Please specify the exact passages that you are refering to.

Boozer: what is computerised VDW
Barney: why shhhhhh
Mtoto: what is your VDW search facility

Lady Cricket was a bet for Mtoto because she was THE BEST HORSE IN THE RACE.

For Guest, Fulham and Graham H ( welcome to this brilliant thread and my compliments on your very good posts ) LC was not a form horse.

Add to that Johnd makes Poliantes a bet.

All well respected and knowledgeable posters yet we have 3 different decisions on the race, ie -Mtoto and Johnd find a bet whereas the other 3 come to the conclusion = no bet.

BEFORE I GO ON I MUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM STILL NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING HOW TO IDENTIFY THE RIGHT FORM HORSES ALTHOUGH I WILL GET THERE EVENTUALLY.

Why wasn`t LC a form horse the VDW way ?

From re-reading the thread it is clear one way to identify an out of form horse is

" a horse failing to do what should have been no problem is not in form "

The fact that on all known form LC should have won on her seasonal debut when a beaten 4/5 fav` is the reason why she was not considered in form.

Several quotes/comments from this thread spring to mind,

(a) many a so called good thing fails to deliver only to be found in the winners enclosure next time

(b) many of the VDW wagers were on horses returning from a long lay off

(c) with reference to Ekbalco, the form can seem a tad confusing but the answer lies in how one views the form and what makes good form relative to the rest of the field

(d) when a good speed figure is backed up with class it is a very strong weapon indeed ( recognise that one MTOTO ).

(e) when the prize is big enough the best horse rarely gets beaten.

How many of those comments could have refered to LC yesterday ?

LC last to winning prizes prior to yesterday were worth £21k and £46k.

Was the £14k on her seasonal debut worth been in peak condition for ?

The disappointing effort that day did tell connections she wasn`t quite right so what do they do. Give her the necessary break, freshen her up ( McCoy in a roundabout way told us on the Morning Line to expect the real LC yesterday ) and then place her on her favourite course and distance.

Add to that she was top on ability ratings, well placed on the bare consistency rating and whats more her Postmark and Topspeed ratings added support.

All hindsight yes, but I made her in form for the reasons stated above and she was therefore the class/form horse.

A bet no because unlike Mtoto I haven`t got the confidence to go against the likes of Guest, Fulham, etc.

If I`m honest the bet I nearly made at the available morning prices was a book on LC and Poliantes.

Cheers,

Determined

re Lady Cricket, several of the phrases you quote could be said to apply. But in my view VDW wasn't about finding possible winners but horses with ALL the credentials of a winner.

As you say, it was LC's last run that was the main problem. One could make excuses for that defeat: beaten fto in closing stages by a horse that had had a run, carrying 26lb less, who herself had put in a decent run only a fortnight earlier. But in my view pre the race, and I'm presuming Guest's and Graham's too, that run was disappointing.

But the fact that LC, with the highest ability rating, was in the field, (together with doubts about the c/f and others), was material to the "no bet" decision. And I would always rather miss a winner than back a loser.

Not, of course, meant in any political sense, hence the small "c", but to me the essence of VDW is conservatism. We are not looking for a bet in every race; nor even a bet in the races he suggests should be analysed; nor in every race we identify a probable winner (VDW wrote that he backed only 20% of horses he thought would win). We are looking for horses which stand up to logical scrutiny with no significant negatives, and Mike pointed the way, prior to the off, to what in my view was one such yesterday.

That there should be diversity of views on the thread should never be a surprise. Both Mtoto and Johnd have their own views on how to proceed, which may for all I know produce better results than how others interpret VDW. But personally I'm much encouraged to find that, on races I've looked at in detail, the judgements of others who seem to be interpreting VDW similarly (Guest and Graham in particular) broadly speaking match. (VDW implied this would be the case in his article of 13/4/1985, when he wrote that when the "missing link" had been found "you will have the same horses as myself".)

your point about form horses is worth investigating further, in my opinion, its far to easy for some to say a horse is out of form as with horus (some similarities with soaf), and lady cricket( who was out of form).

Exposed form is relatively easy to spot, but some are hiding their form.

everyone should realise after the cyfor malta/ chicuelo debacle that Pipe is unorthadox to say the least.

put him on the list, with the others, whose horses need more than a quick skim over, he's not the champ for nothing he can decide when they win.

Fulham & Barney,

Thank you for your responses.

Would it be fair to say that the first 3 home yesterday have now `marked their card`.

With regards Lady Cricket. A hard race yesterday ( just like last year). It will be interesting if she takes the same route as last year and goes to Newbury in a fortnights time.

Shamawan may not be so straight forward given who the trainer is but there`s no doubt in my opinion that this one will be freshened up for Cheltenham in March.


On another point, wasn`t Behrajan described as outclassed yesterday based on his 112 ability rating. Even before his win yesterday, clearly a case where the ability rating shouldn`t be taken at face value.

Cheers,

A big well done to all those who supported LL yesterday.

For some silly reason I put up Ask The Natives on the Tipping Challenge thread ( thankfully no money changed hands ).

Back to LL. Looking at her Kempton win on 27/12/02, she would I suspect have been the class / form horse.

She won the race very well thus proving she could carry weight in a class £12528. The weight spread was 15 lbs and the opposition was not the best.

Compare that to yesterday. Slightly up in race class ( value ) off a 13 lbs higher official rating against in my opinion tougher opposition and a weight spread of 26 lbs.

A big ask, however she was top on ability, best consistency figures and clearly improving. Postmark and Topspeed lended support.

Another example of those far more experienced than me drawing different conclusions, ie - no bet for Statjack but a winning bet for Fulham and Mike.

Determined

re Behrajan, it is again a question of evaluating the evidence.

Lto Behrajan had won a class 310 handicap, and in many contexts that would have made him a form horse for his next race. But yesterday he was upped considerably in class, and his form needed to be considered relative to the race, and to the in-formness of the other runners.

One could argue that there were five form horses out of the six runners - in ability order Bacchanal, Gingembre, Valley Henry, Behrajan and Foly Pleasant. But the first two had recent form in higher class races than yesterday's and, relative to the others, could be said to have the best form (although as both Graham and Guest indicated, not solid). Where one draws the line in respect of the others is in my view a matter of judgement, and it was not unreasonable to regard Valley Henry, with highly consistent and progressive form as a form horse, too.

But as with the race won by Lady Cricket, the key conclusion was that the c/f (Bacchanal) was not a sufficiently solid c/f to back, and nor was any alternative. Note, too, that, as with the LC race, from an "in-formness" point of view there was in the field a non form horse with the highest ability rating.

Once the basic conclusion has been reached, no result surprises. And with Bacchanal's early and tragic departure, the most probable winner was out, leaving the race wide open.

I would suggest that the important thing to bear in mind about VDW's approach is not that it offers a convincing basis for explaining the outcome of every race. Rather, it offers a framework which, if applied with discipline, means one is financially interested only in situations where there is a clear and logical winner (or book) within a race. La Landiere and Don Fernando being, in my view, two such yesterday.

And even then the nature of racing means things don't always work out entirely as expected. With La Landiere, for reasons that defeat me, a good thing is opposed by a (relatively speaking) nothing, and we find ourselves getting 9/2 for a bet that would have been good value at the Post's forecast of 5/2. And then Don Fernando, having seen off the talking horse favourite as expected, gets beaten by a 25/1 horse with nothing form. If he'd been beaten by Sculptor, making his NH debut, that would have been one thing. But to be beaten by a horse that came a poor 2nd in a weakish race at Leicester last time out, that was disappointing, the eight pound weight difference notwithstanding.

Cheers mate, it's a big help.
I'll look at the races mentioned.
It reinforces the need to have as many of the covering form books as possible.
Take this scenario. A man with 20/20 vision walks up to you and says,"I'm looking for Link Street I know it's around here somewhere but can't be arsed to look for it".
Surely, at the very least you would wan't to poke him in the eye.

Thanks again
Chris

Thanks again.

Re Lady Cricket, that was an excellent post, and I am sure that posts like this, and the recent ones from Statajack, all dealing with contemporary races, do far more to forward the aims of this thread, than those which continually chant the mantra of ancient races. Most incisive, let's have more!
Regarding yesterday's race, ( In hindsight, of course ), if we re-examine LC's lto run, it was over 2m on good ground, and all LC's recent form indicated that she needed a stiffer test to show her best. Her only run in similar circumstances produced a win at Newbury, but that was OVER 2m!f ON SOFT GROUND, IN A FAST RUN RACE, which puts things in a slightly different perspective.
If we accept this, and the evidence is there in the form book, then LC was not at all out of form for yesterday's race, and therefore the conclusion is, that those who had her as out of form were wrong.
I should say at this stage, that I had her as the only danger to Poliantis, and as I don't normally dutch, I had a csf saver, which went down the pan, along with my bet on P.
To go back to LC, and accepting that she was in fact, in form, we then need to question the interpretation of 'In form', 'Out of form', ascribed to VDW by many on this thread. On yesterday's evidence I would say that Mtoto's is much nearer the truth than others, but then, I am biased, as I have long held the view that the final decision to bet must embrace the 'Capability' aspect in every respect, which many seem to ignore.
As for Poliantis's run yesterday, I am at the moment, in the dark, but if we view it from Mtoto's perspective, there was no s/f support for his previous good runs, and this is an avenue I intend to explore for the future, and, maybe, one day, add to my armoury.
Yesterday's result suggests that I am far from the only one who needs to rethink things a little!
Keep up the posts like that, and we all may get somewhere!

Johnd

re Lady Cricket, granted that she has mostly won over more than 2m, I wonder whether she was as disadvantaged on her last run as you suggest.

Given the characteristics of the two courses, I would suggest that it is arguable that 2m on good over Cheltenham was as testing as 2m 1 on soft at Newbury (ie as suitable for LC), with the former's undulations and hills at least offsetting the extra 1f on softer ground on the flat at Newbury.

Having just read your last post my coming observation may seem outdated nevertheless I also read Jim B's post which I take to mean that nobody should post the information required by Grundy. Hopefully someone has privately e-mailed the details but what will happen the next time that someone requests the same details? I understand what you mean by 'dinosaurs' but I object to the term, it carries connotations of movement, danger, excitement, I think the apposite term would be 'coprolites'.

I can read and add up,I just can't spell Lol what do you mean after the event have a look on the 3+ system.And also dutching them 5/4 shots has made me a tidy sum off money,So don't knock it till youv'e tried it chap,Keep going the way you are johnd and you'll be relegated.

Standard times;

Chelt 2m. 3m 55s
Newb 2m1f 4m 6.5s

Add to that the soft ground and the fast pace, and things may look different.

Johnd

Yes, quite possibly. But I'm not sure time spent is the same as, if you like, effort.

Not being any kind of athlete, I have no relevant personal experience, but I think I might find 2m up and down, with a testing hill, at least as much effort as 2m 1f on the level, even if the ground for the latter was soggy.

As I say, I don't have a firm view, but it is not obvious to me that Lady Cricket's run lto should be "excused" on distance/going grounds. Nor, I may say, having considered Guest's comment re Horus, do I feel that I reached the wrong conclusion yesterday in viewing Horus's last run as disappointing and thus designating him as not a form horse.

But, as VDW said, isolating the class/form horse can often prove a tricky problem, and by that he primarily meant handling the form side rather than the class side. And in some cases, like Horus, and perhaps even Lady Cricket, there is room for differences of opinion.

You seem to have missed the major point of my post, it isn't we the 'ignoramuses' who need help, it's you the 'inner sanctum' members who are in need of help as demonstrated by my statistics about Guest's strike rate. The problem is we cant help you because you won't describe the symptoms, like going to the doctor and when he ask's 'What's wrong?' you reply 'Figure it out'. I know you venture to other areas of the board so you no doubt saw what Cabbie achieved yesterday. This was on a thread started by Bookiebasher 2000 as an offshoot of one started by Max, anybody following these threads knows exactly how to employ the procedure themselves, questions are openly considered and answers are honestly given, Max started his thread on the 18th November after two months of cooperative investigation they have now produced a result light years beyond the acheivements of this thread after more than a year of nudges and hints. The rating process probably takes less time than you people spend just on the ability rating, which in itself is not accepted by some of this thead's major posters, not only that, people like Cabbie do the work for you and post up the results for the benifit of all the members, what did Chris B say in his last post? Do you know what I would recommend to almost anybody even at the first acquaintance? No you dont, but if you ask me I'll tell you. Barney, I believe your heart is in the right place, spiritually small people have an excessive pride by which they are deluded, who you are is up to you.

Fulham,
I was under the impression that vdw refused to countenance bets on Novice hurdles precisely because of the dangers of situations like yesterday's occuring.
regards,

As far as my recollection goes VDW made neither commands nor prohibitions, he was fond of exprssions along the lines of: there are many ways to, the way I prefer, one of the ways is, it can be done, etc.

I believe Broadsword was a losing bet for VDW in the Triumph hurdle.

Also, Guest was very clear that Like A Butterfly was a winning bet at Cheltenham.

Both novice hurdles.

That said, in a very early letter within Golden Years I think VDW made the statement on the following lines,

" the 1st 5/6 in the f/c and the 3 most consistent tend to isolate the winners of most races on the card if ignoring sellers and novice events "

Cheers,