Mtoto

Just to make sure we are all referring to the same thing, what exactly to you mean by "the first picture"?

Speed Figures

There is a passage in "VDW The Silver Lining" that I had forgot. It is a response from Tony Peach in response to a couple of letters that were submitted in the publication.

"....writes about one of his (VDW) ratings being speed based rating, but in my conversations with VDW I am sure that they were not one of the ratings used, although he would have found nothing wrong in anyone else using them...... The reason time figures prominently in a number of his articles was that Ken Hussey wrote as split second in those days and had many enthusiastic followers and I thought it one of the areas of racing that we ought to have VDW's opinion on."

M.o.M

Fulham.

For me the first picture is the horses to look at for this race. The consistent horses, any, and all consistent horses. If there are only a few, then you take the 3 lowest in the race. As you say some horses are not in the lowest 3, but they are consistent. He even ventured outside the forecast to include consistent horse into the initial picture. After the contenders are studied, then, and only then is the x check (c/form) applied. Think you will find that it covers all examples.

MOM.

I have also seen that statement by Peach. I do wonder how much he really understands about VDW, if in deed he is interested in horse racing at all. Don't you ever wonder why after the opportunity of having a few one to ones with VDW the full facts of the operation, were not explained, and understood? He either didn't understand, or had little or no interest. Maybe he just want's to be a journalist. If speed isn't an integral part of VDW why do so many of the examples (and recent races) work using it? It happens too often to just be a coincidence. Saturday once again proved it for me.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Sorry to press you, but when you say the consistent horses, do you mean the three lowest consistency aggregates within the first 5/6 in the betting and any horses with the same aggregates (or lower) in the field, or do you have a number in mind, ie all horses with consistency aggregates of, say 12 or less? if you specify exactly the qualifying criteria, I'll see if I can find a VDW example not covered by them.

Fulham,

When I say consistent horses I mean horse placed 1,2,3, or 4th in ALL their last 3 runs or winning 2 out of three. With NH a F,P,B or US, etc. would be ignored for the first picture. Then sorted out when studied, out of contention when the mishap occurred would be eliminated. So if you want a number (although I don't work like that) I am happy with 12 or under. I don't use figures of 2-2-6, 7-2-2, 5-5-1, etc. The ONLY time a figure bigger than 12 would be used is if it is in the lowest 3 for the race.

As this is a method rather than a system, I'm happy to include the likes of Philodantes at Goodwood. As there was nothing between the other 4 horses, and none were consistent.

Do you use this 2nd numerical picture favoured by Investor?

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

I know what you are saying if you have every read his "book" SYSTEMETHOD you would know that his exposure to VDW did not rub off on him!

M.o.M

Mtoto
You seem to think i am the only one who uses a second numerical picture,You talk about consistent form that vdw mentioned so many times,He also mentioned a second numerical picture,I quoted the piece to you,You either don't read all of the posts or just by pass the bits you feel have no significance

By the way,Iv'e just watched a horse drift from 9/4 to 9/2,Why on earth it went out like that is beyond me.

Mtoto

Your view on consistency is not, of course, as expressed by VDW, and several of his examples did not meet your "horse placed 1,2,3, or 4th in ALL their last 3 runs or winning 2 out of three" criteria - the earliest being Battlement. Others include Gaffer, Sofronoff, Philodantes, Ascenia, Ekbalco, Bonny Gold, Islay Mist, Yacare, Grannies Pet and, of course, Roushayd.

Many of these would be caught by an "up to 12" rule, but by no means all - eg Ekbalco and Roushayd in addition to Philodantes.

None of this is to deny that very many of VDW's selections had low consistency aggregates - either relatively (in lowest three of first 5/6 in the betting, lowest three in the field, etc) or in numerical terms. But consistency in your terms or as illustrated in the "Narrow the Field" or "Spells it all out" articles has never been a necessary condition of a VDW selection. The ONLY necessary condition I have been able to spot is that the horse must, in VDW's terms, be a form horse.

I'm not sure what second numerical picture Investor uses, so I can't answer that question.

Mtoto
The second picture is evident in ALL the examples from the past iv'e been able to access,And it's no different with the present.

Fulham,

I can only agree with you, but are you missing an important fact? Most if not all the horse you mention are in the lowest 3 if they are not consistent. There are couple there I don't think come from the consistency Method. Roushayd even though he comes from a different method (were I think the first picture is based on improvement) is in fact in the lowest 3. As is Battlement, Ekbalco, Gaffer, and Sofromoff. Bonny Gold may be in the lowest 3 as well, can't read the photo copy very well it is a little blurred. Much is said about relativity, these horses are consistent relative to the opposition.

I have read the passage about consistent form again. I still can't see why it was written if it doesn't mean what it says, and can't see how it can have another meaning. I agree all the selections are form horses, but they are consistent FIRST. If it doesn't work like this why are there no horses with 0-0-1, 0-0-2, etc. They could by c/form horses but they are conspicuous by their absence. The only one I have found, Bonny Gold was not a bet.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

In his letter sub-titled as "A Method Not Rules Needed", VDW referred to Ascenia as a "racing certainty". If you check out that race you'll find exactly what you specified: a horse (in the first six and equals of the Life's betting forecast) not among the three with the lowest consistency aggregates and with form figures 001. (The form figures for Roman Tiffin given on the Life's card are correct. The 0 is for a 7th place. The placing for his third last run is given incorrectly in the Life's form section.)

guest, investor,mtoto,fulham,statajack,all ...investor you stated the 2nd numerical picture is shown to be correct in all of van der wheils examples if this is the case you must be very confident in assesing any given race with this knowledge, could i ask is this down to reading form of the main ability horses,in van der wheils ..class/form letter...he highlighted righthand man as an example,and beau ranger.is this factor...the main ingrediant...in going back in a horse career how far back would you assess?

Grundy
Before i start,Please don't put me in the same mould as the others you mention,I'm still learning.When i say the second numerical picture is evident in all examples,They are of course the ones i can access.To my mind there is DEFINATELY a second picture that needs to be looked at in assesing certain horses chances,And it will point you in the right direction with astonishing accuracy.Vdw said " the permutations are endless " and indeed they are,But once his interpretation of form is understood you can narrow the field quite quickly, And the second picture will sort out the wheat from the chaff.

A good example came tonight in the shape of Pattevellian,The form was rock solid but because of the length of time off the track,I sat and watched it drift from 9/4 to 9/2 and win like it should have,Saying that i couldn't have excluded Mister Sweets,So a book would have been the only option,But there will be others.

Fulham,

Ascenia. I'm afraid the only information I have on this horse is a c/rating of 12. I haven't the relevant copies of the S Life so I can't comment on it further. Except to say is this the only example out of a 100 +? When you have a spare minute would it be possible to show the consistency ratings of the horses with a lower rating? I note there may be a problem with the rating of another horse does this effect the apparent standing of Ascenia? I'm asking because on the face of it this horse fails as a consistent horse (as I understand it). The only way I could justify this as a consistent horse is if the others in the race also have a high rating.

Looking at Ekbalco do you just forgive the 'bad' last run? He must be hard to make a horse in form based on it. Apart from the break, his form seems to be very similar to BL's Dropped twice in class, and then beaten in a race he should have won. With the c/form method I can't work out which race you use to judge if the horse is in form. If the last race is 'forgiven' do you use the 2nd last race, or even the third? I don't understand why BL's last race was the one that makes him out of form, but in this case it is forgiven. I do understand he was using it as a prep race, we trust the trainer to get it right in this case, but not in BL's.

Investor I'm not ignoring you, it's just it takes a long time to use the forum at the moment. I have to admit I'm having serious problems trying to find this second theme that runs through all the examples. I'm not sure how you are doing it without the form books. I am going to try a bit of lateral thinking next, what can you see without them? You haven't the forecast, it can't be anything to do with old ability ratings as you wouldn't know them. Can't be the form figures, as VDW only shows a few in the examples. Anyway not enough to say it runs through all the examples. If I can't work it out, I WILL have to e-mail you!!

Be Lucky

Mtoto
feel free.

Mtoto
Please bear in mind,It's the examples iv'e been able to access,But i would be very surprised if it wasn't evident in the horses i haven't seen the form for.

Mtoto - With all due respect, I think you are over simplifying a comparison between Ekbalco and Beacon Light. Ekbalco had won a similiar class race at the course with a lightweight before carrying a lot more in decent class next time going down by a few lengths. He then had 2 months off the track before coming back in a lower class race with a fair amount of weight. He was never at the races in the race at Doncaster just a short while before the Imperial Cup, yet the form told us he was upto a race such as the one at Sandown.

In Beacon lights case he hadn't won at such a level, yet was race fit in all his last 3 runs when gradually dropping in class finally finishing 2nd to Sea Pigeon at Sandown. The evidence suggested he ran his race there getting in front a fair way out. He was then going back up in class, farther than previously across the sea on a stiff top grade track against horses with form under those conditions.

VDW never expanded on Ekbalco, I believe because he would have been unable to do so without revealing certain tricks of the trade and also getting into hot legal waters. Ironically, Ekbalco was often ridden by a certain jockey who now trains in his own right and often turns out a winner on the back of an apparently poor effort.

Guest,

Thanks for your reply. I am aware I'm over simplifying the comparisons, as I have said I'm happy BL was out classed in the Erin. When I stated that before, I was taken to task by a few members. (who thought he had form in comparable class) However, if a horse isn't required to have proven it's self in the class it is now running in, why isn't it a negative when it has failed in lower company? I can see the difference between a horse being race fit and failing, and one that is having a prep race. Isn't that in it's self open to interpretation causing possible differences about whether a horse is in form or not?

Can I ask again, do you think Lingo would have been a VDW selection? I can see all the pluses for him, but the weight factor in VDW's eyes bothers me. You have pointed out in the passed that a horse hadn't carried that weight in a handicap. If he had been a better price I would have backed him, but would have VDW?

It is obvious by some of your selections you don't think consistency (form figures) is a major factor. Why do you think VDW went to all the trouble of working out the win % for the form figures? Seems a waste of time if he isn't going to use it.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

The consistency ratings of the first six and equals in the Ascenia race, a handicap hurdle, (Life forecast) were:

5/2 - Pride of Tennessee - consistency rating 9,
5/1 - Tay Bridge - 10,
6/1 - Ascenia - 12,
7/1 - Rathdaniel - 10,
8/1 - Calverstown - 21,
10/1 - Roman Tiffin - 11,
10/1 - Jackstones - 24.

Outside these, there was only one horse with a low consistency rating - Little Rooster (7).

You shouldn't assume that Ascenia was a unique example, consistency-wise, eg the Pagan Sun race (another handicap hurdle, Life forecast):

3/1 - Rix Woodcock - 7
4/1 - Steeple Bell - 11
9/2 - Pagan Sun - 23
7/1 - Miss Metro - 12
8/1 - The Nub - 13
10/1 - Court Green - 15.

Mtoto
Could you expand on all the plusses for Lingo,And i would think long and hard about the last paragraph.