HOME »
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
Fulham/Mtoto/Guest
I wouldn’t want to get involved with these old races as I havent got the form books anymore But the reasons put forward for eliminating Beacon Light from the Erin look extremely thin to me What would have been said if BL had won the Erin No doubt something like And Beacon Light Lto carrying a massive 12st 2 only just beaten by the great Sea Pidgeon and giving him 4lbs How easy it is to turn a negative into a positive when it suits |
||
|
|
The Vital Spark Member  |
|
||
|
| <Fulham>
|
Boozer
You miss two points. First, although the reasons for eliminating Beacon Light look "extremely thin" to you, to those who understand how VDW assessed "in-formness" the situation is clear cut. It depends on the conceptual lens through which one considers the race, and as has been said numerous times VDW's approach is, in important respects, at variance with received wisdom. Second, Guest has said that about 70% of races are won by horses that, on a knowledge of VDW's approach, we can regard as form horses. I have undertaken no systematic research to check that figure, but it seems about right on a day-to-day basis. Within VDW's conceptualisation of "form" and "non-form" horses, the whole idea of his approach is, by logical and empirically proven means, to identify those form horses which are likely to win. If Beacon Light had won the Erin, the conclusion would have been that the race had been won by one of the non-form horses, which had shown better than the approach would have had expected. In that sense, it would not have been a shock (any more than it was when a non-form horse narrowly won the big race on Saturday) - but rather evidence that VDW's approach, even in the most knowledgeable and experienced hands, is not (and has never been claimed to be) infallable. |
||
|
|
Member |
When this thread was first started it was considered that the horses with the most recent runs were those from amongst which we should seek to find the winner, this was an idea drawn directly from VDW yet now we are being told that BL would have been in form if it had not had a recent run. Care to explain?
|
||
|
| <Fulham>
|
Epiglotis
Your post shows, yet again, the problem of not having read VDW's works. My offer remains open! |
||
|
|
Member |
It has many times been stressed that the works of VDW in themselves are not the full story, by all accounts one then spends months collecting obscure form books. It would be a lot simpler if you were to explain what lies behind this apparent contradiction, after all it's quite a straight forward question.
|
||
|
|
Member |
Epi
If you haven't read the VDW letters/books then I do feel you are at a disadvantage on this thread, simply because there are different interpretations of the work. I think that many of the interpretations expressed on this thread don't really stick to VDW's principles, but ultimately that is up to those using the ideas. However the problem here is deciding whether particular correspondents are sticking to what VDW wrote, heading off at a tangent or just missing the point. The idea of using days since last run was one of a number of ideas put forward to reduce the field to a small number to study was one of a few different ideas put forward by VDW. It was mentioned in one of the letters in 'The Golden Years Of Van Der Wheil' though I haven't the exact reference to hand. I believe that the first idea introduced for reducing the field was taking the top 3 consistency of the first 5 in the betting. This was introduced using the Erin Hurdle, the much discussed race won by Prominent King. The basic tenet of VDW's ideas is that you are looking for a horse that is better class than the remainder of the field and is in form. Before anybody says anything, yes that probably is overstating the matter but it's the basic idea. VDW had his own way of working out the class horse, namely using prize money per win (Ability rating), but that doesn't have to be the only method of measuring ability or class, it's just the author's favoured method. You can measure class by using Official Ratings, Private Handicap Ratings or Speed Figures, but the aim is the same, to find the clss horse in the race. Incidentally I hadn't read Jock Bingham's books until the weekend. They had been mentioned on here many times, so I thought that I would buy them and have a look. I bought 'Back Methodology Not Kidology' and '4 Ways 2 Win'. They do much to crystallize VDW's ideas and I find them enlightening. There are plenty of worked examples, which I find very informative. Rob |
||
|
|
Member |
Thanks for the reply. I can understand that not reading the books should put me at a disadvantage on this thread, however as those who have the books and have spent years studying them are for the most part unable to answer simple questions about the theory or practice of the method I suspect the books do a pretty crappy job of explaining matters.
|
||
|
|
Member |
quote: Epiglotis The books do explain matters, but the way that they are written means that hints and ideas are shown along the way, but the whole picture only emerges gradually. It seems to me to be partly a result of the fact that the books are a collection of articles written over quite a long period of time. Add to this the fact that Van Der Wheil or, before somebody questions his existence, whoever wrote his letters, was not prepared to divulge his method in one go, then it does take some understanding. While I wouldn't have used the term 'crappy' I can understand your point of view that ideas expressed clearly and fully should be easier to follow. Van Der Wheil set a puzzle for readers to solve and I'm sure he didn't expect everyone reading his letters to solve it. I mentioned Jock Bingham's books because he showed a number of clearly defined ways of finding selections using Van Der Wheil's methods. His books are very helpful, but unless you have read the Van der Wheil books then I think it would be difficult to clearly understand the methods. If that last sentence doesn't make complete sense I'll try to think of a better way of putting it!! Rob |
||
|
|
Member |
Again thanks for the reply and the sentence is fully sensible.
|
||
|
|
Member |
You seem to be keen for me to buy the books, assuming that I do so and that I find them comprehensible do you imagine that the revelations I receive will be so striking that I will join the "read 'em yourself" group? Of course I won't, if anyone asks anything about VDW I will answer to the best of my ability. There is a strong element of inconsistency between your own refusal to answer questions and your desire for someone who will answer questions to have access to those answers. I can see three possible conclusions that can be drawn 1. you're confident that having been introduced to the method I will find it so effective that I won't want to share it 2. you dont think I will understand the works so again I won't spill the beans 3. I will interpret the works correctly and you will be able to learn from my interpretation. I take the view that for you not to answer direct questions whilst pestering me to buy the books indicates that when you refuse to give straight answers it is because you are unable to.
|
||
|
|
Member |
many thanks for the information on compton commander,could i possibly ask some more questions regarding prominent king,roushayd,on the evaluation of these horses by van der wheil,i realise their is a wealth of knowledge on this board guest, barney, fulham, mtoto,lee, i have been trying to check over previous posts, but alas i have not been able to go back to the start of some of the most important posts ,ie prominent king beacon light, assessment using the class/form method,could i possibly give my email address for any information with any insight into the horses above,i remember tony peach stating that the prominent king example , was the key race to evaluate in order to gain a better understanding of van der wheils methods of form assessment i would welcome any assistance, guest, good to see you back on the board ,many thanks for yor help.
john duncan |
||
|
Member |
Hi Rob,
Jock Bingham work can be used as a simple shortcut. His methods are to a certain extent wide of the mark VDW methodology wise but for the time restricted do make nice little easy to use systems. Take for instance the chase method mentioned in 4 ways to win. I have had some success with that little method over the last couple of National Hunt seasons. Also the Group 1+2 method which hit a real purple patch during Ascot of 2001. For a shortcut or for those who do not have the time to give to a full understanding of VDW's methods then you can do much worse than to take a look at those four little systems contained. Not for the "hardcore" VDW follower as they only go part way to explaining VDW's work and a lot has not been covered but at least if you are rushed for time and do need a VDW based system then at least you know you will get some enjoyment from them especially if you are a systems fan. M.o.M |
||
|
|
Member |
Rob,
You wrote: quote: I'm probably being picky here  but the above paragraph reads to me like all VDW selections were the class horse in their respective races. This is not really true. Many selections were well down the pecking order class wise, although had the highest class of the 'form' horses.Cheers |
||
|
|
Member |
quote: Crock Now I knew I was stepping on dodgy ground with that paragraph! I did attempt to qualify my statement in the second sentence. I was probably trying to capture the idea in one sentence and it doesn't really work like that. Yes, I know there are times when it is appropriate to look farther down the list of class horses, and it's not just a case of pick the top one if it's in form. I was trying to summarise the gist of VDW's writings for someone who hasn't read the letters/books on the subject. I'm sure you'll agree that isn't particularly easy as we have 365 pages of discussion emphasise that point! MuchOfMuchness I appreciate your point that Bingham's books only go part way to explaining VDW's work. The point I was making is that they made a number of points very much clearer to myself. I was able to refer back to VDW and think 'ah yes, I see that now'. Surely that means the books have helped me take a step in the right direction. Rob |
||
|
|
Member |
Hi Rob,
I found the books by Jock very helpful and like you say they help clarify certain points so I am agreeing with you on that point. They are very useful if taken in context my point was for people who either cant or wont explore further they are a good introduction. |
||
|
|
Member |
JIB,
Yes John, one more question. What on earth are you wittering on about? |
||
|
| <Fulham>
|
Epiglotis
I think that, on reflection, you may think "pester" was ill-chosen. I made the offer in good faith, because I think that you will make much more sense of the thread if you've a basic understanding of what "VDW" is all about. But if - to follow Guest's parallel - you continue to want to criticise without seeing the film or play or whatever, so be it. But understand that, for the point of view of those who have a basic understanding or better, your criticisms are palably uninformed. And others may well be prepared to spend their time answering questions that you wouldn't need to ask if you read the books, but I'm not (though always glad to try to help those who are helping themselves). The offer still stands. |
||
|
|
Member |
You're correct, my wording was too strong and I apologise, I have no desire to hurt your feelings and I accept that you made your offer in good faith nevertheless it was a very strange thing to do. As this 'debate' has been raging for a year or so, if I was going to buy the books I would probably have done so by now but more than that, your offer was a personal one to me and as such it should have been sent privately by e-mail, it seems obvious to me that I cant accept an offer of this nature made on the board if it excludes other members but neither can I decline without appearing to be intentionally recalcitrant, as I can neither accept nor decline the offer ceases to exist.
|
||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by groupee community | Page 1 ... 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 ... 854 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Gummy Racing Forum | ||
| Servlet | eve2da005 | ||
| Version | 1.2.11 build 8443 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "MyPop Style" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
|
|
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
