As far as I am aware, VDW only said ' if you read what was there' twice; both specific references top Sprlls It All Out.

JOHND,
He said he never wrote anything for the sake of writing it, its in this context that I believe he meant that with all his articles.
If this is true then I take it to mean the Roushayd article is also included even though that came later.
See you soon, Mike.

Investor you have done well without the form books what do you make of the 5.40 at nad al sheba?.

Guest,

You say we differ about how we view every horse in a race. While I may work different to you, that doesn't mean it is different to VDW. Every horse is assessed, isn't that the job of the ability rating? The only time it could fail is if the rating doesn't cover all, and every run. Or if you are trying to use a x check to solve all the problems. If the ability rating is accurate, why waste time checking horses that stand little, or no chance of winning? How often can a horse slip through all 3 filters, the consistency/improving, the forecast, and the ability rating? I would venture not often, and if it can what chance of finding it. I think the examples of the short list for Cheltenham I gave, show my ratings are at least as accurate as the ability ratings you use.

That brings me to. Why do you think I don't understand how you use the ability ratings? Why do think my ratings are any different in the way they can be used? I have re read the Roushayd article, and agree the c/form method works for the examples, but are you saying he didn't mean what was said with remarks like a 'classic marking of the card'? You also say Quest For Fame fits the c/form way. How do you make Karinga Bay out of form? I haven't the form book, but second in the Dante?

I also agree about the cogs making it work. I just think you are putting to many cogs in the equation, as you also said many of the cogs do the same job. I would rather cut to the nitty gritty, and concentrate on the horses that stand a real chance of winning.

Be Lucky

Mtoto - Sorry, but I just don't understand why you are missing the point I am trying to make about the number of horses to look at in a race and the number of similiar cogs in the machine. I would have thought my earlier comment about there being more horses to look at in a race than there are declared runners a significant pointer.

Mickeddy - Glad you are seeing things in a different way. I trust you now know what I am getting at with the similiar cogs in the machine analogy?

Walter pidgeon
I must be honest with you,I considered moon ballad a form horse But nayef to my mind was c/f,If i had been betting at this particular time which of course i'm not which i stated in a previous post.I would have backed Nayef.That said,There was a horse early on in dubai That was c/f and very unlucky not to win lto and that was of course Sulamani,Which to my mind was a good thing.In england today i considered Eau de cologne worthy of support.The horse had proved in the past that it could carry the weight.

Guest,

Has it crossed your mind I haven't missed the point. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just don't agree with you. As I've said why go into minute detail about horses that don't stand a chance? If the ability rating you used took every race into account you wouldn't have too. It has already been done. The problem as I see it yours doesn't, so you have to go back over races were a horse ran a good race without winning.

You say the Drumgora/Prominet King isn't conventional form reading, it is done all the time. So and so has franked the form, he ran a good race against ?, so he is in form, as ? ran a good race in the big one last week. I can't see why the fact that Drumgora has improved means Prominent King has. Even if he has, how does it prove he has the ability to win this? I would rather see proof that the horse is good enough. PK, and Roushayd both had proven form in their own right. I asked, could you show an example were your explanation is the only possible way to resolve that example.

Be Lucky

JohnD - To start with, VDW said he used Desert Orchid as an example because he wrote about him in Winning Ways To Bet and that it may well give readers more insight into his methods. In the WWTB article he was talking about the consistency approach, but in SB he was using the Roushayd process. Surely that blows the theory out that the 2 methods were unconnected?

VDW then went through Desert Orchids 86-87 campaign stating that he should have been backed 3 times only. The first was at Ascot on Dec 13th. This was a class 68 2m Hcp chase. The 3 most consistent were Little Bay 7, Far Bridge 8 and Whiskey Eyes 4. Desert Orchid had a rating of 10 though his last run was 4th in class 185. 3 previous runs would have given a total of 8. The ability ratings down the card were as follows.

Little Bay 43
Far Bridge 41
Desert Orchid 42
Charcoal Wally 32
Our Fun 19
St William 24
Annettes Delight 11
Whiskey Eyes 20

Little Bay had run 4 times that season winning twice including LTO class 36 a 2m Hcp at Newbury with 11-10. His 3rd last run was 2nd getting 6lb in a hurdle race at Newcastle class 12 followed by a nearly 14 lengths 4th at Cheltenham 2m 4f Hcp chase class 143 with 10-12 to Very Promising (11-13).

Far Bridge had also won twice from 4 runs that season including at Ascot class 104 with 10-7 and Ascot again class 63 with 10-12. His last 3 runs were 6th in the race where Little Bay was 4th at Cheltenham, then the class 63 win at Ascot followed by a class 71 race at Sandown with 11-8 where he fell at the last when with a slight advantage carrying a penalty.

Desert Orchid had run twice winning FTO class 49 at Sandown with 10-3 beating The Argonaut (10-0) and Very Promising (12-0) by 4 & 3 lengths. He then went up in class and distance to a 185 over 2m 4f at Ascot with 11-6 under a penalty going down by nearly 6 lengths to Church Warden (10-7), Berlin (11-0) and Amber Rambler (11-5). Interesting to note that DOs 3rd last run was the previous season when 5th carrying 11-7 in a hcp at Ascot class 111. He was also fav on all 3 runs. Neither Little Bay nor Far Bridge were market leaders in any of their last 3 runs. All 3 horses did show the improvement in SF last time though.

To point out any more would be too much, though there are a few clues in the above.

The next time VDW said he was a certainty was on Feb 7th following the KG win. This was a grade 2 class 158 Hcp chase over 3m and half a furlong at Sandown. Here were the ability ratings in card order.

Desert Orchid 63
Stearsby 68
Bolands Cross 46
Charter Party 44
Catch Phrase 31
Macoliver 13

Stearsby on it's last 3 runs had finished 6th btn 15 lengths at Newbury with 10-9 class 174 (Hennessey Gold Cup) then won the Welsh National class 211 with 11-5 beating Macoliver (10-0) followed by a class 108 win over 3m 5f at Sandown with 11-5 beating Catch Phrase (10-1). So whilst he has won a better class of race (though not as high as DO), he failed with a lightweight in a lower class of race over less than 3 and a half miles.

Desert Orchid we know about up until winning the KG at 16/1 class 316 beating Door latch and Bolands Cross where he improved again up in trip and class.

The ability ratings are not taken at face value in any race. Instead the wider picture of class and form is used to establish if the ratings are what they say they are. Stearsby had a pull of 5 points on the ability rating but the wider picture showed Desert Orchid had much the better form and was more suited to the race conditions. It's worth looking at Justafancy the week following Little Owl/Sunset Cristo etc. Solar Emperor had a slightly higher ability rating and had won it's last 3 races in that race at Ayr, but the wider picture showed Justafancy should have the beating of him. Note VDW neglected to discuss this race nor Ekbalco on the same day. He also left Wild Gamble and to a certain extent Kenlis to our own conclusions. Does anyone know the real reason why VDW drew our attention to Turk in the Kenlis race?

In the final race that DO won at Ascot that season he was the clear class/form horse dropped from his Gold Cup run, but you should get the picture by now.

So I would like to know from JohnD why the class/form approach didn't highlight Desert Orchid in those 3 wins VDW backed him in?

Mtoto - Here's an idea. Why don't you explain just how you think I approach class and form and for that matter what I mean by every horse in a race?

JIB - Much like Epiglotis you once again make no useful contribution to the forum. Perhaps you both moved to other shores for similiar reasons?

Useless Wanker

Guest,

I am sorry you think I make no useful contribution to this forum though I am a little unclear if my mental incapacity is a result of some sinister operation that takes place at some stage during the act of emigration. Or that my sorry state, if not exactly congenital, certainly predates the emigration which was just a symptom of the afliction.

However there is one authority whose opinion I am sure you will take seriously: the ex-patriot VDW.

That's all for now Folks!!

[This message was edited by john in brasil on March 29, 2003 at 10:48 PM.]

Guest,

you have come up with the goods yet again.

I had a good look at turk a while ago specifically as vdw pointed us at his penultimate run.

It puts a different light on MB's win.

and no one can say he didnt point us to it, not spelled out though. LOL.


funny how he says its a good thing even though the relative ability of the whole field is like a blanket. I also note he is top on vdw's two methods of rating.

[This message was edited by Barney on March 29, 2003 at 11:09 PM.]

Jib
You said to me on delboy's thread,That vdw had a lot going for it which was evident in that particular thread,And i thought you were right.You also said the methods couldn't be expanded upon(or words to that effect) you don't know how wrong you are,Id more or less given up on this thread having tried all angles over the duration And then on one saturday you find a certain area worthy of investigation and bingo your in business, well over 12 months of complete hostility guest has taken,I'm guilty aswell but all the posters who have doubted Him and the way the methods are set out had better think again i personally don't see why he hasn't told the lot of us to f...o.. and reap the benefits on his own.

Jib
i wouldn't say you were a Useless wanker,You just act like one.

Guest,All,
Over the last week,have you identified any good things?I found the racing pretty low key.Today I considered Black Sam Bellamy as a good thing,does any one agree with me.
I assume Bryony Lamb was a good thing but not at the price.

Investor,thanks for the reply.

I'd say today's only obvious "good thing" was the reverse forecast in the 2:20 at Ascot.

MUCH OF MUCHNESS/GUEST
Your letters were both good answers.

Guest
Yes, I am erratic at times, quite correct.

Nest time I shall try and name a winner, if poss.

I'll even tell Fulham, even though he is never going to give me one.

As I said NO MALICE intended and none taken from your goodselves,
Cheers
Swish

There's no doubt that some days the simple approach works. On Saturday at Ascot the following were in the first 5/6 on ability and 5/6 on consistency:
1.45 - Fire Up The Band/Seel Of Approval
2.20 - Askham/Pawn Broker/Brilliant Red
2.55 - Mr Ed/Almaydan
3.30 - No Time
4.35 - Night Kiss/Looking For Love/Highland Shot

They are in ability order of those that are in both lists. I suppose that Fire Up The Band was the most obvious, although No Time also stood out having had a recent run.

However, three highest ranked and one second ranked winner on the day. There just might be something in this after all.

Oldtimer

Following on from JohnDs question regarding Desert Orchid and Quest For Fame, I have been thinking about how best to convey some points on Quest For Fames race without giving some vital points away. As I have remarked upon before, VDW was careful not to detail those races whereby he appeared to go against the basics of his method. This was for a very good reason and those who have either spotted or started to understand where I am coming from re class/form will see that good reason.

So here are some points re Quest For Fame that may help. Firstly and most importantly, the race was for 3yos. A seemingly obvious point but one to bear in mind when using ability ratings and speed ratings.

VDW said he discarded all but 5 horses in the 1990 Derby automatically including the favourite. What he didn't point out was that there were 4 other horses from even higher class than the 1071 for Zoman and Linamix.

The class/form horse was Linamix, but he was clearly a miler and stepping up in class and trip a long way here.

2nd class/form was Blue Stag who had won the Dee Stakes over 10f in a fast time all out from a pair of decent enough milers.

3rd class/form was the fav Razeen who was unraced at 2yo but was unbeaten in 3 races at 3. He won 2 mile races against moderate opposition before stepping up in class and trip at Goodwood to win the Predominate Stakes over 10f beating Elmaamul a decent miler who was 7th in the Guineas and Silca An' key a maiden who was 2nd to Razeen when that horse won it's maiden.

Quest For Fame had run 3 times finishing 2nd FTo class 89 at Newbury over a mile when 2/1 fav Soft ground. Then FTO at 3yo won an 11f maiden at Newbury Good ground class 42 improving and beating 2 newcomers including the 10/11 fav Dress Parade, both newcomers recording good sfs. QFF then went up a long way in class to 247 Chester over an extended 12f going down by a length to Belmez the 8/13 fav who was unbeaten in 2 runs over 1m and 1m 3f both good times. The only other runner was Missionary Ridge back 10 lengths and previously an improved 3rd class 313 over 10f at Sandown.

As I say, to go further in depth or point out the less obvious flaws in Karinga Bay would be telling too much.