Barney,
That was a direct quote from VDW. If its good enough for him its good enough for me.
You are missing the whole point of the numerical picture-you compile it first BEFORE you look at the form.
regards,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mtoto:
Investor,

....I don't quite understand your last post Re Lord Protector, do you mean the class of the horse isn't the same as the class of the race it runs in......

Be Lucky

---

investor he say

quote:

---

LORD PROTECTOR....The class in which a horse runs is not the same as the class in which it competes.

---

Unless he's made a typo... he could mean that a horse for example may run in a class 100 race but unless he does something positive in the last couple of furlongs it hasn't competed in that class 100 race!

cheers IMP

Imp

What Investor means is that one does not judge a race solely by its ostensible class - in VDW terms the penalty value. Also important is the class of the competition, ie the other runners, which VDW judged another way. This was central to VDW's first ever published evaluation - the 1978 Erin.

Mtoto
You really are hard work my friend,The examples i gave were my way of trying to be helpful,Let me put it this way Lord protector Had more consistent form than Kates Charm did,No doubt you based this horse on the Chepstow runs,i really can't explain to you any further,All you come back with is you want to see logic,It is logical if looked at in the right way.It may be a hobby and no disrespect but i think you ought to keep it that way,After all that has been put across i.e pegwell bay and friends and you can't see the merits of Fayr jag,I give up.Like i said before even if it was put on a plate you would think it was bollocks,But like Guest says it aint rocket Science.

I remember a while back Lee left barney something to think about,I'll put the passage up again to save you looking

a couple of clues...

The first from march 1981 when a comprehensive explanation was given..."To confirm what the figures say (numerical picture) It is neccesary to study the form of all concerned,Taking particular note of the class in which they ran,The courses they ran on,The pace and going of respective races,Distances won or beaten by and,Most important how they performed in the latter stages of each race.

And from Winning ways To Bet...You should not need to be remindedthat the class against which a horse runs is not the same class of race in which they compete"

One final thought " The permutations are endless"

I wish you good luck yet again,I would carry on but i'm alreadt going bald,And i don't want to pull any more hair out.

Mtoto
iv'e just read your'e last post in it's entirety,For most of the time iv'e been backing horses iv'e used systems,With good success over the years.Admittedly i'm not yet putting money down on what i consider vdw good things.There have been times when iv'e thought that Guest has been a little rash with his bets,I.e Impek on both occasions but i can fully understand why he came to the conclusions he did,One other thing i'm quite sure of is guest DOESN'T put all his bets on this thread,he really has nothing to prove in my eyes,And he has my utmost respect for continuing to share what he does given the hostility towards him,That isn't aimed at you,You always conduct yourself in a civil manner,But i'm sure you know what i mean.

Investor,

Couple of things, please don't pull your hair out on my account. Second, I make my living out of following the VDW principals, all be it as I see them.

If you really see Lord Protector as a more consistent horse than Katies Charm maybe it is me that should be pulling my hair out. Could you explain that statment, because I don't know were to start looking. I am talking about her form before the Chepstow race.

The first quote is very good and I live by it. It says to confirm what the figures say NOT IGNORE THEM.

For me the second quote is one of the reasons I think the ability rating is flawed. Prize money is no guide to ability (now). To me this just says you can't trust the rating so check by other methods.

The third one is just a statement of fact. This is why you have to narrow the field, it then gives you time to study in depth the main contenders.

If Guest makes a simple mistake about the likes of Impek, why do you believe he has mastered other aspects of form reading. I must admit I back Impek at Cheltenham, I thought the stiff finish would help him. I can't see the logic of backing him at Aintree, 2 negatives is too much of a risk at that sort of price.

Not quite sure why Pegwell Bay has been bought into the discussion with me. I am happy with him as a selection.

I too have respect for Guest, but that doesn't mean I will just except everything he says. I think at times he makes it to complicated, and if he followed the guide lines he would have more time to study the detail. Thus improving his strike rate, and of course his profit. I must say out of his selections I understood and even admired his selection of Lunar Leo, a sort of delayed Roushayd. That was a nice one, clever placing by the trainer, and well spotted by Guest.

Be Lucky

A very interesting interpretation, the idea had escaped me completely.

Today again there's only one horse that meets all the initial conditions, Serenus in the 2:40 at Exeter. Again I've no intention of betting it though it looks to have a better chance than yesterday's. I dont use Postmark or Topspeed so I dont actually know how they're effectively used, Statajack mentioned lto Postmark, Swish talks about best Topspeed for the distance and going, my view is that there's no point having a figure for the day if it doesn't already represent these things and as this is meant to be an initial elimination process, in effect a shortcut, it's nonsense if we have to look beyond the immediately presented ratings. From the non-VDW angle the horse that first hits my eye is Xellance (E 3:15), I will also be looking more closely at the 4:20 Exeter and the 3:05 Folkestone.

Mtoto
The thing i can't understand is the fact that you can except pegwell bay,So why is it that you are at variance with other selections,I can fully understand why Guest had to include Lord protector in a book,There isn't a great deal of difference between this horse and P.B It's just that the form is slightly hidden,I will say again when you can appreciate how vdw interpreted form you will understand why these horses are selected.

I think today was a good example of when a horse has the right credentials it will reverse the outcome of the last race it ran in.I placed my first bet today at newmarket,In my mind there were 2 horses involved i.e needwood blade/smokin beau it was always going to be a different story on this track,But i couldn't confidently exclude S.B i managed 7/4 the book which i was quite comfortable with,My initial thoughts were that needwood blade had the credentials to reverse the form but i wasn't 100% sure hence the dutch.

Come back Johnd, a nothing post from Investor this morning, 12 hours 21 minutes later Investor posts a, wasn`t I clever today post and inbetween......................

lll
if you had the slightest idea about vdw i would give some reasoning,but being as all you like to do is pull me to pieces i won't bother,those on this thread who understand the methods will know what i'm on about,You only have to look at the form,Wether it's before the race or a week after it really makes no difference.

Investor - Seeing as your bet mirrored mine exactly today, I take it you spotted the same traits I did. Quite how Vision of Night went off favourite is anybody's guess.

The outcome was not unlike Paco Venture/Old Feathers. The horse the form book said was more likely won and the only evident danger ran well below it's best. The point of dutching is not to get the one/two, but to cover either possability when one is virtually certain the winner is in a group of 2,3 or even 4 horses.

Investor,

I have been thinking about your post all day. You say you can't understand why I can't see Pegwell Bay and Lord Protector are similar. PB is consistent and in the forecast, LP is none of those things. Neither is he improving, and he has failed in lower class since the good run. To make this easy could you just show me one VDW example that fits in with LP? That's all I need, so I can see it is VDW thinking not Guests. My mind is very open, I can see the logic behind Lunar Leo (not sure if the is VDW thinking though). Think Tillerman was another example of this thinking. It is something I now do automatically when I assess a race. If it's logical, I will use it, no matter were it comes from.

Be Lucky

I strongly disagree with you on that point and go as far as to say that this is the most compelling evidence in the case for your method being incorrect. If the selection method is correct but there is an ocassion when it can not choose between two or three horses those horses should be the first two or three home. If none of them win your method is suspect, if one wins but the other(s) come nowhere it is clear that your method is a curate's egg. Can you provide an example of VDW Dutching? resulting in the winner and one unplaced?

Assuming that Cheltenham is the principal meeting there are three possibles thrown up today, C 1:20 Mind How You Go, C 2:30 Dark'n Sharp, N 2:15 Desert Deer. But are any of them worth a bet? Yesterday Serenus lost, there was another horse that would have passed the requirements except that the insufficient prize money for the race had precluded it from consideration, this was Fellow Ship in the 3:35 at Folkestone. So far we've had five possibles from which one has won, this might be in line with the VDW idea that only 20% of identified horses are worth backing. To tell the truth I didn't look at Warrsan on Saturday but I will next time there's a rainy day.

Mtoto
I know your'e not going to like this but guests thinking is vdw's way,Wether you can accept that or not is entirely up to you,I can't give you an example off hand,Lack of form books and all that.What you've got to realise is ther is a certain factor that runs through his bets,Until you find this you won't accept what is being put before you,remember what lee said a while back you've got to put conventional form reading to bed,I'm sorry mtoto i can't really say anymore.I know you have a open mind,But you've been doing it you're way for a long time and no doubt you make money but there is another way,And it is logical.

Mtoto
I know your'e not going to like this but guests thinking is vdw's way,Wether you can accept that or not is entirely up to you,I can't give you an example off hand,Lack of form books and all that.What you've got to realise is ther is a certain factor that runs through his bets,Until you find this you won't accept what is being put before you,remember what lee said a while back you've got to put conventional form reading to bed,I'm sorry mtoto i can't really say anymore.I know you have a open mind,But you've been doing it you're way for a long time and no doubt you make money but there is another way,And it is logical.

Mtoto
I know your'e not going to like this but guests thinking is vdw's way,Wether you can accept that or not is entirely up to you,I can't give you an example off hand,Lack of form books and all that.What you've got to realise is ther is a certain factor that runs through his bets,Until you find this you won't accept what is being put before you,remember what lee said a while back you've got to put conventional form reading to bed,I'm sorry mtoto i can't really say anymore.I know you have a open mind,But you've been doing it you're way for a long time and no doubt you make money but there is another way,And it is logical.

bloody hell triplicate lol