GUEST/FULHAM
VDW gave us many things, not least ability ratings, but your absurd defence of these in the Champion Hurdle does you, or him, little credit.
Since last meeting Copeland, RB had improved by 31lbs ( OR ), a quick scan of his form would confirm this. The other 3 horses had shown no noticeable improvement, so RB does what is expected of him and wins without being asked a question.
In order to defend that which is, ( In this case ), indefensible, you then weave an intricate web of self-deceit which convinces no one but the gullible, a scenario which is by no means an isolated incident.
For god's sake take at look at yourselves, before you fall off the edge!

Johnd

I'm like Guest in that I have a preference for facts over opinions. So here are three:

1. By your own admission, you've tried studying the old VDW examples, been unable to make progress and suddenly, low and behold, have come up with the "answer", against which you haven't even the curiosity to back check the explicit VDW ones. To those who have uncovered enough of VDW's approach through the only reliable guide we have - the writings AND the old examples - it is palpable that you are a country mile away;

2. By your own admission your performance was so bad you gave up betting;

3. You certainly found Rooster Booster (as, of course, did Guest). But when I last saw a league table you'd scored six winners out of 40 and were one above the bottom, Blimey, even Epiglotis was higher.

Some quiet reflection, and study, on your part is in order before you continue to make a fool of yourself in the eyes of those with any significant understanding of VDW's work.

Guest
Thanks for your recent return to the forum,and well done on the past week.I for one will be sorry to see you depart.
Before you go,two questions for you.Poker Pal last Sunday,did you look at it post race?I felt you put the odds against you with it,although I admit it should have been closer,but there was a negative point there.

Today, did you consider Regal Holly a good thing?I recall your success with Mistletoe in this race last year.

Dont be ridiculous, I've got the lowest strike rate and you're well aware of it.

I`m ahead of the pair of them and I`m just a typist.

Epiglotis,

As has been said often enough, class is no good without form. However, I will list for you the top rated on ability together with the OR to analyse at your leisure.

The first named was top on AR with the 2nd named top on OR according to my records.

TUESDAY
2.00 - CHAUVINIST / THISTHATANDTOTHER
2.35 - ADAMANT APPROACH / HAND INN HAND
3.15 - HORS LA LOI / ROOSTER BOOSTER (9/2)
4.00 - AD HOC / FOXCHAPEL KING
4.40 - KATARINO / KATARINO
5.20 - CHOPNEYEV / TUCACAS

WEDENESDAY
2.00 - HARDY EUSTACE (6/1) / PUNTAL
2.35 - BARROW DRIVE / KEEN LEADER
3.15 - FLORIDA PEARL / EDREDON BLEU
4.00 - XENOPHON (4/1) / UPGRADE
4.35 - STORMEZ / STORMEZ
5.10 - FADALKO / LADY CRICKET

THURSDAY
2.00 - MONEYTRAIN / DON FERNANDO
2.35 - BARACOUDA (9/4) / DEANOS BEANO
3.15 - FIRST GOLD / BEST MATE (13/8)
4.00 - DORANS PRIDE / EARTHMOVER
4.35 - KORAKOR / ESKLEYBROOK
5.10 - LE COUDRAY / LA LANDIERE (5/4)
5.45 - SPIRIT LEADER (10/1) / POLAR RED

Thanks for posting those. Interesting that only one horse came top on both, also interesting that it didn't win.

The thing I find the most interesting about the Cheltenham ability rating and how Guest used them. Is why when VDW said the c/form horse is the one with the highest ability rating that is in form. Does Guest (or others) consider Hardy Eustace, Money Train, as out of form, or not inform for their races? I ask because I am confused, if Guest is the acknowledged expert on VDW. Are we to assume VDW would have made these selections? I except he made his selections in good faith, but I thought when we understood how VDW worked we would all select the same horse. Golden Shot seemed to ignore the consistency aspect, and Joss Naylor the ability. I don't have a problem with this, except when I am told I have failed to understand what has been said.

I find the on going discussion about ability rating very interesting also. For me Rooster Booster was the second rated on my ratings for his race last year. I still can't see how you can assess the TRUE ability of a horse if you are going to ignore races. Boozer summed it up very clearly in his post. Every race should be taken into account to do the job properly. I think the other method suggested by VDW does just that. As I said if Guest, or Fulham had used my ratings for Cheltenham would they have had different bets? They may say as the selections were very similar it wouldn't have mattered. If they look at the big race at Lingfield today, it would have made a big difference.

Anyway, now I understand the VDW logic on weight maybe I can make some sense of the old examples. With luck I may be able to make the Baronet example work.

Epi,

There are two that match up, both lost. That just goes to show nothing can be taken at face value. For any rating to work they must be in form, and have the conditions in their favour.



Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Does the fact that you now understand the way VDW used weight in h`caps increase your armoury ?

I`m still along way from working out this in form but not a form horse scenario.

Another question. Class gives the ability to carry weight. Would you agree that was the reasoning behind your change of mind re` Spirit Leader ?



All,

Would anyone like to tell me who the class/form horses were for the Midlands National today.

Cheers,

Epiglotis

In the table I saw, your "profitability" was higher (or, more precisely, you'd lost less money!). But you've something of an excuse, as I assume you have to use the Post website for your info., and that (while brilliant for checking the odd fact) would be a handicap for anyone.

As a matter of interest, could you please tell us about the betting arrangements in Japan - are there betting shops, and if so a private sector, or is there a state monopoly?

Pipedreamer - To answer your questions, yes I did look again at Poker pal after the race and I still view it as a good bet. Sometimes there is just no explaination. The weight should not have been a problem in such class given it's last 3 runs. I'm sure it will win a similiar race after a break.

As to the Uttoxeter race, no I didn't bet in the race. I did back Valleymore the class/form horse in the race despite 33/1 last time. Anyone looking at how it was placed cannot fail to see the smoke signals. Not that far removed from Ascencia in fact.

I had two other bets today with Adiemus and Eyecatcher both just failing to win.

I don't mind answering sensible questions, but I am fed up with being drawn into theories or arguments that have prevailed for decades in horseracing. VDW set out his methods for all to see but he left some of the important cogs in the machine for us to find. Not only does my interpretation of his methods fit all the consistent and Roushayd types it covers those missing cogs that are vital to the process.

Some have decided to discard parts or pick just selected parts of VDWs method, something that VDW said would result in failure to understand his approach.

JohnD is adamant he understands the full implications of the 'Spells It All Out" article, yet he discards one of the key components and fails to explain the inclusion of comments such as "note what it had behind it" and more importantly "when you have followed the method for some time it is easy to turn back to your records to help balancing respective horses performances."

VDW said he never wrote anything for the sake of it and that often things he mentioned were very important but overlooked by most because of the way he conveyed them.

I will look in, but I won't be making any evaluations or engaging in arguments over things I know to work as I use them.

Guest,
Thanks for the reply.

Crossed wires I think,with Uttoxeter,Regal Holly was Class/Form in 1.15,Valleymore in 1.45

Mtoto,

you have stated that Guest's and others analysis over cheltenham helped?

why not work them out for yourself instead of having to have every little morsel puree'd and spoon fed?

FULHAM
Once again, when faced with logic, you reply with bluster. Where is the cogent argument?

Guest
were you basing your selection EYECATCHER with the late run at newmarket,And if so how could you be sure the turf form would transfer over to the a/w,or were you basing it on the run on the 14th Dec.Whatever i thought lygeton lad had to be respected (especially after his last 2 races,Where the distance was wrong)and maybe a book should have been made.

Barney,

Has it crossed your tiny mind I wouldn't have to ask the questions if I could see the logic? Guest has gone to the trouble to work out the ability ratings, and then ignored them! The only reason I can see is to take a low weighted horse, even though the ratings say it is out classed. As Youlneverwalkalone has been discarded because the form wasn't strong enough, how could Joss Naylor's form fit the bill? I ask myself is it because the weight idea was hatched because the likes of the Battlement example? How many seeing Guest's selection in this race thought/think it may because the higher rated horses are out of form or not form horses for the race? Golden Shot failed on the basic consistency rating so why was he included? I know a few who are studying VDW have a brain, and can think for themselves, but I fear there are a few like you! If Guest the moon was made of pink jelly, they would go and look for a spoon.

Determined.

The ONLY reason I changed my mind about Spirit Leader was because I was wrong about her size stopping her in a big field. For me the only possible danger Non So was out classed and I felt the hill would stop him, not the weight. I think the idea put forward by Guest may be relevant to the VDW examples, but will not change my mind about how I see weight.

Be Lucky

mtoto,

OH how wrong you are!!

if guest said " for instance" the moon was made of pink jelly.

first i would establish was it pink and what ingredients went in to making it pink, then if i kept getting green jelly I would have another look.

The same with the jelly its no use finding blamanche, we really need jelly for it to fit.

then i would get the spoon.

youlnever walk alone failed on consistency of form not form.

golden shot was consistently in form for all his races although it may not seem so to some because he was dropped to collect.

hardy eustace and moneytrain were just like, mr kildare.

if you though moneytrain a good un what about don fernando 8 lb better off for a length n half

have a good look at kenilworth and lillium de cotte then look at nas na roigh.

[This message was edited by Barney on March 15, 2003 at 09:56 PM.]

Mtoto,

Thanks for your response.


Guest/Mtoto,

I am presently going over Spirit Leader`s last 6 runs which is proving very interesting.
I am presently trying to work out why Quazar was "not a form horse in the context of the race ( Sandown 07/12/02 )".

I note the 2 of you discussed the matter on pages 307-308 but if I may I would like to revisit the said race.

SL was 5th rated on ability. I am comfortable dismissing those rated 2nd - 4th on ability but Quazar ?

Quazar had just finished 2nd in class/value £29000 behind our friend Rooster Booster admittedly well beaten.

I accept per VDW we have to use cold logic. Can I suggest the simple fact that Quazar was going up in class with more weight as the reason for NON in formness ?

Any comment would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Investor - The win at Lingfield was Eyecatchers best form and of course he failed to land short odds next time before being rested. I don't often make excuses when a horse I select gets beaten, but I think Mr Urbina was a tad over confident today and seriously underestimated Lygeton Lad. That's racing though.

Determined - Your suggestion is very much in keeping with VDWs view of handicap races.

Guest,

Thanks.