Chaz

Hope you got your money back with interest on the recovery mission today with Ho Leng even if he was a bit out on official ratings
The performance was there, but hes a quirky character

Johnd

Well done with Scott’s V
Improving 3yo whose beaten the handicapper again

Zonergem

was one of the biggest shall we say cover ups that I have seen this season Its not there in the formbook apart from his run at goodwood on the 30th of July

Guest.

Pleased to see you are turning the corner, pity the price wasn't bit better. If I can I would like to ask a couple of questions.

Were you serious about dropping Systematic's very good 5th? Possibly his best ever run, I can't see how he could have been classified as being out classed.

A couple of points about the 3:55. Jack Dawson, out of his last 4 runs, the only one that could come anywhere near being in form is the last run (the one you are happy to forgive). I am also a bit surprised you used the s/f for Ocean Tide from the race once again you are happy to forgive. If the horse is out classed, or carrying to much weight (for you) why use anything from the race? I'm very confused, I would have thought you would have made Gargoyle Girl the class form horse (even though she did fail when expected). I made Ocean Tide the class horse in the race, but the form bit wasn't so easy. I had to resort to my ratings to make him a bet. Hope you can shed a bit of light on this (without giving too much away) I really did think I was getting to grips with the way you worked.

Boozer.

I didn't think the form of Zonergem was hidden. From the date you mention he had been running in progressively stronger races and getting faster each run. I didn't back him today, because I didn't think the pace would be strong enough. Could be a cracking bet for the Cambridgeshire (if they can find a jockey half as good).

Too those who backed Scott's View, well done. I didn't, but why didn't you Guest?

Be Lucky

Mtoto - VDW once said that it's is charitable to forgive but the successful punter never forgets. I try not to ignore any run, but it has to be placed in the relative context of the race under examination for today. Systematics 5th in the Voltigeur was a very good run especially in context of todays race, but it was in much higher class. Therefore it was masking his true consistency. As it happened, in this race it mattered not for the purposes of establishing who were the consistent horses, but it should always be double checked.

So you should see that I don't ignore anything that can be used for future use. Just because Jack Dawson and Ocean Tide ran in better class last time, it doesn't mean I would overlook what they actually achieved. In context of todays race and the consistency (mechanical) part, the placings in their last races were not so important. I don't see why Jack Dawson was out of form before. Giving weight to an improving younger horse in his penultimate run and outclassed again before that. The doubts were there though and the likely price compounded the doubts. I must admit to being somewhat surprised though at the 2nd class/forms eventual price, well above the odds, but there you go.

Similiar doubts surrounded Patsy Veales race and again the call was to leave it alone. Note that all 3 races had the first two/three home well supported in the data departments.

The 2nd column of ratings were of course the ability rating followed by a handicap rating and an unadjusted speed figure. The latter will be obviously sourced, but the handicap rating is compiled from existing ones available to all, but not in the format I use them. It is based very much on the first of VDWs ratings he used for Little Owl/Sunset Cristo,etc but as he said, it is not the be all and end of all of selecting the good bets. It does assist though, in sorting out the true odds and likely pitfalls.

Scotts View wasn't strong enough to bet in my view today and in the end I didn't have a bet of any description.

Fulham - I bypassed the Diadem winner due to one of it's ratings and the fact that it's form was below Malhubs. The Nicholls horse was added due to it's form in the July cup and the 2001 Diadem when only just beaten.

Guest

Thanks for your comments on your selections for yesterday's 3.05 Ascot. You obviously attach greater relative weight to the handicap rating vis-a-vis the ability rating than I do, and of course Bahamian Pirate scored well on the handicap rating, too.

May I ask if, in your study of VDW's examples, you re-created his two sets of ratings, or have you judged the weight to give the two from the relatively few examples where he supplied them?

Mtoto

Ok maybe a bit overstated re: biggest cover up

I am due to go to the opticians soon
But my eyes arent that bad

Two races that VDWs main method draws attention to on Monday are both at Hamilton. Neither race throws up a good bet for me, but the data may prove interesting to the board.

Hamilton 3.20

Devious Boy........5*.......33......96......68*
No Time...........14*(11?)..72*.....98......69*
Nuit Sombre.......16(7?)....36.....100......27
Summer Lightning...5*.......42*....101......49
Robwillcall.......16........33.....102*.....60
BA Highflyer.......8*.......46*.....98......48
Pavement Gates....14*.......34.....102*.....37
Intellibet One....15........36.....100......43
Seafield Towers...21.........0.....102*.....43
Dazzling Bay......23........43.....102*.....17
Wittily...........15........50*.....89......43
Deco Lady.........25.........0......73......31

Hamilton 3.50

Sun Bird..........17(10?)..129*....100*.....75*
Robandela.........25........45*.....99......80*
Collier Hill.......5*.......47*.....90......58
Vicious Prince....13*.......70*....106*.....71
Tandava..........(13*)......41.....100*.....54
Masideha...........7*.......34......84......33
Court Of Appeal...18........45*.....97......75*
Lord Advocate.....22........31......21.......0


Fulham - There wasn't enough data to mock up the same ratings for other VDW selections, though I did figure out how he arrived at the first column for The Old Fellars race. The "Spells It All Out" ratings luckily were found in one form or another within the pages of one of VDWs favourite form guides that he made frequent reference to. As he said though, in the main any good handicap or speed compiler will have the main principles up front in the better races. The class/form part provides the real answers.

Thanks for those few kind words, we all need a result now and then for us to persevere.

3.50 Hamilton
Masideha may be one for Monday, the way she ran at Donny, she is almost certain to improve for this C/D, and Michael Stoute has a remarkable strike rate with his 3yo's at this track.

Guest

Thanks. I had wondered how realistic it was to re-create the "Spells it all out" ratings derived, in part at least, I think from Haig, for other VDW examples, but it feels a formidable task and I'm rather relieved that you haven't found it necessary (even if, indeed, it was practicable).

Some, including colleagues of mine, believe the ratings to be the real key to VDW, no doubt because the four "Spells it all out" examples set out in full are each top-rated on both. Personally, I've never thought them to be central, as I can't believe VDW would have attached as much importance to someone else's opinion (the handicap ratings) as to the facts (and the inferences he made from them) that he clearly regarded as central, and although he certainly used sfs, he was also explicit about their limitations.

to watch a trainer develop a horse

to take a horse with natural ability and then watch how he is placed to improve him and make him better and then to introduce running techniques to give the horse some class and then to watch how he is placed to take advantage of those efforts is the essence of VDW.

Horses are not born KNOWING how to run a good race they have to be taught. it was hard work with SV but johnston got there in the end.

as skillful a display of punting as the training

well done

is that any better?

You seem to have misinterpreted my message of thanks, perils of the written word I suppose!
I wasn't being in anyway sardonic, it really was a sincere thank you ( obviously couched in the wrong terms), and it is satisfying when you spot a plot and it is appreciated when another subscriber who thinks that VDW is more than just a numbers game supports some of your views.
I am not really a self-publicist and now your just making me blush!

put me down for lexis hoss to beat night mist

Johnd,
have you looked at larousse? one to keep an eye on?

Guest,

re van nistlrooy I had him as out of form after the last debacle when he had every chance.I think it was your goodself that said a horse can win and be out of form.Am i on the wrong track?

Hi Guest,

I must say your ratings method intrigues me. As you rightly say, the last column on your data is pretty obvious (although I think you made a mistake yesterday with Frankies Dream).

However, your other 'handicap' rating intrigues me more. I'm pretty sure I know your source but have not yet figured out the minor adjustments that you are making to some horses. Can you confirm the figure that you have quoted for Masiheda is correct. You seem to have downgraded by a significant amount. My first thought was something to do with WFA but that doesn't tally with Vicious Prince in the same race.

I accept that the ratings are only a guide but I do take some form of perverse pleasure from studying the methods of others

Cheers

Think I get your point about Larousse, he must have a chance of improving over this C/d, but will MD be able to hold him after chasing a strong pace lto?
Re Van Nistleroy, watching the replay on tv, although he met all sorts of trouble in running, he still had chance to win, and I thought he just ran out of petrol in the last 100 yards. Two things which support this view are the way he was held up right out the back, and A O'Brien "He's in good form, and we always thought he would stay a mile", in Saturday's Racing Post. It probably will turn out to be a poor Group2 anyway.

Barney, does Lexis Hoss mean you are back on sfs?

I cant see how this race lends itself to VDW style analysis.

r.e Van Nistleroy, I was more concerned about his speed figures than anything,And of course where he,d acheived them.

JIB
why the preocupation with whether i have reverted to sf and the insinuation that i revert between using them and not is beyond me.I selected the "hoss" because there was conflict from a number of things that i consider, against the fav, although I admit one of the prime consideration's was in the favs favour,class.

I took a few bets at over 5/1 because i thought that was good value in what was essentially a two horse race.

anyone who looked in because of speed figures, they are shite arnt they.LOL

johnd,

i will watch for it at 14f

how on earth could hoss's race have been evaluated from a vdw angle?

with only a couple of runs between the principles how can either any conclusions have been drawn or conflict found?

surely there were other more suitable races today preferably ones where the runners had a qualified for a h/c mark.

remember vdw favourite word-temprement.

No sniping was intended Barney, it was simple curiosity in that a race so bald in the form department, you decided to make a selection. I also did Lexis Hoss but only because of the sf.