I'm asking specifically about "high class" races, the medium within which VDW literature suggests winners are best guaranteed. From an earlier post: If he fails the horse will have to spend about two years running down the field in hcps before he manages to hide its quality and can race against beatable opposition

Not neccesarily so EP
When they have shown their hand, rather than waste the preparation, they can always take a consolation race
Hopefully before the Handicapper has time re-assess
A bit like channon did with Budelli last year
all done in the space of 10 days on the blind side of the handicapper
Which is where I was supposed to step in but didnt

I still dont see how that ties in with the idea that trainsers run horses in high class races with no intention of winning. (The quote in my earlier post was from a post of JiB's.)

Your point is a valid one.
As far as I am concerned High class races are a minefield.
As I have said before
Surely nobody is daft enough to think that only one trainer is going for a big prize,
where money is involved there is usually no quarter given.
Everybody wants to win the big race
Only one can win but the place money can also be substantial
Even so the above = a Competitive event.
Better to wait for the failures that perform and "show" in the big race,then hopefully collect if the trainer places the horse in lower class

Only my opinion
But a logical way to operate as far as I am concerned

Boozer: I quite agree that this is a point of logic on which VDW appears to fall short. If, as is being implied over the last few pages, placing by the trainer is integral to the VDW method one again requires a reason for races such as the Derby and Grand National(!) figuring in the examples. A trainer can assess their horses' abilities by testing them at the extremes but it's only when horses exposed at the extremes compete with each other within those extremes that proven ability can be compared.

EP

Vdw wasnt Daft

He did cover himself I do believe in one instance with the quote
"There are trainers and trainers"
Hmm

No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong
Which wouldnt be the first time

Just as many horses will be trying to win a high class event, only one of them can/will.

Whilst the trainers of each of 5 horses know their horse is fit and placed to perfection and they think it can beat the other four, they dont know that, and never will, before the race. (Unless they have deliberately been hiding something).

The winner is easy to place in the future but the four others arent because the trainers now know they were wrong about their animals. Depending on what the trainer feels he got wrong he will want/need to experiment in the future before the horse can be once again placed to win.

As there are far more losers than winners it seems fair to imagine that in any high class race, as in the lower class ones, there are a number of horses (including those with good recent form) who are primarily there to be studied.

JiB: Are you suggesting that a VDW selection must not have been beaten in a lower class than it's latest win and that the race under consideration must itself be of lower class? (leaving aside for the moment the question of what constitutes class of race).

Jib

Exactly

Getting ready now for pontefract tonight
Will only probably have one bet that fits the description of a Dropped in class Horse

8-05 tranquil sky

Nothing much to get excited about and if its less than 2/1 wont bother

Epi,

As I’ve said before, the method that revolves around consistency sees the majority of his selections going up in class for the prize. But obviously not all horses that are going up in class/prize money are capable of winning, and not just because they don’t have class.

Quest For Fame, the Derby example, was another that VDW would have been following carefully, but it is in this example that he really drives home the importance of a horse being capable of the distance, particularly in the highest of class.

It is no coincidence that Derby winners are normally highly consistent, are lightly raced at 2, and will generally win their final prep over at least 1m2 in a recognised trial. It’s ok having class but it’s another thing showing it at the required distance.

A good 2m4 horse may be a contender for the national but a high class miler will not stay the Derby.

Lee: Do you find the Derby a comparitively easy race to solve?

Epi,

I wouldn't say that! But it is normally very easy to slim down to a few horses. Most winners have normally put up an impressive run at 1m2 or more, quickening/running on showing that distance will not be a problem.

Sorry, comparitively, I don't find it a problem.

Okay, thanks for the various replies.

Lists of Horses


VDWs next contribution was on May 3 when he discussed the subject of making a
list of horses. May 1979

Letter 19 - LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP IN

CONSIDERABLE interest is apparently shown regarding lists of horses to follow.
Methodmaker has often given advice in his column and the idea has a great deal to
commend it. The first problem is how to select the right horses and readers may care to
check the following before diving in at the deep end.



The price when a win comes along needs to be reasonable and to go a long way
towards achieving this I suggest restricting selections to good handicappers. Note those
which had two form placings in their last two outings in the previous season with one
win i.e., 21, 31, 12, 13, e.c., and also at least two wins over the period. If they run
into a place, preferably second, first time out, check their previous best performance.
Any reliable method will do although many will find Split Seconds' figures more
convenient. The important thing is to establish proven ability and here a previous speed
figure of 80 plus, 'hould give a reasonable base. Now check the running in the present
race and judge prospects for the future.

Because I usually take an extended holiday in spring or early summer I do not make
a list for the Flat.

In my view it is a mistake to select a whole string of horses when half-a-dozen
carefully selected animals will do the trick. A recent contributor pointed out that a small fortune had been made following one horse and it is an aspect that readers could
consider with profit. If your points are 5 or 10 you do not expect to make a fortune from
half-a-dozen horses and the same goes for a hundred at 25p.

I selected six for the National Hunt season which returned many times the national
average annual wage. Needless to say, when a win has resulted the horse is deleted. As a precaution, readers may care to consider following selected animals in pairs, grouping
them in such a way that the possibility of them both running in the same race is
avoided.

In conclusion, I expect those who adopted the method I gave previously had a good
start to the Flat with Fair Season in the Lincoln.

C.Van der Wheil, Market Harborough

PEACH-NOTE: Once again VDW places emphasis on not trying to do the
impossible. 'In my view it is a mistake to select a whole string of horses when
half-a-dozen carefully selected animals will do the trick'.

And a nice little tip that I have not seen before, about grouping the list of horses
in pairs, so that the 'possibility of them both running in the same race is avoided'.
END NOTE

20

Lee & others,

While I agree some of the selections for the basic/consistency method are going up in class. I don't think there are many that have not shown they can perform in the class they are now being asked to in the race in question. Those that are being asked the question seem to be in races where they are against other none proven horse, or out of form or non consistent horses. As in all cases there are the exceptions but I can only find 2 that I can't explain to my satisfaction.

I can't see the problem with the high class races. A good consistent, in form horse is more likely to run to his profile than not. If that profile is properly constructed with logic, and a GOOD a/rating the punter has a good chance of sorting out the horses with the best chance. Even in top races there are horses that are on missions, there can be many reasons for this. Trying the distance against better class horses, confirming the trainers doubts, return after injury. etc. I can't find the article but I think it says only a few are trying to win the race, not sure if this is true in the better class races. I am sure in most of these races only a few are capable of winning trying or not.

I can see by following a list it can help trying to understand how a trainer is thinking. At times I do wonder if to much faith is put into the trainers ideas. I would rather believe in what the form books says than what the trainer thinks may happen. Time and time again I read this horse has been laid out for this or that race. Often a quick look at the form book shows the trainer is tilting at windmills. The main reason I look at trainers is to see if the stable is in form. For me the main factor is the horse, and what it has achieved and where.

Think Boozer is correct in saying many good bets can be found if a horse returns quickly after a very good run. The problem with that is if the horse was placed the price often isn't value. I prefer the horse that is just outside the placing 4/5/6th, but ran it's best race. Then dropped in class, or in the same class.

Be Lucky

Okay, but it's possible that a suitable concept of race class might tend to nuetralise such considerations.

Jib - Glad to see you are doing your homework !!

Can't find that letter,( have you a ref No) -

but in 1987 he recomends a 3 YO list - based on horses which recorded 70 or more over a minimum dist of 7 furlongs.

He then lists 13 horses which qualify !

Will copy and past this tomorrow. (Ultimate Wheil of Fortune)




tc

JIB,

You missed a very important requirement off with these 2 year olds, they were not on the list if they had won a race.

Also they are not followed until they have shown a reason to back them. They are also eliminated from the list after they have won when they were selections.

Be Lucky