Graham - Glad you spotted the "win" in the race previously. Note that once again, VDW declines to go into any detail about unexposed form, just as with Ekbalco and to a certain extent Justafancy.

QUOTE FROM GUEST

" But while observations of a horses preferred conditions are important, class and form are more so IF the opposition can reasonably be opposed".
So what happened to those three yesterday then? Either ;

A/ They were out of form?

B/ They were not form horses?,or;

C/ You are talking out of your arse!

Graham,

I'm not knocking the hard work you have put in re Vouchersafe. I still can't see why his selection is not purely down to the classic card marking. For me your findings make it harder for Roushayd to be a form horse for the Newton Cup.(the c/form way) He was only just in front of a horse that was eased in his prep race on a course that didn't suit. If the fact that Epsom, and Goodwood are similar, the course should have suited Roushayd judging by his win at Goodwood.

Guest,

I don't want to argue with you but can you explain your statement about class and form being more important? Especially when placed along side VDW's words....

{Therefore, when looking at the relative merits of one horse against another, these two elements class and form must be equated along with the other aspects such as distance, going, track, etc. Whatever the form and class, a long-striding galloping horse is almost bound to come unstuck on a sharp track. Permutations involved in the assessment of one horse against others in a race provides an extremely complex problem but we can make life much easier if the situation is followed logically.}

Johnd,

I agree with most of your views on race reading. However I would like to add to the Impek profile, I don't think we will see the best of him until he runs over a stiff right handed course like Sandown or Ascot. I thought Cheltenham would suit with the stronger competition, and stiff finish, but he failed.

Be Lucky

This thread has made great reading lately. I`m just feeling a bit sorry for my mate Investor though. He`s getting pushed from pillar to post and dawn to dusk. You don`t suppose that he`s that Iraqi Information Minister do you?

Much Of A Muchness,

Belated I know, but can I ask about your list of course grades? Do you take all the races at Epsom, Doncaster, Goodwood, etc. as grade 1? Or is it only the main important meeting like the Derby, Leger, and Goodwood festival? The same with Chester, is the May meeting class 2?

Fulham,

Rifle Brigade, I would agree with you, but did VDW consider it a negative if there wasn't a distance winner in the race? This is something I am having a good look at the moment. Even if there were distance winners in the race did it matter if they weren't consistent, in the forecast, close up on ability, etc.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I think it is a matter of judgement in the context of price. VDW didn't know that Rifle Brigade would be fit first time out, nor that it had sufficient margin of superiority over the others to win over an at that time untried distance. But he did know: (1) the trainer was noted as having his first time out 3yos ready to win, (2) that RB was, in his terms, the only form horse in the field, and (3) that two of the four rivals who had had runs already as 3yos had not shown anything much.

VDW presumably took the view that, on what he knew, RB was a good bet at the price available (5/2). Presumably, also, there would have been a point at which VDW would have regarded the risk involved as not reflected in the price available, though we have no way of knowing what that was. (You will recall he regarded Little Owl as "a racing certainty", but made it clear that it would not be value at 3/1 on or below.)

In essence, the kind of judgement VDW had to make with both Little Owl and Rifle Brigade is exactly the same as that those contemplating Rooster Booster on Saturday had to make.

In my view, Rooster Booster was the clear c/f, with nothing else near in c/f terms. Yes, he hadn't won over the distance, any more than Hawk Wing had won over the Derby distance. But the questions in both cases were the same: was there anything else that could possibly beat them, and in the light of the answer to that, what would represent a value price.

In Hawk Wing's case, the threat was clear (and I can't recall a more fully argued and firmly stated pre race post than Guest's selection of High Chaparral). But the reality is that, HC apart, HW clearly demonstrated he could slaughter the rest of the field over 1m 4.

In Rooster Booster's case, there was no comparable threat, and if one backed him one simply had to be concerned about the "nuisance" factor that can lead to any horse being beaten (and I include in that the risk both of things like dropped whips but also horses running well above the form in the Book). In the event, he went down a head, but like Hawk Wing in the Derby, showed he could slaughter the rest of the field over even what might be a longer than ideal trip.

The material difference in the two races was that in the Derby the threat to Hawk Wing was apparent and fully noted. In Rooster Booster's case it was not apparent - indeed both on the Form Book and the market Sac.'s win was unexpected.

Personally, I rate the "nuisance" element quite high, and thus rarely take short prices. But I recognise that that is idiosyncratic, and as a consequence I don't back many that Guest, Investor and others rightly see as good things. With Rooster Booster, I saved my money, which is the upside of my conservatism. But I certainly wouldn't characterise a bet on Rooster Booster as "silly", especially in the context of preparedness to bet progressively, which both Guest and Investor have intimated is their practice.

It surprises me that very little seems to have been written on this thread about Native Upmanship's win at Aintree last Friday. To me this selection embodied the VDW approach.

Here was a horse back at his best distance with conditions to suit, clear on Ability rating, well rated on Consistency, and had the majority of the field behind him over a distance short of his best on his previous. Won the race last year under fairly similar conditions. This one really did look nailed on.

Rob

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fulham:
....In Rooster Booster's case it was not apparent - indeed both on the Form Book and the market Sac.'s win was unexpected.

.

---

but not by speed based methods?

quote:

---

SPEEDPLUS AIN 2.55 SACUNDAI WIN 1.00
NICK MORDIN AIN 2.55 SACUNDAI WIN 1.00

---

cheers IMP

Mtoto,
I agree that it was "card marking" in respect of Vouchsafe ie the same pattern followed as the previous year prior to a win.VDW said that we should watch to see where the trainer places the horse next. In this case Maj Hern sent the horse to Ascot to contest a race he won 2 years earlier only to lose it in the Stewards' room. Add to this less weight than 2 years previous and Carson riding at or near to his minimum weight and you have the ingredients of a good bet.

Kind Regards

Graham

Rob North
As i have said in past posts Native upmanship was a virtual racing certainty,posters on this thread also seem to brush aside races in ireland,When in effect they could have had a good day yesterday at the curragh with millennium force and beef or salmon.

I have had another look at Impek, and there is certainly a case for him being better R Handed,though not enough to explain Saturday's defeat. Thanks for that, I will bear it in mind in future.

Fulham
i have been argueing the toss just lately,Without putting any money down,As i said when i found the areas of form reading that hadn't been spelt out i was prepared to wait until i was sure in my own mind,Judging by what happened last week and over the weekend i'm very happy with my findings,Irrespective of a progressive staking plan I couldn't foresee a problem with any of the opposition with regard to Rooster Booster and wouldn't have thought twice about putting my money down had i been using money at this particular moment in time,Having said that it was very encouraging to see 2 horses win in ireland yesterday that would have put the defeat of R.B to the back of my mind and a good profit would have been made.

It seems to me that the case with Rooster Booster concerns not so much the opposition as the horse's own capabilities (where have I heard that word before?) regarding distance,course type etc. Maybe it lost because of Epiglotis negative, or maybe JIB's or perhaps it was Mtoto's or Mr Ed's or JohnD's? The point is that any of those reasons advanced should have been enough to put people off. Instead JohnD and Mtoto are patronisingly informed that they dont understand class and form, whenever they disagree with Guest's viewpoint. This is rather ironic as their (like my own) knowledge of how VDW assessed class and form came in no small part from Guest. VDW gave the formula consistency+ability+capability+probability+hard work=winners but he also said that all the elements need to line up. Looking at Guest's recent bets its easy enough to see that the winners had no negatives and the losers plenty, but when this is pointed out by the above two people they are informed that they dont know what they are talking about. That is Guest's choice but presumably he is uninterested in increasing his strike rate and profit margin. Is Guest's way of reading form that of VDW? Yes, I think it is and I know Fulham, Barney and Investor agree, but for whatever reason he seems to ignore other parts of the formula, without which there can only be partial success.
By my reckoning over the Aintree meeting only Native Upmanship and Iris's Gift would have been supported by VDW. There has been no discussion about these two because they had everything going for them.
regards,

Johnd,

I agree, I don't think the one negative by it's self would/could have stopped him. Add in the flat course AND another horse in the race that had shown he was at least as good as him. You then have the recipe for possible disaster, and no price to cover the doubts.

After going through the Native Upmanship race again, possibly I was a little harsh. There were no negatives, just a possible danger that the price didn't cover to my satisfaction. However, I still think Rooster Booster had all the disadvantages of Impek. All be it in a different sequence.

Be Lucky

Statajack
as i said in an earlier post it is usually the type of scenario's you mention in your last post i.e sore thumbs so to speak,but i'm sure you'll agree every now and again a particular horse comes along,And after doing an evaluation everything lines up all except in the case of Rooster Booster the distance,So when balancing class and form,Given that not to many in the race had achieved anything to give concern over the distance on that day and Rooster Booster was clearly in form and therefore class /form,I still feel he was worthy of support,I don't always agree with guest that isn't to say i don't understand his reasoning because i certainly do,So given the evidence on the day i'm 100% behind him with this selection.

Investor,
As various people have pointed out, distance wasnt the only negative for rooster booster and at the price, was it really worth the risk? He may have been the class/form horse but that in itself doesnt cover every aspect of the equation neccessary. In these cases it may be difficult to pinpoint which horse beats the c/f but one usually does. I doubt too many people expected First Gold to be the one to beat Valley Henry but there were enough negatives about VH to preclude a bet. Similarly with Impek and Le Roi Miguel.
regards,

would VDW have found sacundai?

Just a few words on some other Aintree horses, because there is nothing more to say about Rooster Booster other than he lost by a very narrow margin and the jockey dropped the whip some 100 yds out. Anyone who thinks this didn't affect the result might like to try sticking to "hands & heels" races for betting purposes and see how they fare.

Native Upmanship had everything go his way and what's more I actually drew attention to his chance at Aintree back at Cheltenham when backing him and Moscow Flyer when they ran the one-two in the QM chase.

Valley Henry was bound to lose in my view, though nothing could be confidently backed to win in the race.

Statajack - Which parts am I ignoring? I keep hearing that some of my posts have helped some members on this board in regards to VDWs approach, but some of the same members are so confident I am wrong in practice. For example, so many totally disregard the class and ability ratings VDW demonstrated, yet over emphasise some of the more opinionated elements in the method.

JohnD will not have it that Paco Venture had the better form than Old feathers, despite a quite detailed explaination from me. Perhaps if he applied his thinking on the much quoted VDW paragraph "to confirm what the figures say it is.." to the approach I use for form and class, he might get the strike rate he claims to have. A claim, incidentally I have never made.

Guest
For what it is worth, I thought ROOSTER BOOSTER was a certainty, in my opinion, and backed it accordingly. I am even disagreeing with my good pal JIB here, and Mtoto. whom you know his opinion I very much respect.
ROOSTER BOOSTER WAS a bet, without a doubt. Whether jockey losing whip was the problem we shall never know, but I still think it was a bet,
Cheers
Swish