I beg your pardon Guest??

Mtoto
did you consider Dandoun and smirk not to have consistent form,And then of course there's Rince Ri at navan on saturday.

Fulham,

I agree 100% with your thoughts on the FSF race. Doesn't it raise a couple of points though, about ability ratings? If the speed based rating is stronger in this case, how many other times has this happened? It has shown once again the speed is more accurate, could this be because when it is used, every performance is used. Another point it raises is Guest didn't say Artie was out of form. VDW didn't say Beacon Light was, the people that say it are trying to make the c/form method work!

You neatly bring us back to the first example, doesn't the same procedure give us the winner in this race? I expect you will say it isn't the ability rating VDW later gave so it can't be right. If the speed based ability works for young unexposed horses, why not all horses? I did notice Guest was using the speed rating for well exposed 3 year olds later (Sept/Oct) in the season. It did cross my mind this was a desperate attempt to make an example work. Was that because the c/form method using the other ability rating was proving impossible?

Investor

Logic tells me all the three horses you suggested are consistent. The first two if you forgive their last race, because they were out classed. But would VDW have backed either? We will never know, but based on the Gaye Chance example I don't think so. The last horse may have finished last in one race, but it was a very good run only beaten 5 lengths after a bad jump at the last. Would VDW have awarded him a 10 for that? I don't think so. Wining two out of three is consisent enough for most people (12) at worst. The only thing to do is find out if the form is strong enough to win the race. I can't comment, because I didn't look at the race. I find there is more than enough racing without using the Irish races, and they are often run at a false pace, making the form difficult to work out.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
excuse me for butting in on your reply to fulham,You mention speed figures with regard to feet so fast,So why do you make a strong case against Pablo which was in form and had also shown good speed prior to going into the race on saturday.

Mtoto

On the question of sfs as a means of rating ability, VDW was explicit:

"Many three-year-olds have never run as two-year-olds and until it is possible to get a full measure, as is the case with older horses, some means other than previously shown is required for use in conjunction".

And VDW went on, in the example of the 1981 2000 Guineas, to show that he used the sf means for 3yos with some wins under their saddles as well as those who had not run as 2yos.

I am not clear at what stage in the Flat season, or under what circumstances, VDW ceased to use the sf method for 3yos: perhaps this is a matter on which Guest may wish to respond, given your reference to his example. But there is absolutely no evidence that VDW used the sf method for older Flat, or NH, horses. Rationally, this can only be because, for older Flat/NH horses, VDW believed his prize-money based ability rating the more effective.

Fulham,

I have enclosed a paragraph fro the article were VDW was talking about the speed rating. Doesn't the bracketed piece suggest he has looked at the process for other age groups? The brackets are his, and as far as I know two year olds figures are listed separately, so why the need to mention the other ages?

{Each year in the Handicap Book and other publications by the Sporting Chronicle, a list is give of the best figures produced by the previous season's two-year-olds, (Other ages as well, but for the moment confine attention to this group).}

He also mention speed and ability in his article 'Look Before You Leap.' This article is on how to compile a list of NH horses to follow. So I don't think you can say he didn't use speed to asses ability for older horses.

Investor,

I wasn't aware I had made a strong case against Pablo. If it has come across that way I apologise. My case was if he had been good enough on my figures, I couldn't have considered him on the consistency factor. I agree his rating was 14, but that included a major bad run for no apparent reason. If he had gone out with a bang it could have been put down to a slight injury, but he weaken gradually, as if he couldn't maintain the pace in this better class race (the VDW way). (after further study I have since found a possible reason for the failure) The race on Saturday was a far harder race than the one he failed in. I also have to say the s/f is not taken on face value, and the figure alone is not the reason I use s/f.

Be Lucky

mtoto
The run you mentioned was on the 1st of aug 2002 he ran twice after that finishing 3rd and first with improvement in s/fs as iv'e already said,Which to my mind is progression

Going on to s/fs in older horses in systematic betting after Roushayd he gives a good rundown of desert Orchids campaign using s/fs.

Mtoto

There is no doubt that VDW was interested in sfs, from a number of angles, including compiling lists of horses with potential and providing something of a cross check on situations where a horse seemed to be running into form. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he used sfs in his assessment of the "class" part of the "class/form" analysis for older Flat or NH horses.

You say VDW did plan to explain the whole story but death interevened? In the spirit of VDW explain it! Otherwise he died in vain.

Epiglotis

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that VDW is dead. If he is, the fact that some have been able to work out how he approached the business of finding winners means his work of instruction was not in vain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fulham:
Epiglotis

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that VDW is dead. If he is, the fact that some have been able to work out how he approached the business of finding winners means his work of instruction was not in vain.

---

didn't Tony Peach mention this in the forward to his 2001 book 'van der wheil and the silver lining'? or is my memory playing me tricks.

cheers sIMPleton

Hi,

Here is a letter from VDW and it explains a lot. The class form approach and the ability ratings have been there from the very beginning, he just did not tell us about them until he was ready, read on;

"When I first began to write for sports forum it was clear that to splash the whole lot in front of your readers would be a pointless exercise and only by adding bits as time went by could it be hoped a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership would eventually see the light.
"I had intended to give away everything in due time, but you will recall telling me you had decided to call a halt to discussions of my methods in your column. This was fine by me, but only a fraction had been revealed at that time.
"Later I was asked to write "Systematic Betting" a title I didn't like, but never argued over. In fact I wrote two versions. You will remember I received words of warning at the time and as you know they came true.
"I took the cautious step of only advancing my methods slightly and as it turned out its all as well I did. Needless to say when the request for a second book I turned it down.
"The first book included my methods of sorting a card out, but has nothing to do with what had previously been explained. Perhaps one day I'll write another book and include it.
"Regards your mention of the Old Newton Cup. It would seem the object of the exercise was lost, which is a pity and a waste of my efforts - because had it been understood it would have carried your readers a long way.
"Che. Van der Wheil".

Hi Imp,

The Silver Lining book reads,

Dedicated to

Che Van der Wheil
February 1978 to May 2001

VDW first wrote to the old handicap book in February 1978 and the Silver Lining book was written in 2001. Seems to me he is just saying Thank You.

M.o.M

quote:

---

as time went by could it be hoped a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership

---

now where would I find a ' doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership '

LOL

MOM - Somewhere on this thread that letter has already been posted, but it still didn't cut any ice with those who think the Prominent King example was different to later ones.

Mtoto - Firstly, yes Pablo did put in a woeful effort at Goodwood despite winning easily there previously. Could it be there was some sort of problem given the absence?

A close look at the form showed he came back against decent horses at Newmarket when Lord Protector won at 20/1 (clearly given beforehand as part of a book by myself) and then showed himself to be an improving young horse when taking the much higher class race shortly after, a race contested in the past by quite a few Lincoln winners. As an improver, should we hold one bad run against him when there were clear pointers to excuse that effort?

The truth is, so many seek rules,rules,rules and can't or won't allow themselves to see the signposts in the form.

The speed figure debate is pointless from my point of view because I have clearly said I use them as a guide, just as I use ability and class ratings as a guide. VDW found them most useful for creating lists of horses to follow including older horses. He also used adjusted figures for certain offshoot methods such as the one involving Desert Hero,Bregawn,etc. But at no time did he say speed=class. He did however often refer to ability or class and showed us two simple ways to create a guide for us to use in form study.

I don't need a horse to be out of form to operate now or to understand VDWs selections. I just take the form as I find it and how I believe VDW was finding it. Sure, I make mistakes but I haven't the years of experience VDW had and let's be clear it does to a lot of experience to understand so many permutations. So many in fact that no rules could be possibly applied to the process.

At the end of the day it is not my fault if people can't see how the strength of form was gauged in examples such as Roushayd. If people really believe that all there was to the Roushayd exercise was rises in race class ratings and increased speed figures followed by just the race class drop then they have missed the point of the exercise, just as VDW suspected. There is much more to it than meets the eye and it is very simple in theory but quite complex in practice. It ain't rocket science though, believe you me.

guest, fulham, in analysing the class/form horse surely, there were more consistent horses in the race, certain justice,,colisay,,selective,adiemus, are the majority not reading form as van der wheil interpreted, any clues? guest, fulham, johnd,mtoto,all.

GRUNDY
You are certainly correct in asking if the majority are not reading the form as VDW intended, or indeed, spelt out;otherwise they would not even have considered Adiemus as a possible for the Lincoln.
They would sooner invent their own method!

"otherwise they would not even have considered Adiemus as a possible for the Lincoln."

Under VDWs basic consistency/forecast combination, how was he not a possible?

Could be an idea to read that first letter again.