Mtoto
I wish you the very best of luck for the future,No doubt you make a very good second income from racing or maybe you bet proffesionally,There are some very good points in that example and again it's how we interpret class/form.i thought that example might have helped but i fear it's gone over the top of your head,Ah well i may try again in the future,Before i go i would like to leave you with this,To ponder over " it pays to play percentages" good luck for the coming year.

CROCK
Once again, I do not ignore ability ratings, I think they are outdated, which is a totally different kettle of fish.
In his later writings, VDW also did not use them, and I know some think that this was some part of a crafty plot; and they need them there, to justify their interpretation of the method. Is it not more reasonable, to once again believe what he wrote at the time; i.e. that he was trying to draw our attention to improvement, viz; Roushayd, Desert Orchid, Quest for Fame etc?
That raises another question, why don't those who do it your way ever mention Desert Orchid or Quest For Fame, perhaps they haven't yet made them fit yet; I certainly can, and, so it would seem, can Mtoto.
The second part of your post deals with horses which are not 'sore thumbs'. It is necessary for me to adopt some ' Guest-like ' mystique here, so as not to give everything away, but there is a mechanism intrinsic in the method as I see it, which covers this very aspect, and clears up many of the problems you describe. You may, or may not, believe this as you wish; although I can't remember the exact reference, VDW did indicate at one time that horses are more consistent than they first appear, or words to that effect, and that is certainly the case here.
I have no wish to convert those who have followed their own method for some time, that has proved too much of an uphill struggle, but I am trying to help those who may have previously believed that years of study is necessary to understand VDW, which is where I came in!

INVESTOR
I do believe I know where you are coming from, and as I have said previously, consistency is a fundamental part of the method. However, it may help you to consider it as part of a whole, rather than use it in isolation, then, hopefully, further benefits will come to light.

Guest,

In reply to your statements.............

{Beacon Light had been mopping up decent class races, though not against much opposition}

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, have you had a good look at the horses beaten in his two wins. Add to this the class of the race is not the same as the class in the race.

{There were no speed figures for Irish horses in the form book}

Perhaps the wording should be there are no s/f for races run in Ireland. There is also no comments in running, as VDW placed a fair amount of importance on this aspect. Why do you think he used Irish form, that could not be confirmed? You seem to place a lot on the fact BL led, and was then beaten. How do you know this didn't happen with PK? The only Irish horses of any significance that didn't have a s/f were Mr Kildare and possibly Meladon.

{You ask how can Roushayd be in form when beaten 9 lengths}

I have looked at this race, and have to say in all honesty I can still only find one thing that shows he is in form. That is the up turn in the s/f (what is form if not one performance better than another) I don't doubt the horse may have been aimed at this race, and Epsom may not have suited him. I'm sorry, but if you make him in form using ANY other method, not based on the s/f. I'm lost for words, and that doesn't happen often.

{Whilst you're at it, note how VDWs analysis of each race showed up the eventual winner via his approach}

I assume you mean the hidden approach? The one that you think he doesn't see fit to explain. I don't see the point of writing a book to explain how to analyse races, if the main factors are hidden, and not explained. Seems a pointless to me. What about the people who brought this book without knowing anything about VDW? The approach does work, as a stand alone method. I also think this may be part of the reason he thinks people missed what he was trying to say. Is THIS the foundation ALL his methods are based on? Class and form. Is this why he said so often 'Speed alone is not enough,' can't think of any other reason for him to keep mentioning it.

Be Lucky

Investor

Why dont you just email Mtoto and tell him for gods sake
I am sure he has done enough research to warant not being described as somebody who wants it handing on a plate

Re: percentages

If I have read you right
your percentages still require the skills to extract the winner unless of course you dutch etc

Johnd
i have done quite a lot of reading just lately,As iv'e been struck down with sciatica,And your'e not going to like what i'm about to say,But everything fits(from recent examples)Guests way,And can fully understand a lot of what he's been trying to say.It's taken me the best part of a year to get to this point,I'm personally quite shocked at the simplicity of it all,And i know it's not a coincidence i haven't put my finger on everything but what i have found is enough.

boozer
I agree with your last statement,but at least i'm playing in the right ball park.With regard to mtoto if he wants to e.mail me he can do so whenever he likes.

Johnd
Youv'e recently brought up the paco venture/Old feathers argument,If you do see where i'm coming from then surely you must agree that a book was the only sensible option,this being the case there wasn't a great deal to seperate the 2 horses,What i can't understand is why are you at variance so much with guest,I am saying this because i can see the problem from both sides but your not that far apart,At least not with that example anyway.

Mtoto

In your recent post addressed to Guest, you wrote, re Roushayd's run prior to the Old Newton Cup:

"I'm sorry, but if you make him in form using ANY other method, not based on the s/f. I'm lost for words, and that doesn't happen often."

That run most certainly established Roushayd as a form horse (and, by virtue of his ability rating, the c/f) in the lower class ONC, by the application of VDW's way of assessing in-formness (the "missing link").

I am sure that others would share your view, thus providing good evidence for what Guest has often noted - that, in important aspects, VDW went against general (indeed well informed) opinion.
In this instance, as quite often, sfs were a useful consequence of a good performance, but Roushayd would still have been a form horse had the whole race been run at slower pace with correspondingly much lower sfs all round.


Investor/Johnd/Mtoto

In the Quest for Fame example VDW writes off the chances of Linamix and Zoman as "only milers" and, fair do, their subsequent careers supported this view.

You all seem to share the view that QfF was a good thing, and may have eliminated L and Z for the same reason as VDW. If you did, I'd be interested to know whether the breeding of the two horses played any part in that judgement, or whether you reached it solely on the two horses' performances prior to the Derby.

Investor, now you`ve got a sick note I`ll be able to venture out for the first time in 3 months without worrying I`ll get my legs broke.

Fulham,

Why do you think VDW wrote a book, and kept an important ingredient a secret? What was the point?

If you think the reason Roushayd was in form is the missing link. Can you give another example of a race were it was shown in the examples? I think I have mentioned the possible reason before in one of the early examples, so would be looking for a later race.

Re Zoman and Linamix.

I know nothing about breeding, and I tried to forget anything VDW said about the race. I did back Quest For Fame on the day so I was a little biased. When I assessed the race from a VDW perspective, I thought Linamix was a speed ball over a mile. Broke in Longchamp course record for a mile, right-hand galloping track, Epsom may not suit. There was a big doubt if a horse with that speed would/could stay. Zoman also showed tremendous speed in the race so same doubts about track and distance. Quest For Fame, fast, consistent, course and distance no problem. Had run it's best race in good class at Chester.

Be Lucky

Fulham
I still keep going back to that race and looking at linamix,It's the only one in the race that seems to have the credentials to upset quest for fame,I can discount zoman Which doesn't have the class as a horse neither does karinga bay But linamix had been ultra consistent over a mile,And was now going into the unknown, quest for fame was obviously a class animal Which it had shown when raised in class,And of course had been consistently in form prior to the derby.

mtoto,

no such doubts for a piece of cake eh?

Mtoto/Investor

Thanks for your comments on QfF.


Mtoto

You might wish to consider the first race Roushayd ran in 1988 where in my view the c/f was established in the same way, though not seen by VDW as a c/f strong enough to back.

On your other point, there is evidence that VDW intended really to "spell it all out" and that he wrote a fuller version of "Systematic Betting" in which, it is reasonable to assume, he may have done so. (See page 6 of Tony Peach's "Systems in my Racing".) But that version was not published, and VDW wrote that he "received words of warning at the time and as you know they came true". I don't know what that phrase meant, but it has been suggested that there were (and indeed still are) some people very anxious NOT to have it all spelt out, and prepared to intimidate to ensure that it isn't. I have no idea whatsoever how well founded that suggestion is, but it would square with VDW's words.

Barney,


{no such doubts for a piece of cake eh}?

I will try to answer your question, as I hope it is a serious one. Linamix and Piece Of Cake are a world apart.

Linamix is a top class colt who's stud value would be greatly increased if he could win the Derby. However the class is such that any weaknes will be found out. If there is a weakness it is very doubtful he will have enough superior class to mask said weakness. He not only has a doubt about the distance, there is also the doubt about the course. He has shown his best form on a very different course. Add to this there is at least one horse in the race that should beable to handle course and distance. Would you take the chance?

Piece of Cake has shown he can handle the course, he is superior in class. The only doubt is the distance. He does have the class to beat the field even if he doesn't really stay. Would his long term objective be the Scottish National if his trainer thought there was a major doubt?

Fulham,

Thanks for the pointer, do I need the form book for the season before? I am also a little puzzled that you don't appear to believe VDW gave genuine reasons about how the winners were found. He seems to be implying all the winner of the races had improved on s/f and that was the reason they were high lighted. Backed up by a drop in class. I have also heard people wanted to stop him revealing all, but that doesn't really explain why he allowed it to be published if he didn't believe it was factual.

Be Lucky

As Fulham has pointed out, VDW did explain that he wrote two versions of Systematic Betting, but only released the less informative version. Parts of this were reprinted and expanded upon in Racing In My Systems where VDW bold typed certain points and passages.

I don't see how some think that VDW ever revealed all his approach without leaving some work to be done by the reader. The point I was making regards VDW isolating the winner in Roushayds races was that he had a way to do it. It wasn't a hidden method or suchlike, but the very same approach he was demonstrating. I don't think VDW was referring to improvement and speed figures when he said he thought the object of the exercise had been misunderstood. To be brutally honest, a 10 year old can see the obvious points made in the examples and if they were the only points of note then it was more of a system than a method.

No, given a lot of thought and research there is an underlying theme throughout that is there to plainly see and when you spot it you will wonder how on earth you could miss it.

Still the arguments come and no one has attempted to address the questions I keep posing. Just what do others think I am getting at?

Mtoto

Yes, you would need the 1987 Form Book.

As regards your question why did VDW allow "Systematic Betting" to be published if he didn't believe it was factual, I think the way you've formulated that is incorrect.

Take the Prominent King article. Now, there seem to me to be two points of view on the thread as to how PK was identified as a good thing: the "c/f" theory and your theory based on PK's sf in a race at the Festival. I'm not here concerned with which is right - the point is that those believing one or the other don't believe that the full explanation is to be found in the two features to which VDW drew attention in the article, first five/six in the betting forecast and three lowest consistency aggregates. In other words, in that article VDW showed part of the story, not the whole - in your terms it was factual, though it didn't contain all the relevant facts.

I think the version of "Systematic Betting" that was published is essentially the same. It is factual, all right, but only part of the story, again omitting some key facts. However, I think it (and particularly the Roushayd discussion) took us further than previously published material.

We will probably never know for sure why VDW did not go through with his intention "to give everything away in due time", as he wrote to Tony Peach in February 1996. Among many possibilities are:

1) he simply changed his mind - thinking, perhaps, that there was merit in leaving some elements for "students" to find for themselves from the examples he gave;

2) he was intimidated.

But whether it was either of the above, or for any other reason, I don't think one could fairly say that anything he published was either factually incorrect (apart from the few palpable errors, such as Bonny Gold's ability rating), or deliberately misleading.

A nostalgic post, Fulham having managed to knock out 3 or 4 without including the word "palpable". There is something about this word's phonetic element that causes me to feel as if I've been captured by fourth formers and they're about to subject me to some form of torture involving being stuffed with marsh mallows. Semantically though it's a reasonable enough word suggesting as it does that a thing is as obvious as if one were touching it, so the problem is how to get Fulham's drift without suffering the stress of subvocalising this "p" word? Fortunately by considering the broader meaning of touch there's a simple solution, male spiders use their feelers, palpus, to pass packages of sperm to the object of their desire, we can utilise this fact to make a substitution when we encounter Fulham's horrible word. "Obvious even to a ****ing spider" keeps the concept in tact at all levels. While we're on the subject here are some of my favourite words: "mawworm" for it's double 'w', "maieutic" for it's 4 consecutive vowels, "orthoepy" for presenting the challenge of itself in it's own terms, "cynotherapy" for it's complete humanity.

GUEST
Looking at Roushayd your way,one has to assume that VDW was deliberately covering up something he had shown in the past.
Surely it is more reasonable to assume that he was advancing his method?
Why does everyone need to build an aura of mystery into his work?
FULHAM
Re Quest For Fame; I know little about breeding, the answer is in the capabilty, as it is in so many others.

Epiglotis

You are a (psycho-) analyst's dream!


Johnd

Thanks for your comment on QfF. Like Mtoto's and Investor's, interesting and informative.

Guest
i don't understand how you come to the conclusion that the roushayd example is less informative in Racing in my system,than systematic betting.he gives a lot more insight into the capabilities of other horses involved in the races,I would say the two examples compliment each other and are both very informative.