In short, one to watch as no matter who may turn out to have the best form subjectively, the various ratings give contradictory messages.

Guest
I trust the staking plan,was shown in good light again this week.

Well
I got it right in some regards but then comes a no hoper from the clouds to beat Bollin Eric & Zindabad.Not even the great one could have selected that.I still maintain that BE would have won comfortably given juice in the ground, and to my mind if you look at thr action he has 2nd in this race was fantastic given his overtly round action & 5lb Gp1 penalty.I must admit though 2f out I thought Zindabad was going to hose in and was roaring "go on my son" at the telly.Only the one winner today at a poor price.Cover Up.
I had a £30 double on Cover Up & Airwave but have to say the Aussie must be some horse, as Airwave never left his race in the stalls, although slowly away.It will be interesting to see how he does if he comes over here with typical British weather conditions.

Bio - The withdrawn horse ruined the price on Cover Up as did the very late withdrawal in lirfoxs' race.

Interesting that the sprint was won by the class/form horse. Short priced favs who are not the class/form horse are a punters graveyard, though the filly ran very well in the end.

Always another day though.

Guest
Very much a day for the layers yesterday.
We got the word yesterday fo La Vie est belle in the 7.10 @ Warwick and were counting our winnings when we got nailed in the last stride.As you say always another day.

Guest,

I have no doubt at all that your knowledge of horse racing and indeed your knowledge of the VDW examples surpass most that frequent these threads, and whilst you have made a profit from the selections that you’ve posted surely you must see, given your strike rate, that your implementation of the method has to be questioned?

Granted, you have said that you’ve not posted up all horses that you’ve backed and therefore the real picture could look wholly different. For all I know it could be much better, or perhaps much worse, but it would be my guess that the selections that you’ve posted are a pretty good guide to that bigger picture.

My main problem is that in the past you’ve shot people down who have questioned your integrity, or the methods value by stating that unless one is achieving an 80% strike rate they indeed should be questioning themselves?

My questioning is not of your knowledge of VDW, but perhaps your implementation of it, form what I’ve seen of course.

I thought JohnD, although in hindsight, put up an excellent case for Mr Dinos overturning Mamool. I’m fully aware that the form against Warrsan was superior to that of Pole Star etc, however you seem unable to accept that he may have got it right on this occasion. At the end of the day Mr Dinos could have done no more first time out, could he? Yes the likes of Nayef were good picks, however, I can’t help thinking to myself that had Nayef finished down the field, like Mamool and others, you would have come back with one excuse or another.

VDW stated that once we grasped what he was saying we would all have the same horses? I’m not sure that we’d have the same horses as yourself, even if you went to lengths to spell out exactly how you saw things.

Chaz

Guest will no doubt respond to your post, but it has prompted the following thoughts in my mind.

If we accept that VDW really did have one or more methodologies that he applied consistently (which is my position), then it follows that finding the same horses as he would have done (and thereby achieving the kind of strike rate VDW said was possible) requires two things.

First, a proper understanding of the methodology (or methodologies), and second an ability to implement them to the same standard as VDW. (If VDW had had a system, then of course only the first of the two would have been necessary - a proper understanding of the system - because the system itself would have thrown up the selections with no "user" judgement required.)

Assuming - as I do - that Guest has a very good understanding of at least the main VDW methodology (class/form), then a falling short in terms of strike rate (assuming VDW's claim in this regard was genuine) has two possible causes:

1) making errors in the application of the method. The method (assuming I understand it more or less correctly) is complex: how, for example, are horses like Pearlstone and Patrick's Fair in the Desert Hero race NOT viewed as form horses? Mistakes in technique can and do creep in: Guest has owned up to a few, the last as recently as Thursday with the overlooking of Fantastic Love as a form horse (indeed the 2nd c/f) in the 4.20 at Royal Ascot. We all make errors of this kind from time to time, partly because of the complexity of the method and partly because, when discussing races before the "offs" we are necessarily working under some pressure;

2) making errors of judgement when deciding which form horses (usually but not always the class/form horses) to back, and which to leave. And in this context it is worth recalling that VDW said that he backed only a fraction of the horses he regarded as probable winners.

To the extent that those who do have an adequate understanding of the methodology (or methodologies) fall short in terms of strike rate, my guess would be that it is largely, though not exclusively, in the second area - the area of judging which form horses to back. VDW did give us some pointers here - general pointers in, for example, the second paragraph under the Little Owl table in the "Spells it all out" article, and specific pointers, for example by drawing particular attention to Stray Shot and Zamandra among the Boxing Day 1984 six. But it seems to me that this aspect is much harder to master than the methodology for identifying the "form" horses, and that is hard enough.

In sum, I see mastering at least one of what I currently believe to be three methodologies (class/form, Handicap Hurdles and "Best Bet/Next Best") as a necessary but not sufficient condition for selecting the horses VDW would be selecting, and in so doing achieving an 80+% strike rate. Guest and others have cleared this first hurdle - understanding the methodology - and are therefore on the right course. Getting as far as VDW, though, means ironing out those errors in the application of the methodology that we all make, and improving judgement in the selection of which form horses to back. And I know no one who has an adequate understanding of the methodology who is hitting the 80+% strike rate over a sustained period, though all have purple patches and (like Guest over the last week on the "80%" thread), the opposite.

Fulham,

Perhaps if one is making errors of judgment then a proper understanding of the method hasn’t been gained.

It was the birth of Epi’s 80% thread that prompted me to post. Obviously an 80% strike rate is not impossible, however, it would be extremely difficult to maintain. And at the end of the day, is it really important?

As you say, Guest will speak for himself, but in the meantime I’d like to say that it is my view that VDW painted an unrealistic ‘glossy’ picture. With the inclusion of selections such as Desert Hero and many others that were struck at very high odds surely you must at some stage or other doubt that an 80% strike rate is attainable. He made mention ‘the method I gave produces 85 –90% winners flat and jumps', however, later stated that 'many pro’s were put out of business with the introduction of betting tax', and that we should realise that betting on the outcome of races is ‘not that easy and not that profitable’. This is surely a contradiction don’t you think?

JIB

As far as I know, the only "evidence" that an 80+% strike rate is possible is in VDW's assertion to that effect. Tony Peach, who seems to have been just about the only one who had direct contact with VDW, may have seen firm evidence, but if he has I don't think he has written to that effect.

Focusing as I do on the higher class handicaps, I doubt that sustaining an 80+% strike rate on a single horse, backed to win only, basis, is possible. But I am very hopeful of sustaining an 80+% strike rate in terms of profitable races (ie races where a profit is made by backing EW, as I nearly always do, or more than one horse in a race).


Chaz

I fear that you have either missed, or are uninclined to accept, the distinction I made between system and method. With a system, all that is needed is an understanding of the rules: the selections are the automatic product of those rules (which can be as simple as "always back the Post's forecast second favourite in fields of five - all those following such a system accurately would have exactly the same bets, no judgement being needed). With a method (as VDW used the term) there are "rules" to be discovered, but selections are not automatic. In the "Spells it all out" examples, for instance, the "rules", when properly understood, get one to the same five c/fs VDW identified, but it is judgement as to how "solid" each c/f is, in the light of the considerations in the second paragraph after the Little Owl table, that enables one to discriminate between Little Owl and Sunset Cristo on one hand (bets) and Gaye Chance, Kenlis and Wild Gamble on the other (c/fs VDW judged were better left). This last element, sorting out the c/fs (and sometimes other form horses) is NOT susceptible to the formulation of rules (otherwise the whole would be a system) but relies on the development of good judgement.

[This message was edited by Fulham on June 22, 2003 at 11:19 PM.]

Perhaps someone would like to dig out the exact quote but from memory the gist of what was written is: if you are not consistently achieving 80%+ then you should reassess your form reading. Fulham in particular should notice those two words "form reading". There's also a strange remark in one of Fulham's above posts, "beacause, when discussing races before the "offs" we are necessarily working under some pressure", I think it's not difficult to realise that in order to make money from backing horses the selector has to decide before the off. No wonder Johnd talks about the history channel.

Chaz - I have already agreed that, in hindsight, the Gold Cup was a question of backing both horses. Yes, Mr Dinos could only beat what he had in front of him, but he had been running better over further in general than Mamool. However, a lot of JohnDs reasoning was on the Queens Vase at Ascot over 2m last year wher Mr Dinos was left for dead round the bend and then got within a head at the line as Mamool either tired or idled. Most horses can only quicken once or twice in a good race and appear to be folding near the finish when often they are only idling. Also, that race was when they were 3 and stayers especially often make big improvements as they get older, which both horses had clearly done according to the form book.

As to the main gist of your post, there is little I can say other than to continue with Epi's 80% thread. I would say though, as is often the case on this thread, it's one rule for some and one for others. You are taking JohnDs word for it that Mr Dinos was a clear selection, though he didn't mention it beforehand. Strange then that all of his selections on the 80% thread have been beaten out of sight, save one odds on second I think. This is the same man who says I have got it all wrong and he knows the real VDW story.

Epi - Here is the exact quote from VDW.

"It has been expressed in these pages that many punters look for far too many bets and I will repeat something I myself quoted, temperament plays a big part in sorting out the winners and losers. You don't HAVE to bet but using this elementary method your field of vision will be restricted to a narrow area full of potential and if you fail to achieve a minimum of 80% success evaluate your reading of form. There are many other ways of doing the same thing and also they can be used to confirm findings from this method. If readers are interested, I will be glad to submit to these page for discussion."

And an earlier quote from his reply to the mysterious G.Hall.

"The method I gave produces 85% to 90% winners Flat and jumps, year in year out. I know that during the NH season there can be long waits just as we have had until January 20. The only 'good thing' Love From Verona won 12/1. There are of course, days during the Flat when nothing can be found and there is no point in trying to find what is not there."

Thanks for posting those quotes. A couple of weeks ago Boozer proposed a discussion on the boxing day class/form selections but has been informed by Fulham that reasoned discussion is impossible for those members without access to the relevent ability ratings, if you have these ratings in a conveniently postable form may I politely request that for the general benefit and that this discussion can be restarted you do the members the service of posting them.

Epi - I think, rather than being awkward, Fulham was merely hinting that there is more to it than just listing the ratings for those Boxing Day races. I'm happy to list them, but for anyone to go further they are going to need form books for the period. It would be a huge task to set out all the relevant info for the races involved. The presentation would no doubt reveal more than I am prepared to do. My position hasn't changed on this front. I have given clues as to my overall thinking on the approach, but there is no way I am going to lay it out for all to see, regardless of how useful or not people think it would be.

So I'll endeavour to list the ratings for the Boxing Day races, but I don't see how useful they will be without recourse to the form other than to confirm the points advantage VDW indicated (except Bonny Gold for reasons already known).

Guest
Thanks for the reply. If you think that without the form books the discussion can not proceed, I'll trust your judgement. Thanks for offering to post the ability ratings, if you prefer let's see what Boozer or anybody else feels about the desirability or otherwise of posting them before going further.

Hi all,
How about the Pegwell Bay race or Nomadic Ways race as the form for both these is available on the RP. site?
Then everyone would have the form and be able to draw their own conclusions.
See you soon, Mike.

Mickeddy
Can you post the dates and times for these races, I think it could be interesting if those who dont use VDW ideas were to look at them before reading VDW's remarks on them.

Fayr Jag/Ratio

How will the ability rating for these be calculated?

Ostensibly a £58,000 race to the winner, both received £40,000.

When looking at the form of other horses in the race in the future, will Atlantic Viking, Pic Up Sticks and Kathology be considered to have been dropped in class from 580 to 400?


Any guidance would be appreciated.

Hi all,
Epiglotis,
Pegwell Bay race 12th November 1988 2-10 Cheltenham
Nomadic Way race 15 October 1988 Newmarket 4-10
See you soon, Mike.