Guest,

You ask me to define now you read class and form. It's a bit of a hiding to nothing. Even if I get it right you will say, ah but. I will say there is no doubt you have studied the VDW articles. However it is VDW's views I would prefer to take on board, not your over complicated version.

Class as you see it is the class on the race the horses have run in. In many cases you seem to take the class of the horse, not from the ability rating awarded. You seem to take it from the horses that finished around it. I think this is a very dangerous stand point, it should be the class of the horse. with a gentle look at the others around it. As I have said just because A has improved doesn't mean B has. In handicaps you don't appear to give a tinker's cuss for the main filter (consistency and/or improvement) Non handicaps you appear to be more conventional, and at least use the consistency filter. From what I can see you do literally study every horse in a race, and because of the way you work have to study all the form of the horses that ran in relevant races. When I say form, I think you also study the ability ratings of the other horses. I also think because of trying to make the c/form method work for all races you come up with complicated reasons why a horse is not in form. Often the reason is quite simple, the course, going and distance, etc. were against it.

I think your example of Desert Orchid was very interesting. I can see no reason why a horse can't qualify for more than one reason. If he used DO to explain 2 methods so what? That doesn't mean one explanation is a blind. Although if a horse qualifies using 2, so much the better. For me it showed a very good reason to use the c/form method, as a x check.

Be Lucky

Mtoto - yes, I do look at every runner in a race though to what degree depends. VDW did exactly the same as he demonstrated with the races for Roushayd, Pegwell Bay. Sometimes a mere fleeting glance is enough to discard a runner, especially if it doesn't feature well in the forecast.

No, the hard work comes in exactly the area you think I am over emphasising. True, it is a complex area full of many permutations, but it is the most natural extension to weighing up a race if you really think about it. I ask again, why would VDW change his appraisal approach for other races? The Roushayd exercise showed us exactly how he weighed up a race, be it a future one or past one.

Yes, there are many ways to arrive at the same conclusions, just as VDW stated. But do you think it a coincidence that the approach as I see it ties up with VDws bets, where as your preferred emphasis, speed, does not account for many of his bets?

I certainly didn't suggest VDW gave us any blinds, in fact i said the exact opposite. VDW stated almost categorically that the Roushayd/Desert Orchid exercises were to show how he balanced class and form.

Incidentally, given that some are placing a lot of emphasis on racereaders comments, they may care to explain how one racereader says Quest For Fame quickened at Chester and another thought he was hard ridden. Surely a big difference of opinion, and opinions was something VDW encouraged us to avoid.

So, Mtoto I would say you have noted some areas of my approach, but you don't seem to understand the manner in which I am using them. Which is pretty much what I thought. Fair play though to you though and I'm sure there are parts of your own approach I don't see.

Just out of interest, Karinga Bay may have placed 2nd in the Dante, but what was the opposition really up to? The level of Belmez at 12f?

Short reply as I am still limited by hardware.
You have obviously gone to great lengths to make DO & QFF fit your understanding of the methhod, and I admire your tenacity.
However, there is a much simpler answer in both cases, viz; Both horses had shown form in the highest class, ( Of those with capability ), and both had shon improvement when raised. That is entirely in line with Roushayd and Spells It
All Out. In other words, he was simply advancing his method.
You have still to answer one question, which would suggest that it causss you some difficulty, namely, VDW said we should all have the same horse, yet the most diligent practioners of your method cannot agree, sometimes even after the race. This strongly suggests that yur understanding of the method is incomplete.
Going back to Cheltenham, no matter how you dress it up, your understanding of the method gave 13 selections, mine gave 4, ( If you allow Spirit Leader) of which 3 won. In view of VDW's 3 bets, what inference wpuld the unbiased observer draw about relative understanding of the method?

Guest,

I think there is a big difference between over emphasising, and over complicating. As I explained I don't think our initial approach to a race is that different. I trust my ability rating more than you seem to.

I have always thought the VDW methods were a variation on a theme, the thing that makes them ALL hang together is CLASS and FORM. I don't think it is a coincidence your answer to the examples work. I just think we started from a different angle, you took the winners and made them fit. I didn't believe your answers (Beacon Light out of form) so I looked again and found a different reason. My answer was found by using the examples set out in Systematic Betting, as VDW explained them. It's a bonus they also hold up using a x check I knew nothing about.

Your point about race commentators is a fair one. To that I would say stick to the same one, the same as sticking to the same forecast, etc.

You say my way doesn't find many of the winners in the examples. I think you would be very surprised how many it does find. I am NOT taking speed at face value. I can only think of one that has me beaten Son Of Love, that one also seems to give the c/form method a few problems. I haven't tried working it without an ability rating, and I can't really juggle that much as I haven't found an example that only works when collateral form or the such is used. If I do later I will come back to it. I also haven't that complete s/f for the Battlement race, so that one is on hold. I think I now have 23/24 races from the early examples explained to my satisfaction.

No, I don't think Karinga Bay's form was up to it, I only chose him because of his ability rating. On a quick check I made he a better c/form candidate (on the bare figures) than Quest For Fame. How many would have made him a non form horse? After all he had run better than expected, and beaten the even money favourite. Could he not have been eliminated because he wasn't consistent enough?

Be Lucky

Investor thanks, would you say there was an element of conflict in the 5.40 yesterday then?.I would also like to ask if i may what books you have on vdw? i have systematic betting, & the silver lining, you seem to have a fairly good understanding which has indeed been verified from some lofty positions without attaining the form books. Surely this should offer some hope, as for the most part we have been told the form books are a necessity.

Johnd
I have been intrigued by your recent posts,Involving the festival.So i thought i'd take a good look at the selections youv'e put up on this thread,I can see exactly were your'e coming from with the selections you have put on this thread.The difference is it took me over a year to find the missing stuff,It took me about 2 hours your'e way.To my mind you have taken S.I.A.O to literally,If it was that simple john there would be no arguments on this thread.

Walter pigeon
please don't put me in the same vein as fulham/guest and co,I am now going to try and gather together some form books,To look at past examples,So in answer to your question to get a full insight int all the examples the form books are without doubt a neccesity.In answer to your question i.e conflict like i said i would have backed Nayef.

Investor i am dismayed i thought it was easier than this but alas, alas, alas, there is still no succour for the widows son .

Walter pigeon
Another piece of help,it's going to take you a while but may well be worth it,Is to go back to the very beginning of this thread and note down the particular horses that have been given as good things,And have a good look at the form.

Never mind investor i`ll just have to go along wondering what your all talking about, god knows how f.chester sussed it out so quickly lol.

Not just this thread, you people make me despair of humanity. Probably Mr Ed has it sussed so I can say to all of you the same.

JohnD - The profile of improved SF in higher class fits many horses every day, in fact it fitted 3 in the Ascot race won by DO in December 86, a point I highlighted yesterday.

Answer me this John, why would VDW strongly suggest we keep records of race evaluations if all we had to do was look at the form printed in the daily racing paper or flick back through Raceform,etc ?

Mtoto - If you are again referring to best sf and class combinations, I'm sure I checked that out years ago against VDWs bets and whilst it fitted some, it patently didn't on others.

Karinga Bay had form and class all over the place and clearly was inconsistent. He was also exposed even then. Beating Anshan didn't amount to much in the scheme of the Derby. Anshan certainly had class, but staying power?

Interesting that Belmez was strongly fancied for the Derby before injuring a tendon. Like Razeen and Dress Parade he was trained by H Cecil. Also interesting is the fact that the Dante winner Sanglemore was trained by R Charlton who of course saddled Quest For Fame to win the Derby.

In conclusion, you and John think my approach is over complicated. I say it is simple and logical and as laid down by VDW. He gave us the tools, but he only hinted at how they were to be used.

Is your new found wisdom based on SP's
I said it wasnt
Somebody else said it was

Please put our VARIANCE to rest

[This message was edited by boozer on March 30, 2003 at 11:22 PM.]

What are you on about???

Boozer
I dont remember, I probably drank more last night than Fulham has over the last 30 years.

Boozer
No it isn't based on s/ps,It's based on consistent form,There are lots of posts on this thread where it's staring you in the face.You just have to approach it from a different direction and with an enquiring mind.I gave you an example to look at not one of the easiest but nevertheless the horse was a good bet.

Investor,

You seem to be dismissing Johnd's reasoning only because it is simple to follow. It can't be correct because it is easy to follow, didn't VDW say the method was simple when you had solved it? You also think everyone would agree. I have to say again I don't agree, or see how Pablo is consistent, or improving and dropped in class. If Pablo's bad run hadn't been in the highest class race he had run in, I may have been happy to over look it. For me ignoring it, was going against the odds. I think John also went for Old Feathers, another (for me) that couldn't be considered on consistency. So not everyone agrees with the selections, even when the logic is understood.

Fulham,

Can I ask, even though you have learnt a lot from Guest's posting do you agree with many of his selections? Can you find a reason good enough to include the likes of Lord Projector as a VDW selection? I appreciate you believe the c/form method is the answer, but how do you reconcile missing out one of the main filters, consistency?

Guest,

You say my way doesn't find many of the winners in the old examples. Could you post an example were you think it wouldn't/can't work? Not Son Of Love, one of the others, please.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Guest has gone further than me and, as he made clear with Birjand and some others, he's developed his interpretation of the Best Bet/Next Best selections, an area I have yet to explore.

Where, as far as I can judge, Guest has used what I regard as the basic c/f approach (I think c/f is almost certainly still at the nub of the Best Bet/Next Best method, but in a way I've not yet cottoned on to) my analyses now agree with his in all except two examples: Youlneverwalkalone, which I made a bet at Cheltenham but about which Guest had reservations regarding the penultimate run, and Adiemus in the Lincoln, which as I've explained I (eventually) concluded was not a form horse.

Given that I must have looked at in excess of 100 of Guest's examples, I regard 98% correspondence as highly re-assuring.

What makes you think I disregard consistency? I don't regard "must be in the three lowest of the first five/six of the betting forecast" as an unbreakable rule - but nor, of course, did VDW.

On the subject of sfs as a proxy for ability, surely they fail to find Little Owl?

Mtoto
I'm not really dismissing anything,The point i will make again is,if all we had to do was take the consistency figures at face value and juggle them about a bit the methods would be to easy as i'm sure you'll agree,There have been horses put on this thread in the past with figures of pp2 but they were good things in the races they ran in on that particular day.

I'm not having a dig at johnd,What i will say is that he is simplyfying the methods,He's making a profit of that i have no doubt,But the methods really aren't that simple.