Pegwell Bay,

All very interesting. I would like to ask a couple of questions, if I may.

1) Why is Smart Tar left out of the first numerical picture. If it is because he isn't in the first 3 for consistency, why is Righthand Man the c/form horse for the Welsh National?
2) I think Smart Tar being out of form because he didn't beat Pegwell Bay in his first run of the season a little harsh. He was right there at the last, and must be sharper for this race. Pegwell Bay had had several runs, and would have been race fit. Plus why was Pegwell Bay out of form when he beat Smart Tar, VDW was happy he couldn't act on soft/heavy going.
3) How much of the in, or out of form is down to the conditions on the day. Track, going, etc. and how much to the running in the last race?
4) While I agree taking novice form into handicaps, now does MR e d explain Strombolus? He took novice form into a very tough handicap.

Be Lucky

Fulham - The points you made are of interest, but not what I was actually getting at.

There is a very strong clue as to what VDW was not deliberately pointing out in his Mackeson evaluation. Mtoto has inadvertently highlighted something about the way VDW set his evaluation out in the article. Bearing in mind that VDW said he never wrote anything for the sake of it, it is an example worth considerable sifting through for gold nuggets of info.

Mtoto - Pegwell Bay was making his seasonal debut in his only run prior to the Mackeson. I'm sure VDW viewed the defeat on heavy ground when favourite as very excusable.

One other thing concerning Jim Thorpe was the fact he carried top weight and was giving 8lb to the next horse in the handicap. All this in a more valuable race than he had won or gone close in. When VDW gave Canny Danny as the class/form horse at Sandown in Jan 85 but one to leave well alone, he was topweight over further than before giving lumps away. He made the comment that "no matter how good a horse is they don't overcome this particular handicap often enough to carry my money." We can all recall the odd Edredon Bleu winning with topweight in a good handicap, but there are far more Seebalds, Flagship Uberalles (VC Chase at Ascot), Lady Crickets (numerous times), Best Mates (Ascot last year) and Canny Dannys. Weight does matter when the opposition is good enough to benefit from receiving it, have no doubts.

I'll be interested to see how my previous post on the Mackeson is noted. What with it being the time of year for goodwill to all, upon re reading it I may have been a bit over generous.

Detarame

quote:

---

Just around the corner from Tanga Monorail Station is this tasty little
joint, Detarame. The name means "nonsense"

---

JIB,
What I wished to communicate in the notebook post was that the pipe yard thought of Puntal as champion hurdler material. As of the horse's failure on saturday its very likely that it is not up to that standard but does this mean that Pipe's ability as a whole has been denigrated? I think not. Now it seems I am blaming the readers of my post for the horse's failure, I can only conclude that your personal dislike of me is clouding your thinking.
regards,

You live up to your name.

Wishful Thinking

Statajack,

Whatever you now say you wished to communicate does not correspond to the material you wrote originally. To refresh your memory I shall quote the last two sentences of your Puntal/Pipe post.

"Apart from their old handicappers who can run to a certain mark and have well defined preferences which are there for all to spot, just how well do trainers really know their horses?

Not as much as we suppose is my guess"

Whilst I am not a literary critic your statement seems pretty unambiguous to me. I am astonished that you now wish to plead poor expression in defence of your writings.

If you are annoyed with me for holding you responsible for what you write then it is probably because you are unable to "cloud my thoughts" rather than any dislike of your person which is in this case is purely incidental to the subjects under consideration.

JIB

Epiglotis - Please refresh my memory. Have you actually read all or even most of VDWs articles?

If you have then I'd say it is long odds on that you have understood little, if anything he was conveying.

His style and content may not have been to your likening, but to some of us it proved thought provoking and extremely useful in developing the art of finding winning racehorses.

Do you even believe VDWs claims?

In the pegwell bay example vdw makes ref-to the first numerical picture am i right in thinking that the second numerical picture would involve the likes of golden friend from the Bishops yarn perspective & drumgora from the Prominent King example & if so how do we go about applying the actual ratings?.
Greg i will post up a race for you to look at on christmas evening m8 for boxing day hope you are ok from your night out.

Arowson

Please forgive me for not replying sooner no offence was taken at all & may i take this opportunity in wishing you the very best in your efforts with vdw.

This is a good recent example of the point Guest is trying to make,And further strengthens the view that poliantas was a good bet,Though it can be seen why a book with Golden Goal might have been the safer option.

Investor

Quite right re Royal Auclair. See my post of 11.40pm 5/12/02.

Pegwell Bay shows up as a (very probable) winner how does this fit then with vdw`s quotes as Nomadic Way was found using (exactly) the same procedure and was described as a (sound wager), used correctly with positive approach , punters will find the vdw method consistent year in , year out, over both rules.
I feel that the `positive approach` statement is paramount in this particularly with regards to class & consistency any thoughts welcome as always .

Guest,thanks for the reply.
In reference to the Mackeson,it was probably one of vdw's more detailed examples,and probably the most detailed up to that point.Roushayd etc came later.From your reading of it,do you think vdw thought he gave enough in that passage,or do you think he expected people to research previous form of the probables in that race, which he did not include.His clinical analysis,appeared to me (perhaps naievely)to suggest that he was working from what he posted,to show how it was done.

Well maybe i'm getting somewhere,The ironic thing is On the day,I saw Golden goal as the danger,But plumped for poliantas a bit risky in hindsight,But you live and learn,I also backed Kingsmark in his run before his dissapointing performance lto,But on weighing things up and balancing the factors,I don't think i made a mistake with him.

Guest,

LOL.Merry christmas.

Mtoto while no one has answered your questions I will try,

1)yes, same reason as PK.
2)nothing to do with form.
3)circumstances on the day in relation to prevaling circumstances in last race ( some go back two or more races).
4) The best form horse In race, VDW way.

Its funny you should mention righthand man, regarding your query about johnd's "out of form horse", this morning I prepared a post about how it was exactly the same as lucky vane, but I lost it.

SWish,

I cant work out if your last couple were luck or not, keep posting them I will tell you.

Walter,

drumgora did not figure in the second/ third numerical picture, neither did beacon light. the way VDW layed it out is the answer.


TRy to work out his two methods of rating. forget spotform, speed figures, postmark, daily mail, OR, class and ability ratings and of course form.

VDW stated that there are many ways to reach the same conclusion but his is particularly quick and effective.

Fulham,

a question,

when using the second numerical picture how long do you think it would take, you or I, to evaluate the "boxing day card".

if we checked 12 races for c/f?


and then thourghly checked six races to determin bets?

I am almost sure you would agree it would be bedtime.

[This message was edited by Barney on December 23, 2002 at 12:58 AM.]

Hi Barney.
Well I was "lucky" 8 times out of 12 this week, although i admit I can't do that all the time.

The last 4 (on Gummy's board) were NATIVE SCOUT, (which I hinted at to Titus) W9-4
and in tipping challenge:
CESARIA (lost)
IRIS ROYAL W9-4
DO L'ENFANT D'EAU W3-1.
Perhaps you could examine them and tell me how lucky I was using your secret method of no ratings and no form
Cheers
Swish
p.s much higher prices than these were forecasted in R.P.

Thanks for the reply, it was worth reading.

This will be my final posting for some time as must take a break, to hone my newly found skills, away from the distractions of posting on this thread.
Before I go, I will make one last effort to show that VDW's method is much more simple and logical that the analysts would have you believe.
It is my firm view that they not only have it wrong, but got it wrong from the very first race.
Consider all the evidence from this thread, how they took that first race, dissected every word, investigated every horse, from all possible angles, and stil they argue into the night, about a race from almost 25 years ago.
Having made this initial error, they then compounded it by taking each race in turn, and applying their misguided thinking to many other races, often bending and manipulating, to make the pieces fit, their way. Along the way, they also found it necessary to put their own meanings to many of the things VDW imparted, and their own interpretations of phrases such as 'In form', the 'Class/form' horse, etc. etc., and in an effort to justify their misguided thinking, they delved even further into to the finer points of each race, which they still canot agree on, to this day.
The effect of this has snowballed, until any number of members have attached themselves to this line of thought, and they also now contribute to an ever more bewildering mantra.
Is this really what VDW intended when he 'Spelled it all out'?, I think not!
Surely the most damning evidence against them is his own phrase, "Once you find it, you will wonder how on earth you could miss it,, and you will have the same horses as myself".
The essence of this phrase is that there is a simple and logical answer to the whole thing,and it is only by thinking along these lines will the real truth become apparent.
The answer is all there, it is simple, it is logical,and it fits with great ease. It needs no great intelligence to fathom, and it owes its strength to its basis in simple common-sense. Do not allow intellect to guide you away from the truth, but read again "Spells it all out" but instead of breaking it down into fine detail, try to understand THE WHOLE CONCEPT, without letting previous misconceptions lead you astray.
If and when you arrive at the answer, then you will wonder how on earth you could have missed it, and it will easily explain such as the current debate on Pegwell Bay, and you will laugh at the convoluted theories propounded on this thread.
Having been there and done it, I can now see that I had the answer in the palm of my hands so many, many, times, but I just didn't recognise it,and when I finally recognised what is plainly there to see, it considerably changed my understanding of what makes racing tick, and my subsequent understanding of form.
I still have things to learn in the application of the method, but that is simply a matter of trial and error, and I do not foresee it taking very long to perfect. One thing I do know, is that the learning process is going to prove very fruitful.
I will, hopefully, return to this thread in the future, in the meantime, I would urge all those who are not too far down the investigative route to contemplate turning back, please, please, have another look, there is a simple answer!

I wish you well
Johnd

Swish
I did try to contact you, but failed, my email address is johnd1@bushinternet.com, drop me a line if you wish.

[This message was edited by johnd on December 23, 2002 at 04:32 AM.]

[This message was edited by johnd on December 23, 2002 at 04:36 AM.]