Why do so many think that a serious bettor only backs horses that have won the same class races before and over the same distances?

Just think about it for a moment. VDW advocated sticking to the best races in the main, why? Because the class horses usually carry off the big prizes and the intentions are a lot clearer.

So if this "has to be totally proven" idea is used, many of the top races would not used for betting purposes. You would never have a bet in the Derby or the Oaks, nor the Guineas races for that matter. Try leaving out the big races at Cheltenham. Utter rubbish of course because class and form are relative to the opposition in a race, not the class of the race.

Epiglotis
it is all to do with the often talked about balancing of class and form,When i say form i will say again form the way vdw interpreted it,I have checked an awful lot of horses out,And this is why i'm in agreement with guest.I wouldn't neccesarily back some of the horses he does,but i can understand the reasons why he does select them and i also have no doubts that during the n/h and flat seasons a considerable amount of money will be made.

(Guest) I dont see the National on your list. Naturally class is relative to the opposition, the race is against the opposition but it's run under the conditions, if you do not know that the horse has shown the capability to win against the opposition under the conditions then you are guessing and gambling. That's not my idea of a sensible approach to serious betting.

Epiglotis
i understand what your'e saying to a degree,And up until a few weeks ago i would probably have agreed with you and not guest,there are certain patterns/trends whatever you wish to call them that run through the horses that are selected,until these are understood or found there are always going to be arguements on this thread,But at the end of the day it'sc/f that sorts out the winners from the losers and rooster booster had both relative to the rest of the field,One or two will always come unstuck but in the main they do well.

Fine, there are also plenty of races in which the "class/form" horse is not being asked to do something that it has never done before. Why is it sensible to bet on a horse that has not previously done what it is now being asked to do instead of betting on the one that you know can do what is required?

Epiglotis
in the main that is what normally happens,but every now and again a horse comes along that is far superior to the other runners in the field,And when the race is evaluated the horse still comes out on top,There's a very good chance the horse will win,Don't forget that the horse went down by a head it wasn't slaughtered,Also in it's previous races the horse was running on,the trip wasn't a problem.

ITS ALL WELL AND GOOD

looking for negatives about this that and the other in rooster boosters race.

I am sure that VDW would have just accepted the result as part and parcel of the game.

One thing I do know for sure is that he would have taken more from that result than many are too blinkerd to see.

Guest has already pointed out that the two were 7 lengths clear.

What I want to know is, is rooster booster out of form? Or have we just seen an exceptional novice or two?

Cloud Cuckoo Land!

Guest you can wrap it up any way you like, Rooster Booster was not a VDW bet yesterday. I don't for one moment believe VDW would have struck the bet.

You are the one that quotes about facts. The facts are/were he had tried the distance twice, and failed. He had tried the course twice, and failed. You then say about the horses VDW selected that had not won over the distance. What you didn't say, most of these horses hadn't be beaten over the distance!

Forgetting the National you made 4 silly bets at Aintree. You won with Native Upmanship and the other 3 lost. I don't for one moment blame the method, it was your failure to follow the guide lines. The remark about Cloud Cuckoo Land and your reasoning after the race makes me think you still won't learn by these mistakes. As Rooster Booster was one I raised doubts about before the race, I will try to answer your points.

As you say he won at Kempton, did you bother to look and see the real quality of that race? He should have won it giving them a fence start. His other win on a flat track was also a weak affair. It was the distance that beat him, helped by the track. You also say he had the class to win, what did VDW say about class and the wrong course? If he had stayed the whip incident would have made no difference and his class would have won through. It would also have helped if there had been a stiff uphill finish to kill the speed of the winner.

I do agree VDW has shown us some of his ideas on form reading. I'm not sure if you've missed them. I also think you have added a few, to make the c/form method work.

Barney,

If your going to back horses in that price range you have to way up EVERY negative. All four of Guest's selections at Aintree had them. He made a loss at the meeting because of it. Rooster Booster is no more out of form than Beacon Light was. Lead, and then beaten by a lesser horse!??!

Be Lucky

mtoto,

you are wrong to compare the two, beacon light had significant other negatives also, not least he was going back up in class after his defeat.

Guest,
In your post of 25th March referring to Roushayd's races you state"had the Northern Dancer at Epsom been a similar or lesser class than the ONC then Roushayd would not have been the class/form horse".Assuming by "class" you are using penalty value then are you saying that horses of the class of Billet and Island Set would not have contested the Northern Dancer?If not and the horses contesting the races were the same then I don't understand the statement.
Could you elaborate a little please?
Apologies for taking us back a couple of weeks or so but I've only just got the form books together to be able to study the example.

Thanks
Graham

Barney,

I agree he had a MAJOR negative, the going was against him in a big way! Rooster Booster was dropped in class for yesterdays race. If he runs next in a 2 and a half mile race (unless it is against real no hopers) will you have him as a form horse? If he beats the no hopers will you then say he stays the distance? If that race is on a flat course will you say he acts on flat courses? I think this is the reason VDW said look to see what it beats, or what beats it.

Be Lucky

mtoto,

you Surely cant compare sea pigeon to sacundai

sacundai came out first time this season with a fourth to limestone lad and liss a poiragh, he was then dropped in class at the same trip and defeated an odds on fav and rince ri, he then reversed the form with liss a poiragh( odds on )
and was dropped again to collect.

It is widely known that liss a poiragh is the second best hurdler in ireland, to limestone lad, and to compare this horse with sea pigean when he went against beacon light is very naive.

Mtoto
You are jumping on the same bandwagon as johnd,Are you two joined at the hip or something.Like johnd you gave out your best bets the other day,And what happened to them,You will not accept any other explanation other than what you feel concurs with your interpretation of the methods,Youv'e gone on and on about prominent king since the start of this thread,Things have been explained over and over and you will not accept anything you don't want to hear,If you think you can go along backing horses like a piece of cake,Then you will eventually come unstuck,All guest has done from the very start is try to help people,There's no well done's when he get's it right,But plenty of shit slung when a horse loses You really surprise me.

mtoto
You state that there were 4 silly bets made at aintree,Rooster booster was going up in distance by a couple of furlongs,Not a couple of miles,Which was the case with a piece of cake,No doubt you will say the horse had the best form well so did Rooster Booster,I would sooner put my money on a horse that has class and good form going up a bit in distance at 5/4,Than a horse that had proved no where near the same as rooster booster,Going up 2 miles and at 20/1 now that is silly,The horse won but you didn't mention it till after the event.

Mtoto

Leaving to one side the National, Guest has indicated that he placed six bets at Aintree - Coolnagorna, Native Upmanship, Iris's Gift, It Takes Time, Impek and Rooster Booster. You've said that four - clearly including Native Upmanship and Rooster Booster - were "silly". I'd be interested to know which two you regarded as sound.

Investor,

First, I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon, I don't think you will find my views have changed very much along the line. That is not to say I haven't read EVERY posting and tried to learn from it. The difference is I will not change my thinking until I find a logical reason to do so. If I gave you a list of the horses I backed and only gave you a hint at why I backed them, you could come to all sorts of reasons why. Many of them could be wrong.

Can you point me to the shit I've slung? If Guest hadn't made the remark about cloud cuckoo land I wouldn't have bother to post about the race. To me it was a short priced favourite with to many negatives, I pointed it out before the race. So I took the remark as aimed in my direction. I happen to think trying to work the c/form method is working against the VDW idea. Why did he bother to show how to narrow the field, I think it was so more time could be spent on the real contenders. Something I think Guest is lacking, he doesn't appear to pick up the danger points. Too much time spent on the rest of the field.

You mention my selections for Thursday. I only backed Dark N Sharp to win. The race I couldn't understand, I made a decision before the off. I backed Spectroscope place only, the price just didn't make sense. I received 6/4 the place, against 5/2 the win for Well Chief. Making a profit is the name of the game! I want to make my wages for as small an outlay as possible.

If Piece Of Cake was a one off I may agree with you, but it isn't. I have many winners over 8/1 in the course of a season. Have you even bothered to have a look at that race? Can you explain how/why it was that sort of price? You don't have to find these short priced horses to make a profit. Ok you have to work at it, and find something the general public aren't looking at. If I had to make a book involving 3/4 horses I would leave the race alone, or work harder at finding the winner.

Just seen your last post. As I've said there is a BIG difference between trying something new and trying after you have failed twice. Also the difference in price covered the doubt. Also as explained at the time, if you have bother to follow what I've explained in previous posts it is all there for you to follow. No juggling.

So I'm not taking sides, I wouldn't care, if I didn't think some people are looking for something that ISN'T there. I think Fulham is well capable of working it out for himself, but I do think a lot of the others are being sent up the garden path. When you are looking at the winners VDW or Guest have suggested, do you ever look to see how many others fit that type of profile? I'm not just talking about other horses at the meeting, I'm thinking more of other horses in the same race.

Barney,

There is no point in going back over all this, if Guest says it is out of form, it's out of form. Pink jelly and all that! Just wish VDW had said it!!

Fulham,

Sorry my mistake. Iris's Gift is the only one I would have considered, but not at the price.

Mtoto,

he did

"both methods showed beacon light well out of it"

Guest
well done with Millenium force in the gladness.

mtoto
as i'm sure your already aware,A majority of winners will be found at the shorter end of the market,20/1 shots don't come along like buses,I'm at a loss as to why you included Native upmanship as a silly bet,That say's a lot to me about varying interpretations,The horse was a virtual racing certainty,And value at the price using form the way he wanted it to be seen.