It has taken me ages to find it but here it is
The passage is refering to the roushayd method
In the Book Racing In My system


There are of course many ways to arrive at the same conclusion, but by this means you will Seldom come unstuck and should find more than enough to keep you happy. There is of course the last segment to the formula . . . HARD WORK . . . it has to be done, but few, seem prepared to do it. The method works year-in year-out, over both rules and at all levels.

the way i see cistus, the g1 race was a decline in form(out of form) the trainer then placed her where she would have a chance even though she was past her best the subsequent race showed nothing to suggest she was back in form, in fact the way i see it it was equally as bad as the g1 therefore she was still out of form.

These two performances when judged against the performances from earlier in the season are nowhere near the same quality whereas the winners performances had come on leaps and bounds since their previous meeting.

Statajack,

Sorry to see your leaving.Your posts have had a big influence on the way I look at things at the moment.I'd just like to say thanks very much for the advice you've offered and wish you the best of luck for the future.

Barney

I'm open to correction by Guest, but as I understand how VDW judged form (no doubt an imperfect understanding), I find it impossible to conceive that he (VDW) would have judged a horse that, lto and relatively recently, had won a competitive Group 3 as other than a form horse when considering him in respect of another Group 3 of lower penalty value.

Hi Statajack
I would just like to echo the good wishes of Fulham, Determined, Guest & others that your postings will be missed, they were always on the level and thought provoking to boot.
Be Lucky
Mimas

I am sorry if my post appears bombastic it's not meant to be that way.

As you know I look mainly at the horse and in my opinion the horse itself was not at its peak it had reached its crecendo and was in decline as judged (by my calculations) on its last two performances.

I know that you only think one person has got it as you have stated but I can come to the same conclusion very quickly in some cases and am happy in my own mind that I know what hes on about.

like I have said before they all seem the same to me only many different variations on a theme.

if the horses had met with cistus in the form that it was in race 1960 then vdw would not have said swiss maid was a good thing

most trainers, when the horse appears to hit form, keep banging it up hoping that it stays there long enough but some horses go over before the party.

peak cannot be maintained indefinately - its hard work to get there, and when they get there they make hay. the decline does not appear to be as sudden (unless the trainer says so )but it gradually gets harder and harder to reach the same leval of performance. untill its gone.

then when its at peak we have the problem of which horses peak is better than the others.

its interesting that if its a form horse why did it finish so far down the field? form horses dont usually do that.

Fulham - In context, Cistus was a form horse, but it was a 3yo race and therefore the ability rating has to be used in conjunction with the merit (speed) rating with extra care. Cistus won the French race only days before and narrowly from a lesser class/form horse than the ones Swiss Maid had been beating. Also note the sequence and class from whence the horses involved in both Cistus and Swiss Maids races came. Were the horses in better form when they met Cistus or Swiss Maid ?

Guest is clearly a good judge of form so I dont think it's important whether or not he/she is correct in mimicking VDW, after all there are many ways to burn a doll.

Would it be possible to make two VDW fora, one for contemporary races and another for the rest of the nonsense?

Guest

Thanks, I am very grateful to you for confirming that about Cistus, and for the further pointers.


Barney

You have said nothing which remotely calls for apology.Your view on Cistus makes a great deal of sense, and I believe both that you are quite correct that the York run was a disappointing one in context, and that it was part of the reason why, overall, Swiss Maid was a clear selection.

My disagreement is solely on a specific but for me vital methodological matter - the correct identification, in VDW terms, of the class/form horse. Some weeks ago, I thought that, through the creativity of a colleague, we'd found VDW's method in that regard, but its become increasingly clear that we haven't. However, recent posts, mainly by Guest, have opened up promising avenues, which would have been closed had Cistus not been a form horse for the race concerned.


Epiglotis

I venture to suggest that it would be a mistake to separate discussion of current races from a VDW perspective with that on his examples.

The purpose of exploring those examples is to try to discern, to the fullest possible extent, VDW's approach in order to be able properly to apply it to contemporary races. For those like Mtoto, Barney, Crock and myself, who are engaged in this historical study, the continual referencing between the examples and current races, seeking parallels and differences, is, potentially, of great value. This is particularly so when we are fortunate enough to get helpful pointers, indeed, I would say on matters such as the Cistus question, definitive answers, from Guest, who clearly has been down the path of analysing the historical examples and thereby uncovered a very great deal (perhaps all) of VDW's approach.

If some of us look to Guest as an authority in this field (and accord him respect because of that authority), its because, through our own studies, we have gained sufficient insight to appreciate real understanding and competence in others.

Thanks for including me in your reply. I was in no way criticising Guest. Following Statajack's good-bye post I was trying to express my appreciation of Guest's personal achievement without blaming VDW. About the separate fora idea, we the for example me living abroad without access to the historical literature get a feeling of despondency when a potentially interesting post takes cover in the past. If the principles are pertinent "year in, year out" I see no need to refer back to obscure races for which the details are no longer readily available.

epiglotis,

i sympathise with your situation regarding the form books they are very hard to get hold of.

If you want any particular form book let me know and then i will get it for you and you can send me the money.

wnbarnes@hotmail.com.

if it helps

a horse i posted a couple of months ago -sophisticat - is identical to son of love and cistus is the opposit. these analysis have to be done in conjunction with form study and close comparison to the other runners so its not straight forward, although i am sure you will spot it.

today when yaKimov is looked at there is a factor, that when compared to short respite, is present in many of vdw's examples though not as stand out as in sophisticat/son of love's race.

compton commander was the lay of the day when using VDW's methods regarding placement by the trainer.

fulham,
here hear!

Epiglotis - I do appreciate your position on the historical VDW selections. At an early stage I realised that without the relevant form books it was nigh on impossible to see exactly everything VDW might be showing us. I spent some time and a comparatively small amount of cash rounding up the required books, not all at once, and then I was able to study all the relevant info and discover the common threads for myself.

I think anyone inclined could do the same, though it is getting harder to find all the books required and probably quite tricky for someone such as yourself in a far off land. There are sources on the net for getting these books though or at least some of them.

Hopefully a few recent up to date examples have proved useful though.

Thanks for your considerate replies. I understand that the examples have contemporay relevence but, as you have perhaps noticed, I'm not one of those who is in search of a teacher. I make the presumption of assuming I'm not alone in this, I'm interested in the views of VDW followers but I have no intention of swallowing any other person's thought undiluted by my own. It amounts to being interested in discussion of contemporay races from a VDW view-point but without reference to past examples. Naturally were there to be two fora present day examples would intrude on the historical forum. That would be none of my business and I might stop sticking in ridiculous oars.

look at the money that went on compton commander yesterday some pro punters have no idea.

a lowly e rated h/c i know but.

Max

Cant tell by previous running whether Desert A will get the trip yet But he may do in this company
Triplemoon does get the trip and is turned out quick with a 6lb penalty for winning Lto after being dropped in class
It should be one of these 2 but I notice 2/3 Lightly raced ones that are too near in the betting forecast for my liking and they are hard to suss

Brighton 3-0

Dodgy selling race

Teofillio
Al Muallim
City of London

TF should be the one based on form and the OR’s
Trouble is the OR’s may not tell the true story

Al M
And City Of L could well be better than their OR’s

Don’t Think I’ll bother today
Just a bit of interest

Max

Re Desert Air

His best form is in claimers. I think some of the claimers are worth a few bob more than they should be at the moment and I'm a little wary of taking that form into handicaps. That being said, this race is not very special, but it's one I'd rather pass on.

I think that the type of race can be as important to consider as the value sometimes. Value of the race is a strong pointer, but not the be all and end all.

Rob

a lucky second,all though at an e/w price.
i would not like to back him over 12f on a galloping track.

Max/Boozer

I agree that the 4.00 at Brighton was not an exciting race, and I didn't bet in it myself. But it is the only race I had time to analyse today and it seems to me not to be without interest from a VDW perspective.

If we confine ourselves to the first six in the Post forecast, the first three places (and for all I know places four and five too) were occupied by those horses that had, in recent runs, achieved the most around today's class or above.

In my view the class/form horse was Desert Air but as has been noted, it was far from sure he would get the trip. (Indeed, there was substantial evidence that he wouldn't.)

If we leave Desert Air aside on distance grounds (though the evidence was in my view less clear cut than with Damalis in Lunar Leo's race on Friday), those coming out of the highest class lto were Hakam and Beauchamp Quiz, 3rd and 6th respectively in a class 46 (compared with today's class 49), about ten days ago. (And I think Mtoto would argue - with in my view considerable justification - that the class 46 race was actually a marginally better one than todays, in respect of the ORs of the highest rated runners.)

If we envisage Hakam and Beauchamp Quiz as the most likely winners at today's class and distance, on the face of it the more likely was Hakam, as when the two last ran he prevailed by nearly 4l, and was only a pound worse off. But when one looks at how many runs these two 2yos have had this season, which was the more likely to show improvement, especially given Beauchamp Quiz's untoward incident lto?

Personally, the only firm conclusions I drew pre the "off" were that Desert Air was the clear c/f, but unlikely to get the distance: hence no bet. But reflecting on the available evidence, it would not surprise me if someone more proficient in VDW's methods thought Beauchamp Quiz the most likely winner, even if they went on to judge that she was too speculative for a bet.