2 shortest forecast favs at the 2 main meetings are both at Downpatrick namely 1.00 Royal All Star and 1.30 Hume Castle.

The latter horse is a case whereby having a quick spin over fences last time shortly after a good hurldes run in better class is not so much of a negative. He is far and away the best of these as is Royal All Star and both should win. I would want better than 4/7 to bet either though.

Two horses at Lingfield I will be backing are Aventura and Lagudin. Both have form against better than they meet here.

Guest,

I didn’t see your post until after the event, and so don’t think that I’m being wise with the knowledge of the result. I looked at both Royal Star and Hume Castle as the two shortest price forecast favourites and agree about the latter one. However, I’m surprised that you went for Royal Star seeing that the 2nd in the forecast was a newcomer and impossible to assess, and also given the negative in relation to the SP’s?

Hello all
Unfortunately I was out most of the night,And didn't get out of my pit till 1.40 p.m,It was nice to see that guest is still prepared to post after all that's been said,And i don't want to start it all over again,But surely the eventual winner should have created conflict,Or even been a big enough danger to have at least needed a book to be made,Which wasn't possible so no bet.

Sorry,I was referring to the 2.15 ling

After reading this book over and over,There's one letter that i look at On quite a regular basis,The letter i refer to is 18 written by f.chester.Vdw later responded to 3 people namely with regard to there letters,j.p hollis,a duncan and f.chester in his remarks he said 'The latter has by the way,Gone a long way towards the ultimate conclusion'That about sums up yhe 2.15 at ling,Before i get jumped on take a good look at the form,Brilliant Red hasn't exactly been plucked of skeggy beach.

I think guest was right to put a price limit on them.

Why anyone thought it deserved to be SO short though I dont know.

Investor/Chaz - Yes, I was far too dismissive of Brilliant Red who demonstrated the power of the ability rating WHEN THE HORSE IS IN FORM. That is what VDW mean't by his statement that ability never fades.

Obviously I didn't back the 2 in Ireland, there has to be price limits.

JohnD was right about one thing though, trying to prove a point on this thread can be hazardous to your betting. Still, no one race or days betting means a thing in isolation. The long term is what counts.

ability does fade

i can probably list 100 horses that have lost ability,without even looking hard!

Greg - You mean they lost their form!

no still winning races,just plain and simple lost ability

Hi Guest,

A couple of points. You say Beacon Light was the c/form horse at Sandown, how do you know? VDW never said that, I can only assume you are judging that as PK was the c/form horse the way you understand it. You must be right about the Sandown race. I make PK the c/form horse for the Erin so why can't I also be right about the Sandown race. Another thing that bothers me is, I can't see by any stretch of the imagination how the way you are working is simple. Did you really suddenly see how it all fell into place? All this in or out of form, trying to judge weather a race should be forgiven, etc. You have never explained why BL's last race couldn't be forgiven as the going was badly against it. Or for that matter why Dibbinsdale first race of the season is a true reflection of it's in 'formness'. One, it was a prep race, a 3 year old running against older horses (in April) and he had shown he need a couple of runs to be at his best.

I think it was Barney that accused me of being selective about the parts of VDW I believed in. You are saying very much the same. I don't think I am, I am just trying to make sense of what HE said. I think there are several methods that are being rolled into one. I'm not convinced the c/form factor applies to the basic (consistency) method. I have never said VDW was inconsistent, only the methods used by people to unravel them are. When they look at an example they know the winner, so they look for a reason to eliminate the danger. Out of form, wrong distance, to much weight, too many runs in a short space of time, etc. These are easy decisions to make when you know the result. The inconsistency comes about when those same reasons are ignored in subsequent races. Half the time I wonder if they are the true reasons, (VDW's reasons) or weather the same decision would be made before the race.

I think the 80% strike rate is the worst thing that VDW ever mentioned. Not that I think it is unobtainable, but the implication that if you don't achieve it you are doing it wrong. I will never get there, because I will not back the short priced horses.

Be Lucky

VDW was a - "Dutchman !"

He got 80% by "Dutching !!"

quote:

---

Nothing wrong with - "Backing two horses in one race"

---

Thats where the expression came from !! _

See GUMMYS "Dutching Calc" on RHS of Main Board.

TC



[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on December 11, 2002 at 09:18 PM.]

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on December 11, 2002 at 09:19 PM.]

1.50 Huntingdon

Anyone looked at this race yet ?

Ei Ei

Should get the uncontested lead he likes and ran ok in a similar class hurdle race over C & D about a year ago but has improved a bit over fences since.

Now reverts back to hurdles again, off a nice low weight, and at the likely prices is a bet for me as long as the ground doesn't deteriorate.

Afadan has some good flat form in August of this year but he doesn't look to go through with his effort in the closing stages.

Mtoto

I don't see the 80% figure as a problem: it is merely the kind of figure VDW advised that someone who (a) properly understood his approach and (b) was proficient in its implementation could achieve.

I'm nowhere near 80% over a sustained period. But over the years my strike rate has increased on a year to year basis, and at least the 80% figure gives some sense of how far one still has to progress. Its a bit like par at golf. I know I'll never go round in the 71 par at my club, or anywhere near, but it was a sign of progress to break 90 for the first time, and then with more practice to be (almost) threatening 80!

Mtoto - Surely it is consistent to use the same approach through every race?

So if Beacon Light was in form going into the Sandown race, which he undisputably was, and had the highest ability rating of the runners, he was the class/form horse VDWS WAY. Why would he change it for the next race he analysed?

Look at Prominent Kings form in the same way. Who was the class/form horse in the race Drumgora won, bearing in mind it was a handicap?

One other point. Had Beacon Light had a rest of say 8 weeks or more then things could have proved trickier to resolve.

No - it isn`t,-

and "Thats why" -

VDW changed his approach for "EVERY" race

"Thats Why"-

He placed The Emphasis on - "HARD WORK"

TC

As for "Lagudin"

if Aerhern Hadn`t "Dropped His Hands"

the Bloody Thing would have been beaten by 20 lengths - what sort of "form" is that ?

TC

where, if you dont mind me asking, did you get the info from that OLD california had gone over to pipe?

MY golf partner and I played in our winter league on saturday.

We were 5 up after 9 and won 8 and 6.


And my mate, he,s off 9, says I dont practice enough, how do I ever expect to get any better.

And I bloody carried him.