Okay, thanks for the replies.

Hi Fulham,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am in broad agreement with all you have posted but must confess I can't yet see the reasons that VDW could so readily dismiss MOVE OFF. Or, let me put it another way, had VDW declared MOVE OFF a good thing which had duly won then I would have no difficulty accepting it

I think many of the examples VDW gave were quite obvious class/form horses and I'm not sure yet how much we can learn from them. However, other examples which are less obvious like Prominent King and Battlement should reward our studies a little more (hopefully!)

I did look at the 4.30 Cheltenham yesterday and felt that Copeland was the likely winner but must confess to not betting. I have determined to be far more selective in my betting and to try and develop 'temperament' whilst I am studying the early VDW examples. Until I feel I have gained a more complete understanding then I am only prepared to bet when as VDW says 'everything lines up'. COPELAND had a little to find according to both Postmark and Superform ratings together with considerably more weight than when last winning in class B. One had to go back a way to find his last win and both previous wins had been gained on flat tracks. Against those negatives of course was every indication from previous runs that he was 'ready' to win a race of this nature. As I say he was certainly my likely winner but I could not consider him a 'good thing'.

Strange thing is, not to long ago I would have been annoyed at missing a winner like that and cursing my lack of 'bottle' in not betting. Nowadays, missing those winners doesn't bother me in the slightest. Another good sign, I hope

Cheers

Hi Crock

I think at times we probably suffer from looking at these examples twenty years or so on. It makes it difficult to be on top of everything.

I'm far from sure I'm right about the reasons for overlooking Moved Off, but plan to try the two racing papers of the time to see if there was anything that would have been a real "turn off". Its probably a bit too much to hope to find the trainer reported in the Sporting Life on the day of the race saying "he's been off with an injury and is sure to need the run", but you never know!

is it not as simple as he never backed any first time out horse.

i have seen examples where they are just dismissed,even with good class ratings, as a possible fly in the ointment.

Barney

I'm afraid not. The second earliest example VDW gave - Rifle Brigade (which he described as an "outstanding" bet) - was running for the first time in his 3yo career.

Just looking through some past example's and I'd be interested in a consensus of opinion on that horse Little Nugget. He is mentioned by VDW on the same day as Celtic Pleasure (April 21st 1978). He say's " It is interesting that on the same card Little Nugget scored and I leave it to reader's to ponder without further comment other than to say it did not feature in the first six in my paper, in fact it was not mentioned". In fact he was 8th in the betting forecast and at 16-1 he then duly won at 13-2. Now was this VDW suggesting him as a selection he would have made or as his whole article suggested "Numbers game to form a picture" it's all down to consistency. What do you think ?
Mimas

Hi Mimas,

As has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, VDW never said anything without reason. In highlighting LITTLE NUGGET here VDW was stressing that consistent form horses can be found outside of the first 5/6 in the betting forecast and when we find horses such as these then they must enter our calculations and be subject to a full evaluation. LITTLE NUGGET here was actually joint 3rd on the initial consistency numerical picture and although outside of the first few in the betting forecast, had to be considered. VDW also drew our attention to KING CON in the Scottish Grand National the week before who won at 33/1 with a consistency rating of only 5.

Of course it is entirely possible that there was added significance to his reference to both LITTLE NUGGET and KING CON but there are others better versed in his methods than I who may care to comment.

Cheers

I have been a serious Punter for over thirty years and have experienced many ups and downs when it comes to selecting and backing to serious money. I have always been a bit of a skeptic where Handicap rateings are concerned preferring Speed Figures and reading form on the surface.

However, for the last couple of months I decided to rate certain handicap races by following the official ratings and interpreting the race in my own way in keeping with the OR. I have become quite accurate and when the new figures appear each week I am not too far out.

First of all by concentrating on only specific races one can fine tune the brain power and begin to get into and under the skin of the race at hand. The form is usually there. It is a matter of finding it. Obvious winning form is not neccessarily handicapped according to the way of the win,. I have recently judged Prince of Blues to have a decent chance on the AW ( won at 16/1)and today Mandys Collection ( Backed from 9/1 into 11/2)just touched of by an Ian Balding horse running from a maiden. It was great to know why the stable was backing the horse. It was well handicapped.
However although the winning is terrific, to know WHY a horse has won is even more rewarding.

Beleive me it is well worth the hard work, time and effort.

I hope that by writing I will stimulate more Punters to becoming what is in effect Privat Handicappers.

Sincerely

Speedster

Dear Crock.
I have already thanked you for looking information up for me. That I appreciate.
I have only just read that you found temperament in not backing COPELAND when it won at 7-2, and it did not bother you. I am sorry but I find a few things difficult to understand here.
Firstly I posted it was a certainty because I do KNOW VDW. You are saying then that you did right to ignore my advice because you know better than me????????.
It was a complete certainty winning by 13 lengths. You knew better than me then? I am personally insulted because you are just ignoring what I say, next you aren't bothered because you knew it would.........................?
Let's look at this 2 ways.
I have started posting tips up now and I have made 50% on outlay in 11 days.
Ok from your point of view, 50% profit is not good enough.
Tell us then the certain winners that would have made us more than 50% on outlay.
Yours
Swish

Swish,

Let us get one thing straight here, I have absolutely no interest in your 'tips'. The fact that you may want to post a selection to the board is of absolutely no interest to me. This game is about opinion, sometimes we are proved right and others times wrong. If I evaluate a race and decide that I'm not going to bet for any reason then the fact that great 'SWISH' say's it is a certainty will not change my mind I'm afraid and if that 'insults' you then so be it.

If it ever becomes law that we must back whatever the great Swish tells us is a certainty then I may give it consideration, until then I'll make my own decisions thanks.

Cheers

Dear Crock,
I deserved that, I guess,
All the best
Swish

In fact the more I read it, the more I feel I deserve it,
Swish

Hi Crock,
Thank's very much for your opinion on Little Nugget, it is exactly what I thought, you had Night Watch on joint 12 with Little Nugget on 12. One in the first six the other out of it, I think he was just putting his point of view over in example's to Methodmaker who had suggested "he accepted previous form figures without question". VDW was using this as an example to show Methodmaker the error of his ways. I do not feel having had a quick look over his form he would have been a selection though otherwise I'm sure VDW would have said so, in the guise of how he put up Strombolus for a selection.
Cheers Mimas

Well said, Crock, and well taken Swish.

It has been suggested that it is possible for those allegedly well versed in VDW's thinking to disagree over which horse in a race is the selection. Personally, I do not believe that is the case; rather, that those concerned will - if, indeed, there is a realistic "winner in the race" - always be considering the same horse.

But thereafter, there are judgements to be made. Given the (in my view) inevitable uncertainties, and the price available, should I bet?

And VDW said very little, EXPLICITLY, about value. In relation to Little Owl, for example, a horse he considered "a racing certainty" in the race in question, he was clear that there was a minimum acceptable price. In that case "a price better than 3/1 on would represent value". But elsewhere he is less explicit, and one is left to make what one can of his examples and their prices.

Again, VDW also wrote that he backed only a minority of those horses he expected to win. Unless there is an objective formula that most of us have yet to discover, this must mean that he was making some pretty fine personal judgements and he wouldn't have been human if he never got those wrong.

All the VDW examples I've looked at in detail so far have had question marks against them. For example, with Rifle Brigade, despite all the positives - relative performances over a distance as a 2yo; trainer's approach and records, etc - some "doubts" remained. The horse was having its first run of the season and running over a trip 50% longer than it had ever attempted in public before. I suggest that, for some, those would have been enough to have decided just to watch, not to back. But VDW's experience and ability at putting all the factors together clearly led him to a different conclusion, and its illuminating to try to work out which factors he considered important and which question marks he was prepared to discount at the price available. (Which, in the case of Rifle Brigade, wasn't a long one.)

As regards the 4.30 on Saturday, I thought (with Swish) that Copeland was very decent bet, but the considerations that led Crock to be more cautious were there. I think the important thing is that we are all taking about the same horse, and seeking to identify what makes such a horse a bet rather than one expected but better watched. This seems to me a mark of constructiveness, and, as Swish has been man enough to acknowledge, which side of the bet/no bet line individually we come down upon is not a matter for recrimination.

Steely Dan in the 3.35 at Lingfield seems to have
alot going for it.Any thoughts before they run
would be best.


Maggsy

Swish,

No problem. Let's forget it and move on

As Fulham rightly says, there is not much between our beliefs and it is a very fine line to decide to bet or not. One we will all get wrong from time to time, unfortunately. The point I was trying to make was that it's no good beating yourself up when you miss a winner, with VDW's methods another is just around the corner

Cheers

maggsy

after the event is always difficult as its hind sight i wish i would have seen your post earlier.

any way here goes

steely dan (form class horse)

down in distance 7f-6f previous 1m2.
i dont think it was supposed to win the 7f and it will not win at 6 with 13lb extra.

madam maxine (form horse)

2 runs ago won 6f with 8-9
next down in class 0-85 down to 0-75 with more weight (9-7) to maintain fitness.
back up to 0-85 with 5lb less than when won with 2 races ago. weighted to improve!!


hope this helps

Fulham.

I have read your last posting with interest. As you know I think it is possible for two people who understand vdw to find a different selection in the same race.

When I say understand vdw's methods I mean, they are using consistency and ability as the main stay of their selection procedure. You are agreeing with Guest there can be only one selection. So I will ask you the same question I asked Guest. Why, when given the PK race was the selection only made, after working through the horses to find a horse that satisfied the criteria. The class/form horse Beacon Light was passed over because of a fault, i.e. had "gone over". In other examples given on this board, if the class/form horse did not come up to scratch the response seems to have been no bet. If someone was following the PK example they could easily come to a different conclusion. Does that mean they don't understand vdw? They are following the procedure as set out by Guest.

You said in a posting you could see the parallel I was trying to make, between Beacon Light and Majed. You said you did not agree Majed had "gone over", that was not the parallel I was trying to make. The parallel was, both had form that was an illusion. Both had won good class races, but their best races were in much lower class.

Wonder if you, or Guest could explain why the selection process seems to have changed, in the two examples?

Regards

Hi Mtoto

I'll have a shot at part of the answer - Prominent King. I didn't do enough work on the Majed example to be as confident.

As I understand VDW's approach, the key question is whether there is a potential "winner in the race", by which I take him to have meant a horse which can, rationally, be seen as the likely winner. (Obviously there is a winner in every race in the sense that something will win, but VDW was focusing upon those whose wins could realistically be predicted WITH CONFIDENCE on the basis of a proper reading of the Form Book.)

Now, in the 1978 Erin there were several horses who could plausibly be thought of as having the ability to win, judged on previous performances. So why was Prominent King the selection (class/form horse) on the day?

In my view, basically because there was a clear positive case for Prominent King, and negatives in respect of the other plausibles, which I'll attempt to illustrate with the forecast favourite, Beacon Light.

Starting with Prominent King, I read the story as follows. A presumed decent horse (as demonstrated in the Triumph Hurdle on 18/3/76), PK was given a couple of prep. races in 1977 (including one over the wrong distance, carrying considerable weight), the evidence that they were prep. races being in PK's starting prices. He was then raised massively in class, over the right distance and with a reasonable weight and, I would hazard, was possibly expected by connections to win (judging again by the starting price). That run (one again conjectures) was less than satisfactory to connections, and he was tried again in another decent race (the 1977 Erin), to check that he was as good as his Triumph race had led them to think. He ran well, confirming that he had real ability, though probably not backed by connections, given his relatively poor performance on his previous run, and again evidenced by his starting price.

For the 1978 season, PK started off with two prep. races, this time even better thought out than in the previous season. In the first, he is tested over a significantly longer trip than was assumed to be his best, and judging by the starting price, was not fancied by connections. This was followed by a run over his assumed best trip, but carrying an enormous weight, in order to improve fitness and stamina. Being a six runner race, with only one other fancied horse, the starting price is much lower than in his prep. races in 1976 and December 1977, but its doubtful whether he was "expected" by connections. In the event, at the weights, he couldn't beat Drumgora and finished second.

On, then, to the 1978 Erin. As far as connections are concerned, they have done all they can. PK is assumed to have the necessary ability (on the basis of his Triumph performance, and the 1977 Erin). He is as fit as they can get him, on the basis of the two carefully judged prep. races. He is favourably weighted, carrying 7lb less weight than in the 1977 Erin and, for example, receiving 4lb from Monksfield, compared with the 11.11 each carried in the 1977 race. If PK is indeed as good as his two best performances previously suggest, he is in with an excellent chance.

By contrast, Beacon Light, whose win record prior to the 1978 Erin was palpably more impressive than PK's. For my money, BL's last three runs prior to the Erin, looked at as a series, suggest a horse that is "off the boil". If we take BL's performance on 26/12/77 as evidence of him then being in peak form, a week later he has to work harder (as judged by the comments in the Sporting Life form section) to win a lower class race. (The 26/12/77 race being rated at 74, and being won "comfortably", the subsequent 44 race being won only after being "pushed out".) A month after the 44 race, BL fails to win an even less valuable race (39) and plainly was given a hard time ("hard driven") on "heavy" ground. In statistical terms, compared with the performance in the 44 race, this latest run throws up a lower SF in a lower class race, exactly the opposite of what VDW later argued was indicative of peak form.

So, on the above, necessarily personal and conjectural assessments, at the Erin we have a horse with better wins in the Form Book, but seemingly not in peak form, who has already had quite a hard season (five races in about four months) against a horse who has put up good performances (though without winning) in high class events; seems likely to be in peak form; and who has only been lightly raced in the season to date. Further, PK has a 4lb weight advantage.

Clearly there was no guarantee that PK would win - other horses have run well in decent class races without ever winning one - but at the prices forecast, and especially the starting prices, I can understand why VDW saw PK as "a good proposition". And, at the price, BL was a very poor value favourite. (I would add one further and highly subjective comment. In those days Bob Turnell was a top trainer, who for some while had principally used Johnny Haine and Jeff King. His son, Andy, had become a jockey and, understandably, used to be favoured by his father. In my view he was never anywhere near as good as Jeff King, and certainly not top class.)Anyway, that's how I see it.

I certainly don't think VDW confined his attention solely to races where only one horse had the class to win it. Rather, where there was more than one plausible horse, he would only bet when he could rationally identify just one as clearly the likely "winner in the race" on that day.

Mtoto - You keep referring to changes in the VDW selection process and also to Beacon Light as the class/form horse. VDW never referred to Beacon Light as such and neither have I for that matter. I thought I had already given my view of how I think VDW was viewing that race.

In Majeds race there was no way anyone could not see him as a form horse. He was the class/form horse but had a few factors against, one of which being weight. The initial picture is just the start of a thorough evaluation. If all we had to do was back every class/form horse, regardless of other factors, then life would be far too easy. I know, Mtoto that you found the winner of that particular race via your own method, but it wouldn't have been considered worthy of support via both the consistency and "Roushayd" VDW methods, in my view of course. That doesn't make you wrong, but you are referring specifically to VDWs methods.

I'm only offering the above so that Fulham might get some back up on a few points. All in good spirit obviously.