example.

hello headlines do you like vdw?

Hi Barney

There are other possibilities. For example, the trainer may have thought that Roushayd was a potential Group horse and that the St Simon was a realistic Group race in which to test that possibility. Supporting this view is that Roushayd was reasonably well supported in the market, and his failure did not result in his trainer abandoning thoughts of Group wins, as his 4yo career after the Old Newton Cup shows.

There is no doubt that VDW compiled lists of horses to follow: there are several references to that in his writings. I can't recall him suggesting one on the basis you mention, but that's not at all to say that you are wrong.

Fulham,

I will have a good look tonight to see where i read it.

I know that i'm not imagining it.

Hi Guest.

As long as you're sure you don't mind me asking questions, I will carry on. The last thing I am trying to do is undermine you, I am just trying to understand the logic you apply.

Unlike some, you have obviously put a lot of thought into understanding the works of vdw. I have explained why I don't think the ability rating works, could you explain why you think it does? Why is the class of the race better, if the prize money is greater? I can understand the trainer may try harder for the bigger money. I have explained that I think if the horses in 2 races are the same class, that is the class of the race, whatever the prize money. If you where using the ability rating of the runners to gauge the strength of the race I could understand that. Even if I can't agree, but to base it just on the prize money? I did give you an example in the Leger last year, Milan came out of a group race against the winner of the Ebor, your way the Ebor is a stronger race. I have addressed this to you, but I would be more than happy to hear logical reasons from anyone.

Barney.

About 6:30 last night you posted something addressed to me. I was busy, but when I went to answer you it had gone. If it wasn't full of cryptic questions, or answers if you post it again I will try to answer you. I did notice you said the day job was hanging on by a thread. Please don't let that thread break for a little while, I think you need all the time you can get. I would be interested to see your answers to some/any of the above, but please give reasons why you think it. Not just because vdw says so.

Be Lucky

Hi mtoto,

the post last night was clear answers to your six questions from your last post explaining how vdw saw it, but i am not putting them on again.Glad you saw it though.

I am not interested in working anything out for myself regarding racing at the moment. I am too busy trying to work out what VDW tried to tell us, a big enough job on its own.But I am getting there.

Hopefully if i ever truly sort them out then the one thing i will have is time.

Like i said before one day i hope to be as good as you are.

vouchsafes win was against donkeys.

Hi,

I find it extremely difficult sometimes to put forward, in words, exactly what I want to say. More often than not when I go on to read what I have posted it doesn’t seem to have the same meaning as what I wanted it to have. I now also think this is true of the posts that I read from others.

Mtoto,

In my quest to find the answers I went over much ground trying to unearth the missing part of the equation. Why was it that I couldn’t find winners anywhere near the scale that VDW claimed to have done? I went over things more than once in many cases, just in case I’d made a mistake, and in fairness, like most who have discovered the right path, uncovered that missing part of the equation very early on, however, I, like most, failed to realise it. When VDW said that you have to start right from the beginning and to put aside old dogmas, he really meant it. Unless one is able to do this, then they won’t progress with the method as he used it. The prize money of a race is of importance, however, it’s only a consideration along with other things. It is somewhat simplistic to say that if 2 horses of the same class are in the same race then that is the class of race, but in basic terms I agree with you. The question you then have to ask is, are they both in form, and here lies the answer that everyone seeks; how do you establish form? Of course, we see what each horse has done previously. Where did they finish in their previous races? What was the class of those races? What did they beat/what beat them? We then consider the going, trip, track etc. But it doesn’t stop there. Form is one performance better than another, HOWEVER, we’re not just talking here about the horses involved in the said race. The permutations are endless, as VDW suggested. VDW hinted that when the method has been operated for some time you could turn back your records to see how good a performance actually was. It can be necessary to think along way from the actual race in question. I still believe that most are unaware of exactly how much time is needed to implement this SIMPLE method. It was a part that held me back for years. I’ve never really mastered the temperament bit, but I do ok!

good evening..you keep saying the ability rating does,nt work,now i,m probably not the right person to question that view,like anything you do in life you start of by being instructed on how to go about things,like building a house,if the foundations are,nt good there,s a good chance that eventually that house will fall down,afterall it gives the house it,s strength and stability,i,m not for one minute saying the ability rating is the foundation,but it,s certainly a part that can,t be ignored when the doors,windows and roof go on,we know it,s watertight we might get the odd leak now and again but not very often

Did you get that MTOTO, If you want an extension to your kitchen............you know where to go.

740s

has anybody had a good look at dr cool? standing between his defeat by scotts view and his victory over him, scotts view showed some class and improved his rating.

any experts who feel able to comment please do!

Enter the pork pie

trained by the best had an easy race last time he was only just fancied to beat an out of form rival.


what do you think three legs have you looked at this race?

Racing, who mentioned anything about racing.

$hit, is this a horse racing web site ?

Must have falled asleep with me hand on the clicker.

LOL

don fitz - old foreign class

affray - highest or


someone must have a view!!!!!!

as soon as i saw your name on the thread,i guessed what was coming,still made me laugh though,i think mtoto will know what i,m trying to say..be good.