Statajack
I didn`t say that Gaye Chance was pulled up
i said it wasn`t in the first 10.The point
i was trying to make was that Tragus was
dismissed because he was pu lto even though
he had form figures 3.Also you didn`t answer
my question about Grey Abbey ,how can this be
a form horse even with a figure of 10.This
i think leaves alot tobe desired.and why do
you think the trip didn`t suite lto.

regards


Maggsy

Barney
you say 14ib more than best sf lto.
Which sf do you use?


Maggsy

Maggsy,
I am well aware you didnt say Gaye Chance was pulled up, but what you did say was that VDW ignored Gaye Chances last run. He plainly DID NOT. What he said was that it was the most likely winner because it had been outclassed in that last run. If you read the passage properly you will find that he says that he DID NOT BET in the race. He leaves as little to chance in his bets as possible. Read the last paragraph on Gaye Chance before he moves on to discuss Kenlis properly.
Ive said all I need to say about Grey Abbey as anyone who has mastered the basic part of his method will know why it was a bet.
Rather than study his past examples, a lot of people would be better employed actually reading what he said to do in his letters. When theyve learnt to read what is there instead of picking whatever bits appeal to them to support their fancy for a particular race, all the other aspects will fall into place and they can see why the examples worked and why they were chosen. If youre cooking a gourmet meal it wont taste half as good if you ignore what it says in the recipe or leave out some of the ingredients.

Hi Statajack
Thank you for your rundown on the Ayr race.
I would be interested on your views on capability that VDW talked about. What would be the best way for me to assess a horses capability. ie Best race value won in its lifetime, or a race it has won in its last 3 races. Would you consider Hurdle for Hurdle, Chase for Chase or a mixter of the two. Or even just a race in the current season.
I presume VDW meant the horses capability and not the Punters.
I will look forward to your reply, should you choose to do so.
Good Luck RGM (Geoff)

Hello RGM,
Capability. lets suppose you have done parts 1 and 2 of the formula and one horse is perhaps top rated on both consistency and ability. Does this mean it will win? Maybe but maybe not.Most people just stop here and then wonder why they dont win all the time. Now you have to ask yourself if you think the horse is capable of winning the race. What factors might prevent it? Others may look at the form and then stop here. After this comes probability. so far we have talked about only one horse but there are others in the race too. How do they compare? Yet again, others may apply their form skills this far and come to a conclusion. They may sometimes be right.
He gives a basic method to narrow the field. If this is properly applied all the rest becomes much easier. Most people think they are too clever to need to apply it properly. They are not.

Statajack
When i said VDW ignored Gaye Chances last run
i mean`t that he put a 3 next to the 12 and a
?.i also said that he overlooked this bad run
because of the class of the race if you read
and understand what i said.I have read and
reread what VDW said many times.If you read
Fulhams last post you will see that he understood
what i was saying.

Maggsy

Statajack
I know that Gaye Chance wasn`t a VDW selection
and i wasn`t trying to say it was.It was the
Class/Form horse but as VDW said he didn`t
back everything he thought should win.If he
had a doubt he left it alone.Grey Abbey for
me had alot of doubts and as i have said the
form wasn`t exciting.Not running on etc.


Maggsy

Hi Maggsy,

I think there is a danger that you are arguing with Statajack through an understandable but imprecise use of a word.

VDW did not IGNORE Gaye Chance. Rather, he considered its last run and (on my reading) decided it was essentially immaterial in assessing Gaye Chance's prospects for the race on 7 March. And this is understandable in the light of Gaye Chance's previous runs.

In 1980/1, Gaye Chance ran seven times before the race on 7 March, and in VDW's terms the class of those seven races was 7, 6, 15, 17, 24, 22 and 218. The 218 was the Irish Sweeps Handicap Hurdle on 27 December 1980, where Gaye Chance (starting at 33/1 or more) ran 18th of 26th, and on known form was well out of his depth, despite it being a handicap.

The race on 7 March was a 61, which at face value also looks a considerable hike in class for Gaye Chance, but it wasn't really as the race was the final of a series of qualifiers, all of broadly comparable ability (as the ability ratings in VDW's table suggest), simply competing for a bigger prize.

Where I would venture slightly to take issue with you is when in a previous post you said that if VDW's was an objective method, results would be verifiable and repeatable. Although he did suggest a few systems (in chapter 3 of his booklet "Systematic Betting), he was principally concerned to offer a method or, as I prefer to think of it, an approach.

Guest has argued that those sufficiently versed in this approach will always identify the same "class/form" horse (if, indeed, there is one) in any given race. (Its worth noting, though, that others, Mtoto for one, disagree on this point.)

If Guest and those who agree with him (and I'm one) are right, that is only part of the story because, as VDW wrote, he only backed a minority of those he thought likely to win. Part of that, in my view, has to do with value. In the "Spells it all out article" he refers to Little Owl, for example, as "a racing certainty", but also makes it clear that he would only back it at "a price better than 3/1 on". In an earlier article (24/5/79), VDW referred to One in a Million, who had won the 1000 Guineas at evens, as "a good thing but not at the price".

VDW did not, to my knowledge, offer explicit advice about how he judged value - just two or three specific examples and, of course, his other 100+ examples from which one can make some judgements. So, even among folk who correctly identify the class/form horse in a given race, there will from time to time be differences in the judgements they make as to whether or not to back the horse at the price available.

To that extent, VDW's approach is objective and repeatable. But it isn't like a system, with clearly defined rules which, if followed carefully, will result in everyone getting exactly the same bets.

hello all

i have been lookin thru the list of horses that mtoto put up to try and wrestle with this vdw thing, i have been at it for a number of years now , and sometimes i feel as if i am tantalizingly close , then sometimes i feel so far away , i have been lookin for what these horses have in common( i know there is no set pattern , as was said) and looking to see if i can spot the same stituations in various other races , the first i would like to try on ya's is blue golds win ,the horses win bears a resemblance to the pattern of SHEER DANZIGs's form prior to winning on the 11th of july 1998 , can anyone of u learned people tell me if i am on the right track with this one ,

see ya's
whipper

Hi Statatjack
Thanks for the Info on Capability + Probability.
Im off to study and reassess my form reading methods.
Thanks again
Good Luck RGM (Geoff)

Sorry to be tedious, but could someone tell me the EXACT name of the form books required for research. Are Haig any cop, or is it just Raceform??

Many thanks


AJ

AJ

For VDW's early examples you'll need Raceform Flat Annuals and NH Annuals (the latter were re-titled Chaseform in the early 1980s). For later years Haig/Superform and others are fine, but the late 1970s/early 1980s Haig annuals don't have full details of the previous years results.

Thanks Fulham

I have been reading (and re-reading etc) the articles and examples that I have got. I understand Prominent King but am still working on Rifle Brigade - I don't think I could ever have bet him though!

One recent example I keep going back to is See You Sometime/Classified. One question that occurred to me last night is that although I would not have bet Classified, would VDW????

I know it all comes down to temperament and while I agree with Guest etc that everyone SHOULD come up with the same selection in any given race (sorry Mtoto), not everyone will bet the selections. Some will wait until everything falls into place, others will want to get stuck in. To my mind 80% winners can only be achieved by following the former strategy.

Moving on slightly, and with regard to the "numerical picture", does it really matter which of the methods is used? As the numerical picture is only a device for narrowing the field of search and NOT a selection method (system) then surely any of the example methods given can be used. Or is it best to use different ones in different circumstances? VDW strove to point out, on numerous occasions, that ratings were not the "be all and end all" and surely the form consistency, betting forecast and ability scores are merely ratings?

Wot yous reckon??

PS Fulham - you state you are looking for one specific form book - if you let me know which it is, and I find it, I'll let you know. I am putting a few people on the case so you never know?

Cheers

AJ

Thanks for your kind offer re the Form Book, but yesterday morning I was lucky enough to fill my one gap - the 1982 Flat - from Ways.

As to Rifle Brigade, I struggled with that one for years prior to getting a hint from Guest on this thread. I now see it as the clear "class/form" horse, but I'm not quite sure I would describe it as an "outstanding" bet, as VDW did. Rifle Brigade was, of course, running for the first time in the season, which I found surprising, and assumed would be relatively unusual for a VDW selection. But when one looks at his 1979s, its clear that that was not the case.

As to the Classified/See You Sometimes race, it is of course impossible to know for sure, but I'd be amazed if VDW would have backed either. SYS seemed, on the face of things, to be in with a good chance, with Classified one of two possible dangers. I don't think one could rationally have backed Classified on what was in the Form Book prior to that race. But on what it had shown (and bearing in mind the trainer, who is arguably the best there has ever been over the sticks), backing anything else was too risky.

As to the numerical picture, I may be off-beam but I'm increasingly seeing the various examples VDW gave as shortcuts to direct attention to "pools" of horses alive with winners. If one sticks to one, and does the necessary work in reading the Form Book, one should stay well in the black, BUT one would never find all the selections VDW gave us. Anyone in any doubt of that should consider two examples from 1979 - Philodantes on 4/8/79 and Son of Love in the 1979 St Leger. My conclusion? VDW himself did not use shortcuts, but suggested them to be helpful at two levels (a) to people with limited time, for whom a shortcut method such as that shown in the "Spells it all out" article" should be genuinely useful, and (b) as a means of providing "clues" to those who wanted to discover his approach.

Best of luck.

[This message was edited by Fulham on February 15, 2002 at 10:44 AM.]

Im not a vdw follower but like reading the posts when I have a bit (ok a lot) of spare time, as I remember reading the original letters in the Handicap book.

I seem to remember that he said something like he had 29 winners out of 32 in the flat season - did he ever say what the losers were as maybe people would see that they dont always win and maybe would learn something else in the process by looking at the losers.

Most of the discussion is on races 20 years or so. Could someone say maybe go through the selection thought process for one of the races at Cheltenham even if the outcome is you wouldnt have a bet - as the form etc is there for all to see, and would Im sure be of benefit to the many followers of the Dutchman.

Professional

Alas VDW did not, as far as I have discovered, say much about his losers. The only one I can recall him specifically mentioning was Broadsword at the 1981 Cheltenham Festival, though I'd be delighted to be corrected as for me studying the losers would have as much value as studying his winners.

I have read all this discussion with great interest. I am new to this but having digested all that has been written I believe that the key to Classified / See you Sometime race is the phrase Illusion of Form. At first glance SYS's form seems better but on close inspection his form is not up to A class and he was a lucky winner at Cheltenham. Nothing he has beaten is of A class (therefore needs to improve to win this race) and he seems to have reached a peak.

However Classified had beaten Sir D'Orton placed in an A on a previous outing when he beat into 3rd an A winner. Classified is also still open to improvement. Therefore Classified is the Form and Class horse of the race as he is not being asked to do anything he has not already done. A classic VW bet.

Thank you Fulham for your comprehensive reply, and I'm glad your jigsaw is now complete!

Staying for a moment on the subject of the numerical picture, I have just thought of a suitable point to make. If we are directed to look only at a few races per day (most valuable card, other cards, most valuable race,) then the amount of reduction needed is not actually that great. I am aware of the statistics regarding price/form etc but surely, therefore, one only needs one numerical method of reducing the field (or am I being dense?) if one wishes to take this approach.

With regards VDW losers, surely they would have shown the same attributes as the winners (apart from the results!)

Snail

Thank you for your response with regard See You Sometime. Having examined the form, this was my analysis too - but I think I need to work harder on temperament, not because I bet too often, but because I'm too scared to bet in situatioons such as this.

Cheers

AJ

The approach to finding suitable races to which you refer was suggested in the "Spells it all out" article, but like much else was a shortcut, not a rule VDW followed slavishly (Rifle Brigade being an example of an exception - second highest penalty value race, not principal meeting).

As regards VDW's losers, I agree, and that's why they'd be worth studying.

I'd like to take the opportunity to correct a probable error in my post of 7.21am on 13 Feb. VDW's letter leaves something of a doubt, but I'm reasonably confident that, in relation to One in a Million, he was referring to her run in the Nell Gwyn on 19/4/79, when she was forecast (Life) as evens but started at 8/13, and not the 1000 Guineas on 3/5/79 which she went on to win at evens.

Thanks Fulham

I agree with you - and that is why it is so surprising that people get stuck on the numerical picture.