JIB

I suspect I'm going to regret this, but I can't see your problem with the Champion Hurdle and the VDW ability rating.

The fact is that at no time did VDW recommend using the AR on its own; it provides the operational means of handling the "class" side of the class/form nexus which was central to VDW's thinking.

Eliminating the higher ability rated horses who were palpably not form horses in VDW's sense leaves Rooster Booster either at the head of the list or second, depending on the judgement made about Like a Butterfly.

The logic of the VDW position is that, had a significantly higher ability rated horse been a form horse, in all probability Rooster Booster would not have won. After all, in the last race of the Festival there is no doubt that Non So was both relatively high in the ability rating rank order and a form horse but, as expected, was beaten by another, and much higher ability rated horse.

All Crock could really say to Mr Hobbs is that, if you keep placing Rooster Booster in races where he is facing either horses that are not form horses, or in form horses with lower ability, and the weights are right, in all probability he'll keep winning. But I expect he knows that without our help. His difficulty is that he cannot control the opposition: and that is where we are fortunate in having the chance to evaluate things knowing the field. Thus, for example, for me Spirit Leader would not have been a bet had higher ability rated, obviously in form, Xenophon been among the starters.

[This message was edited by Fulham on March 14, 2003 at 06:59 PM.]

INVESTOR
Full moon again, already?
CROCK
Thanks for the figures, though I would suggest that a more impartial person may have paid a little more attention to the number of bets and the strike rate. Maybe even have included Spirit Leader, if only as a dutch.
You are right about one thing, though, it isn't a beauty contest, just a search for the truth.

FULHAM
If you check the BEST FORM on the Tote Gold Trophy, you will find that Spirit Leader had just that, (Before, and after, the race). The problem, as I saw it,was the going,as I said before the race. I was wrong in that instance, so be it.
As this is probably the 87th time you've mentioned that horse since, a cynical person might believe you have something to prove.

Fulham,

I have now read the Guest post you refer to and I will be reviewing Spirit Leader`s form in great detail but not until Sunday due to commitments.

I will be paying particular attention to the class of horses she was up against.



All,

I note Mini Sensation, another small horse like Spirit Leader is set to carry a big weight tomorrow. IS HE A FORM HORSE ?


Cheers,

John D,

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm cetainly not in any way trying to do your methods down. Your performance over the festival was admirable. In addition to the winners given you made a good case for Youlneverwalkalone but to be fair, I could only take the analysis from stated bets. It may well be my misunderstanding of your post but I didn't read it as a case for Spirit Leader once Xenophon became a non runner. Apologies if this is my misunderstanding.

Your 2nd point regarding number of selections though, I do have strong opinions on. You mentioned ROI in your first post and I suspect it is this to which you refer. I'm afraid I don't think ROI has any part to play in the analysis of horse racing.

ROI might be a useful measurement for those in the Financial Services industry who are considering long term investments in bonds or publicly quoted companies but for me it is flawed in discussing racing investments as we are in the position to turn over our bank several (or even hundreds) of times during a season's betting.

To anybody betting seriously then I think turnover of the bank is a positive rather than a negative. I have no interest in tipsters but if I did and had to choose between two who had both made £10,000 profits to £100 level stakes then I would much rather have one that had made that profit from 500 bets over one who had made the same from 2 out of 2 50/1 shots. The logic being that the one with 500 bets is likely to be more robust than the one with 2 bets.

Just my opinion I know, but I certainly see turnover as a positive rather than a negative.

Investor,

No form,Class,Capability,Probabilty just a quick glimpse at the daily mail,

Above is a quote from one of your last posts. Can I ask how you come to the conclusion that the facts mentioned by yourself are not included? The form and class are used by Formcast, and by the forecast compilers. Probability has been shown by VDW, i.e. 50% of races are won by the first 2 in the forecast. Probably the figure is higher for non handicaps only. I would think that is why he advised using it, and he did use the word logic.

You then proceed to have yet another go at a member who doesn't want to use a system, and who would rather think for himself. I happen to agree with him about the ability rating. I think I have proved that another method suggested by VDW can/does come up with the important selections to be considered when assessing a race. It may or may not be the original method used by VDW, but it does short list the potential winners. As did his other ratings. As far as I can see it only missed one winner achieved by the conventional method. This was replaced by a 15/2 winner, if the top 4 were used only. I may be wrong, but I think Guest and Fulham could have achieved the same results using these figures.

However as I wish to find out how VDW worked, once he had defined ability I have to thank them, again. The last few days have gone a long way in explaining that, and I can get back to the old examples.

Johnd could you please e-mail me Mtoto44@aol.com

Be Lucky

johnd
It's this oneupmanship that get's me,You have proved absolutely nothing on this thread,All you are trying to do (in my opinion) is make certain posters look foolish,Or that you are better,Or know more than they do which to me is absolute rubbish.

Mtoto
I was merely making a point,Mainly towards his arrogant attitude,I too can think for myself and have learned a great deal from this thread,But not from Johnd.

JIB

"Demonstrable inaccuracy"? It does, precisely, what VDW wanted it to do and, in combination with his other key innovation (the way to assess in-formness) it works to good effect, as the Festival c/fs demonstrated. Nothing changes, and the c/f wins the only race of consequence today (3.30 Warwick).


Johnd

Keep your envy in check. I am merely specifying the Warwick horse as the (I think unarguable) c/f. I am not claiming to have backed it: indeed I can assure you that I didn't.

fulham
I don't think anybody could argue with that one,I better not hold my breath though.

Can i ask what you all thought of the cathcart at cheltenham?.I took the view rightly or wrongly that le coudray was not the horse for this race but given the race conditions la landiere was.

INVESTOR
Although you probably don't warrant it, I will try and give a reasonable answer to some of the points you make.
My reason for posting on this thread is not to score points. I consider myself to have my feet firmly enough on the ground to realise that I am just 5 characters on a computer screen, thus rendering the pursuit of ego as pointless.
My postings may seem a little brusque sometimes, I make no apologies for that, it is my nature to call things as I see them.
I do, however, hold strong views about VDW, and firmly believe that I understand what he was telling us in 'Spells It All Out' better than most, if not all, on this thread. That is not conceit, but conviction, borne out by a clear understanding of what he said, why he said it, and, most importantly, how it all fits together.
I still have a lot to learn about VDW, about how weight fitted into his calculations, etc, and about how best to apply the knowledge I have gained, but these are all incidental to the message he gave in S.I.A.O.; a message I know for a fact is not appreciated by those who would have me do things their way.
I will never reveal that understanding on this thread, because it is far too simple and logical, once understood; I have, however, gone to considerable lengths to try to get some members to change their point of view, an uphill struggle with most, as they, like me, have been at this a long time, and hold their own, firmly entrenched views.
Maybe one day, just one member will begin to see S.I.A.O. in the way I do, then it will have all been wortwhile. In the meantime, I will continue to chip away at beliefs I see as wrong, contributing constructively where I can, but still retaining the right to answer fire with fire.
Whether this changes your perception of me is academic, that is not arrogance, just a firm grip on reality.

Fulham,

Speaking of today's racing I think a good case could also be made for the 16/1 winner of the big Lingfield race. Clear on the ability rating, good form against much better class than the rest before disappointing behind Tees Components last time in November and thus earning his 'break' and also succesful when tried on the Lingfield AW the winter before last.

Unfortunately, too many doubts for me to bet but with hindsight then maybe some of those doubts were factored into the price

Ah well.........

Walter Pigeon,

For my part the presence of Le Coudray in the Cathcart precluded a bet. One couldn't say that Le Coudray had chase form comparable to La Landiere but his high ability rating due to some excellent hurdle form coupled with some good runs in lower class chases created too much 'conflict' for me. Others may have seen it differently.

This banter all has a familiar ring to it doesn't it? Anyone remember the fall out of the last Cheltenham festival?

JIB - Apart from the obvious point that one isolated case means absolutely jack where racing is concerned, I did select both the class/form horse Rooster Booster and the 2nd class/form Intersky Falcon. Until this season I have had no cause to back Rooster Booster, but he has improved as shown by both his form and class ratings. The problem with your liking for the ORs is that just about every punter who thinks they know the form book uses them. And why I ask when they are just someones opinion of a horses true ability?

Ability is no good without form, why can't you understand this most basic of statements?

I would also say that I made it crystal clear which horses I was putting hard cash on and I described selections with the comments "good thing" or "I expect them to win this",etc. Hardly apologetic more confident I would say.

JohnD has listed those he considers with the best form in the race and most I agree with, but having the best form is not enough it is just part of the equation. Besides, many VDW selections didn't have the best form. How does he account for Desert Hero or Love From verona or Battlement,etc,etc?

JohnD - There was much VDW didn't specifically note in his writings and I could list plenty, but I won't because they are too useful to put in the public domain. Do you not think that is the very same reason VDW only hinted at them? No one will ever change my mind on the purpose or true nature of the Roushayd/Systematic Betting exercises. That is because it took me a very long time to note all the hidden gems within the form for the horses used as educational tools. And that is what they were used for, have no doubts. VDW later confirmed this and stated that it appeared his efforts had been wasted because the object of the exercise had not been understood. The basic components shown were not the full picture by any means, in fact they were mere childs play in comparison to the other factors that are there to see if only one would look properly.

People can either accept and prove to themselves the particular way in which VDW established class and form or they can carry on regardless. I don't really care too much anymore because the only persons who needs to know if my interpretation works is me and my bank manager.

Fulham
i hope MR BOSSMAN wasn't to far away for you today.

Crock

Moon Emperor would have been a real coup, but in all honesty I can't myself see it as a form horse, though as you say it was highest rated on the ability rating and proven with the weight.


Investor

I didn't feel comfortable with Mr Bossman. A far from satisfactory last run, BUT "hampered" and, not having any memory of that race, I had no sense of what, if any, allowance to make. Good luck if you backed it.

Cheers crock thanks for the reply, i took the view that le coudray had struggled against a horse of similar ability to la landiere l.t.o falling late on at levels, i didn`t see it as a danger myself but i may have dismissed it too easily in retrospect.

Fulham,

Regarding Moon Emperor, had the last run been 3/4 weeks ago then I certainly wouldn't have considered him a form horse. Given the break I'm not too sure. Immaterial anyway as my doubts about the 'form' were enough to preclude a bet.

Cheers