Barney
i can`t see how you get Legal Set to be a good
thing.It doesn`t seem to have much going for it.
Not well rated on ablility,not won over distance.
Slow race last run.


best wishes


Maggsy

Maggsy,

The 3 points you mention are spot on and one would think LS had nothing going for it however is that the true picture ?

By my calculations LS had lowest ability rating of all the runners in the 1st 6 in the RP betting f/c,

M Rainbow 124 not in form
Illusive 55 "
P Of Blues 50 won last 2 but massive wght turnaround with LS.
H D I Know 50 seasonal debut
P Chief 39
Palawan 28
Legal Set 28.

VDW stated ability is no good without form. He also said allow a consistent horse one bad run.

Was LS last run a bad one. His Topspeed figure clearly suggested that.
The race in question LS could not win.
If ignoring that last run we have an improving horse at the top of his form running with approx` 14 ILBS less.

That said I agree with you, ie - he had never won over this trip although the way he races one could see the shorter distance suiting him.

I didn`t evaluate the race in full and have only had a brief look since your message but I feel my few comments just goes to show how difficult this methodology is.

Barney,

I`d be interested in your comments please,

Regards,

Mark.

I`ve now doubt those able to study the example`s given by VDW some 20 years ago and fully understand them will have cracked it and best of luck to them.

I`m still working through all the messages, etc on the thread and I`ve no doubt I`ll learn alot because I am a novice.

I will not be going back 20 years and that maybe a mistake. Anybody interested in discussing past races may want to look at the cards for Sat 7 July 2002 in particular the meetings at Sandown and Haydock ( yes - Old Newton Cup day ).

This message is not a puzzle just a straight forward request. I`m sure there must have a couple of bets this day.

I for one thought Takamaka Bay was a good bet but the more I look into race and from what I have read on the thread was it a case of too many races in quick succession?

Anybody interested and if so lets get stuck in.

NB - I am not a `lurker` far from it. Once the flat kicks in I`ll put my neck on the line because my motto is simple. The best way to learn is from the `mistakes` we sometimes make.

Regards.

wellcome aboard determined member i am going to look forward to your posts.

before i go any further, i had never heard of vdw untill about october when i joined this board so dont think i have all the answers for you because i do not,these are my thoughts on how vdw would have evaluated the races and because i cant look at past examples i dont know if i'm right or wrong.

first five in betting with most consistent form
palwan,prince of blues,legal set.
check other runners for ability,all out of form.
most probable to reprodudce best form.
legal set.

last race 6k 6f with 14lb more than best sf showed well at 5f.

thats enough, for me it could not lose.

maggsy this was the same as the last one i explained to you but not quite as clear as the one on tuesday.

Hello everyone,
this is my 1st posting to this board but I have been a follower of VDW for a number of years and I have followed this thread with interest. Reading between the lines of the postings most people seem to be fitting VDWs methods to their own ideas and this is why they are going wrong. There is enough in his first few letters to get the gist of his method, provided you properly read what he says and follow it faithfully without letting your own ideas get in the way.
On saturday there were 2 good things. Copeland at Newbury and Grey Abbey at Ayr. There were none to be found at Lingfield or Haydock, despite a number of horses appearing to hold good chances. In case anyone asks, I am not Guest or his friend posting under an assumed name.
Best wishes.

i disagree agree grey abbey was a likely winner, if it could get round,even though it had a distinct lack of threats, but if you can understand legal set you have gone a long way towards the ultimate conclusion(in my opinion)

Barney,
No offence, but Legal Set was not a good thing. Being the most consistent out of the first 5 in the betting forecast and carrying less weight would give a person untold bets, most of which will lose. carrying some of the attributes VDW looked for will get one part of the way but there is still some way to go.
regards.

you are over simplifying my interpretation of the methods.
i am not going into the finer points of why it was a cert but it was,you need to look in more detail,it took me 2 hours to get that result HARD WORK.

TODAYS CERT DONT TELL JUNIOR

I THINK EVEN VDW SAID HORSES COULD BE EVALUTED THAT HADN'T WON BEFORE

[This message was edited by Barney on February 11, 2002 at 05:44 PM.]

Hi Statajack
How can you come to the conclusion that Grey Abbey was a good thing at Ayr on Saturday.When it could only manage a 4th in its last three races. The other two races being, Fell & Pulled Up, apraise the last three races VDW said. I must say that this methodology gets more misty, instead of the mist clearing.
A word of encouragment would`nt go amiss.
Good Luck anyway
RGM Geoff

dear barney my bets for the past week check them out, and give me your views.classified i,ve decided not to put them on the board,can i e mail you please..

investor

hello again,by all means please send them i will help if i can wnbarnes@hotmail.com.

Hello RGM,
VDW said to rate last 3 runs for consistency yes but he also said use some discretion. Grey Abbey ran well for a long way over the wrong distance on his last run, a fact that the p in the formline wouldnt show. In the race that he fell, he tipped over at the 3rd fence as opposed to making mistakes or jumping badly throughout. Ignoring these races gives him 10 for cons or jt 3rd rated. Giving a horse a chance is different to making excuses for it but can be confusing sometimes i agree. If you look at the form now, what do you think? paperising is unfit, the major is outclassed and Flying Instructors best recent race was when beaten by Grey Abbey at wetherby. Which horse had the hardest race since behind Behrajan when you look at the form comments, Grey abbey or Flying Instructor? How many lenths has Grey abbey been beaten on his completed starts compared to Flying Instructor? You have to dig deeper with Grey abbey than Copeland but properly applying VDWs method would have immediately led you to looking at Grey Abbeys race in depth.
Hi Barney, Youre not going to like this but properly applying VDW to either Legal Set or Dont tell junoirs races would have immediately led you to dismissing both races from further consideration. Congratulations on finding the winner of both, good wagers for you maybe but not good things.

hello again statajack i agree with what you say about grey abbey but i wasnt prepared to gamble on the likelyhood of it completing.
with regard to the numerical picture you are sure is the way,VDW said to only use this when the other factors cannot be reconsiled or untill a FULL UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN GAINED.

Where did VDW say allow a consistant horse one
bad run?If we look at the sunset Cristo race,
Tragus was dismissed because it had been pulled
up lto,even though it had won its past 4 races before that.But if we look at Gaye Chance VDW
ignored its last race even though it hadn`t been
in the first 10.The reason given was class.So
there has to be a logical reason to ignore a
horses bad run.


regards

Maggsy

Barney what do you mean by LS showed well at
5furlongs.LS had run 34 times and had never
run over 5furlongs,if this was its distance
then why had the trainer never ran it over
this distance before.How do i Know was out of
form but it does run well fresh and this was
its first run on the AW and many horses run
well first time out coming from turf.It was
also being dropped in class and i don`t think
it could be dismissed as a threat to LS.

regards

Maggsy

There seems to be alot of disagreement about
what horses should have been selections recently.
and the more i read the more confusing it seems
to get.If this is a objective method then it
should be verifiable and repeatable.I know its
not a system with a fixed set of rules but VDW
did say that if the methods was used correctly
then we would have the same selections as him.


Maggsy

Statajack
Still can`t see how you can have Grey Abbey as
a form horse .Why do you say his last race was
over the wrong distance ,he had won over 3m1f
the last time he won and ran on strongly at the
end of the race so he wasn`t sruggling at the
distance.Also his other only completed start he
was one paced and the form is not exciting.
The only thing that Grey Abbey has going for
it is that it likes Ayr.

regards


Maggsy

Maggsy,
Gaye Chances last run was a 0, not a P or F and he used the example to say he didnt back it even though it was the likely winner. In the letter where VDW gives the Uther Pendragon example (March 8 1979) he tells how to use the consistency figures. Uther Penragon actually fell on its 1st outing of the season.Its form figs were P4P12-F which he gave a rating of 7.
We should all get the same horses if we follow the basic procedure so if we dont there are obviously people getting it wrong. The question is who are the ones getting it wrong and who are the ones getting it right?

maggsy

a horse does not get placed just because the trainer doesnt know it likes the distance.

if i am running a horse a 2m4 and it loses yet every time it runs it runs in a record time for the first 2m, i would be stupid to carry on running it at 2m4.

regarding ingnoring a bad of a horse your time would(in my opinion)be better spent trying to figure out a lgical reason for ignoring a good run from a horse.

[This message was edited by Barney on February 12, 2002 at 06:05 AM.]

[This message was edited by Barney on February 12, 2002 at 06:09 AM.]

Hi Maggsy,

I believe that you are spot on with your comment that there has to be a logical reason to ignore what seems to be a recent bad run, and being pushed up too far in class is a good example. Almost every year decent horses, but not horses of the very highest class, are entered in the 2000 Guineas and Derby, for example, and predictably run down the field. Provided they are then entered in races of appropriate class, their Derby adventures can safely be ignored as being for the enjoyment of connections rather than serious attempts to win.

Similarly with the NH. In the letter in which he gave Uther Pendragon as an example, VDW pointed out that there were various possible reasons behind a P, F or U, and that an effort should be made to determine what applied in a particular case, with the clear implication that one then acts accordingly.

And I think that doesn't just apply to P, F and U. A recent example I thought was the most likely winner, but for me certainly not strong enough to back, is Harbour Pilot at Leopardstown on Sunday. The bare form figures were not exciting - 116 - but the sixth was the result of a bad jumping error. Had that been characteristic of the horse, then that was clearly a negative. As far as I could tell, however, its jumping record prior to that mistake was fine, and in my view that one mistake, and its consequence for the horse's placing, could be largely overlooked.