Dr Fulham,

Thanks for the advice re Betfair. Superior prices isn`t a problem that concerns me at the moment, it`s getting my nags to finish in the first four that`s proving a tad difficult.

I am however, well aware of this threads title.......... do try to resist.

111
.

Nessie

The straight answer is that one didn't know: one made an assessment of the risk, just as VDW did in several instances, including the second ever example he gave us (Rifle Brigade, selected to win, first time out as a 3yo, in a 1.5 mile race, having never previously won over more than one mile). Inevitably, even careful assessments come unstuck sometimes, as with Mamool today. (Personally, I'm not convinced that the trip was the cause of the other horse's defeat.


III

I agree that is a prior problem, but I thought you were doing all right following the Van Der Mail selections, which would certainly have done you well today (a case where the sp was probably better than what was available on Betfair).

Particularly if you followed Guest's 9 selections, which failed to find a winner.

Nessie - It depends on the type of trip. Very few horses will be fully proven at 2m 4f over the flat simply because there are so few races over it, and just a handful each year at group level.

Other trips are different depending on what age group we are talking about and what class. I reckon I made a right rick with Sublimity, not because of just the trip, but the combination of going a long way up in class having beaten nothing really. My mistake though.

With Mamool his form, whatever the trip, was much better class than Mr Dinos. On the day the winner was very good and in hindsight I missed a great even money chance with both horses in the Gold Cup.

Fulham mentions Rifle Brigade, a definite bet by VDW fto at 3 trying a very different trip. Why do you think VDW selected it? I have given my reasons long ago on this thread so try a search for this horse.

If you can see his reasoning then take a look at Yesterday.

The straight answer is, there is no definite answer. It depends on the age,class and distance. VDW just used experience and past trends to back up the usual approach.

JohnD - I think you have got a bit of a nerve given that you have singularly failed to demonstrate your mastering of VDW and even gave an odds on loser on the back of one run today. I messed up today, but your selections haven't even found the crossbar yet!

Guest, above you say that, “The straight answer is, there is no definite answer. It depends on the age,class and distance. VDW just used experience and past trends to back up the usual approach..” And isn’t that exactly what you are doing? I complimented you a long time ago on your ability to read a form book and isn’t this what it all comes down to? I have long maintained that VDW put forward some good ideas but even you must accept that it is when you stand back from these ideas, and use personal experience you have some of your best results. As Fulham pointed out recently, “It's a very bold call to by-pass the first three c/fs and confidently select the fourth as a bet: the mark of real experience.” This can do nothing but confuse the disciples of VDW. Is there anyone who can honestly say that the selections you put up here are ones that VDW, if he were alive today, would have selected? I think that if more people were prepared to move on and admit that things have changed and that although he may provide the foundation for selection it is only through personal experience that a successful route will be found. But anyone remaining blinkered by past results is setting himself up for problems.

What did you mean by "given the nature of the races"?

Jimmy

You are to a large extent right - but only, literally, at the final stage of analysis.

VDW to my mind deployed three methods in the 124 or so named examples he gave us. In all but 12 of them, what is for shorthand referred to as the class/form method; for another six the "Handicap Hurdles" method; and for the final six (which were literally the last six, chronologically), the "Best Bet/Next Best" method. As yet, I have been totally unable to fathom the second of these, and only partly the third, so as regards what follows I am only referring to what, in numerical terms, was his main method - class/form. In this method, VDW had his own, highly idiosyncratic views as to what constituted both "class" and "form".

As regards the former, class, VDW was absolutely explicit as to how he gauged it - through the oft-derided ability rating - and people are free to use it or not as they judge.

As regards the latter, form, VDW not only was not explicit, in my view he was (accidentally or deliberately, I don't know) guarded in the extreme. I suspect that most - certainly including me - assume(d) that his other controversial rating, the consistency aggregate, was how VDW gauged form, as that is a far-from-illogical deduction from his famous "Spells it all out" examples, and indeed from some of his class/form examples (ie the article where he focused upon Wing and a Prayer, Canny Danny and Cool Gin). It is, however, a wrong deduction, and no real progress can be made with VDW's main approach until it is understood that form and consistency were, for VDW, quite different concepts, and one has started to unearth the so-called "missing link", which is the means by which VDW did assess form. (And this can ONLY be done through study BOTH of his letters, articles etc AND the examples he gave. I've been a university teacher (part time) for over 15 years, thus with some experience of what resources are needed for learning, and I am certain that no one, however brilliant, could deduce VDW's "missing link" simply by study of his letters, articles etc. The devil, as so often, is in the detail, and the detail is provided by the examples.)

The "missing link" - the process for assessing in-formness - is not a system, in that AT THE MARGIN different interpretations are possible and we cannot be absolutely sure what VDW's would have been. And this is hinted at in VDW's article of 26/1/1985 where he wrote "to isolate the "class/form" horse can often prove a tricky problem". But when the essentials are understood, the scope for differences which remain after errors are eliminated is tiny. I am currently working my way through all the examples of class/form horses that Guest has posted over the last 15 months or so, and have some way to go to complete. But at present there are just three, out of probably two hundred plus, where we have reached different conclusions, and as with Youlneverwalkalone at this year's Cheltenham Festival, Guest and I are perfectly well aware of the tiny area of form about which we reached opposite conclusions. Which way VDW would have come down is both unknowable and, in a sense, neither here nor there. Much more important is the high degree of correspondence flowing from an understanding of the way VDW worked, though I accept that it may seem odd when, as yesterday, we end up with different c/fs in the same race. At the margin, the judgement is a tricky one and sadly getting the right result in terms of the more successful horse on the day is no guarantee that, methodologically speaking, the right judgement was made.

In sum thus far, for most of the examples he gave us (90%) VDW used one core method, part of which requires considerable research in order to identify it. Those who have identified it will almost always reach the same conclusions as regards the class/form horses in a race, but in a small percentage of cases there will be differences in judgements for which it is my present belief that the VDW examples do not offer a definitive answer as to what VDW's call would have been.

Then comes the final stage, where there is much more need for skill and experience in reading the Form Book. Isolating the class/form horses is one thing - one could say it was a skilled technical matter. Deciding which to back, and how to back them (win only, EW, in books, etc) are also important questions, and here there are differences attributable to skill and experience and, I think, disposition.

If we take the race that Nayef won on Wednesday, anyone half competent as regards understanding VDW's class/form approach could not have failed to have Moon Ballad as the c/f. But, as has been pointed out many times, both by VDW and on this thread, that does not make the horse an automatic bet. As VDW said in his "Spells is all out" article (immediately after the table of data about the race where Little Owl was the selection), once the initial stages have been completed, "it is necessary to study the form of all concerned ...."

It is here where the men are sorted from the boys. I would be willing to bet that almost everyone who to a greater or lesser extent understands class/form approach would have thought Moon Ballad a solid c/f, well worth backing at the right price. That was my conclusion, it was Investors, and on other publicly accessible boards it was the conclusion of others. As far as I know, only Guest had the skill and experience to go deeper into the form, and to have the confidence in his skill and experience not just to see Nayef as the likely winner but as a selection to be backed.

As to disposition, Guest's posts over the last 15 months or so makes it clear that, although he has had some decent priced single bets (of which Nayef was the latest, Birjand and Smirk come immediately to mind), he tends to back shorter-priced horses in conditions races and books in the big handicaps, and uses a progressive staking plan to deal with losing runs. By contrast, my horror of losing runs and experience that I do very much better in handicaps (where it is my belief that the form is better established and more stable) leads me to back EW, usually just one horse but sometimes two (and then usually separate, level stakes EW bets, or the 2nd backed merely to recover the stake on the main preference, rather than a book in VDW's sense). Different "roads", certainly, but both to Rome!

Racing has certainly changed since VDW first wrote, and we have much more information almost instantly available than he did. But his core analysis of racing - that it is a matter of class and form - remains valid, as does his approach. Time and time again in the more valuable handicaps such as the four I've posted about during the first three days of Royal Ascot, which in the main are the races I focus upon, the top class/form horses win or are placed at decent prices.

[This message was edited by Fulham on June 20, 2003 at 06:48 AM.]

Epiglotis

Simply that I tend to bet to lower stakes in large field, highly competitive handicaps such as in the main we are seeing at Royal Ascot, where there are usually several form horses and clear suspicions that others, not ostensibly form horses from a VDW perspective, have been "laid out" for the races in question, than I do in, for example, much simpler races (such as those won by La Landiere on 25 January and Bonus on 10 May).

Thanks for the reply. I'm not on the Post at the moment so I'll look at your races for comparison later, the point that stikes me is that you have several times said that the races that you concentrate on are large field valuable handicaps, if you find these so complex that you feel it best to limit your stakes I wonder how you avoid concluding that you are creating unnecessary difficulties for yourself by your choice of race.

Epiglotis

The higher class races are best because the form tends to be more established and reliable and because one can reasonably assume that all the runners in whom one is interested are trying. Sadly, on many occasions this means, for handicaps, large fields and in VDW terms reasonably competitive races, and the "nuisance" factor is a worry. More prudent, in my view, to back moderately in such races than in what are, by comparison, shoe-ins. But there is, as demonstrated with the last at Ascot yesterday, no reason completely to disregard the larger field races. (Though maybe one would if there was a La Landiere type race every couple of days.)

I see.

Thanks for the answrs.
a bit of a worry though.

At the end of it all Guest says Vdw is all down to readign form and personal opinion of what it means. that is after you have 2 or 3 selections in he race to chose from.. = ?

the words garden and path come to mind.

Johnd
No disrespect to you has we have our own interpretations (to a degree), But if you could not see the danger signs in Russian Valour's form then like i said in a post yesterday you were taking a big gamble.

Jimmy - Having just read your post along with Fulham's, I have to say that yes, I agree with a lot of what you have said. However, if I think back to days before I used VDWs methodical approach, I can see that like most daily punters, I attacked a race from all sorts of angles at whim almost. Perhaps I had backed one of the runners last time, perhaps one of them look impressive last time, or even it was a high profile loser/winner according to the press and tv. All haphazard and totally useless in the long run.

By being methodical along the lines VDW set out I can now very quickly narrow my field of vision. Yesterday was a classic case of old ways poking their heads through in my evaluation of the 5.30 race where I decided, like others, that the draw would inhibit the class/form horses. The result was a real slap in the face as one of the class horses defied the stats and won at big odds.

Conversely, in the Hunt Cup, the class/form horse Macadamia won at 8/1 unbacked by me, but supported by other VDW followers. The reason I left it was because it was a filly, otherwise it had very good credentials.

With Nayef, the class/form approach was not ignored but used to a different effect, but if punters kept records then they might have come to the same conclusion. Someone once described punters as butterflies, leaping from one conclusion to another race to race. How many backed Nayef back in March only to switch to Moon Ballad on Wednesday?

So, yes, the final conclusion is down to experience gained from following VDWs signposts. He did say as much himself though. Without his articles, I doubt I would have got on the right road (and there's still plenty way to go). I'd probably still be running round in circles on the day's big race trying to find the winner, instead of looking for a horse with a winner's attributes.

Guest, Fulham, well done!! You have managed to get your army across the water without getting their feet wet!

Unlike many on this thread, it is my view that VDW was a logical person with commonsense views on racing. That he honed this logic to the point where he was able to sort out the wheat from the chaff is generally accepted on this thread. How he did it is the big question?
In the Gold Cup yesterday, I, along with most of the rest of the country, had it down to the first 2 in the betting. I didn't bet, because it appeared a guess as to which would stay the distance better. In hindsight, that is not the case.
Reading through the form again, using nothing but the simple and logical processes he openly illustrated, Mr Dinos had met Mamool once before over this course, over 2m, run at a slowish pace, in a gp3 race. The form read respectively;

Mamool.....LED 3 OUT, KICKED CLEAR 1 OUT, HELD ON TOWARDS FINISH.

Mr Dinos...UNABLE TO QUICKEN WELL OVER 1 OUT, STAYED ON AgAIN FINAL FURL., CLOSING AT FINISH.

Since that race M had 3 more races, all over shorter, culminating in his best perfomance, over York's sharper 14f, a gp2 run at a good pace, where he was hard ridden and stayed on well to lead near the finish.
Conversely, Mr D.had had 2 races, the first over 2m at Longchamp in heavy ground, a gp1, run at a modest pace, where he made all and ran on well.
His next run was over Sandown's stiff 2m, a gp2 run at a decent pace, where he led 2 out, and was pushed out to beat inferior opposition.
It is my firm view, (Once again, in hindsight), that had VDW studied this race, he would himself have used consistency, class, etc, to sort out the 2 principals, but would have made his final selection, Mr Dinos, on the grounds of capability, not using any 'missing links', or ' idiosyncratic form reading', but the simple tools he gifted us in SIAO, and that Mr Dinos would have been a GENUINE VDW SELECTION, simply on the probability of one staying better than the other.
A similar case, using the same skills, could have been made out for New Seeker, in the last, and although the draw once again proved contentious, this, once again, (Except when the course had been unevenly watered), proved to be more in the heads of the jockeys than factual.

Johnd
That is all well and good,Maybe you should spend more time looking at the selections that YOU consider good things,And take them to pieces instead of trying to make the horse that guest/Fulham thought would win Look like a no hoper.

4 cells, you`re leading with your chin again.

lll
Johnd has made it perfectly clear that he has no regard for the way Fulham/Guest percieve the methods,And to me it came across as nothing but a dig.If the post had have been before the race then there's no problem,But it wasn't he said himself that it was hindsight.