Mr.Moto

Do you think the trainer (driver) is flat out to win every race then?

Mtoto
The white flag is raised,It's not about the ability rating.That comes into it with out a shadow of doubt,From the very start all you have done is looked at it from Mtoto's point of view not vdw's,If you can't see the form running through Lingo,Then i'm sorry to be blunt,But you have absolutely no idea how vdw interpreted form,If you think my evaluation and assesment of Lingo are not logical,Then i'm affraid it will always be the golden years of mtoto and not vdw.

Mtoto
What are you on about,"he came into the equation because he was improving,But then he failed when raised in class" IT WAS AN ILLUSION your'e so bloody hell bent on looking at things from your'e point of view,That you will not accept what is being put to you,you said you had an open mind and you would use it as long as it was logical,Well open it,Because it is.

Mr e d,

Not at all. However when the horse is put away for 10 weeks, and then bought out at the very end of the season there has to be a reason. The horse was then made favourite for the two races, running a good to fair race in the first. The going and distance was stated to be the best for the horse. I also have a clipping that states the Nov Hcp is his long term target. This clipping was written just after his Goodwood defeat, sighting the longer trip, and easier going as the reason. He failed, no illusion, driver took a wrong turning!

Be Lucky

Statajack

I agree with you, but I was addressing a slightly different point which Mtoto has noticed and marked in bold in his post.

In the relevant part of the "Spells it all out" article, in my view VDW introduces an element of confusion when in consecutive sentences he deals with two distinct ideas: consistency and consistent form. That led me for years to assume that the "form" side of the class/form nexus to which VDW explicitly introduced us in the mid 1980s was handled by the consistency aggregate. A foolish mis-apprehension on my part, no doubt, but one I'm sure I'm not alone in making. (Not the least of my debt to Guest is in respect of an early (and oft-repeated) comment he made that consistency was not form.)


Mtoto

Time-wise, I expect it is as broad as it is long. The days when it took me several hours to analyse a large-field handicap have long gone. These days, I reckon it takes no more than 30-40 minutes to reduce such a field to the plausibles - five at most in the City and Suburban, two today in the Esher - through the assessment of in-formness. From then on one can forget all the others, take one's time in considering the plausibles from the capability perspective, and, of course, still fail to complete the analysis properly, as with Lingo!

Statajack
Now fulham has answered you,What makes you so certain the run you mention was included.Vdw said "had the ground been heavy,i wouldn't have wagered on pegwell bay" we all know he excused a bad run and i think this falls into Mr ed's list,But it didn't stop him from considering P.B in form,The figures 121 don't tell the full story I would venture to add that he was consistently in form prior to the race you mention.

Investor,

I don't know what you are getting so excited about. All this started because I said Lingo wasn't consistent. When I said consistent I was talking from a VDW point of view. I have shown you a quote that shows what VDW meant when he judged consistent form. If you can find an example of him cherry picking form, post it. Remember VDW wouldn't back Gaye Chance, even when he could see the reason it failed (out classed)

I have shown I thought Lingo was the winner in the race. So I have no doubt about the logic, but is it a selection VDW would have picked? How is it a horse from the consistency method, how is it from the Roushayd method? Ok, it may come from another method which one?

I have been told I make it up and don't apply the VDW thinking. How/why are you so sure you and others aren't doing the same? I don't like the ability rating, I would never use it in my day to day betting. I do use it when I am trying to understand VDW, I also read and study the examples over and over again. In many cases I can make them work without resorting to some of this strange thinking that is credited? to VDW. I even try to understand how he looked at weight, and use it on the examples.

At the moment I will refrain from being blunt, but you are not the only one who can go down that path!

Be Lucky

Mr. Moto

If Philodantes is a one off here's another to make it a two off: Battlement.

Boozer

Here's two or three replacements that won't fit either: Saher, Desert Hero & Derrylyn. So forget that idea.

Mtoto
Sorry mate,Believe it or not i am only trying to be helpful,As for examples it's evident in ALL that i have been able to look at.

Personally I'm finding the recent posts so cryptic, entangled and permutable that I've forgotten what the **** the respective parties are pretending to be talking about. Can we get one of those bird's eye view recaps as happen in PG Wodehouse so's those on the ground can follow?

So what are you saying then
That last time out betting has nothing to do with VDW?

Boozer
You've brought up a significant point which can be seen as relevent in day to day examples, if it was a primary filter in the VDW examples then thanks for bringing it to the general attention.

Boozer,

in VDW's first example which gives three horses for consideration beacon light, prominent king and mr kildare. Of those three pk the eventual winner had the highest previous sp.

That is not to say that VDW did not give importance to market position.

I think that it was the second given method to "narrow the field and gain winning strip"

Barney
What you say makes sense, but if those horses' previous market positions weren't ahead in the context of the race under discussion, ie sp/class/conditions, what were the overriding decisive factors?

epi,

thats the 50 thousand dollar question

guest says its class and form based on ability ratings.

mtoto says its class and form based on speed related ratings.

johnd says its the correct interpretation and analysis of form.

just what exactly did vdw tell us to do?


consider the three most consistent ratings from the first five or six in the betting forcast.

If you then fail to find 80 - 85 % winners "then evaluate your reading of form"

Okay, epi says it's showing a performance LTO that can be favourably compared with that of the opposition on at least two out of three counts. Barney says?

speed figures are rubbish
OR's are rubbish
Form is rubbish

Mr e d,

Sorry you have lost me, 8 is hardly inconsistent in this field. I thought the idea was to use the consistent horses and/or the 3 lowest ratings if there isn't many consistent horses. i. e Enbalcko.

Alexanda The Great form figures 241 c/rating 7
Battlement form figures 512 c/rating 8
Autumn Glow form figures 214 c/rating 7
Move Off form figures 511 c/rating 7
Butterscotch form figures 144 c/rating 9

Autumn Glow finished 4th in it's last run, beaten 19 lengths hardly inductive to consistent form. So would have been thrown out.

Epiglotis,

All I'm trying to do is show VDW thought consistent form, and the consistency ratings are the same thing. Once you have found the consistent horses these are the ones to concentrate on when making the final analyses. If the c/form way is correct it would be possible to have a horse with the form figures of 001/002 as the horse. I have never seem an example that shows this.


Be Lucky

Barney
I agree with the first 2 but I dont know what the 3rd means, accordingly I can neither agree nor disagree(?)