Why do people feel the need to come or go on here there are members whov`e been on for ages but will stay the distance, determined you have my admiration.

Handicap races and in formness,

The more I read on here ( in the cases of Dumaran and Ld Protector ) for example the establishment of in formness cannot be just the last 3 runs but is it possibly how they have performed previously in the past over the conditions they are faced with on the day in question ???????

Any comments would as usual be welcome.


BONUS,

His recorded speed figure last time certainly signalled a major improvement and was in hindsight clearly the best performance of the 3 principles.

The way he won certainly confirmed that and he is yet another horse who has well and truely marked his card.

Walter,

I`ll be here as long as it takes and one day I will be able to stand alongside the many on here who I respect.

Anyone who wants to succeed at this difficult pastime could do no worse then review and keep reviewing this thread as the advice, etc on here is the best.

That doesn`t take anything away from all those contributors on Gummy`s other thread`s because I`m sure many of them are doing very well their way.

Determined
Absolutely spot on.R.e Lord protector.

No it certainly does`nt take anything away from anyone determined but WHY do they want to leave us? after all they want to help?.

[This message was edited by walter pigeon on May 11, 2003 at 06:33 PM.]

7.15 Windsor on Monday

Interesting runner here Kings Ironbridge

Craven winner in 2001, but has now slipped to
an O.R of 95.

Running over 7f at the moment but really wants
a mile.

16/4/03 showed some good form, staying on.

30/4/03 slow start and not put in the race,
stayed on again late.

Runs over a mile on Monday in this listed race
at obvously a big forecast price.

I think the horse is being lined up for a decent crack at a high value handicap over a mile, so i doubt tomorrow will be the day but you never know.

One to take a close look at either way.

Investor,

Thanks.

Determined,

The consistency is judged by the last three runs, if it is consistent, AND has the form (at any time) it is looked at. Surely in formness must come from within the last three runs, I would have thought it has to be from the last run? That is why I'm not happy with the c/form method.

If a horse is consistent even when conditions are against it, isn't it in form? i.e. it has run well all things considered. Why if we are going to cherry pick did VDW show the win % for the form figures? There may well be a method were the conditions are studied, but I haven't seen it.

If a horse has just recorded a s/f higher than recently achieved there can be no doubt the horse is in form. With the other main method the first filter is CONSISTENCY, does anyone else agree on this or am I alone?

Investor,

I have just spent the last hour or so looking at Lord Protector. Consistent must mean something different to you than me. Looking at his recent form his 3rd at Newmarket is his best run. He comes out 11 days later, in a weaker race, he is made favourite and fails. I expect you will point to the weight as an excuse, I will say he carried that weight in the same class, and ran his best race up till the Newmarket race. He then goes back to Newmarket, down in class carrying the same weight 8:12, ground conditions and distance are right, beaten. This horse doesn't run 2 races the same, he has run well on all types of courses, going, and class. The only consistent thing about him is his lack of consistency! I know you won't agree, but you are going to have to give me a clue. If VDW didn't forgive Gaye Chance he would never have backed this.

Be Lucky

Nessie,

Thanks for all the work you put in posting your analyses.

I can assure you that even though people don’t respond , it doesn’t mean they’re not interested

I’d noted your posts ,but a combination of a slow processor speed (that’s my brain by the way , not my computer),the large number of posts on various subjects that interest me and sometimes trying to keep an eye on an 19 month old son who’s developed a fascination for anything that’s plugged into the mains, means that I often don’t have enough time to give enough thought to matters that interest me.

Andrew,

Your post about Kings Ironbridge put me in mind of a horse many years ago called Sir Peter Davies. I seem to remember Channel 4 constantly making some play every time the horse ran, on why the horse was named that way. Perhaps it secured them the best seats at the restaurant that the human Sir Peter Davies owned or maybe it was the nobility connection, I don’t know, but at least it brought it to my attention.At one point Sir Peter was ante post favourite for the Derby as I remember but ended up running in and winning a hcp at Sandown ( if memory serves me right)..That is some sort of class drop. I only saw it on T.V. but the horse looked magnificent both in physique and going to post and was heavily backed and duly won.I can remember that horse going to post as if it was yesterday, although memory can play tricks on us at times, but strangely I couldn’t remember what I did at work a couple of days ago.I think it was that extreme a situation that it’s always stuck in my mind.

All the best.

Mtoto

For what it's worth, I too find it impossible to view Lord Protector's last three runs as consistent.

But do keep in mind that, unlike the overwhelming majority of the examples VDW gave us, LP was not a single selection for the race in question, but part of a four horse book. It must, surely follow that Guest was less confident about LP (or any of the four) winning than VDW was about those of his selections he either stated, or it may reasonably be inferred, that he backed.

In that sense, although one can perhaps get a sense of why LP was included in the book, it seems to me rather like VDW's Windbreak example (one found by his Handicap Hurdle method). Far from easy to fathom, but something for the long Winter evenings in 200X, when one is sure one has mastered VDW's main approach. (Just wish I knew what year X will be.)

Incidentally, I'm all but certain you are wrong about Son of Love being part of a book. Both the words VDW uses when referring to Son of Love, and my own study of the race, lead me to the conclusion that SOL was a clear, single selection (and bet).

Mtoto
Being consistent is one thing,having consistent form is something else,It's getting very near to e.mail time Mtoto but i don't think you'd like what i have to say,As always you can keep going round in circles,that's up to you,If your'e happy the way things are then you carry on,if you want a nudge let me know.

MTOTO,

I accept that the consistency rating is based on the last 3 runs but the task of identifying whether a horse is consistent for a particular race can on occasion be more than the basic consistency rating ????

On the subject of consistency and conditions I have just come across 2 quotes from the thread, ie -

- when everything lines up in support of the class/form horse using the consistency method it is time to get your betting boots on

- the obvious point is that these races were h`caps; a very relevant one with regard to how we evaluate form associated with the respective races run; there maybe higher rated ability horses in the field but were they in form and were they capable of performing under the prevailing conditions. Remember, consistency is not form. The consistency part though provides us with the probables.

Mtoto, I agree with your 2 points about the improved S/F and a consistent horse despite the conditions.

1979 St Leger - a race I would like to stay with but not right now as I have other priorities.

investor,...you mentioned bonus..as a selection class/form horse..did you use the speed figure merit rating as suggested by guest to select this horse.. can you adapt raceforms speed figures for this method?
mtoto,..could you contact me thanks

Investor,

Could you show me the article were VDW made the distinction between the consistency and consistent form? I except a consistent horse is not enough without the form, but I think he is saying the form without the consistency isn't enough.

Determined,

I think both quotes are relevant, I just think to much is being read into them. The first to me means WHEN the c/form horse is CONSISTENT.

The second is saying consistency without the form isn't enough. Plus, check the conditions. track, distance, going, etc.

I don't think this consistent for this races applies, either the horse is consistent, or it isn't. It has run into the places in it's 3 runs, or in the 3 lowest c/ratings if it hasn't. Isn't that what consistent means?

Oh Guest, Philodantes had a c/rating of 15, but it was in the lowest 3. I had made a mistake Palemon finished 6th and last in his race giving him a rating of 17.

Be Lucky

How can anything be irrelevent to this nonsense from these idiots?

did vdw ever gaive any details on sorting out a card for the flat?

Ie in the same way he did for the jumps

or are all races in the pot?

Mtoto
i can only guide you to page 56 of the golden years,And his reply to F Chester.

Barney

I've always assumed that the advice given in the "Spells it all out" article (within the section sub-headed "First Five in Betting") was meant to apply to both codes. True, VDW mentions not using "a novice hurdle full of nondescript animals", which is obviously NH-orientated, but the logic behind the essence of his advice - stick to the higher value races - seems equally applicable to both codes.

[This message was edited by Fulham on May 12, 2003 at 08:20 AM.]

Congratulations on your recent successes.
Mtoto, did you recieve my email address?

Fulham,

Thanks

ps

If only windbreaker was as easy as lord protector