It's easy to give the course and time pertinent to a horse, this thread is an exemplifer of arrogance in neglect of this.

Guest

You've touched on these six examples a couple of times, more recently in connection with your good winner Birjand, indicating that you felt you had more to discover about VDW's approach in their regard.
In your post on 2 September you wrote, in the context of the six, "Of course a lot of it could just be down to how the form book really works out with the wins taking even the trainers by surprise sometimes, but it is they who are governing how the horse is placed and when it ties up with good relative class/form then a win is very much on the cards."

I am wondering whether that sentence means that, while you can see that in no case was the fact that the horse concerned won a complete shock, it is not the case that in all six instances you can see the horse in question as, prospectively, the potential "winner in the race", let alone a serious bet?

That is certainly my present position, though I've more work to do. As I currently see things, one of the six was a copper-bottomed c/f, but at the other extreme a couple seem unlikely betting propositions, for all that their successes were, retrospectively, intelligible.

Fulham - Of the six horses VDW gave in 95/96 the stand out was Travado who was the class/form horse, but so was Killeshin in his race. So these could have been found via the consistency and/or class/form approach. In fact further to that VDW compared Rivage Bleu to Prominent King stating that both horses lacked a winning class rating, but the trainer told you they were really out to win. But what does that mean?

Let's look from the trainers point of view. Before a race is run, all he knows are the entries and the value of the race and a rough idea of the weight to be carried if it's a handicap. He doesn't know the exact opposition and certainly not when entering the horse. So when does he know the info required about the opposition ?

Given the answer, it should then be seen how he might use the info for the future without recourse to knowing the final decs.

Three Legs - No doubt I may post some selections in the forum on saturday for all members to see. Surely though if you entered the competition then the selections should come from your own form book analysis?

You got BIRJAND because of the draw,
(and you know it)
Cheers
Swish

Thanks for your answer Guest, I`ll keep my eyes open on Saturday.......by the way, what`s a form book?

Guest

One like BIRJAND will do just dandy. I don`t care where it came in the draw or if it was won in a bloody raffle just so long as it wins.

111
.

Guest

Thanks for your reply, but I think the point you are making is more relevant to making the wins intelligible than enabling some of the six to be identified in advance as bets.

If I may explain what I mean by that, taking Rivage Bleu as the example, that the horse had a modicum of ability, and particularly that connections thought he had, is evident from his placings/performances in the 1994/5 season, as is the training problem to which you referred in a previous post. So there is no difficulty in seeing why this was a horse one might watch with interest in the 1995/6 season.

First time out in that season, RB was placed in a modest amateur event, and ran moderately, coming 2nd by 20l, but not without indicating some promise for the future as, save for the blunder at the 12th, he'd have probably finished much closer.

By that run, principally against Harwell Lad, the winning favourite, the trainer (and contemporary form students) had a benchmark, and that benchmark was re-inforced by Harwell Lad's next (and astonishing) run, which I can well remember seeing live on TV.

The race King selected for RB's next run was well-chosen, in the sense that it was a reasonable novice handicap chase at a major course, where he could reasonably expect RB to carry minimal weight, and at 10.2 (including 2lb overweight) he did. So, assuming that the horse jumped well (something that could not be taken for granted, on the evidence of previous runs) the trainer (and form students) knew he was no forelorn hope.

BUT, hitherto RB's jumping had not been brilliant; at 10.2 he was carrying 11lb more than his long handicap weight; and he was running against several horses who, though not world beaters, were, in both VDW's specific sense and more generally, in form.

Thus while I find no difficulty in understanding, post race, that RB's success was no shock, I can't at present see that there was enough evidence available before the race for anyone to go beyond "yes, he's in with a shout" to conclude "good bet". Certainly, for me he was not in the same league as VDW's best bet that day, Travado.

Its probable that there is an aspect I'm either missing altogether, or to which I'm not giving sufficient weight, and in a sense it would be re-assuring to be told that that is the case. However, I thought I sensed, in the extract I quoted from your 2 September post, possibly similar doubts in your mind, hence my question last night.

Fulham - I agree that if you look at VDWs 6 best bet/next best 95/96 selections, in the same manner as his other selections then things look confusing especially with Rivage Bleu and Arthurs Minstrel. However, as VDW said, this approach is quite different to anything he had shown before though often his other crosschecks confirmed findings such as with Travado/Killeshin.

In my view, this approach is based on study of how some horses are placed and run before entering the winners enclosure which differs from the more exposed type of form. Consider your point about Harwell Lad and what if he had lined up at Cheltenham also. Did any of the field look like a Harwell Lad formwise?

If a horse is beaten the reason needs to be logical. You also have to take into account the training program and it is worth noting that the horses VDW gave had all had some sort of break within their last 3 runs.

I believe there is an element of Murphys Law within racing especially where strong public fancies are concerned. The hot favourite that fails only to win next time at bigger odds, etc, etc is a frequent occurence that can be said to defy logic, but does it? Is racing logic not somewhat stranger than we expect ?

The truth lies somewhere in between and under certain circumstances it is possible to highlight the horses that appear on the surface to buck the formbook.

Oh and Swish, it has nothing to do with the draw. I rarely consider it. The draw is offered as an excuse so often but does it really affect things to the degree punters/trainers believe. When Medicean lost the Magnet Cup supposedly of the draw out in the car park, it was taken as gospel. But a year later and Foreign Affairs went right round the field and down the wide outside from what looked an impossible position to score in style. We also hear talk of getting cover,etc,etc which again is a bit of myth in my view. Why would running amongst a tight bustling bunch assist a horse in making its way forward?

There seems to be a good bet in the shape of Coalition today,But on looking at the form of all concerned i'm not so sure.Coalition has done nothing wrong recently but there seems to be a danger in the shape of Classic Millenium,Who was beaten by C over the same c/d lto C.M has a much better chance with the weights today,And i think at 7/1 is overpriced.obviously there are other races to consider but the scenario surrounding this race intrigued me any comments appreciated

this appears to have everything that VDW told us to look for.What are you trying to do investor weed out that last 10% losers.

my concern is that its carring more weight than its ever performed well with, far more.

classic millenium had won at C&D last time they met but in far lesser grade, and ran to his ability, possibly a bit better.

There is even more actual weight difference today due to the claimer, 12lb pull for a couple of lengths.

I think that prescott wants him to win by as narrow a margin as possible

I agree with your comments,but like you say a stone better off for 2 lengths,i'll be interested in the outcome of this one.Maybe i'm being over cautious and Coalition will hack up,But i think i'll let this one run,good luck if you play

I think the actual weight to be carried stops it for me.

In the past when i have left them they do hack up.

has anyone looked at the 430y,

I meant 12 lbs not a stone

R.E 4.30 y There seems to be an awful lot of form flying about in that race, iv'e not really had a great deal of time to look,But it would seem there is to much conflict for my liking i.e too many with chances,How do you see it

what about resplendant cee held up and hampered 5th, 2nd time out, in a class 500 6f at 10/1

then given a couple of nice 7f runs

now back to six in a class 72 with six lbs less and 3/1

obviously R.c is one of the probables,but iv'e applied the crosschecks and to my mind there is conflict,in my way of applying the checks Goldeva comes to the forebut outside the first five in the betting and the last run not inspiring,Albeit over the wrong distance.A learning day for me today

i must admit when i first looked i thought goldeva as well

Well a phrase comes to mind that i hear so often,Weight is a great leveller,It's interesting that the winner came out of coalitions last race,But even with hindsight i don't think any of us would have picked that one.

i think we got it about right though investor.

that was the problem with the 430 wasnt it? everthing down in weight. LOL. that did well though granny's pet, at a distance its never won at.

does anyone know if VDW gave any examples in the cesarewitch and the cambridgeshire.