Coat of Honor was "on" in terms of consistency - if you ignore its last run when blinkers were fitted, which it hated, and sweated up realy badly before the start !

Mind you without the blinkers, it ran around like a drunken sailor towards the finish !!

Seb Sanders looked absolutly "Knackered" at the end and he was swearing something rotten!!

You all know the trouble I have with the consistancy rating. For it to have logical relevance to me it could only refer to races where the horse was seriously trying.

(At anything other than 'stud value' racing), consistancy is incompatable with intelligent training, where the trainer must find races that his horse can win.

In Byrons case the drop back to 7f suggested v strongly (to me at least) that the two previous runs were intelligence gathering and bolt tightening, as the sire stats showed that the horse would be best at 7f.

Consistancy played absolutely no part other than in a paradoxical negative one (4th and 8th last two tos) where the uninspiring placings suggested the 'real' Byron was about to appear.

JIB,

I agree with your summing up of Byron with regards his last 2 runs.

VDW stated many times that only when everything lines up should the horse be supported. This suggested to me that he was looking for something/s that were common to each selection.

Consistency, combined with the betting forecast, only put VDW in a position where he knew, from research, that he was looking in an area full of winners. Of course, most consistent horses (basic rating) don’t have the necessary credentials to be supported; and this is what the method is really about.

Byron was highlighted today initially via the consistency rating; however, he was more akin to Roushayd, and therefore his form figures wouldn’t have really mattered. The point is though, that like mephisto, the credentials, which are common to every horse that VDW selected, were apparent in both.

Lee,

I would like to reply in more detail but I m having trouble with my internet connection with the thundery weather.

But thanks for helping me with the consistancy rating. You continue to be the most understandable of the traditionalists in that you seem to understand the limits of each of the components.

Jib/Lee
While I would agree with much of the above, I would still have no problem regarding Byron as consistent, considering the circumstances under which he ran, (Which includes the way he was ridden).
I also have no problem with him being better suited by today's circumstances. Whether all that, allied to the jockey bookings, made him a good thing, is a moot point.

Jd,

Byron was on my list because he ran a fast time last year when winning a class A event, (in common with most of all the others).

Owned and trained by Godolphin it seemed inevitable that he would win again. Today he got near ideal conditions.

Strangely enough some of my best bets have come in when the second string jockey was in the saddle. In some cases this may have been a trick for connections to get a better price. But in many of the better stables I dont think this would be the reason. Godolphin dont bet.

But do the second jocks get opportunities or rewards for future considerations? Or do the stables just want to throw hangers-on off their tracks? I dont know, do you have any ideas? This is something I would like to understand better.

JIB

Strikes me that it may not be your pc - but the Brazilian Telephone system in general under those conditions !

JohnD,

I can honestly say that although I make myself aware of who is in the plate, it would NEVER stop me making a bet when things line up.

Byron was consistent, in terms of the numerical picture; however, like I’ve posted above it wasn’t necessary in this situation. It was the form of his last 3 runs that gives the game away, and in this situation Byron had something in each run, that NO other horse had.

I cant help feeling that the teacher has got me in the wrong class here, can anyone point me in the way of some good homework to help me catch up.

Lee
Sorry I can't be bothered reading the entire thread.
So simple question...........
Did you also pick Byron, same as JIB did?

Mandarin

If you know nothing about VDW then you are in the wrong class, although this has not stopped other pupils attending. If you look at your classmates, you will see it is basically the same people doing all the talking. Just because these people like to air their views does not mean that they know more than you do. So, if you have anything you would like to say on the subject just say it. The worst that can happen is someone will reply to you.

3 most consistent from first 5/6 in betting

2.05 Gdwd
Quedex
Ten Carat
Riyadh

3.15
Soviet Song
Haafhd
Refuse To Bend

3.50
Admiral
Etmaam
Zeitgeist

4.25
Diamond Lodge
Wee Dinns
Taminoula

Top 3 Massey Max from first 6 in betting (handicaps only)

2:05
Promoter
Quedex
Mana D'Argent

3:50
Admiral
Odiham
Always Waining

4:25
Wee Dinns
Diamond Lodge
Spring Goddess



Some of Masseys limitations show up today - but those are the selections that the test comes up with so we will just wait and see - "no cheating" !

mandarin

if you go to the "root" VDW thread - you will find a section called basic information for newcomers - that will give you a start - beyond that - sadly - you will have to buy a few books.

It is all there within the VDW contiued thread - if you have a life time to search it out

I believe that a masocist called black cat is constructing a definitive dictionary - but what year it will be finished - I don't know

Many thanks, I will give it a good study.

Hi All,
4.25 DIAMOND LODGE the one to put the house keeping on ??.Any + OR - most welcome.

Tunkie

Yep

2.05

3.50

4.25 a - 1,2,3 for Massey !

Hi

Like Mandarin above I am also fairly new to things Van der Wheil.

Obviously part of the learning is trying to understand the non mechanical aspects of the method. In pursuit of which understanding, I wanted to clarify with Lee that his comment re:

"It was the form of his last 3 runs that gives the game away, and in this situation Byron had something in each run, that NO other horse had."

is to do with consistently improving ratings which are not reflected in the last three placings of the horse? Having looked at horse's data on RP site again tonight, that's what I see that I didn't see before.

Whether my detective work is right or wrong, it raises for me a question about which data members use to do the mechanical bits and to support assessment?

We (presumably) are much better off than VDW was in terms of immediate data access. For example, having used the forecast to identify the first 5/6 in the betting, do members now check the live betting mid-morning to see what's changed and, if necessary, re-hash the list of consistent horses for final analysis?

I find there's so much data and so much to think about that analysis paralysis takes over and I have to go back and start again! There must be easier ways...

Ive looked at the last 3 runs of Byron over & over as well casey, he comes from 3 fast run races but so did one or two others.He figured in the last 1-2 furlongs of each of his last 3 starts, others im not sure?.He also ran in 3 high class races mostly over further than today.I still dont feel we`ve hit on it though, or come close for that matter, what are we missing?.

P.S. Thanks for trying to take up the gauntlet m8.