ok john ive just read your last post i thought i was on my lonesome on here tonight & was ready to retire to tell the truth.

Thats the penultimate post now lol, night.

It's been mentioned that some horse wasn't proved at the distance so couldn't be considered a reliable bet, the reply was that none of the runners was proven at the distance. This is completely unimportant and makes absolutely no difference, the initial horse is equally unproved whether the opposition is or is not. This isn't a difficult idea to understand, just try to think about it and hopefully you'll get it. What really puzzles me is that there is this insistence on betting on these clearly dubious horses. You dont have to bet, so why bet on horses that haven't demonstrated the ability to win a race such as the one presently being contested?

Once again you show your lack of real grasp of the method, and, having set yourslf on a podium, proceed to bring the method into disrepute to justify your mistaken understanding.
Rooster Booster IS NOT THE SaME HORSE OVER 20f, and it is wrong to blame the jockey, ( And, as a consequence, others to blame VDW) for what is in fact your poor application of the method.
Once again the c/f method fails for the very simple reason that it gives insufficient credence to that which VDW spelt out very clearly.
Class and Form are vital considerations, but there is no logical way that they remain the same under DIFFERING CIRCUMSTAMNCES, VDW was quite explicit about this, but you continue to insist that was, in fact, misleading us.
If tha were the case, then he should certainly count you and your followers amongst his victims.

In short, yes. Epiglotis makes good point shock.

All,

A favour if I may.

JUSTAFANCY race 2338 80/81NH

My earliest formbook is year 75/76 which means I am unable to look at the form of Fogbound for the years prior.

Would someone be kind enough to let me have the details of any races won by Fogbound in those earlier years in order for me to finalise his ability rating.

Thanks in anticipation,

Determined

Form Book-wise, I don't go back any earlier than you, but according to the form section of the relevant Life, Fogbound had no wins prior to 1975/6.


Epiglotis/Statajack

There is clear evidence that VDW regarded it as entirely appropriate to back horses unproven at the distance - the earliest example being Rifle Brigade, backed first time out as a 3yo over 1m 4, having never previously raced over more than 1m.

The issue for VDW seems to have been what might be termed the margin of superiority the horse under consideration has vis-a-vis the opposition: if that margin is sufficient the horse can confidently be backed to win, even if the distance isn't ideal.

Rooster Booster was clearly the c/f in the 2.55 Aintree yesterday with, on known form, a margin of superiority. The fact that, under perhaps somewhat unfortunate circumstances, RB was just touched off, is neither here nor there as regards the efficacy of the VDW approach. Rather, depending on how one wishes to interpret matters, it tells us either that Guest made a slight error in his judgement as to whether the margin of superiority was sufficient (so what?), or that he was unlucky in coming up against another example of the "nuisance" factor in racing (as I referred to it in a reply to Investor on Friday).

[This message was edited by Fulham on April 06, 2003 at 07:46 AM.]

Fulham,

A big thanks re` Fogbound.

rooster booster,

has anyone any factual evidence based on study that these horses fail when upped in trip, or is it just conjecture.

I must admit that since a chat with Guest one night last summer when that came up I have not been as thorough as i should have with regards the records.

Does anyone remember beuchamp pilot last year when Guests analysis of, that horse and smirk's, effective distances was at varience with many BUT still turned out right in the end.

Also Native upmanship at cheltenham where Guest indicated, through VDW's methods, that he had a good enough class rating to deal with the inadiquacies of the trip.

Some people have short memories.

I am sure that that Guest's understanding of how VDW approached distance is based on study of VDW's examples and from practical experience of application of the methods, if he is generous enough to share it surely its up to people to check it out for themselves before coming to hasty conclusions.

Fulham - I knew you would come up with that one, but 2-3 yr old is slightly different than an 9 yr old.

Johnd
I would have thought that you would have put Rooster Booster's defeat down to your other hobby horse, the type of track. This was RB's third failure on the Aintree rodeo. In fact RB only victory on a sharp course came at Taunton in a low class affair in 2000. It was certainly the reason I kept my powder dry.

When none of the contenders is proven at a new, extended distance one of them will of course win, the question I'm asking is why would a person choose to bet in a race in which they do not know how any of the horses will perform when there are other races available?

JIB
to answer your 3 questions from last night

1/ if you want to use sub headings/headlines that's up to you,I just don't understand what most of them are about.Chocolate fireguard (as much use as) is that referring to the methods or people who believe in the methods,Whichever you feel it is your'e wrong

2/Any kind of criticism is good,When it's constructive but you can only criticise when you have some knowledge of the subject,If rooster booster had won,No doubt you would have classed it as luck as it happens the horse was unlucky regardless of the track.The methods are about class and consistent form and r.b was well out in front.

3/ The reason i mentionyour sires views,Is really to make a point,You have obviously done a lot of research into sires,Don't you think the same can be said of posters on this thread with there research into vdw,Why not let them get on with it,Afterall it's not your money that's going in the bookies satchels when the odd one get's done.

Mister Ed
I think you'll agree that Rooster Booster had come on a long way since that run at exeter.Also he'd done nothing wrong prior to the race yesterday.

Mister ed
Sorry,Of course i meant Taunton not long got out of bed.still half asleep.

epi,

I dont know if your refering specifically to rooster booster in the above post but horses in his race proven at 2m 4f were,

like a butterfly - class 89 nov
quazar- class 150 and 109 handicaps
sacundai- class 89 nov

of the other runners

self defense- had finished 3rd to coolnagorna at 2m4 in a class 145

mr cool had finished 2nd in a class 446 over 2m 5 1/2f

lord transcend had won a class 232 over 2m 7f

geos had finished 2nd in a class 595 over 2m 3 1/2

This hardly represents the scenario where " non are proven at a new extended distance"

Johnd
Don't talk so bloody stupid,You put best horses up the other day,What happenened to them,They all lost,Irrespective of wether any other factors were taken into consideration,Even if they had you too would have had a losing day.

You make me laugh,Anything to dig your claws into guest and your there like a flash,You mentioned Impek before the off,I wouldn't have played on that one,But as soon as Rooster Booster get's beat you jump on the bandwagon,If you saw fit to mention Impek,Why didn't you mention R.B before the event.The reason you din't was because you knew the horse had a bloody good chance,So you see it get beat and start firing bullets again,You really are unfare.

Investor

Well not really, the same thing happened last year RB came from victory at Cheltenham to defeat in the very same race at Aintree

Let's look at Rooster Booster from a hopefully objective point of view. No one can possibly deny that this horse has improved tremendously in the last 7-8 months. Why? Who knows, but it is very probably down to strengthening up at last, as his trainer feels.

The champion hurdle romp was without a doubt his most impressive performance from ALL angles. He hadn't been over raced this season, being obviously let down after the Bula judging by his narrow prep race win at Sandown, then a break before Cheltenham. The gap between Cheltenham and Aintree was nearly 4 weeks this year.

The opposition was either well out of form yesterday or well below the class of RB on exsisting evidence. RB had run twice at 2m 4f, once when pulled up at Chepstow in Nov 2000 and secondly at Aintree in the Aintree Hurdle last year when 4th beaten 4 lengths by Ilnamar.

He has won on flat tracks twice including Taunton and Kempton (very easily on the bridle this season).

The point is, in my view which is based on VDWs approach, he had enough in his favour to win. You can't take his 4th last year as evidence that he doesn't stay, because he has clearly improved over a stone since then. Does his failures last year and previous years at 2m mean he can't win at that trip?

At the end of the day, both horses in the finish we're well clear and anyone who reckons RB didn't handle the track is living in cloud cuckoo land. The whip dropping incident about half a furlong out probably cost a narrow victory. The result doesn't change my view which is based on the evidence to hand. Other horses VDW backed stepped up in trip include Ascencia, Desert Orchid, Rifle Brigade, Strombolus, Uther pendragon, Man Of Vision, Baptism, Lyric Dance, Ela Mana Mou, Connaught Bridge, Soaf, Aldaniti, Stray Shot,etc

So, JohnD how does your approach fit VDWs in that respect?

Thanks for posting those figures. I didn't look at the race, my remark about unproven horses came from reading posts by John in Brasil and Investor. I've just had a re-read of those posts and I reckon I took an over liberal interpretation of them. Nevertheless that doesn't effect the validity of my arguement, if I understand your figures correctly then there were several horses that could've been considered 'proven' but Rooster Booster wasn't among them(?) if this is the case then it seems to me even more of a mystery as to why a serious bettor would invest on Rooster Booster in that race.