NFP,

Have to admit this is not a race I would have looked at. Apart from the low class I don't back horses until they have proven themselves at the discipline. Spectrometer may have won a chase but what did it prove?

Expect I will get shot down but I never mix hurdle ability with chases. I know VDW says use all NH form to assess the a/rating, but does that really make sense? How many top hurdlers get to the top chasing? My ability rating for Spectrometer (chasing) would be very low and wouldn't take hurdle form into account.

For me if you want an example to look at, try Bourgeois in the 7:00 at Thrisk on Monday. He qualifies under the basic method and Roushayd. Consistent, top on ability, dropped in class and improving. The other consistent horse Court Of Appeal is completely out classed.

Be Lucky

JIB/LEE
Despite his breeding and his 10f entries, I have a sneaking suspicion that Kalaman's trainer thinks him better over a sharpish Im and today could be a test for that theory. Be interesting to see where he goes next.

It’s an art on it’s own trying to obtain the best price about your selections!

I don’t like placing bets before the live show because of the reductions incurred with Betfair non-runners. Also, in general, prices tend to contract in the 5 – 10 minutes before the first show, before drifting on opening; so again this is another time when I’m wary of taking a price.

JIB,

With regards to consistency, I’m not so sure that VDW went to the trouble for nothing. I think it was, as he alleged, a method of narrowing down the field in certain types of race. But he also admitted that there are many other ways of doing so.

I think in the types of race that VDW backed in (higher class) the winners were, and still are more consistent than in, for instance, a low class all aged handicap. In the latter type of race I think you’d be far more likely to profit by throwing out the three horses that are most consistent! Improvement to overcome the rise in weights for a few decent runs is far less likely, and so is the ability to put in a string of decent efforts together in the first place. Conditions and trainer placement are what counts more than ever in these types. I believe VDW gave examples of these in his later letters.

He also stated when giving his handicap hurdle selections that “This I trust will convey the notion that what applies to one type of race does not necessarily apply to another…Frequently people opinion authoritatively that it is only through form that winners can be found.

That is a very interesting statement from someone whose methods are believed by some to actually be a tutorial in form study!

I think it is fair to say that no-one with the aid of 5/6 booklets and 20 years worth of past form books will conclusively get to the bottom of his methods, but I’m also of the opinion that there is enough there to make a difference.

JIB,

Unless someone is trying to turn the method into a system, how/why would the 3rd in a banded race be looked on as the same as a 3rd in the Derby? Didn't VDW say many times there had to be a balance of ALL factors?

VDW worked out his consistency % without the aid of RSB. He must have had a good reason for taking the time to do this. The fact that consistent horse STILL perform better than non consistent horses holds good today. I have to admit for a long time I had my doubts about the consistency rating and took little or no interest in it. On checking my records I found this to be a major mistake.

Be Lucky

JIB,

I don't quite understand your reasoning, why do you think he changed his methods? In letter 19 on 3rd of May 79, he mentioned ability for the first time. In this letter he used s/f to judge this ability. So how has HE changed his thinking?

In October 82 he went into detail again showing how he used s/f to assess ability. If too much emphasis is placed on consistency I think it was from others trying to simplify the methods. Consistency is important, but it alone can't make a horse the selection, or even a form horse. Although I don't think with the basic/first method a horse can be a selection without it.

Be Lucky

Interesting question.

I notice JohnD said Roushayd was consistent, not sure where that comes from.

On reading the Roushayd method I can't find a reference to consistency. Roushayd himself wasn't in the 3 lowest for consistency, on form figures. The s/f are used to show improvement, as 27, 27, 67 show.

I must agree many of the horses used as examples were consistent, based on form figures, but this isn't a major factor. The s/f seem to be random, except in ALL cases the last run is the higher than the previous one (few).

Be Lucky

Mtoto - Hi - Welcome back !

I am just looking at his last letter of 1978 and the horses that he mentions.

Celtic Pleasure
Little Nugget
Battlement
Strombolus

Clearly I don't have the Data from that period, but I suspect that you have !

Am I correct in my belief that in each of those races, - there were 3 horses with consistency figures of 5 or below ??

tc

Consistency is an intrinsic part of the basic method, not a quick fix answer to eliminating other horses, nor a tool to form part of a system, but a well thought out and entirely logical first step in the process of applying his method as a whole, and in the sequence he re-iterated many times.
Important enough for him to stress it in his first letter on the subject, for him to spend a great deal of time manually collating and disseminating information on, and to devote some 25% of his 'Spells It All Out' missive to.
There are many on here who claim to understand his method, I have yet to be convinced that there is any one person who even understands that basic first step, and the reasoning behind it.
Mtoto
You may care to have another look at Mine; although the likely winner, both his form figures and the reading of his form show that he is a horse that has been in a position to deliver many times before, and not always come through. Possibly the difference between a reasonable bet and a good thing?

The last parts of the sequence were certainly never "SPELT OUT", and within that part of the sequence I suspect lies the "Missing Link" !!

tc

I find only one horse tomorrow which qualifies under the "basic method" -

That is in the 3:00 Ayr - no 2 Celtic Heroin.

"Subject to Other Considerations " - does apply, and we have to look at the 30l defeat of Oman Gulf in a class A event - to question the selection.

Go on - this is a bet !!

Ta' JIB

Good link !


Often touted "Missing Link" is - What they did in the last 1 or 2 furlongs - ie - did they make a race of it ??

not too dissimilar !! I think !

tc

TC,

I hope I will be glad to be back, we will see.

Re your question. Why do you think that? The short answer is no.

Celtic Pleasure c/r = 5. Next lowest in the first 6 in forecast 13 & 17 also 2 outside forecast of 13 &16
Little Nugget c/r = 8 not in first 6 (was this a VDW selection or just an example)? in forecast lowest three 7, 8, 12
Battlement c/r = 8 lower also in forecast three at 7 and one at 9
Strombolus c/r = 3 (if fall in last race ignored) but not in first 6 in some forecasts. In forecast lowest three 3 (again ignoring last race fall) 5, and 7. Also a 4 outside forecast.

So it is obvious while he was looking for consistent horses there has to be more to it than that. How/why did he make his final selections, some of these horse where not top on his a/rating? Not even top of the consistent horses. The missing link perhaps?

John,

Why (if it is simple) do you think so many have failed to grasp even the basics? For me there is no such thing as a certainty. I look for a reasonable bet at a reasonable price. Mine was just that at 6/1, and he filled the profile I look for. Improving, dropped in class very much the same as Gatwick.

Be Lucky

JIB,

VDW clearly didn’t change his methods in the latter years of writing; with the consistency rating remaining just as important as the day he mentioned it alongside Prominent King. In his article regarding the boxing day of 1986 he wrote:

“I find it inconceivable that anyone using my methods could not have had the eventual winners of both selected races down for consideration. In the principle race, the King George VI Chase, you should have been giving consideration to Forgive ‘N Forget, Desert Orchid and Bolands Cross…Kempton’s other indicated race was the Feltham Novice Chase and those you should have been considering were Cavvies Clown, Master Bob, and Aherlow.

These horses down for consideration were the 3 most consistent in their respective races. That doesn’t mean to say that he disregarded others in the field out of hand, which again is demonstrated throughout his letters and articles by way of example, but unless the horse was consistent he knew, from past research, that the odds were against him.

Improvement via speed figures came the following flat season with Roushayd, however, he also demonstrated using our old friend Desert Orchid from the NH season above that it was a method that worked for both rules, and it was a method that should not be ignored.

The method that relies on consistency as its driving factor is one that selects horses showing an upward curve of form: improvement. Most, but not all, of these examples are going up in class for the prize money. But VDW knew that this would leave him vulnerable to other types of winners, and so it is my understanding, from studying EVERY example he gave, that the Roushayd method was to combat this angle. In this method he isolates another 3 horses for consideration, the 3 that are coming from the highest class. Obviously sometimes they may also be one of the most consistent.

This gave him a way of answering most questions that are asked by any given race, when used in the types of races he suggested. By isolating the 3 most consistent AND the 3 that are coming from the highest class, you are seriously fishing in well-stocked waters. Deciding if there is a good thing amongst them is another story though!

In light of the above, even if you feel the consistency rating is worthless you should now be able to accept that he hadn't changed his method, but instead, published further, necessary elements. He did state later that he was going to advance his methods even further in systematic betting than he acturally did, however was warned against doing so.

The consistency rating isn’t some system of selection; it is just a way of narrowing the field that, given other considerations, including making a note of seemingly inconsistent horses that had shown improvement in higher class, he didn’t back against.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lee,