Forget it then.

Barney
There's nothing to spit out,I didn't consider Nysean an odds on shot in the race today,If you backed it,Well done i'm not too worried as you know there'll be plenty more oppurtunities at better prices.

Statajack - Are you referring to 3 most consistent from the forecast combined with top 4 ability or the same combined with handicap/form ratings ?

If the latter, then what ratings are you using because Skycab featured poorly on postmarks adjusted set?

Besides, as has been pointed out on numerous ocassions, the bets VDW gave as examples using the consistency method were not all among the top 4 ability ratings. He also said it was not essential to have two different sets of ratings to give a further guide.

investor,

I am still wondering about other horses that have shown form in much better class.

Statajack
What are you basing skycab on,Recent form or a few years ago.

Barney
I probably worded that wrong,What i basically mean't was other horses had won in better class.

Thanks for all the replies,it is good to see the forum being used intelligently,and positively in the main.

Swish,has it not occurred to you,that all vdw's selections were given post race,yet many people learned a lot from them,myself included.I hope that if only one person from the thread,looks at some of those horses named by myself and others they might also learn something.I myself am learning all the time.

After a considerable amount of time,analysing a day's racing,I don't feel a need to rush to the forum and put up my thoughts.I analyse each bet like Guest suggested post race as well,and if I feel inclined,and if I think there is a benefit to somebody,I will post up.Of the three races I mentioned yesterday,I said not all were wagered on,and after today's subsequent postings,it wouldn't take a rocket scientist,to figure out which one was not taken.

Everything I have learned about vdw has been post race,it matters not.You say what is the point of posting post race,I say what is the point of posting pre race.Indeed last year,I did put up some pre race selections,that won,but I don't recall much feedback.

I am a modest person by nature,why would I feel a need to show off,I am not that shallow,but in the spirit of the forum,no offence taken.

On occassions I have missed many vdw type selections,I find it useful if members point out,what they think are selections,I can then if I wish,look at those races myself,and perhaps learn something.I find in the main,it is very helpful.

Pipedreamer
They have been my thoughts all along aswell,And like you i learn't from them,And am still learning.But unfortunately not everybody wants it that way,You can please some people some of the time,But not all people all of the time.

Socrates

In the betting shop.

Guest

Is it not too early in the season to be finding Roushayd type selections? Most horses have only had a single run, other than those engaged in All Weather racing.

My thinking was that the Roushayd method particularly looked at current season work, and I am now looking for Colisay to be upped in class again, produce a good run, and then be dropped in class to collect.

OK, Colisay was dropped in class and had produced his best Topspeed figure on his only run this season, when upped in class from his final race last season, but at least 4 other horses had higher ability ratings, two of which (including the winner) were also being dropped in class. The winners 20th out of 25 in the Spring Cup at Newbury hardly indicated it was likely to win on Saturday, and of the others The Judge and Dayglow Dancer could not be thought of as 'in form'. I had Passing Glance as a possible winner, but not strong enough to bet, having been beaten a length by Duke Of Modena last year, and not really a miler.

I did consider the winner and Passing Glance in a book, but resisted because I could see Colisay overturning that.

I would say it is the 'hard work' that was missing.

Arrowson - The number of seasonal appearances does not play any great part in the Roushayd method. If Roushayd had run at Epsom FTO and shown the same form, then he would still have been a good bet next time in the ONC.

In yesterdays race, there were higher rated on ability but were they "form" horses? In my view the answer was no. Colisay was a form horse and the class/form horse. He was also being dropped a long way in actual race class.

As you noted he showed improvement via speed figure last time when raised in class FTO, but note his last 3 races were all handicaps. This means the weight carried has to be carefully considered. And whilst he had won at Newmarket with 9-7, he had since gone down at Windsor with 9lb less in class 73 albeit narrowly. The form suggested he had improved since then but carrying less weight. So whilst he looked by far the most likely winner, he didn't have all the right lights on to make him a good bet in my view.

In the end the highest rated on ability bounced back to form in the race he won last year.

The improvement via speed/class factor needs far more consideration than just class of race coupled with speed increase, as I have long maintained. Again I say, carefully consider just how VDW demonstrated FORM CLASS EVALUATION. He did so in a particular way for a very good reason.

Guest

Thanks for your reply. I will look at seasonal re-appearances in a different light in future.

Fulham
As you addressed the recent list of top six by ability rating to me and in light of your subsequent explanatory note I take it that the demonstration attempted to answer a previous criticism of mine about your class/form horses performing no better than a random sample would be expected to. On this occasion also I will accept your choice of which were the form horses and I agree that they performed as one would hope class/form horses should, the problem is that this isn't typical behaviour of class/form horses, in fact already in a later post you said to Statajack that horses worth considering are found outside the numerical picture. This again raises the question "what is the point of this numerical picture?" if one then has to look through all the runners anyway? As Mtoto has repeatedly said the numerical picture gives us the likely winners after which we can concentrate on the probables and ignore the improbables, that is it's function yet here you are telling Statajack that the numerical picture, (the defining basis of VDW methodology), is unreliable. My suggestion to you is that rather than ignoring the implications of your discovery or considering it to be an epiphenomenon you attempt to figure out what constitutes the difference between Saturday's race in which the numerical picture functioned correctly and those other races in which the numerical picture was unreliable to the point of irrelevence. In short produce a functional definition of the VDW race that will remove the hit and miss nature of random application.

Swish
Some of these are a little old, sorry about that. I had my reasons for offering these particular selections but if you want me to confine myself to more recent ones I'll post some others.
Jan 17 W 4:00 Prideway
Feb 11 S 3:50 River Ness
Feb 17 W 1:10 White Plains
Feb 22 L 2:10 Parasol
Feb 22 H 3:10 Joey Tribbiani
Feb 25 C 2:55 Risky Way
Mar 14 F 3:40 Dick Turpin
Apr 1 N 2:45 Clarinch Claymore
Apr 2 L 4:30 Hot Shots
Apr 9 W 2:35 Ziggy Zen

Epiglotis

The reason I drew your attention to the Gold Cup was that I thought I remembered (but perhaps I've mis-remembered) a recent exchange between you and Guest in which your position had been if the c/f approach is so good, surely if the c/f wins, the 2nd c/f should come 2nd, etc. Although this doesn't happen all the time, in several races last week things worked out quite well (eg Broadway Score/Goblet of Fire, Lingo/Danelor were two examples where a couple from, arguably, the first two or three c/fs finished 1st and 2nd) and Saturday's race arguably had the first three c/fs finishing in order.

As regards the numerical picture, I wouldn't characterise it as unreliable: merely that it doesn't always draw attention to the most likely winner. As a screening device, it has much to commend it, but especially for the races I favour (the more valuable handicaps which often have large fields) I happen to think that the procedure I've demonstrated (which focuses on what I take to be the crux of VDW's approach) is better.

Okay, I remember the post that you're refering to. It wasn't about class/form horses but about Dutching bets, that if one cant decide which of two horses will win the race and accordingly one backs them both then these horses should fill the first and second places, if they do not then the selection procedure should be reviewed.

Epiglotis

If I'm right that it was a discussion with Guest, it was about class/form horses!

In regards to some earlier posts.

"The Class in which they run, and the Class in which they compete"

Saturday saw Tillerman and Indian Creek win their respective races. "Taking into account the above statement" could have brought one to a conclusion on these races.

These were very weak Group Race renewals and together with the race conditions of the respective races and the positive jockey bookings, the trainers were in my view telling us their intentions.

Comparing the other runners in both races, it could be seen that the Class in which most were running, they could not possibly hope to compete.



Psst. Got a minute guv? Wanna buy a Horse Racing system. Know what I mean, know what I mean?.

[This message was edited by raffingora on April 28, 2003 at 10:08 AM.]

Fulham,

Interesting point about the numerical picture. A question if I may, surely this is what makes a VDW selection? If a horse doesn't figure in the first picture, shouldn't the race be discarded, because of conflict? Can you show me an example were VDW has taken a horse at hasn't been consistent, or if so not in the lowest 3 for consistency? (Not counting Mr e d's first example, were none of the horses were particularly consistent)

Guest,

After your last post about weight in handicaps, could you say if you think Lingo is a selection VDW would have made? If it is/was which method is it applicable to?

Be Lucky

Investor,
In short I looked at both. I noted that the trainer had previously gone for this race with the horse.

Guest,
Ratings used were LTO Postmark (or last completed run PM figure) and the Daily Mirror's spotform. One to give recent form and one to give overall form. Thats just a personal thing though, any 2 ratings are just as good. If I'd used best postmark Random Harvest would also have qualified for a look in the Durham National.

Mtoto,
I'm convinced that VDW made a numerical picture for all his bets, whatever method was used, with the possible exception of the best/next best. If nothing comes from the numerical picture it is considerably more likely that a race will fall to an outsider.
regards,