Statajack
About the Stormez race; if we directly compare the immediately previous run by each of the runners we can see that Stormez won by the greatest margin (equal with Ask Henry) in the highest class carrying the most weight, looking at their previous wins compared to the present race conditions we can see that Stormez has won in the highest class and with the closest weight to today's, that to me is a horse with everything 'lined up' in it's favour and certainly exemplifies the spirit of VDW if not necessarily the letter. On the 14th January there was a similar situation with Mr Woodentop but the sp for the latter was 2-7 compared to which the 6-4, in a smaller field, for Stormez strikes me as being an outstanding price.

Grundy

Just a thought about the Form Books.

It took me several months to assemble a full set of those required, though I know one or two have been luckier and found a dealer who has just purchased a run.

But my experience was that, although the likes of Janet Carter, Greg Way etc took a note of what I was after and promised to let me know when they came to hand, performance in actually doing that was patchy. After a while I found the best thing to do was to 'phone the main sources (Browzers and Pickering, as well as Carter and Way) every couple of weeks. One or other regularly had in stock something they had, in theory, already put on a "wants" list for me.

Statajack,
thanks for your posting on the haydock race at the weekend. As you are probably aware I am following the consistency method using the numerical picture to highlight races to investigate. i looked at the race on Saturday and would like to ask a couple of questions if I may:-
1. Paxford Jack was the outsider of 7 in the Post's forecast - did you use a different forecast or take the view that 2nd on ability and in the first 3 for consistancy took precedence? and
2. I didn't think PJ had the form relative to the others for this race although I didn't spot the point you make about weight and forgave his Ludlow run as not being on a suitable track. The question is which piece of his form swayed you or was it a case of there was little form to speak of amongst the others.
Although I an not betting at the moment the conclusion I came to was that there was too much conflict with low ability rated horses dominating the forecast or a difficult to assess horse in Its Himself.

Thanks in anticipation

Graham

SATURDAYS RACING

There are a number of points arising from the 3 races discussed on Saturday that I was unable to comment on owing to computer problems. Hopefully, these points will put things in a slightly different perspective.
In the first race, Cenkos,who looked a certainty on paper, came unstuck, I would suggest for the simple reason that this was a prep race, rather than the real thing. Recently, Greg posed the question, what did VDW mean when he said "The class horse will usually win when the prize is big enough"?
The answer, in my eyes, is exactly what happened here. How many times, under both codes, does a horse get beaten in a trial, only to triumph when it REALLY MATTERS? Quest For Fame is just one of the many that spring to mind. We will, no doubt, see a different horse come Cheltenham, although I still have doubts about him lasting home.
One other point from this race, is that once again this proved an inadequate test for Lady Cricket, which shows those who had her as 'Out of form' in her first race this season, to be wrong, (IMO).
In Spirit Leaders case, Fulham puts her lto defeat down to class and weight, seemingly ignoring the fact that she was beaten over 5l in a 0-129 after previously winning a 0-148 by a comfortable 4l, and her trainers' and jockeys' view, that she was beaten lto because of the lack of early pace. I will leave it to the individual to draw their own conclusions as to which is the more logical.
The point I missed with her previous form was that in her Sandown win, over a stiff course, and run at a good pace,she was able to get to the front over 2 out, which cost me dear in the end. Non So would have been a very easy winner without SL in the race, and I stand by my original point that any method that did not recognise this horse as a live contender is flawed.
Marlborough once again proved an enigma at this course, as to why can only be conjecture, but my guess is that the course is entirely galloping in nature, and unlike Cheltenham, offers no respite with downhill runs and sharp bends. As he is a horse that wins his races with a burst of speed at the end, it is entirely plausible that he is unable to do this on Newbury's long straight, after an all out gallop. Whatever the reason, he was certainly a very tired horse when falling at the last.
I hope all the above shows that there is much more to VDW than just arithmetic, and the part of 'Spells It All Out' where he refers to the pace and going, along with the other considerations, is as Fulham says, far more than just decoration.

Johnd

The evidence that trainers' publicly-expressed views should be taken with a considerable pinch of salt was nowhere better illustrated than with regard to the race in which Cenkos was beaten by Kadarann on Saturday.

In similar vein, I preferred to rely on what the Form Book showed as regards Spirit Leader than the PUBLICLY expressed views of trainer or jockey. Depending on how one viewed Copeland, Non So was the second or third c/f, but at the weights to my mind never had the beating of Spirit Leader, whose record showed that he had achieved more, and who (from a VDW perspective) was in form. Still, as VDW said, racing is about differences of opinion, and without them one wouldn't be able to back nailed on good things at 14/1.

Epiglotis,
6/4 was a good price and I'd have been tempted to back him myself despite not being in the 3 most consistent. I assumed he'd go off odds on though.
Graham,
With regard to question one, outsider of 7 yes, but also 6th favourite so a candidate for inclusion. VDW also made the point that any outsiders which are consistent should be looked at anyway. As you said too, any horse in the 3 most consistent and 2nd top rated for ability deserves serious consideration. PJ had after all won a race worth £29k less than 2 months ago!
On your 2nd question, an in form horse previously humping big weights now gets to carry 26lb less than LTO while the class horse in the race fell at the 8th on its first run of the season. Horses that fell LTO only win 6% of the time and that 6% will be comprised of horses with a definite class advantage and proven fitness. Its Himself had neither. If you look at Love From Verona, that horse carried only 13lb less and wasnt in the top 4 for ability (although it had won easily LTO and was improving). In large amounts from around a stone upwards, physical weight has to make a difference and results tend to reflect this, whenever the horse has the class to take advantage of the situation.
regards,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fulham:
of Spirit Leader, whose record showed that he had achieved more, and who (from a VDW perspective) was in form.

---

oops.. he's changed sex

quote:

---

SPIRIT LEADER (IRE) 7-y-o (1 May 1996) b/br m

---

FULHAM
Forgive me, I hadn't realised that your all-embracing knowledge had now outstripped that of respectively, Paul Nicholls, Jessica Harrington, and Norman Williamson, and about their own horses, too. One has got to be impressed!
Perhaps you could further impress we lesser mortals with the benefit of your infinite wisdom, and give us one of your 'nailed on good things' before the race, rather than after.

Here are the paragraphs mentioned by Fulham:
During the past few years I have illustrated a method of selection that has been successful for decades and is based on elements which should ensure future years will be the same. Many have found fault with my suggestions and this is as I would expect. If everyone thought the same there could not be a market which would be a pity.

Some readers have come to terms with the method and can look forward to profitable years ahead, providing they never loose sight of the first essential. Using the method as intended when all elements come into balance is a force to be respected and those who select just parts, or fail to understand the concept as a whole, will not succeed. It is all too easy to go astray and start blaming the method when all the time the fault lies with yourself.

I really begin to wonder if Fulham et al have these books, I certainly wonder if they can make the effort to pick them up if they cant be bothered posting them up here. See the Newcomers thread started by Tuppenycat for the full story.

Johnd

Engage your brain. Do you REALLY believe that trainers, jockeys etc are going to give all and sundry the true bill prior to a race? They are working for the owner(s) and act in their interests, not ours. It is not a question of me having superior knowledge to the connections: just relying on the evidence of the Form Book rather than whatever "spin" connections wish to put about before the off.


Epiglotis

Glad to see that you found the relevant paragraphs yourself. Much better for your character than sponging off others.

Also better for my character to be open and sharing rather than elitist and patronising.

Statajack,
Thanks again for your invaluable help.

Kind Regards

Graham

John D,

Don't be too hard on Fulham, i also had Spirit Leader down as a strong bet.

I also had a fun bet trifecta perm on this race with the winner banked plus In Contrast Benbyas and Tikram - totally dismissing Non so. My reason was the 2 Kempton wins ie r/h and tight track plus other tight track wins - i was wrong.

I am annoyed i dismissed Non So lightly as this horse ran a very good race - what made it a stong selection for you btw.

Grundy,

My experience of getting the form books very much mirrors Fulhams.I got mine from Browzers,Way’s and Carters over a period of about 5 months.I just kept phoning up periodically to see if they had the missing ones in. They are a right mish mash of Raceform and Haig /Superform in varying conditions from immaculate to one that threatens to fall apart if I even look at it the wrong way.

Re an earlier post you made about CV Baker and Rat.I certainly do remember C.V.Baker’s posts.In fact his Van Der Wheil platform was the first time I’d ever heard of VDW.Unfortunately although I used to cut out and keep the Sports Forum pages at that time, they got mixed up with some other papers and got thrown out. If memory serves me CVB was using split seconds figures above 80 to make a list of horses to follow and using cons and ability ratings in his final analysis.I can’t remember what Rat was posting about though.

many thanks, fulham, bream,statajack,john d, mtoto, lee, for your advice and evaluations of van der wheils methods, did anyone use cv bakers methods, he mentioned a book called riches from races, by steve ahern, i remember reading parts of this book,he was a very successful professional backer back in the 1960s, i believe does anyone recall this book, regarding the rat method, i have a copy of one of his first letters, but alas, do not have any other parts of his methods, he mentioned adapting the rating for the national hunt season, but do not have this information, any other info, would be appreciated, grundy

ANDREW
I really have no problem with anyone who saw Spirit Leader as a solid VDW bet. I made my reasons clear for not considering the horse clear before, and after, the race. I was wrong, which I accept, and I will learn from that.
What I do have difficulty with is the post race thinking, that turns Non So from a no-hoper to the 2nd c/f horse, within a few posts.
How many times do we see this phenomenon on this thread, where an often tentative selection before the race, becomes a certainty afterwards.
This implies no reflection on anyone who has selected the winner before the race, but does bring into question their objectivity after the result is known.
It remains my firm view that the only definitive and unarguable way to find the truth is to post ones thoughts before the race.
We are all experts after the race, and most of us can make the majority of winners fit VDW's methods when the race is over. That proves very little about anyone's true understanding of the method.

Johnd

Just to show you how Non So features, had I continued the ability rating table from my initial post to show those with markedly lesser ratings, the next four in the list would have been:

In Contrast - 121
Giocomo - 120
Calladine - 107
Non So - 102

In the context of Saturday's race, the first three of these were not form horses, but Non So was. So, depending on how one viewed the four possibles from the top of the list (and as I've said, I was inclined to see two as form horses, though a better judge than me regarded only Spirit Leader as such), Non So was either the 2nd or 3rd c/f.

I note that you think that "the only definitive and unarguable way to find the truth is to post ones thoughts before the race", and I have some sympathy with that view. There is, however, another way to see whether people are serious about their selections, and on this occasion (as a one-off) I am happy to resolve any suspicions you harbour.

Email me your postal address (to Fulham1000@Hotmail.com) and when the current Tote accounting period ends on 19 February and I receive my cheque and statement, I'll post you the latter. Although the majority of my bet was placed in cash at two local betting shops, a third was placed with the Tote at 14s, a price which you'll find from the table in the Post was the best early one on offer from the major firms.

Would VDW have seen this horse as a Certainty?

Boozer

In my view, no.

VDW applied a number of terms which indicated the strength of various selections - from "racing certainty" (Little Owl), through "outstanding bets" (eg Celtic Pleasure, Rifle Brigade, Derrylin and Orchestra) to "good things" (eg Pragmatic, Inside Quarter, Lyric Dance etc). I'd have thought Spirit Leader would have been in the "good things" category, bordering on "outstanding bets".

I think it was a virtual certainty

as per sunset cristo and zilzal

statajack's paxford jack was an outstanding bet