Statajack

As regards the "Ultimate Wheil" horses, again an element of subjectivity enters into the judgement as to which were bets rather than mere selections, but I have identified 13.

Of these 12 were in the first five/six, as appropriate, of the Life's betting forecast.

Of the 12, eleven were among the three lowest consistency ratings within the first five/six.

The two exceptions were:

Desert Hero - well out of the first six in the forecast but with a low consistency rating (7);

Righthand Man - in the first six of the forecast but with the fourth lowest consistency rating among the six (8, behind Planetman (3), Hardy Lad and Androma (6), and Little Polveir (7)).

MTOTO
As you have raised the subject again, I will try, once again, to clarify my standpoint.
The whole essence of this game, as we all know, is to predict what will happen in a horse race. This is the reason why this thread exists, and why it creates so much interest.
However objective or logical one is, their view of the race will change after the result is known. Therefore, when looking at a race historically, that view is bound to be prejudiced by what happened in the race.
In the light of this, while it is often informative to discuss a race after it has been run, it is peurile to say any horse was a certainty after the race, of course it was!
It remains my point of view that our understanding of VDW will germinate much more quickly by discussing races before the off, and that a members understanding of the method will only become apparent, and therefore his ability to predict what will happen in a race, have any real credibility, if the method is approached in this way.

All
Many times VDW set out his equation for finding winners, surely any interpretation of the method that doesn't give due weight to each of the 4 factors in that equation, cannot, by definition, be the complete method.

On 6 December I drew attention to the placing of Ibin St James by the former jockey and now tipster, Willie McFarland. It is a pity Fakenham is off today, as ISJ was entered in the 3.10, a race well within his competence, after the down-the-field run lto in markedly higher class.

Today's placing had, for me, the hallmark of yet another "coup" with this horse. It will be worth watching entries over the next few days to see if ISJ is placed in a similar race, as presumably they have him fit and raring to go.


Johnd

I broadly agree with you. But there is a distinction to be made between the situation where a race is only analysed after the result is known (the position we are all in with VDW's examples, where the danger is merely to find a line of thinking which supports the result), and that where a race is analysed (and the selection backed) before the off, but only referred to publicly afterwards.

Bongo fury looks to have the attributes needed to win today.

At what point in the "Letters" do you think that he started to introduce the last two "ingredients"

Much neglected in most VDW discussion !

Tc

T.C.
A very interesting question, although I should explain that my original intention was to draw attention to consistency, IMO an important and integral part of the whole method.
I may be wrong, but I believe that VDW first drew attention to the 3rd and 4th factors in his equation in his 'Speed is no use without form' offering, and, IMO, went a great deal further, in 'Spells it all out'.
I would totally agree with the sentiments in your last sentence.

Mtoto
I am intrigued with your posting regarding Marlborough's last run. I would agree that Kempton was not the course for Best Mate, and did say so much in an email to Guest at that time; but even allowing for the fact that BM ran, say 14lb, below his best form, Marlborough still appeared to put up a tidy performance, with the 3rd horse, Bachannal, upholding the form from the previous year. Any chance you would be willing to expand on this?

Mtoto,

A belated thank you for your response re` Valley Henry. Been away from the board for a few days with a few personal problems.

Thanks again,

TODAY'S RACING
In the hope of generating some discussion on today's races, I will give my early thoughts. Once again, I will use the 'Best form' approach, although I hope this will not preclude anyone from posting who does things differently.

2.40. Ascot
To all intents and purposes, a match. JAIR DU COCHET is an exciting propect, and won a Gd 1 in a slightly faster time than the same day's King George. Le Sauvignon did look to have his measure at one stage, but then fell in a hole and died immediately after the race. However, this still represents top class novice chase form, and he should prove difficult to beat. KEEN LEADER has some very good novice hurdle form, and has done little wrong over fences. There is still a question mark over his jumping, and IMO, his fencing wasn't visually impressive in a slowly run GD 2 lto. He still has to prove that he can jump fences at this level, and he shoul be severely tested today. JDC is the probable winner, but at the price, and with KL still somewhat an unknown quantity, I wouldn't play.

3.10 Ascot
A fascinating handicap, with CHOPNEYEV a good winner of a hot race lto, and probably still improving. He takes a significant drop in distance today, but he was well there at this distance in a slowly run race lto. Camden Tanner whom he beat there, had previously run 3rd in a 51k Leapordstown hurdle, with COLOURFUL LIFE just in front of him. CL has twice failed when facing a stamina test in the past, and given heavyish ground, and a good pace, may do so again today.
The other Reveley horse, WHISTLING DIXIE, has possibly the best form in the race, he fell 2 out, when going well, in a 58k race at Ascot. It is worth pointing out that Chauvinist drew 15l clear of the rest after that point in the race, so it can only be guesswork hat would have happened to WD.In his 2 subsequent runs, he possibly found 2m at Leapordstown too sharp, and pulled too hard when btn over 6l behind Chopneyev.
KORELO is an unknown quantity, who was raced at up to 2m6f in France. His first British run was in a good novice at Cheltenham, over 2mIf,and although it was a slowly run race, he showed every sign of needing further. He has since been raced twice over sharp tracks, which would lead a suspicious person to question connections motives. He has not, however, got the form in the book to win this. TELMAR PRINCE is another horse that appears to have been placed rather strangely.
Not a race for me to bet in, at this moment anyway, but it wouldn't come as a total surprise if it was once again between Chopneyev and Whistling Dixie.

3.45. ASCOT
Probably the best British form in the race is TIUTCHEV's win in this race 2 years ago, but consistency is not his strong point, and his lto run, against decent, but not top class, horses, raises questions.
YOUNG DEVERAUX is an improving chaser, who (IMO) will stay this trip, but has yet to be tested at this level.
DOUZE DOUZE has already won a Gd 1 Chase in his native France, but has since run aand jumped poorly behind Best Mate, and was beaten at less than this distance in the King George.
Not a race for me.

Good luck for today, I hope all the racing hasn't been cancelled while I have been compiling this.

Must agree with your post about posting pre race and an interesting review of some of todays races. One Question about your selection on tne tipping thread. Is it a VDW selection?

thanks Titus

johnd

now that Whistling Dixie is a non-runner do you regard Chopneyev as 'a good bet', 'an outstanding bet', 'a racing certainty', or any other of the categories, or indeed a bet at all?

I very much agree with your other analyses.

Looking at some of the other contests:-

Wincanton 2.10 - See More Business should prevail over Iris Bleu at the weights

Wincanton 3.50 - Vincent Van Gogh looks to have a lot going for it other than forecast price

Johnd

Iv'e been quite busy today and haven't really looked at the board,Iv'e just read your post,And i see no mention of the see more business race,Did you not analyse this one.If ever there has been a winner in a race S.M.B was a very good example of said today.

Fulham
I had a look at the 3:05 at Newbury from the 8th. Initially I was intending to think about how you are defining form in the context of VDW but as things went I didn't get round to that. I didn't examine all the runners, only the seven named by you as class horses, the four named on this thread by other contributors and the remaining placed horse. You have repeatedly said that VDW provides solutions to races by approaching the question from the angles of class and form, I understand this to mean that by using the ability rating we can highlight the class horses then by applying VDW's concept of form we can find from amongst these the "class/form" horses. A more thorough investigation of the form of the qualifying horses then tells the student whether or not a bet is justified. Perhaps this interpretation is incorrect? I have said that I think the ability rating is not a sensible way to judge a horse's ability and the race in question does nothing to discourage me from that view. You wrote that according to the cash rating the class horses were Copeland, Holy Orders, Chauvinist, Scolardy, Polar Red, Spirit Leader and Quazar, there are two horses amongst these that I think can immediately be seen to be well short on ability Holy Orders and Polar Red. This is by considering what they have done, something that is often stressed, 'only consider the facts', 'what the horses has achieved on the track', 'what's in the form book', etc, the cash ratings are here shown neglecting those real achievements, including weak horses and excluding several strong horses, Puntal, Non So, In Contrast, Mr Cool and Tikram, in fact every other horse under consideration desrves more attention than these two 'class' horses. By your own assessment three of the class horses are not form horses, I realise that this doesn't necessarily imply that the remainder are form horses but as your later detailed analysis consists of conventional form reading and you have often stressed the importance of understanding VDW's idiosyncratic approach to form in deciding the class/form horses, I will assume that these four are all class/form horses. The first thing that struck me was that the final placings of these horses are fairly evenly spread down the field, I would have expected most if not all of them to occupy the upper half of the table, as it went, the mean of their positions was 12th very close to the mean of the field. This is a very unimpressive result for the concept of class/form and I venture to say that if you made your selection on this basis you were very lucky with the result, on the other hand, if after deciding Spirit Leader is the most likely winner you then checked the form of all the horses I really cant see the point in wasting so much time on apparently irrelevent considerations. A further point about the practicalities; for a field of this size analysis takes a lot of time, the number of horses involved increases the chance of irreconcilable "conflict" emerging from the investigation, the possibility of accidents in the broader sense is increased and as most of the horses are very good we need to make a much deeper examination of previous runs than would be required by animals of greater disparity, all in all a heavy investment of time for a highly uncertain result and I'm in no way tempted to change my view that it's not a race worth attempting. The conclusion that I draw from this exercise is that the method of VDW as practiced by you, one of this board's leading practitioners, is of very dubious worth and as you aren't prepared to throw things open for debate and possible improvement I resign from my involvement in this thread.

wow

Arowson,

Regarding Chopneyev and the question of whether he was a bet.

I did not evaluate this race in any great detail but in my opinion he wasn`t a bet.

`C` was without doubt the 1st on class/form using the numerical picture and was clearly an improving horse however yesterday whilst down in class he was carrying 15 lbs more of an 11 lbs higher official rating.

Added to that he was conceding 12 lbs to an unexposed M.Pipe horse who I expected to improve at the distance which turned out to be the case.

In summary, `C` was not a bet for me.

That said, again in my opinion `C` showed further improvement in defeat yesterday and although it was a slight drop in class he remains one to keep in mind for another decent prize ( subject to the oppositon on the day of course ).


TIUTCHEV - was this one a form horse yesterday and if so then he was the class/form horse and a bet.

SEE MORE BUSINESS - Investor, I agree with you in that the VDW experts should have played on this one yesterday.

Likewise, AZERTYUIOP but the price was very short.

HORS LA LOI 111 was not a form horse and neither was E.Spring. Top on ability was R.Cowboy and therefore the class/form horse but I guess at the likely price he was not considered a value bet.

Epiglotis

Your summary of how I believe VDW worked, contained in the first nine lines of your post, is spot on.

The point about VDW is that he offered an approach, with several elements, which one either accepts as a whole or not. The approach doesn't work consistently on a "pick and mix" basis". Whether one accepts it will, I guess, initially depend on how one rates its logic, but ultimately will depend on one's experience of it in practice.

You, and numerous others, including Mtoto, don't accept the logic of the ability rating, and that is, of course, your right. But don't then expect to get the same results as VDW did.

Others use the ability rating (possibly in the way APPARENTLY demonstrated in the "Spells it all out" article), and they too don't achieve the level of success that VDW suggested was practicable, because they are not applying the one factor not explicitly described in that article, how VDW assessed "in-formness".

It is only when one applies VDW's ways of assessing ability and "in-formness" that one focuses on the horses VDW would have considered. And then, as you rightly say, it is necessary to consider matters that, I suppose, any "form" analyst looks at - going, weight, etc (all listed in the second para. under the Little Owl table in the "Spells it all out" article). But even here, VDW has provided us with some insights, eg how to assess the weight issue.

As I see it, you reject the ability rating on grounds of logic - you don't see it as an adequate measure of ability or class. And you are uninclined to put yourself to the trouble to try to discover how VDW assessed "in-formness". Fine. But in taking that position you and others, whether you realise it or not, are effectively saying "we don't want to use the VDW approach" and are instead picking out from the letters, articles etc bits and pieces that appeal to you, and incorporating them in your own approaches. That too is fine, and Mtoto for one has demonstrated that he finds some decent winners by his own approach.

But the bottom line is that, if you don't understand or use VDW's approach (as I believe it do be and as you've accurately summarised it), you won't find the selections that flow from that approach. If one does follow the approach, then Spirit Leader was a straightforward (and fairly strong) selection, and posts by others have shown that it wasn't just me who found it.

Finally, your post suggests a degree of frustration, bordering on exasperation, and that I can understand. Believe me, frustration is commonplace as one tries to get to grips with VDW's approach: to borrow Oakeshott's phrase, "anyone moderately acquainted with the difficulties will not need to be told how often I have seen the day confuse what in the night had seemed clear". But one has two principal options when frustrated: to persevere or to give up. Your choice.

FULHAM
That is exactly the kind of pious and uninformative answer that has, no doubt, led to Epi's, (And others), withdrawal from this thread. You really will not be happy until everyone is singing from your hymn sheet, will you?
Fortunately, there are still some members who retain enough interest to question the ability ratings approach, while still seeking the truth about VDW, for this thread to survive at this time; although, as recent weeks show, it can ill afford to turn its back on contributors of Epi's calibre.
There are diamonds to be found on this thread, particularly amongst the contributions of members such as Guest, Lee, and Mtoto, but these are people who are genuinely trying to help others; whilst your postings usually consist of either reams of regurgitated pap, or the 'Read the books, and find out for yourself' attitude.
Think very carefully about your real motives for posting on this thread, because, from where I stand, they are highly questionable.
TITUS
No, it wasn't a VDW selection, the tipping challenge, although an excellent piece of work by Sparky, is to me just a diversion.
AROWSON/DETERMINED
I didn't play in Chopneyev's race, because of the unexposed horses, but on reflection, any bet on C could have been covered by two small csf savers, a bet I often favour to dutching. It would have been interesting to see what the cf/ ability ratings approach made of the Pipe horse.
INVESTOR
At the time of compiling yesterday's posting, much of the day's racing was in doubt. As I saw the Lingfield handicap as too close to call, I covered what I saw, at that time, as the likeliest races to be run. My typing skills make it unlikely that I could cover all the races on any Saturday.

determined,

there was a vast difference yesterday between the races involving see more buisness and tuitchev.

tuitchev couldn't really be expected to win lto could he, giving all that weight away?

but the race overall still had lots closely matched horses ability wise.

see more buisnesses race on the other hand was far less of a problem, also in that race is more or less the opposit side of the same problem to that which was faced last week with fulhams horse. Iris bleu was not a form horse for this race.

Johnd

At depth, I am seeking to make one point and one point only. That, no matter what you and others say, there is a consistent core to VDW's approach that delivers the goods. Finding that core, and being able to put it into operation, takes effort, and for me (and for others I know) that has involved (indeed still involves) much frustration. The fact that some, like you and Epiglotis, haven't the persistence is understandable, but hopefully neither that, nor your obvious resentment of those who have, will put others off. And they will find in many posts on this thread, some even by me, much to help them.

Fulham
Thanks for the long and considered reply, on this occasion I'm happy to assure you that I have read it all, twice. I have a couple of points that I would like to make; you stress the importance of understanding and applying the particular "in-formness" as perceived by VDW, such being the case surely it would be simpler to start with conventional/decisive form analysis and use this VDW concept of in-formness just as a final check? If we take your initial list of seven clear class horses then compare the performances of those that were form horses against those that weren't we find the relevence of this idiosyncratic form to be of doubtfull value: class mean 13, class/form mean 12, class/nonform mean 14, random mean 14 (figures represent finishing position). This is a very slight distinction though arguably significant. Comparative final placings: f-f-n-n-f-n-f, bearing in mind that we are advised to choose races in this class because the strength and consistency of the runners means that they will perform to the level of their 'form' we can consider these figures and placings to be an accurate reflection of the various horse's comparative abilities. The most talented chess player to have derived a living from that ability was Capablanca, the strongest chess player to have resorted to chess for a living was Lasker, both of these people wrote books in which they attempted to pass on their unique abilities through maxims. The problem is that the maxims were derived from the play of the exceptionally talented or the exceptionally strong, maxims and general principles find themselves in conflict in the practical situation. I suspect that VDW was very good at understanding and solving horse races and tried to reduce his working to general principles that could be employed by the less talented, further I suggest that he misunderstood the realities in the same way that Capablanca and Lasker did. The reality of exploiting the legacy of VDW doesn't lie in mimicry but in the fruits of investigation.

Epiglotis

You've rather lost me in your stats., and I'm loathe to harp on about Spirit Leader because it obviously annoys Johnd.

I am not sure of the exact procedure VDW went through when analysing a race. But I am sure - because he regularly said so - that for him the two main factors were class and form. And that is why I start with them.

Class (the ability rating) is quick to sort out - even for a 27 runner race like last Saturday's, from the printed version of the Post it takes no more than five minutes. (It would take much longer if one had to work from the on-line Post, and I appreciate your difficulty in that regard.)

The class rank alone often tells one something: it is far from uncommon to find the situation to be like last week, with a small group of horses well clear of the rest. (In the race one by Champion Lodge on 18/10/02, where I posted a post I'd made elsewhere, in response to Swish, for example, there were five horses with ARs in three figures, significantly above the rest; in the race won by Smirk, which Guest put up before the off, there were four, etc etc.)

From a VDW perspective, it makes sense to start with such sub-groups, and see which, if any, are "form" horses. Often, though not always, there will be one or more form horses, and one can evaluate their claims in more depth. Sometimes there won't be any form horses, though - a good example is the 1983 Imperial Cup, where none of the group of five well clear on the ability rating were form horses, and one got right down to Desert Hero, with an AR of 11, to find the c/f.

With the race won by Spirit Leader, of the top seven, I was sure that SL was a form horse, sure that five others were not, and unsure about one (Copeland). So the obvious step was to err on the side of caution, treat Copeland as a form horse (and thus the c/f) and assess him and SL. GIVEN that my understanding of how VDW assessed in-formness enabled me to focus on these two, I would expect that most would see SL as overwhelming the more likely - AT THE WEIGHTS.

The analysis then had two more stages:

1) were the conditions right for SL? Right distance; right weight; good going - no significant problem here;

2) was there anything lower down the AR ranking with, potentially, a false position which could be regarded as a serious threat? A check led me to the conclusion that there wasn't. Clearly there were some other form horses, Non So among them, but with markedly lower ability ratings and no evidence (in my view) to suspect "masked" ability.

As Johnd and others have observed, the situation yesterday in the big handicap hurdle was very different. Chopneyev was, especially after the withdrawals, well clear on the ability rating, and a form horse (thus c/f). But with Korelo there was a horse with clear potential (signalled by the run against Rhinestone Cowboy), with some interesting placements.

In my view, Korelo was not backable as a VDW selection (though a member of this board did in fact put it up as his selection, before the off, elsewhere). But Korelo was enough to suggest caution in backing Chopneyev, especially at the price.

I would also add that Korelo was advised as a selection by a source of stable information to which I (and probably other members of this board) subscribe, with a track record proven for well over a year. So my VDW-based doubts about Chopneyev were re-inforced by knowledge that Korelo was "expected".