johnd

he didn't use Prominent King as a springboard to Dutching !

He used the consistency ratings as a spring board !!!

To argue otherwise implies that letter 13 is a complete waste of space !!!

Why else do you think he wrote it ???

Guest/Fallon - 2nd race

Well a second win didn't happen so it looks like "SAW" was the right option !

However the winner was nowhere near the top 3 in the consistency ratings, with a figure of 21 !

sooooo ????

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnd:
Garstonf
I do not have a database, so I cannot check the percentages, but, with the criteria he gave, I would be very surprised, instinctively or logically, if your figures are correct.
Tc
In his Prominent King example, VDW showed how he eliminated every contender but one. How that can be used as a springboard to dutching is beyond me.
Epi
You must, by now,know these quotes almost as well as I . However, one more time, for old times sake:

"What a lot of punters don't seem to appreciate is that in any race the majority of horses are not there to win,but to prepare them to win.
In most cases, irrespective of how many runners there are, only one, two, or maybe three, are really candidates for consideration".

That is still as true today as when VDW wrote it.
A few weeks ago, I wrote, "From the first 6 in the betting, Barolo was the only horse at the races". For those with enough interest, they could look at that race and figure out why.

---

johnd
At that time there was nothing like the intrusion on connections intentions like ther is now, cameras everywhere.I side with JIB on this one, trainers have to do other things to cover their tracks.

johnd


[QUOTE"What a lot of punters don't seem to appreciate is that in any race the majority of horses are not there to win,but to prepare them to win.
In most cases, irrespective of how many runners there are, only one, two, or maybe three, are really candidates for consideration".] [/QUOTE]



johnd -- if so -- then why not "Dutch" them ????

If anybody on here could show me a filter that traps 80% winners in 3
Then I would be over the moon

Can anybody do it?

John D,

It’s no good cherry picking the bits of VDW’s work that suit you. He wrote much including that the methods by which he found Travado and Rivage Bleu were “quite different to anything he had shown to date”.

Did you employ the same method to select Barolo as you did Haafd for the St james Palace Stakes, and North Light the Irish Derby?

Johnd et al: VDW advice is to select in high class races so that we know our selection will be trying to win, we know this because all the horses are trying to win. Presumably the higher the class of race the more it costs to run the horse, what are horses running in, for example the Derby, being prepared for? If it was as simple as you're suggesting it would amount to a "furthest travellers" type system.

Below is a chart of the races I have evaluated this flat season. The figures do not include N.H races.

2004 FLAT RACES WINNER FROM
MONTH EVALUATED 3 MOST CONS
MAR 8 2 25%
APR 29 9 31%
MAY 59 39 66%
JUN 57 37 65%

As you can see the figures improve as the season reaches its height. I would expect July and August to follow in the same vein with the figures dropping away as the season draws to a close.

When I researched into this 12 years ago I took a sample from May to September, which gave 56%, but the races may not have all been as VDW recommended. The races in the chart above are basically as VDW recommended, but I only evaluate races at class C and above. Also from the beginning of June, I gave up evaluating sprint races.
There are 5 meetings tomorrow and it would take too much time for me to compile the data for the 5 races as I use the method. The only race I have evaluated is the 8,10 at Kempton. The 3 most consistent are Penrith, Tannoor and James Caird but speed and form figures show Shamrock City to be out in front.

Many thanks to Biotechnology for doubting my percentages and forcing me to check the figures.

Tc
Letter 13 contained 2 'good things' and 4 'outstanding bets'. Again, hardly the springboard to dutching.

BT
There are any number of things a trainer does to hide a horses true form, the vast majority wouldn't show on any camera. There are also a number of things the camera, and the form book, does pick up, but few ever notice them.
Lee
No cherry picking, I will leave that to those who need a number of different methods to make their understanding fit. Just a consistent and methodical approach that applies to all the examples I have checked.
That does of course include the 6 Rivage Blue examples where VDW did say, ( referring to ' anyone who knows the game could go racing with the certainty of winning'), "This is done quite differently to anything I have shown to date" w3hich tells us that he hadn't shown everything, but doesn't tell us that the basic method was different. I can be fairly certain it isn't.
Yes I did use the same method for North Light and Haafhd, and as I don't need to change my approach to fit the results, I have the double luxury of living with my winners, and learning from my losers.

John,

Thanks for that - I hope the learning process makes things even clearer for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garstonf:
Many thanks to Biotechnology for doubting my percentages and forcing me to check the figures.

---

Gf
Sorry to correct you but I believe it was Johnd who doubted your figures.I would not have questioned them as consistency figs mean very little to me valuewise.
Bio

IMHO
I dont think that the finest minds in the world could work out VDW, no one to my mind ever has & in this day & age never will as to me racing has changed too much.I remember the first race I evaluated using it(VDW) it was a H'cap hurdle race at Newbury & my selection won easily @ 5/1, however over the years & more so lately, I just dont even try any longer.The key is even harder than trying to find the "Holy Grail" IMO.Best of luck anyone trying, but there is just too much contradicting information.Enjoy the posts though.
Bio

BT,

I have to agree with you, the amount of form analysis that is available at the touch of a few buttons is unbelievable when compared to what was on offer 20 years ago.

Similarly veterinary science can now tell a trainer when his animal has reached a level of good health sufficient for him to be placed to win without it becoming obvious from his form.

Obviously many many things are the same as ever, and are probably eternally vital, but they no longer allow the punter to make headway against the bookie, firstly because other unknowns have now become as important as the ageold known concepts and secondly the same technical developements allow the layers to react quickly enough to eliminate any chance of value to the punter.

Its no coincidence that the most profitable threads on this forum all involve the study of old form and v low SRs.

If lists to follow werent necessarilly the most profitable strategy 20 years ago, they have much improved with todays pentium powered markets.

Epi
It would be wrong to assume that all Derby runners are really out to win. From this years race, the first 4 apart, there was possibly 1 horse that had any pretensions on class, form, or distance.
Gatwick was supplemented at great cost, yet had no chance on the above criteria, nor did his training programme suggest that he was being trained for the race. 4th place wouldn't have done any harm to his value, though.

Garstonf
It is generally accepted that the first 6 in the betting forecast produce around 83% winners. I think I am correct in saying that the first 3 in the betting produce around 50% winners.
Even given a mid-season peak,and without any other considerations, it is difficult to see why March and April figures should be so unrepresentative of the above statistics.

John
I would concede that training methods have improved enough that more trainers can now get a horse fit without racing. They still need to race the horse to establish its class, optimum distance, course and going preferences, and when it is at its peak, and even the very top trainers still train their horses on the racecourse.
It is also arguable that computers have levelled the playing field between bookies and punters somewhat, and not the reverse.

Johnd: I'm quite happy with the idea that only a few horses in a given race have, ignoring incalculables, the ability to win but that is quite different from having the intention to win. Frankly I dont believe that most horses are not attempting to win and I also dont believe that most horses in most of their runs are having their abilities "hidden" by their trainers. If the latter were actually the case it would be unusual to have a winner from among the market leaders.

Looking at Garston's stats of the consistency figures, the results seem to emphasise the fact that current form is better than previous season form even with bare placings

Didnt VDW say in one instance "better to wait till May when the form has settled down"

When Garston is giving stats relating to consisency figures - I am at a loss to understand why johnd is replying with stats relating to the betting forcast !

Epi
Which is exactly why VDW said most punters haven't got a clue what's going on.

Boozer
I agree. He also showed recent form as a consideration in letter 24.

Tc
Read Garston's post of 2.35 yesterday, and your reply of 2.44

johnd

Lot of figures flying around - difficult to keep trak of wots wot

Johnd: What is?