In a post on Jan 4th on another thread entitled Gummy,You said to Three legs."However i have my reasons for planning going back,They won't understand or appreciate it but it's my responsibility so.."

Is that what this is all about,Why don't you leave the thread alone if it put's such a bitter taste in your mouth,Because no matter what you do or say,It will carry on regardless surely you know that.Somebody once told me a saying, You must have heard it "P.....g in the wind,That's exactly what your'e doing

And it wouldn't occur to you that he may be telling them wrong?

Epi
You may well have a point, but what purpose will it really serve to prove it? You won't alter the minds of the inner sanctum, so there are probably less destructive ways to get your point across.

It seems to be a bit of divide and conquer, how ironic that more people are getting an interest in the real VDW thread, to our welcome visitors and new friends, which certain predictable individuals seem determined to obfuscate the real objective of other posters.

Namely to help those interested in VDW obtain a better understanding.

This thread gets stronger and stronger every week
and now we are privelidged to have LEE come and help us as well, what with him and Guest and MR ED we must have some of the best VDW brains in britain on here.

Unless you are prepared to acknowledge these people as the true masters of the horse racing universe you have no place on here.

In my view Guests analysis of VDW is consistent with others who know what its all about.

In my look through the examples I have no doubt you will be able to find a high percentage on placement alone, as I did as soon as I looked, That is an answer that is found very quickly and easily, similarly speed figures its bloody obvious That it fits a few but GUEST and some others have gone beyond these OBVIOUS sign posts to the real essence of VDW.

You are so adamant that your way is the right way,And that Guest is wrong,How can you be so absolutely sure about this,I think my way is the right way and believe me i don't always agree with Guest.But it seems that there is to much difference in the thinking process.

Yesterday i thought Be My Belle was a good bet at Gowran Park,On the other thread Guest had put up Takagi and another in a book.Interpretation my friend that's what it all boils down to.But unfortunately there are a few who's interpretation differs.So the question is who really is right and who is wrong?

I am sure you mean well, but, being pragmatic, there is very little evidence in favour of your statement that 'The masters of the horse racing Universe' reside on this board.

Just caught up on the latest posts before I go out for the evening so I thought I'd make a quick comment myself.

Epiglotis - Having read your latest posts, the content clearly demonstrates why you will never figure out VDWs ideas. Your approach of not even reading all the material and now your confession that you never read my posts or follow my selections progress (I'm gutted about that of course ), yet still feel able to give an informed opinion smacks of one thing - pig ignorance.

I'd welcome someone showing a progress report on the pre race selections that I was obviously putting money on. Yet in all this, I am fairly certain that when someone has posted a pre race selection that I believe will lose I have said so before the race, that selection has yet to prove me wrong. Yesterday was the latest instance when I named several well fancied horses I knew were duff runners. I gave the winner in one, and non ability believers might like to look at Satco Express' last few runs to confirm, and the 2nd in the other.

Anyway, I'll be back later to catch up on the latest.

Barney,

Could you please explain how the use of s/f was bloody obvious in finding the winner of the 2:55 at Doncaster today? Using my s/f there were at least 3 horses with faster figures and I think another one with the same figure.

Can I also ask what Mr e d has done to warrant such a high accolade (part from thinking you are clever)

Guest,

You didn't rate the last 2 horses I put up (your words). I have always considered it bad manners to rubbish other peoples selections. However if you don't mind it, I am more than happy to. The ability rating is that flawed it is possible to drive a coach and horses through it. So if you are happy to start pre posting I will give my ideas on the real c/form horses. I must stop calling them that, I will call mine the BEST HORSE in the race.

Fulham,

I have asked before if the s/f way works for unexposed horses why not exposed horses. If I remember correctly when Swiss Maid's race was discussed, Guest used the the s/f method of ability to analyse the race. That race was run on the 7/10. (If I am mistaken about the method of finding the ability rating I apologise.) As I pointed out the other day VDW gave the impression he was happy it could work for older horses.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I have hitherto thought that VDW used sfs as a means of judging ability with 2yos and early season 3yos. Guest's 2/9/02 post re the Swiss Maid race certainly suggests VDW may have used sfs as a check on the basic ability rating there, too.

I've not looked at this particular race in detail (only to the point of having established that both Cistus and SM were form horses), so I have no personal opinion on the sf matter in relation to this race. If Guest is right, he is in effect saying that the sfs may be a useful cross check on ability for all 3yo races, so potentially a small extension of their relevance in this regard. But Guest makes no suggestion that they should be used re assessing ability for older Flat horses or NH horses.

But the most fundamental reason why I am sure that, when considering older Flat horses and NH horses, VDW assessed the class aspect of the class/form nexus via his ability rating is that it resolves the relevant specific examples, which using sfs as the means of assessing ability doesn't.

For example, Little Owl was explicitly named as the c/f in the March 1981 race, and VDW regarded him as nailed on - value at better than 1/3. Yet applying sfs your way would give Wayward Lad as the c/f.

It is no surprise that sfs generate the same selection as the ability rating in a proportion of VDW's older Flat horse and NH races. The best horse in a race may well have recorded both the highest sf and achieved the highest ability rating. But only the latter resolves all the races where VDW explicitly named the c/f.

What a stupid idea, looking for the best horse in the race?
How can you introduce logic into this discussion?

It's about 6 in the morning and I've got some things to do so I'll try to finish it off tomorrow, I've done up to page 260. I'll also answer the various posts regarding my motivation. I will say that up to this point the results are much better than I thought, the strike rate's not up to much but there are some good prices.

a significant point you make.

we are not looking for the winner of the race.

we are looking to see if there is a winner in the race.

From a vdw perspective of course.

Its no use going off at tangents, or maybe it is if VDW's methods have not proved themselves.

Epiglotis

There you are. See how much better it is when one has some FACTS upon which to base an opinion.

Fulham,

I think VDW was more experienced, and a little cleverer than me. I wouldn't count a novice winner against an experienced horse, would you? That was what I meant about Bilboa. I also think that is why Wayward Lad was only 3rd in the other ratings. I except Guest isn't saying about using s/f for all ability ratings, I thought the idea was to work out the way VDW thought. I can't see were he says it won't work. In fact he gave me the idea as pointed out that he thought it was a possibility. If he used it for a three year old that had at least 8/9 races and won 3 of them.

Barney,

I think my best horses look more like the winner in the race than some of the c/form horses. As Mr e d doesn't want to answer my question about Soaf would you like to give me a LOGICAL reason why he is the selection. Barney, remember s/f are rubbish.

Cheers Fulham thanks for the reply your views are much appreciated.
My interest stemmed from thinking on the lines of taking the top class races at the various distances and taking the winners of such races as a collateral form tree or something on those lines. Whilst it's stretching it a bit to think form horses are arrived at in this way maybe VDW viewed results of previous races as class guide.

Whilst on the subject of top class races and going back to Pegwell Bay.The Mackeson was one of the top class 2m4f chases in the NH calendar. When vdw says "The result makes it appear he is capable of winning again before long", was VDW saying that Pegwell Bay was top of the 2m4f chase tree and classwise there was'nt much opposition to engage him.

Mtoto - I'm not quite sure just where I specifically rubbished your last 2 selections. I was referring to quite a few selections I made comments on when I found them to be false VDW selections. I have no interest in rubbishing peoples selections for the sake of it, but I do think it worthwhile pointing out supposed VDW selections that I know to be wrongly concluded as so.

I think I'll do some of my own research into exactly which horses I said were false before the race.

And just a footnote to the false ones I noted yesterday before the race. It matters not that Dunston Bill finished behind L'epicurien. The point is that L'Epicurien faltered under the task as expected just as Kadoun and Rostropovich did in Ireland.

She was the most expensive filly in the race, 10,000 guinea's I think.
The sire and dam sire were far more productive (at that type of course and distance) than the other fillies parents.apples fall in orchards?

On top of that if one compares the relative performances, under that race conditions, it is obvious that she was the only one at the races. I am not convinced myself however that the race provided a good betting proposition and I think that vdw used the race as an illustration ie, the same as the old fellow, to indicate a cross check. I do not have any doubt however why it was selected if a logical approach is followed, the same as pk and MR K there can only be one conclusion and it was not sf.

Hi all
Can anyone help me.
I'm after the form for Homeson 83/84 season.
Homeson was in the field of the race won by Beau Ranger (Dec 27th Kempton).
VDW says there were two form horses in this 4 runner race, Beau Ranger and Lean Ar Aghaidh.
From a vdw perspective Beau Ranger looked a cracking bet, Carved Opal, the other runner was not a form horse, I can certainly go along with this as he fell lto when meeting Beau Ranger in a high class chase when fav, so should have done better.
Up to this point I'm fine but need the form of Homeson to further evaluate the race.

Cheers
Chris

he had 3 runs last season

nov 83 nov chs clas 46 won clr last carrying 11-9
oct 83 nov qualify class 26wn all out carrying 11-12
oct 83 nov chs class 30 won ld cl hm carring 11-3

their penultimate races show a lot as well

I bet vdw laughed his head off when he saw carved opal a false fav again.

[This message was edited by Barney on January 24, 2003 at 11:39 PM.]

Hello Everyone,
Have analysed two races at Cheltenham tomorrow hoping again for feedback to help me guage how I am progressing.Again it is not a betting exercise but a methodology one and in particular one in getting the form horses right.I am following the consistency method.
2.35 Cheltenham.
The numerical picture pointed me to Gingembre and Cyfor malta.In ability order:-
Cyfor malta - IMO not a form horse in the context of this race. I think he is better giving weight to inferior animals in handicaps.
Bachanal - A form horse and therefore the class/form horse.
Gingembre - A form horse established from the race at Wetherby. Therefore second C/F horse.
Valley Henry - a form horse.
There are no other form horses.
Conclusion - Bacchanal is the C/F but I have doubts about the course ( he seems to prefer flat chasing courses) and these stiff fences.Valley Henry is a live danger. I don't think Gingembre is suited to the course.
3.10 Cheltenham.
The numerical picture pointed me towards Lady Cricket.Again in ability order:-
Katarino - I have gone with this one as a form horse although I found it a difficult call as the horses it ran against LTO were all either previously not in form or running at the wrong distance. This makes Kat the class/form horse.
Lady Cricket - not a form horse.
Horus - not a form horse.
Balinclay King - a form horse
Blowing Wind - not a form horse.
Poliantas - Most definitely a form horse and IMO the horse with the best form in the race.
I do not have any more form horses.
Conclusion.
This would have to be a no bet race in that to go against the class/form horse is putting the odds against you and I do feel that Poliantas has the better form between it Katarina and Balinclay King.
So there it is. I look forward to your informed comments.Thanks for reading and good luck for tomorrow.

Cheers Graham.