Barney

re Lingo, initially I agreed with you, and having checked around after the race the general feeling among colleagues seems to be that, while he was the most likely winner, there were sufficient undotted eyes or uncrossed Ts to mean he should be left, or alternatively he was a goodish thing but the price was too low for a bet. And certainly not one of my friends backed him.

But reviewing the race in the light of the various comments Investor has made, I can't help feeling that this was an unduly conservative approach. Hence my post race comment that I thought Investor had analysed the situation better than me (and perhaps my friends) and had struck a realistic bet.

After all, as Investor has shown, the trainer's intention was readable, and Lingo's chances were unmistakably signalled in the market which should certainly be considered in the case of a notorious betting stable like the Ramsdens'. The horse's capability to win that level of race, over that distance and on that idiosyncratic course, were beyond argument. The only real issue was the strength of the opposition.

For me, there were really only three other plausibles, with only a squeak of a case to be made for a fourth (Northside Lodge).

Dumaran, whether or not technically the c/f, was unsuited by the going as Mtoto pointed out. An unlikely winner under the circumstances on the day;

Faithful Warrior. On the evidence, a form horse with a real chance, BUT inferior to Lingo on the ability rating, and with an undeniable question mark re distance. As with Lingo, the market suggested he would be in with a decent shout, given that Hills is every bit as much as a gambler as the Ramsdens;

Danelor. As per Faithful Warrior BUT with the added point, again made by Mtoto, that with him it wasn't a question of whether or not the distance would be OK, he'd actually tried it four times already and never made the frame.

On what seems to me to be the material evidence, summarised above, it is quite difficult to see why anything should have beaten Lingo, with the possible exception of Faithful Warrior.

We know that VDW did not back every horse he thought was the probable winner. But how do we assess whether or not to back in a given situation? Here we had a horse which was the probable winner, available at 5/2 or thereabouts, with arguably only one clear (but lower ability-rated) rival. Even allowing for the intrinsic "nuisance" risk in any race, I think that in these circumstances the probable winner succeeds often enough to make the bet realistic, hence my comment to Investor.

More generally, while VDW was explicit that "no element of a gamble should be allowed to creep in", we must not, I think, interpret that to mean risk can be avoided. There is always risk in any race (at the very least, what I think of as the nuisance factor), and we know from his examples that VDW accepted risk re his selections. Thus, for example, in 1978 Rifle Brigade, was backed to win first time out over 1m 4, having never raced beyond a mile; ten years later the famous Roushayd was backed to win carrying 9.10, nine pounds more than he had previously succeeded with. The answer surely lies in another of VDW's sayings, appraising the odds and not going against them. Obviously we don't know how he'd have appraised the odds in the case of this year's City and Suburban, but in the light of reflection on the evidence I think your view, while most certainly arguable, is far from certainly correct.

FULHAM,

An excellent post as usual.

"The trainers intention`s were readable"

Not being clever but I e mailed a colleague on the day of Lingo`s Ponty run advising him to watch this horse very carefully as in my opinion the plan was the Epsom race.

I was clearly thinking on the same lines as the bus driver in this case yet I still didn`t play.

Yet another that got away.

That`s racing !

Determined

You and me both. But with VDW's approach there is an endless shoal, thank goodness.

J. Pickering,

Just spoken to the chap. He no longer deals in the old Chaseform / Raceform annuals.


All,

If anybody can lay their hands on an 82/83 Chaseform annual I`d be very interested.

Thanks,

Speed and offical ratings are only "rubbish" to the extent that I dont use them at all, that doesn't mean they are useless.

Barney
Last year you named some horse that came in at something like 9-1, I think it's name began with S or C and I also think it was on the last day at Royal Ascot, anyway in a few posts after that you reminded your readers about that horse, so there was the suspicion that this was the first time that you'd backed a long-priced winner or that you'd been successful with your concept of VDW, in the same vein recently Fulham has difficulty knocking out a post without mentioning Spirit Leader, he even wants to show his bookmaker's account to Johnd like one of those guys in the shops who insist on thrusting their slip in your face when they've found the winner. I dont know when Royal Ascot is but I guess it's at least 8 months ago and in this sense you were at least 8 months ahead of Fulham.

Fulham,

as usual a balanced post, of course each can only take from vdw what they have found, and I have found "so far" dont back them. there are lots of situations as you rightly point out where we will never know what VDW would have done.

Missing a winner is neither here nor there at the end of the day, its about missing losers.

determined,

I have had a catalogue off J.pickering this morning and he is showing 2 "timeform hurdlers and chasers 82-83"

Fulham
I am glad you haven't fallen into the trap,of conventional form reading.In regard to Adiemus/Parasol,the point I was trying to make,was had the races occurred in reverse,how many would have touted Adiemus as a good thing,on that basis,and SP would have been much shorter too.

Anybody look at Highland Shot on Wednesday at Epsom 5.15?

I hope nobody minds if I post these post race thoughts,on todays racing.Of the races I looked at,to my mind the following were vdw types,but not all were wagered on.
Desert Deer,Tillerman,and Holy Orders(in a book)at Navan,(I wouldn't be surprised if Guest was on the Navan winner.I only looked at certain races so there were probably other bets to be had.

Pipedreamer
from my view point Hit's only money and seebald were good bets.Deano's Beeno was too short in my eyes only just beaten,But the horse that beat him was fully entitled to do so,But the race was left.

EPIGLOTIS
Ok you don't use speed figs or OR's in deciding on a selection.
It would be extremely interesting to know how many winners you found that were not in top 3 OR's or top 3 speed figs.
I reckon that the vast majority of your losers were such.
However we shall never know.
Do you keep records of all your bets?
Cheers
Swish

Barney,

quote:

---

Missing a winner is neither here nor there at the end of the day, its about missing losers

---

.
No it is not.
It is neither of those things.
It's about getting enough winners to make money and not dropping enough winners to stop that happening.
If anyone can can tell me that , after a losing run, they fancied a 10-1 shot but dropped it and watched it win, is not affected is either a liar or is only messing with the game.
Swish

Further to the above
If you have £20000 in the bank and bet £100 a bet, it will, be slightly annoying that you dropped a 10-1 winner.
However if you only have £1000 in the bank and missed a 10-1 winner you would be gutted!.
It all depends on circumstances, and how much it means to each individual.

Pipedreamer
With all due respect,
What is the point of saying these were winners or not after the event?
I continued this thread from someone else , but not with the intention of naming horses after the event like you and most of the rest do.
WHAT IS THE POINT?
Is it some sort of secret club, where you have already told each other? And you are all showing off?
No wonder people get annoyed like JIB and Jimmy and JohnD. It goes on and on and on.
Is it like that brilliant programme JACKASS where everybody laughs their head off at everyones expense?
Investor
Of course you know now that DEANOS BEANO was a loser and SEEBALD was a winner.
Why can't you say that before hand then?
Have you got no guts?

I will have a look at how many were in the top 3 official ratings, as I dont record the speed figures I won't be checking that.

Around 10 years ago I had £10 on a horse called LUKS AKURA which won at 50-1
Also GREY DESIRE which won at 25-1.
Also SLAUGHT SON which won @25-1 and 2 years later SLAUGHT SON again when it won @50-1.
I wonder if I had read VDW then, I might have left them alone and not been bothered that they went in!!!!!

Epiglotis
Well then give me a list of your winners and losers and |I shall tell you whether they had a high speed fig or not

I'll stick some on here tomorrow, does 10 sound reasonable? They won't all have been bets but they'll definitely be horses that I felt should win.

Epiglotis
Yeah
Go ahead