Were there market moves on the day in support of PK such as would confirm your theory of stable confidence?

Epiglotis

Unfortunately no. All the races in the 1976/7 and 1977/8 seasons prior to the 1978 Erin were in Ireland, and in those days the Form Book (or at least the Raceform ones I use) rarely if ever gave any info. about price changes in the betting market for Irish races. (Not even for the Sweeps Hurdle on 28/12/77 - see below.)

My speculation is based on the actual SPs in relation to the horse's assumed level of ability, the races in question, and the competitors. But if one looks, for example, at PK's first three races of the 1976/7 season, in the context of his last run on the previous season (which, on my view of things, showed his potential class), personally I find it difficult to see any other conclusion:

18/3/77 class 96, PK's sp 4/1 fav. (fin 3rd);
27/11/77 class 18, PK's sp 16/1 (fin 6th);
4/12/77 class 36, PK's sp 12/1 (fin 5th);
28/12/77 class 125, PK's sp 4/1. (Fin. 13th).

Thanks, I think I see what you're getting at. I dont think it should be viewed as if the result was designed by the winner's trainer, one of the points about choosing races of this class is that all the trainers will be trying to win and this includes their preparatory campaigns, this should make it easier to compare the genuine upper ability levels of the candidate horses.

Guest

An interesting post, as ever.

While you are, to the best of my knowledge, correct in what you say re Beacon Light, I think it would have to be acknowledged that, had VDW laid out the 1978 Erin in the same format as he adoped for some races in his later articles, Beacon Light would, at face value, have looked like the class/form horse.

Taking the forecast in the Life, the three/four most consistent horses from the first five in the betting for the Erin (non-handicap) were Beacon Light, Decent Fellow, Prominent King and Mr Kildare. Of these, on the ability rating VDW showed us later, Beacon Light was, of course, the clear top rated, and well in front of Prominent King (46 cf 18). So, although neither VDW nor you used have used the phrase "class/form" horse in relation to Beacon Light, on what VDW showed us subsequently, it seems to me that Mtoto's characterising him in that way is not unreasonable.

My point to Mtoto, though, is that it seems to me that VDW never rested with the apparent, but used his study of the Form Book to go beneath the surface and get to the real. (Though, of course, the apparent and the real would sometimes, indeed often, coincide.) In his Canny Danny illustration, for example, VDW presents a reasoned case against the apparent class/form horse just as, if I'm right, he would have been able to do with Beacon Light.

Epiglotis

I think I take issue with you, in that I see the result of the 1978 Erin (at least Prominent King's success) as exactly that, designed by the trainer. Of course, he had absolutely no control over the other runners, but he had set his own horse up to win, and I think its clear that that is far from the case with some other runners. Had the Erin been Beacon Light's main objective for the 1977/8 season, for example, who is to say that his trainer could not have set him up with a winning chance? And I'm certainly assuming that skillful trainers are fully capable of assessing the form of potential competitors.

To bring the discussion up to date, on another thread there has been mention of some horses trained by Mr Newcombe. Having considered all the evidence available to me, I am in little doubt that he was planning to win only one race in the last couple of days, and not the one he did. But, with a little bit more luck, he could have won the race he intended, and not the one that (on my view of things) will have caused him embarrassment.

As in all walks of life, some are more accomplished than others, and I think that Mr Prendergast (PK's trainer) and Mr Newcombe are (in perhaps rather different ways) at the top end of their profession, in terms of their capacity to plan and achieve their objectives. Other trainers (I'd better not give any examples!) seem to have some good horses but little conception of how to place them, so they seem to win less often than they might reasonably have been expected to have done.

I dont think the Newcombe case is really parallel either in goals or methods but then again I know very little about the details (only what's been on Gummy's board) concerning either trainer. Let's agree to differ on this for the present.

Fulham - It is agreed, that had VDW decided to set out his first letter detailing his method in the same way as the article "VDW Spells It All Out" then many would perhaps look rather differently at his methods. I believe there was a very good reason though as to why he didn't do so. Prominent King,Beacon Light,Little Owl,Canny Danny - of these only 3 were the class/form horse but only Prom King and Little Owl should have been backed.

VDW did make mention of the marked difference between some trainers and how some brought their horses on slowly and others seemed to have strange things happen to their charges. For obvious reasons he didn't name names and it is a principle reason I think as to why some of his selections recieved less detailing than others. I don't think he wanted to test the libel laws and also it would reveal a bit too much about the hidden unexposed form that isn't really hidden at all, just disguised.

Fulham makes a good point in relation to how even the trainer doesn't know when his horse is going to win sometimes. Always remember that we shouldn't always agree with the trainer in respect of his horses winning chance. Horses often let down connections when expected to win, but turn up in the winners enclosure next time at much bigger odds. You see these cases virtually everyday and mostly it is not skullduggery just the way form really works out. A trainer mentioned recently had a horse running a few years ago that was heavily gambled on to win a decent handicap on the All Weather but it failed miserably. The following week it turned out in another similiarly competetive handicap and they couldn't give it away in the ring. At the time I was still trying to come to grips with VDWs ideas but had picked up on some of these unexposed form horses and backed the horse accordingly. The horse was ridden in a different way and won at double figure odds and I wager only a tiny percentage of those who plunged on it the week before were on for the winning day. Again, I am not suggesting wrong doing here, merely the fact that even the trainer isn't sure of the winning day sometimes.

Another case of a horse making fools of men could be seen at Lingfield yesterday. I am not suggesting we can back all of these cases just that we should be aware of them.

Guest

Thanks, again very helpful.

I wish I knew more about the realities of the betting market. How much, in what sorts of sums, does it take placed, say, with those bookmakers who offer early prices on all races, to drop (for the sake of hypothetical illustration only) a 16/1 shot in a low grade handicap at a minor meeting to 12/1? And, in similar vein, how much placed on course at that minor meeting (or getting back to the course from off-course sources) to cause a further drop to 9/1? Not very much, would be my guess.

(I am not posing these questions to you, Guest, though as always your views would be very welcome. But maybe some of the contributors work, or have worked, in the bookmaking trade and could enlighten those, like me, wholly ignorant of this aspect.)

Fulham.

I would like to thank you for the full and frank break down of the form going into the Erin. It was much more than I expected, and confirms my views of the form of the runners. Also, the fact that you can see why, after reading later articles by vdw, many would have seen Beacon Light as the class/form horse.

Guest

I'm afraid the above brings more questions. I can follow your reasoning about PK being the form horse, but where does the ability element come into it? I have never been able to except that the 2 wins PK had achieved before this race would have been good enough to make him the CLASS horse. Why do you think vdw later set out guidelines using the value of race WON to gauge ability? I'm sure I asked somewhere on this thread was it because, so many people were taking the form figures at face value? Not using his other instruction, to check the value of the form by studying the horses beaten or beaten by. That brings me to another question, do you think PK came from a list of horses to follow, or is there another filter? I ask about another filter because as has been said many times vdw never said anything without a reason. He did mention other ratings he used as a guide, but would not later say exactly what they where. He in fact went out of his way to say they where not important, and showed another set of rating would work just as well. I keep coming back to Mr Hall who seemed to get to grips with the method very quickly. We know some of the papers vdw used, and I am sure that the ratings were there for all to see at the time. In fact there is one set of rating that had vdw's next 6 examples all rated in the first 2. Unfortunately the paper, and therefore the rating no longer exist. Just a thought, that may show people that there is no easy way to crack the problem.

Regards

i would be interested to know if any of the contributors have been operating the methods since they were first brought to the attention of the racing public.

or has everyone backtracked the races through the form books.

I see some are still hung up on ratings, in particular, the ability rating. In my opinion, vdw only introduced this method of rating class as a means to identify the class horse in a race. In fact, the winning ideas vdw put across in his writings in general, appear to answer all the questions that Win of Brighton put forward in a letter to the Sports Forum in 1978. It was this letter that sparked vdw into giving away some of his ideas. The class rating is not foolproof but has still some merit today if one sticks with the top few, pretty much like any other ratings one cares to use.

Personally, I have been operating the methods for a relatively short period of time and only became interested in them much after vdw made his last contribution through Mr. Peach. Judging by the prices available on the good things that won yesterday, most still haven't got a clue. I imagine many considered Mutawaqued a good thing at Lingfield to make it go off at the sp of 5/2, however, it had a few factors against it, most notably class.

Could I ask is there anybody out there willing to sell their NH 85/86 formbook or know of a source for one? My e-mail is evensteven11@hotmail.com. Thanks.

Mtoto - Perhaps it would be a good idea to try and identify exactly what VDW mean't by the Class/Form horse. Remembering also that everything is relative. Class is of little use of the horse is out of form, but what VDW thought constituted form was quite different to what the majority thought. Finishing 2nd could actually be seen as out of form when other considerations are taken into account.

VDW said he rated the horses in PKings race by 2 different methods. I am assuming that as Beacon Light went off at Evens then it must have figured highly by the press and private handicappers ratings.

Bensam - I do have the book mentioned but I wouldn't part with it as they are becoming very rare and irreplaceable. If there is any specific info you need perhaps I could email it to you.

Guest,

Thanks very much for your decent offer. I basically wanted that particular formbook in order to have a go at cracking vdw's method used specifically for handicap hurdles that gave Mithras, Windbreaker, Islay Mist etc.

I fully understand you not wanting to part with it and I do not for a minute expect you to send over the form of these races (if indeed they contain the answer) but what would also be of interest to me is the form of the main protagonists in the KG VI run at Kempton. If this isn't too much to ask I would be extremely grateful.

Regards

Bensam

[This message was edited by bensam on February 03, 2002 at 09:49 PM.]

Hi to all,

I’ve just returned from a break away and have notice that I’ve been mention within the forum by ‘Guest’. I’m the person that ‘Guest’ has mentioned in a previous posting who he has given some gratefully received nudges in the past. By the way, although I do drop in for a read now and then, this is my first posting on here. I feel extremely fortunate to have crossed paths with ‘Guest’, but please don’t think that I have had it handed to me on a plate. I will unequivocally state though that he is as serious a contributor to this board that you are ever likely to get and the information that he shares is 100% genuine. He has never given me, nor have I ever asked for, selection/s in advance of racing. He has however, only after hard work and the study of past examples on my part, shared with me a lot of selections after the event. But it is only when you discover the factors that are so relevant (certainly not just one) as I have done, that you’d understand why a particular horse is worth supporting or not. It should be noted though that once these factors have been unearthed it would be folly to think that the hard work is done and dusted. In fact it is the opposite and the real work then begins if you want to find winners on a regular basis by putting the methods in to practice. From what I know about ‘Guest’ he has knowledge of horse racing that far surpasses most that I’ve met. This sort of knowledge, as far as I can tell, can only be gained by much dedication and hard work. The lengths that he has gone to master his trade would I’m sure raise most peoples eyebrows. I am therefore, in comparison a mere novice at the game, but I am managing to strike above 80% on a regular basis, which is something I could only have dreamt of not so long ago. It seems that there will always be the doubters, which is fair enough, but I felt it only right after what he’s done for me to back up what he say’s. On the subject of form-books I will say is that it has taken me almost 6 months to obtain those that I wanted with one still to be found, so stick with it as they are there.

As ‘Guest’ has mentioned I’m afraid that discretion is a must if the methods are to remain as lucrative as they are now beginning to appear for me, and others that have put in the work. Don’t get me wrong I personally feel that I still have a long way too go, even though I could stop the study right now and be as sure as you can be in racing that a profit will be made, but it is my intention to go the whole way and understand the reasoning behind the other methods that VDW gave us.

Trying to catch one before the event.

3.20 wolverhampton today

Prince Of Blues appears to have a clear class edge. Won a class 81 here last time and before that was 4th of 12 in a class 67.
The best class any of the other principals can offer is Sharp Hat with a win in class 40 four runs ago, admittedly with P of B behind, but P of B seems to have left that form behind now.
Arogant Prince is fit and in form, but recents wins only in class 16.
Prince Of Blues is forecast 9/2 in the R.P. which seems a pretty juicy price to me.

Rob

well done rob!!!

Yes well done,
Yours
Swish

5/1 as well...couldn't believe that price!
It was just one of those selections which stood out!

Rob

TS

Hi, and an interesting post.

I wonder if you would feel able to throw light on two points which have caused some discussion.

You've managed a 80%+ strike rate - is that mainly or exclusively with backing one horse in a race, or is a significant proportion made up of successful "dutching" situations?

Second, could you give an indication of what proportion of the one horse a race bets are at short prices - say less than 2/1.

Obviously I'm not looking to trouble you for exact figures in either case, but a broad indication would be very much appreciated.

dear all i think a good example,of what,s been brought up, on this thread has just ran and won,at southwell. i hope at least some of you were on it.