Mtoto
do you think i would be saying all the stuff i have just lately if i hadn't spotted something that was a waste of time,Unfortunately i have no form books,But a few of the horses can be accessed by other means,and there are things to be seen that were evident then and are still there today,It has taken me over a year to suss this out,So don't think i'm being lead up the garden path because i can assure you i'm not,I actually tried to help you that's why i said a lot of bullets have been fired,even an atom bomb wouldn't sway you my friend your to set in your ways with your own interpretation.

JIB
He didn't

Mtoto

Thanks.

I suspect the issue here is actually more about temperament as reflected in personal betting strategies than the VDW approach.

You and I tend not to back short priced horses very often, in my case because I stake conservatively and the "nuisance" factor prevents the achievement of a sufficiently high strike rate to make a worthwhile profit.

But Guest and Investor have indicated that they utilise progressive staking strategies. Given adequate resources to cover the inevitable losing runs, with solid c/fs such as those Guest supports I have no doubt that the long term strike rate is high enough to turn a worthwhile profit.

JIB
i suppose your right,I shouldn't have done that,But if you actually look at the form for the race in question,there was only 2 horses in the race and as far as class and consistent form goes,Millenium force to my mind was the winner in the race.

i don't have to shore up guest's credibility,There's no problem with it,Do you honestly think that he put's all his thoughts on here or more to the point his selections,Get real john.

Investor,

I'm studying VDW as a hobby, I hope this hobby will teach me something. I'm only set in my ways when it comes to earning a living. Even then those ways aren't set in stone. I will adapt and use anything that will be of help. In fact there are a couple of things I have picked up from VDW. One of which has proven very profitable this NH season.

Barney,

Think there is a difference between being out of form, and well out of it on my figures.

Fulham,

I agree with you to a certain extent. On going through the examples I haven't found an example of VDW selecting a short priced horse with negatives. That's not to say there aren't any, I just haven't found them. Why do you think VDW explained how to narrow the field, and then work everything to the c/form method? Don't you find it very time consuming? Are you happy judging a horse by the horses that ran in the race rather than the horses ability rating? Would it not be better to gear the a/rating to the races the horse ran in if you are going to work that way?

Hope you had a good Aintree!

Be Lucky

I think investor is trying to impress us with his new found wisdom and his Direct line to the whitehouse

No doubt you would substitute whitehouse for something else

It is a fairly reasonable supposition that you and your acolytes will have the following horses as out of form next time they run; Rooster Boooster, Impek, Shotgun Willy. These are all horses supported by you yesterday, and I will use them to show why you were wrong yesterday, and, ultimately, why you are wrong about VDW.
Rooster Booster is a horse who needs a stiff 2 miles on goodish ground. Take those away from him and he is not the same horse.
Had the horse won by 11l yesterday, it would still have been some way below his Champion Hurdle run, so to say that the jockey was responsible is laughable. As it turned out he was travelling well until the final stages yesterday, but the devestating turn of foot was not there at the end of the race, simply because he ran out of petrol. Yes the horse has improved, (Though I recall those who doubted it pre-Cheltenham), and as a consequence ran his best race over this distance, but still nowhere near his previous wins. Either you believe the horse was well out of form, or you believe it was the wrong distance. Basic form reading skills strongly suggest the latter is correct.
Impek had only prevailed in the last stages of his penultimate race, over a stiffer track, and on softer ground, than yesterday. In the Arkle, again a stiffer test, and AGAINST BETTER CLASS HORSES, he only managed to scrape 2nd in the dying strides. The LOGICAL inference from this is that the higher the class, the stiffer the test the horse needs, and so yesterdays test was not in his favour. As the race turned out, the tap was turned on entering the straight, and 2 lesser horses quickly gained 5l on him, which he was never able to pull back. Had the race been at Cheltenham, and run at a true pace, he would have eaten them for breakfast.
Shotgun Willy, ( A horse I supported myself yesterday ), is a boat, but when conditions are in his favour, he is a high class boat. He often struggles to keep up with the pace in better class races, and depends on the going to slow others down.
Yesterday he was being driven, ( DRIVEN, not ridden ) before the 4th fence, the only logical conclusions are that A) He was totally outclassed, or B) that the ground was too fast for him. Once again, basic form reading skills suggest that it was the latter.
All of the above cases, and so many, many more on this thread, serve to illustrate that no amount of ability ratings, or in form/out of form, will give you the real facts about a horses preferences.
Regardless of how some interpret it, VDW gave us exactly that facility as part of that very important sentence in S.I.A.O.
Furthermore, the following sentence in that missive is a direct reference to the records we should keep regarding a horses preferences, and not as you would have it, to ability ratings.
For God's sake, read it again, it is simple, it is logical, but most of all, it will stop you from repeating the errors of yesterday!

INVESTOR
Had you read my posts properly, you would have realised they were not selections, simply the ' best form' horses for each race, and posted to draw comparisons with other's interpretation of the class/form horse.

All.
May I apologise for the numerous typing errors in my recent posts; I was typing on a keyboard the size of a mouth-organ, and found it impossible to edit properly through the TV screen.

Regards
Johnd

jib
i retreat from nothing.Study the form for the race mentioned,and give me your thoughts.

Johnd
nice backpeddle,I wonder what would have happened if they'd all won,i know what would have happened,Like i said in one of my posts a while ago,Your'e over simplyfying the methods,I understand your approach,but your interpretation is wrong.

Mtoto

I think one could say that Rifle Brigade had a negative - an untried distance.

Personally it was not a marvellous Aintree. Two bets - Native Upmanship and a loser, Emotional Moment, which I decided to back near the off but, alas, not before he lost a shoe. And I managed to arb FIVE horses in the National and none was ever in the hunt.

What Backpedal ? Read the bloody posts.
I will never be able to simplify anything so much that you could understand it!

Jib
i wondered how long it would be before you bit,Your posts don't interest me in the slightest,What i meant by backpeddle was the fact your best bets all lost,If they had won you would have claimed them as winners,Using YOUR interpretation iv'e read S.I.A.O over and over again,If you honestly think all the answers lie in that one article you are very much mistaken,You start chucking out 10/12 before the event and i might start to think you have a point,I don't always agree with guest but his knowledge of these methods far surpasses your's

Johnd

On points of methodology, from the c/f perspective:

1) there is an important difference between not being a form horse and being out of form. Youlneverwalkalone, for example, could hardly have been said to be out of form for yesterday's National, but relative to the class of the race and the class of other runners he was not a form horse;

2) while followers of the c/f approach, like many others, note how horses have run and watch with interest where they are placed, no one who understands VDW's approach would make the assumption at this stage that any of the three horses you mention would automatically not be form horses (still less properly described as out of form) for their next races. That can only be assessed in the actual circumstances of those next races, by use of the usual analytic technics.

JohnD - You keep referring to this sentence in SIAO and furthermore your interpretation of what VDW mean't in the one involving records is wrong in my view.

Think about it. VDW stated that when one has followed the method as laid out in SIAO for some time, it easy to turn back to ones records and balance respective performances. So in your opinion, this means that when Little Owl ran in the Gold Cup VDW turned back to the Haydock race and previous races as he laid them out, and ignored half the info within?

Just why do you think he brought WIN of Brightons attention to Lesley Ann in respect of Little Owl and Wayward Lad?

Sorry Pal, but whilst observation of a horses preferred conditions are important, class and form are more so IF the opposition can be reasonably opposed.

Fulham's answer regarding "form" establishment is spot on. Rooster Booster or Impek will be weighed up only when their next race class and opposition is known.

As a last word on Rooster Booster, anyone who thinks stamina alone was the issue didn't see the same race. He stayed all right and ran right to the line, he just didn't quite stay as well as Sacundai. Funny though that if the winner wasn't in the race, RB would have bolted up. I say again, what RB achieved beyond this season is largely irrelevant because his 2 mile+ form has improved by so much. Different story if he had been running to the same level for the last 2 or 3 years and failed when upped to 2m 4f.

Anyway, thanks Investor I did have a good day at the Curragh.

By the way, does no one remember VDW making Aldaniti a bet in the 81 National?

Graham - See above for more explaination on the Northern Dancer race. Billet at that point was well behind on class as a horse and had the race been worth much less, he wouldn't have been as good a benchmark. What do you make of VDWs strong hint that Vouchsafe was a bet next time at Ascot when turning the form right around with Billet & co?

GUEST
Good for you mate.

Guest,
Many thanks for your reply.
My view on Vouchsafe is that the race at Epsom
was designed as the final prep race for Ascot over a course which didn't suit.
Vouchsafe "won" the Bessborough 2 years earlier and was then sent out as a front runner running in the likes of the King George and then back in handicap company was asked to carry weights of 9-7(twice) and 9-4 unless upped in class when the weights got close to the 8-6 he won at Ascot with.
The following year he started slowly until showing form in a class 55 at York (ie showing interest again) and was then sent to Goodwood (undulating/switchback like Epsom)where he finished 3rd then dropped in class at Donny to collect.
Therefore his form was "hidden" untill the opportunity arose to strike thereby giving rise to VDW's quote.His weight at Ascot - 7-13 with Carson on board.
I hope I am in the right ball park and would of course welcome any further guidence.

Thanks Again

Graham