some more good things

barrow drive
moscow flyer
back in front

I wouldn't be at all suprised if Speed Cop didn't beat Olivia Grace at bath today,I won't be playing but i feel this horse is way overpriced at the price quoted in the r/p and certainly has the credentials to win the race.

It appears that there is a script error problem with this forum I have contacted Infopop Support and I am waiting for their reply.

Gummy

Fulham,

I don't know if we are at cross purposes, I only expect the horses from the consistency method to be consistent. Pagan Sun, could be from the handicap hurdlers (I can't find it at the moment) If the main criteria for this method is for example, horses returning to a course were it ran it's best race, etc. That would be the first picture, then the c/form formula is applied.

Thinking about it, the c/form element could/maybe the missing link. It does tie all the methods together! Even if it is, it doesn't mean the conventional ability rating is the only one that works.

Re, the question about the second numerical picture. Maybe the question should have been, do you use one? Do you find it necessary, or are all your selections based on the first?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I think there is a definitional problem here. I may of course be wrong, but I don't recall VDW using the term "consistency method", and I have never tried to classify the 124 selections I have listed from his writings by method: I've simply got them in chronological order from Prominent King to Killeshin, and try to create an increasingly detailed taxonomy of their characteristics as well, of course, as a race-by-race assessment of how each selection was arrived at.

As to numeric pictures, my current procedure involves three stages, with numerics part of each:

first stage: sorting out an ability ranking: a simple listing of runners in ability-rating order, highest first;

second stage: the assessment of in-formness: bringing together the appropriate numerical and other data and making the assessments;

third stage: assessing the form horses from the perspective of capability: this always involves further numeric data, eg if I'm dealing with an early/mid season 3yo race the unadjusted sf-based ability rating VDW showed us in his article "A Word About Evaluation" (10/10/81).

Fulham.

An interesting post, why do you think VDW referred to statements like ANOTHER method? The way you are working seems to be working for you, but it rather implies there is only one method. I call the main/first method the consistency method because consistency appears to be the first/main criteria.

Can I ask did you work the 01 Whitbread? If so did you make Ad Hoc the selection? I ask because as you know a well respected VDWer made Ad Hoc the selection using the Roushayd method. What's Up Boys had a higher ability rating, and there is no doubt both were in form. So how can you pick up these horses from a different method, if you don't check for them, by bringing the relevant factors into play?

Did you analyse the Lord Protector race? If so did you use the speed/merit method or stick to the conventional ability method? How/when is the decision made to change the approach?

This is addressed to Fulham, but I would welcome comments from anyone.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

It is a question of level of abstraction. Yes, VDW referred to more than one method, but at depth are they different? I haven't sussed the "Best Bet/Next Bet" method yet, but from what Guest has posted class and form are at its core. For the rest, it seems to me that VDW always backed the c/f if strong enough, or sometimes another form horse (eg Swiss Maid rather than Cistus). The obvious thing to me therefore seems to be to go for the jugular, sort out the c/f and 2nd and 3rd c/fs, and then see if a bet emerges after the capability evaluation.

Frankly I can't remember if I evaluated the 2001 Whitbread at the time, but I have looked at it since given the posting on the Meth. Group board which, with the poster's permission, I posted here some weeks ago. It seems clear enough to me, the choice of Ad Hoc turning on the form assessment.

As regards Lord Protector, I didn't analyse that race at the time, but I'm hoping the relevant Racing Post is even now in the post to me among a bundle of others from a friend whose wife is pressuring him to junk over a year's stock. If it is, I shall soon have a look at the race. Given that it was a very late season 3yo race, I would expect the basic ability racing to suffice, though things would be different if among the form horses were some with barely any runs to their credit. I may be wrong, however, but I seem to remember Guest picked LP as part of a book, possibly by his interpretation of the "Best Bet/Next Best" method. If so, it may well not emerge as a potential selection for me, as that interpretation, as I understand it, is designed to unearth hidden potential rather than clear form and is not something I yet understand.

Mtoto and Fulham,

Thanks.

Some very interesting posts there about the consistency rating and other points.

I seem to remember that F.Chester made the point about VDW’s cons. ratings directing attention to the races with the most exposed form. Having found such a race you have ,presumably , to analyse the principle contenders. To me this is where the cons rating can mislead ,as can any rating, because you have to look at the class, manner and conditions in which they have been produced.

VDW was far too logical to take those cons figs at face value and now I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t have had all bases covered ( apart from the nuisance factor that Fulhams mentioned).I think a horse with figures 000 could well have come under scrutiny.It depends on what the horse has done.The fact that VDW seemed very wary of Ibn Bey in one of the Roushayd examples has always stuck in my mind.Any horse can only be as consistent as the race entry and/or conditions it faces allow it to be.


It’s interesting, for me at least,that F.Chesters mentions exposed form early on in Golden Years but ,if memory serves me right , VDW doesn’t specifically mention exposed/hidden form till much later at the end of SystematicBetting,I think

Cheers..

Mtoto
I fairly sure that if Ad Hoc had fallen into any of the methods for the 2001 Whitbread the horse would have been found using the best/Next best method and not roushayd.

I`m fairly sure that if Ad Hoc had fallen......he wouldn`t have won (rocket science).

Try to buck up you lot there`s some new blood interested in VDW not who`s got the biggest dick.

Bream,

I'm not for one moment suggesting ANYTHING is taken at face value. I'm only asking why did VDU go to the trouble of working out the win % for individual form figures? You say VDU would have studied a horse with the figures 000, he did. and they have a strike rate of 2% He also points out a horse with these figures that is the class horse in the race (that won) He said it didn't happen often enough to make backing them worth while. The consistent horses are used to narrow the field, when that has been done, the real work begins.

Maybe the example of the 01 Whitbread wasn't a good one. I have asked before how can Routed be a form horse in the NOC, the conventional way? He was beaten 9 lengths, and not doing much if anything in the last 2f. I'm happy he is the class horse but c/form? I don't think I would have selected him, working the same way as Fulham.

The fact that my initial process is slightly different to Fulham's and even Guest's (at times) doesn't change the fact we often come up with the same horses. Guest will take on shorter prices than Fulham, and maybe I am just greedy, I want bigger prices than Fulham.

Understand you are having the same problems with the forum. It's good exercise for the right wrist if it doesn't wear out the mouse.

Investor.

I can't comment on this other method, as I don't understand it. I'm happy he was the selection using the Roushayd method, as I selected him using it. Now I'm using the consistency method as well, I'm also happy What's Up Boy's would have been eliminated using VDW logic. Although I don't agree he would have been the selection had Ad Hoc not have run.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
I'm confused my friend,Ad hoc's races prior to the 2001 whitbread were in classes 310,460,600 and the race you mention was 720, how can this be a roushayd the horse is still going up in class,Also the last 2 s/f's were 145 and 106 the latter being is last run,Sorry mate not a roushayd.

Mtoto - In my view, Lingo would have been left by VDW, though I'm sure he would have seen him as by far the most likely winner.

Why are you looking only towards Roushayds last run in a higher class handicap with a big weight as the run that shows his form?

Recently I said In Contrast was a good example of the Roushayd method, yet IC was well beaten in the Champion Hurdle, but did improve in it. In fact he was well behind Westender from the same race.

I think you have also misunderstood my comment a while ago about the amount of horses studied in any one race evaluation. I don't give a full study to every horse in the race, but the full study I undertake can involve more than the number of runners in that race. Those aware of further pictures in the process will know exactly what I mean by that.

Investor,

VDW gave an example of a horse going up in class, and he was a Roushayd horse. As for the s/f you quote have you noticed Ad Hoc was awarded a s/f even when he fell in a race? I wouldn't trust Top Speed's figures as far as I could throw them. In saying that the new chap is not too bad. I made his s/f a little better in the Scottish National (his best ever) The RFU figures made it also his joint best ever. Have you read Fulham's post about this race? He copied it from another forum (with permission) it was written by an acknowledged expert. Who am I to disagree with him, and VDW?

Guest,

Roushayd, You've lost me now. VDW says his last run was an improvement, so it must be the form used for the c/form method. His wins the year before established his class, his form that year wasn't up to much until the Epsom run. Were else can you go to make him a form horse?

Re the horses to study in a race. I can't use the search at the moment, but I thought I had shown I understood perfectly which horse you study in a race. For me the doubt is why the need? If the ability rating did the job, it would show up any deficiencies in the form.

Thanks for the answer about Lingo, was it the weight?

Be Lucky

Mtoto
which horse do you speak of,Going up in class.

Mtoto
You have said before about the consistency ratings in an earlier post,Words to the effect of why would he put them if they weren't to be used.In that case why would he say this

" i trust readers have grasped what has been portrayed,A combination of Class speed figure and improved performance,All of these horses showed improvement in higher class,Which was noted by their speed figure,Before visiting the winners enclosure when next dropped in class."

I'm sorry mtoto but that is not roushayd,You say you wouldn't trust topspeed but i'm pretty sure they wouldn't be that far out.

Barney,
Wouldn't it be great if you could learn how to type in the actual racecourse and times of your selections, so we could all see how they did.
(I do mean see how they did, NOT back them).
Anyway I have managed to find 2 of them.
W4-11 and fell, whilst in lead.
Can't find other one.
How did it do?
Swish

Pipedreamer,

quote:

---

it wouldn't take a rocket scientist,to figure out which one was not taken.

---

I am sure you are a modest person, and mean no harm to anyone. Neither do I, but what the hell does your quote mean?
DOES IT MEAN YOU DID NOT BACK A LOSER? SORRY I CAN'T READ MINDS,
Swish

Swish,

I put those up because certain individuals take umberage when a race or winning selection is discussed after the event, after-timing etc..

I provided 5 horses which I thought were good things, before the event, so that interested paties could discuss pre - off if desired.

Obviously no one was interested, particularly no one who moans about after time discussion.

I will not put anymore up before, I will discuss afterwards from where most benefit is gained.

The other horse beat itself as well.

[This message was edited by Barney on April 30, 2003 at 06:29 AM.]

I've had a look at 8 races today, most were dismissed fairly swiftly.

Here's a brief summary

Exeter 3.05
Prince Sorinieres(58) is top on Ability - won a moderate race at Taunton and this is a bit of a step up - poor runs before that.
Imperial De Thaix (52) - out of form
Banjo Hill(50) - all out to win a lesser event last time, has more to find, probably wouldn't want any more rain.

Ascot 2.40 2m 290 Group 3

There's no solid Group 3 or better form to point to. The principals are all looking to step up on previous form.

Ascot 5.00 1m 120 Conditions Stakes

All the top Ability horses have poor Consistency figures.Demonstrate is most likely of those with decent Consistency, but has yet to prove himself at the distance.

Kelso 6.50 2m 2f 67 Handicap Hurdle

Ability ratings (Top 6 rated from 41 to 30) suggest a tight race. Mister Chisum is form 111, but mkes quite a step up in class.

Kelso 7.25 3m 1f 81 Handicap Chase

Quarterstaff has a clear edge on Ability, the rating being gained on breaking his maiden last time, but was all out to win a race with top rated on a mark of 7lbs less than this one. Hallyard's Gael has an inflated ABility rating thanks to a £10000 prize in a walkover last time. Won well enough in a 4-runner novice previously, but found out in slightly bettter novice before that. The latter may be good enough, but I couldn't be sure enough.

Punchestown 3.50 3m 1f 960 chase

There are more questions than answers in this race. Will Beef Or Salmon run? Can he shake off his fall last time? Will First Gold repeat his excellent Aintree run? If he did he would be tough to beat. Native Upmanship is not as good over this far. Harbour Pilot and Hussard Collonges have shown form below the level required to win this. They both have a bit to find.

Punchestown 4.25 3m 1f 558 novice handicap chase

A big field for this event, but to my mind the race contains the one horse today worth a serious look.
KADOUN, although not top on Ability (Thari is top but was a lucky winner of a valuable race last time) is rated 2nd. Won well enough over 3m last time, keeping on, and has been very consistent.

I'd be interested to read the thoughts of others, particularly regarding Kadoun

Rob