Morning all,

It looks as though this thread only comes to life after 10.00pm which is past my bedtime.

I couldn`t agree more with Crock and Swish on the subject of value, strike rate, etc.

On this thread we clearly have differing strike rates, ie

- the 80% VDW experts; they have my total respect and deserve to enjoy whatever profite they are making. Good luck to them all.

- Mtoto presently obtains 46%, average price 6/1.

- Swish; I believe is hitting 50%.

- Fulham: I think he stated somewhere on the board he was not quite upto 50%.

All the above from what I have read on this thread are very knowlegable. No doubt this time next year (hopefully this thread will still be going) I know they will achieving even better results.

Whatabout me, well I`m not proud. Last season, not one of my best given the no` of 2nd`s ( very rarely bet e/w) I backed 28 winners for a strike rate of approx` 28%. Average price = 7/1.
I get a hell of a buzz backing winners at these sort of prices

24/1 (tote); 20/1; 14/1; 12/1; 10/1; 10/1; 9/1; 8/1; etc

but with it comes that dreaded losing run (16 last year). The majority of my investments are in big field hcaps so the losing run was always going to come.

Decision time has come for me - the buzz backing these winners is good but I don`t like those losing runs. I have come to the conclusion that the days of betting in the Hunt Cups, Wokingham, etc has to go (not totally) as I love playing these big hcaps.
VDW METHODOLOGY is the way for me and yes it may give me a `nose bleed` investing in Conditions races, etc but so be it.

SUMMARY - there is something for everybody in this methodology and profits will be made. Temprement will eventually decide how much profit is to made and each individual will have to look at what they are comfortable with and invest accordingly.

BOLD STATEMENT - this time next year I will not have a strike rate of 28% (it won`t be 80% either).

Multiple betting - I`ve bet 2-3 in a race for years when I feel it necessary its just that I`ve staked incorrectly. Also, the no` of times I`ve got a race down to 2 priced about 4/1 and 5/1 and decided not to bet because I couldn`t decide. Why didn`t I back both? Mutiple betting will certainly be playing a big part in my future.

Don`t I waffle on,

Regards,

stop going on and get on with the decorating

I must have been busy doing my post as yours came on.
You state in a couple of years time the EJ`s may not be bets but at the moment you feel comfortable continuing betting.

In response, I like feel it will take along time before us `novices` reach the 80% strike rate (if that`s what we are after) but again like you I will not be stopping betting as I feel reasonably confident that I can play with there money.

Temprement - very important like you say. This time next you i wonder how losers we will of happily missed.

Good luck,

Decorating finished Thursday.

** the last sentence on my previous post doesn`t read very well but I tHink you`ll know what I`m trying to say.
Cheers,

cant wait to have made enough to employ a typist(LL,BT)to do my posts.

then there will be no mere mustakes.

Maggsy

VDW liked the Old Newton Cup, and gave (at least) two winners as examples of his selections - Pipsted in 1987 and Roushayd in 1988. In "Systematic Betting", Chapter 4, he wrote "it required an outlay of 60 to 100 in the Old Newton Cup [in 1986] since the race called for a book to be made within the market".

Yesterday, on a comparable basis, backing the two plausibles in the 3.00 Doncaster was much more favourable - an outlay of 23 to 100. Those who saw Red Ark as a possible could have backed all three on the same basis, for an outlay of 48 to 100.


Determined

I know what you mean. For years I was drawn to have a bet in every major handicap televised - 'til I started keeping careful records of ALL my bets! However, one doesn't need to ignore them. Several of VDW's early examples were in major handicaps (1978 Whitbread, 1978 Cambridgeshire, and 1979 Lincoln). And last year I thought the Lincoln was a major VDW betting opportunity.

I agree that winners of the big hcaps can and will still be found. I will however be alot more selective in those type of races.

With regards last years winner namely Nimello. It takes some believing but I told my closest friends in the January 01 to back the horse at 33/1. On the day before he carried 10-00 to win on the sand you could still get 16/1.
On the day it won the Lincoln I had several telephone calls asking how much I had won.
When I admitted to winning nothing my frineds couldn`t believe it.
It was a day of mixed emotions for me (a) a great buzz for been fight and (b) a little sadness for what might have been.
On the VDW front I believe Nimello was also a bet when completing the hat trick.
Anyway no good dwelling on the past. Back to more study.

Regards,

i am currently looking at roushayd, again!!
and have come to formula that we all know and love

consistent form + class + capability + probability + hard work = winners

regarding regal ambition

class YES
form NO(down the field)
capability NO (placed to high and wrong distance)
probability NO(due to above)
hard work NO(showed nothing after 5 furlongs)
winner NO

has anyone else applied this to each horse, i always thought that it was a formula for me not the horse??

ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED

Dear Barney,
I am sure the "hard work" part means hard work 0n the part of the punter,
Yours
Swish

Hi Barney,

The Roushayd method is different, as you have seen, to that of the main method that VDW put forward. However, class and form are still very much at the forefront as they are with all his ideas. Essentially this method is concerned about looking for horses that show improvement when raised in class and then looking to see what the trainer does with them when this happens. Roushayd was 3rd on ability behind Clifton Chapel and Vouchsafe but never made the 3 most consistent. VDW stated why Clifton Chapel along with others were thrown out immediately which left Roushayd, Vouchsafe and Ile de Chypre as the main contenders. He goes on and gives us a brief summing up of his thoughts on each of these horses, but it is only a brief summing up. Once you are able to gather the form together you should see how Roushayd comes out on top. The Northern Dancer, where Vouchsafe finished behind Roushayd when in receipt of 20 lbs, was a class race in more ways than one. As VDW stated Vouchsafe was then dropped in class to collect, but that wasn’t against much opposition. Vouchsafe was now set to meet Roushayd on worse terms in the Old Newton Cup in receipt of only 13 lbs now and being raised in class. Although he was going well before falling in the KG V, class 114, Ile de Chypre was still a maiden and a look at his form will tell you that, again as VDW stated, he’s along way behind Roushayd on class. Of course, there are many more factors within the example that confirm Roushayds chances, and they are well worth the time and effort required to investigate them.

One thing that is worth noting is that just because a horse finishes down the field it doesn’t mean to say they are not a form horse, and likewise, just because a horse finishes in the frame doesn’t mean that they are a form horse. Hopefully this should give people something to think about.

Many believe that the Roushayd example is just another simple method showing us how improving speed figures combined with a drop in class can be used to isolate winners. But this is far from the truth. Many say that Prominent King holds a lot of clues, I would go further and say that this example holds more.

Just one point I feel is worth mentioning following on from the above which goes on to confirm the worth of class and form is that as you’d expect Ile de Chypre, having finished a close 2nd to Roushayd didn’t go to long before losing his maiden tag. After the Old Newton Cup he was raised in class once again, this time in the John Smith’s Magnet Cup (H’cap) class 299 where he once more finished close up at the finish. Then a month later he was out sent out in the Newton Stks and a massive class drop to 33 and justified his 8/13 SP hacking up by a margin of 10 lengths.

thanks very much for taking the trouble to reply guys!!

Thankyou Guest and Swish for the prompt replies to my query on form books.Call me by anything thats recognizeable Swish as long its not 4 letters. The comment from Lee on a what constitutes a form horse is interesting as I have been looking at Guests Class/Form horses mentioned yesterday. Its obvious I am on the wrong track because while I can see most of those mentioned as class/form horses when it comes to Extra Jack ok hes the joint class horse with Flying Instructor and he is one of the consistent but why is he the form horse and Flying Instructor was not?. Extra Jack last time out 4th beaten 18 lengths with figures showing a down turn, not his best distance perhaps but I am still not certain why he would be called a form horse.

Barney - Swish has already pointed out that the 'hard work' part of the equation was referring to the person undertaking the evaluation. The other parts are pretty much self explanatory as you have noted.

Lee made some very good points in his last 2 postings and I fully agree that the Roushayd exercise holds many answers, as VDW later said "Had readers understood it, it would have carried them a long way". He also stated that it was but a scratch on the surface of class and form evaluation, a point many seem to overlook placing almost blind faith in speed figures and class ratings, which were just part of the process.

One point though that I found incorrect was in relation with Roushayd,Vouchsafe and Clifton Chapels ability ratings. Going into the Old Newton Cup, the ability ratings were Roushayd 231, Clifton Chapel 94 and Vouchsafe 59. In fact Roushayd had the highest ability rating in all of his first 4 runs that season except for the listed event at Newbury where he was second rated behind Iben Bey (316). Otherwise a thoroughly good piece by Lee.

Firstly,
I am one of those, as Guest says, who is swayed by speed figs and the class those figs were obtained in as a first priority. Only horses that have such credentials are worthy of consideration to me. Things like, dis, going etc are secondary "filters" if you like.
Having said that any of you that have been following my other thread will have discovered that I can't make it work in hcp hurdles (only on occassion) so therefore a lot more must be needed to get those winners then, and I don't know the answer, regrettably.
However, using those "main factors" in handicap chases and Novice chases made a healthy profit of around 60% (so far). In fact choosing races where the best speed fig was obtained in a higher class race than the one under consideration increases profit to around 100% (50% SR). I don't think it is a flash in the pan, because studying old form books seems to give a similar return. Only time will tell.
I aren't sure how to take it further at this moment in time, which is why they are all going on spreadsheets, but for the time being, at least, I am well happy with chases. The hardest part of all, to me, (I have mentioned it on other threads but I am sure some of you only read this one) IS deciding how old the form has to be before it is invalid.
As Barney knows I picked OCCOLD as a Dark Horse the other week (Barney backed it off his own back). It was easily the class/speed horse in the race BUT that was in 1998, however it had not ran many times since then. I shyed off it, but it won at 12-1. When Buddy Marvel won the other day at 12-1 I had already picked it before on its old form, but decided the old form was KAPUTT, so I left that one as well.
This all leads me to Roman's question re EJ and FI.
In short I find it hard to decide which is the "form horse" in any race because of this same problem.
If you took Flying Instructor's entire career form it was the WINNER IN THE RACE, no doubt, big class, big speed figs etc.
But it hadn't really shown anything for quite some time, so most recently Extra Jack's big speed fig in an equal value race appeared to make THAT horse the bet, (although I do agree Guest there were some doubts).
In the end I was wrong to rule out FI but there was only 3/4 of a length in it. I did not see the race so I don't know if FI was always going to win or not.
This question of old form versus recent form arises regularly, and I hope, in six months or so I will learn which is the right one to bet, but there might not be an answer really.
Sometimes, I feel, it may well be right to back both of them. Only rarely, (in my opinion) is there only one winner in the race,
Yours
Swish

Further to the above, that of course referred to handicaps mainly.
Without a doubt in non-hcps there is only one winner in the race very often.

I foolishly posted that POLIANTAS was the probable winner in the 4.40 DON on saturday. When I re-examined the race (albeit, with the hindsight of knowing the winner) the choice should have been RUN FOR PADDY (w5-2). This was yet another example of a class hurdler beating the up and coming chaser.(coupled with that it had already shown it could jump, by winning its only chase)
I say all over the board that class hurdlers can change to chases ok and vice versa, yet sometimes I do not stick to it.
DON'T go on to me about temprament. I have to know exactly what I am doing is right (in the long run, first). It is no good having temperament if you aren't certain what you are doing is right,
Yours
Swish
BY THE WAY I BACKED NEITHER

hard work

in the analysis of the other two horses
greenhills joy won ,her form on inspection is below that of first division.

a slow race and the closing stages show hers was less of a test.(NOT HARD WORK??)

that leaves first division who is the most probable winner.

does hard work, when combined with form and speed, highlight peak fitness?

is what a "does or doesn't" do in the closing stages an evaluation of how hard the horse works.

is where a horse shows in the race an evaluation of where it puts in its hard work.


ther seems more to this hard work than meets the eye.

he also says "please think about it" therfore not to be taken literally.

will someone please check for me how hard beacon light worked in his last race compared to his one before that??

[This message was edited by Barney on March 04, 2002 at 06:21 AM.]

[This message was edited by Barney on March 04, 2002 at 06:38 AM.]

Guest,

I'd like to thank you very much for bringing to my attention the correct ability rating of Roushayd. I studied this example a while ago now and when I read your post above I couldn't believe that I'd made a mistake as I know that Roushayd had only won 3 races prior to the Old Newton Cup, surely that's not too difficult to work out, or so I thought. Anyway a quick look back showed up the glaring error. I had noted his latest win (1987) class 641 as 64! Thanks again.

Old form gives clues as to the horses capabilities, however recent form is what should concern us the most.

Lee - Easy mistake to make. One thing though when calculating ability ratings from the old VDW examples, I found it better to add up all the win prizemoney before knocking off the last 2 digits. Small point, but over many wins it can affect the rating slightly. Something of interest in relation to Vouchsafe is that he was dropped in class at Ascot to win the Bessborough Handicap (where VDW strongly suggested he was a bet) and reversed the form with those who beat him in the Northern Dancer including the winner and the favourite. This was an example of unexposed form that VDW was reluctant to discuss in print for obvious reasons. Also of note is the fact that Vouchsafe had actually won the Bessborough before but was disqualified. No doubt the trainer hatched his plan to win it again shortly after having the prize taken away.