Morning all,

Lee,

I`ve had a quick look at Lady Bear`s form. A further detailed analysis to follow. Yes, her all weather form especially the opposition she had been facing certainly constitued a drop in class. Added to that the way those races had `worked out` was pretty damn good.
Yes, my comment to Guest did suggest I had misread his post but rest assured any evaluation I make on a race certainly takes into account the opposition.
My comment to Guest was making reference to the fact that LB run at Wolves` was rather `eyecatching` ( according to my friend ).

Fulham

A good summary of yesterday`s racing. I like you couldn`t have C.Life, APOCake or Adiemus.

That said, although mine is still a paper exercise at present I would have made 2 bets yesterday,

Orientor - yes, one could suggest his form with NB was a question mark. I however took the view that `O` form last season in Listed and Group company was superior to that of NB. Added to that he thrives on easy going, trainer would therefore have him ready early. OR`s lended supported.
My only slight concern was the jockey, ie - nothing against Culhane but Fallon knows the horse.
At 9/4 availible to me he was a `losing` bet.

My other investment would have been on both Lussino and Ravenswood at the early morning prices of 5/1 and 6/1.

*** many may question the latter but I have made myself one golden rule this season. Yes, I am going to attempt to put VDW into practise but I MUST NOT forget all my own method`s as some do work.

Maggsy,

I like you will be interested in Guest`s feedback on yesterday`s racing which at face value may have been a bad day for him ?


Regards,

hi fulham,

i also thought a poor day yesterday and i went against two of my golden rules dont back a reveley horse, and dont bet against pipe.

this alone should have warned me off the race but like a fool i blundered on.

guest

thanks for the pre race analysis the class form/ combination gets a little bit easier every time you do this.unlucky if you backed them, i doubt you did and ps. the lynch mob is over behind that rock there!!

hedgehog,

winner in a race, i dont know if my interpretation of "what we are looking for is A WINNER IN A RACE not the winner of the race" is the same as other interpretations of the same phrase, but its nailed together from bits and bobs i thought usefull, not least hard work, i may well find i'm wrong as i slowly look through the examples.

i hope its not my twisted mind, but i dont want to be put off!

[This message was edited by Barney on March 24, 2002 at 06:45 AM.]

I'M OFF

going to yorkshire this week,i will be going to a good racing bookshop. does anyone want me to keep my eye out for anything in particular??

if i dont post before keep your eye on a.berry and m.johnston at musselbrough.

Determined

I agree with what you say about Orientor, and thought he probably would beat Needwood Pride. But at a measly 9/4 I want more than "probably". (For an illustration of the fact that ORs sometimes don't always work out, its worth having a look at their respective ORs when O and NP ran against each other last March.)


Barney

Its not a question of lynch parties, I hope. Since Gummy's fatherly warning (prompted by your good self) there has been a welcome return to civility.

What yesterday illustrates, to my mind, is how complex assessing a race is: so many factors and they rarely ALL line up one way. VDW himself referred to balancing the factors, and his examples (or at least such of them as I've examined in detail) all include areas of doubt that he seemed prepared to accept in the overall balance.

But again, without in any way impugning VDW's integrity, it is worth pointing out that his selections were all presented retrospectively. I know from my own experience, and that of colleagues with whom I work, that there is a tendency, when working retrospectively, to accentuate the positive factors and downplay the doubts. Indeed, having noted that tendency we are in the process of revisiting some of the examples, hopefully alert to it and consciously in a more detached/critical frame of mind.

How successful VDW would have been had he made his selections public prospectively is, inevitably, a matter of conjecture. What is known is that tipping services set up by those undoubtedly well versed in VDW's approach have not been particularly successful: the late Jock Bingham's being perhaps the most obvious example.

first up determined i am not having a go at you but a couple of your last posts had to be commented on.
your post yesterday morning at 11.16 am said"orientor has a lot of pluses" you left it at that but anyone looking at this would take it to mean that you considered it a decent bet.prior to this post you said at 6.08 am "your racing post awaits"soare we to take it then that 5 hours later you have come to the conclusion that orientor looks good,if this is so then it surely contradicts your post made at 5.38 am today where you then raise doubts as to orientors jockey and price in your words "a losing bet"to my mind i cannot remember any jockey change on the horse so why were these remarks not made before the race,you also must have had a rough idea what sort of price the horse was yesterday when you were sweet on it before the race so again why comment on it afterwards either it was a bet before the race or wasn't.
also comments regarding lussino's race,true you did state pre race that you liked the look of it but going through the thread i see no mention from you concerning ravenswood the eventual winner.
what i am really trying to say is that a lot of people look at this thread to get the respected view of yourself and others and to see if their selections correspond with yours it must be infuriating for anyone who has followed what you have said only for you to do a complete u turn after the race.
max.

Max

Determined is acknowledging that, for him, Orientor was indeed a bet yesterday (albeit a paper one) and a losing one to boot. No inconsistency there from his morning posts, surely?

ok but why no mention of concerns regarding jockey and price at 11.16 yesterday?
it looks as if yes a bet then afterwards there was to much against.

Not a good day for the method yesterday and the tally of bets taken was actually 0 out of 4 with Colourful Life/A Piece Of Cake/Adiemus and Lord OThe Manor. A few inches would have completely changed the situation on the day (making use of the staking method as always), but alas it was not to be. Followers of the method will no doubt remember Zucherro foiling a bet last term. At the end of the day it makes no difference to me in the long run and any losses incurred on the day will be more than recouped with the next winner.

There is no way to achieve 100% winners and losers are unavoidable, but I can't remember 4 failing in sequence for a long time and certainly not on the same day. Incidentally for those looking, A Piece Of Cake was not found using the consistency method.

As regards trainers at courses, there were indications that VDW considered this along with other things especially early on. However, as he explained in an article, their individual strike rates at courses were not too meaningful unless class,form and everything else were considered. Mary Reveley often fails with horses down south, but often it is because the horse is not good enough. Carrick Troop had won at Newbury before. Colourful Life came down to Kempton and beat Castleshane last time and last April A Piece Of Cake won a decent prize at Ascot. On the day yesterday, they were not good enough despite what the figures said. One interesting point arose with Ravenswood and Lingo in the last at Doncaster. Not uncommon to see this situation but hard to predict. Whilst I take all that as part and parcel of the game, it does make you smile when you see interviews such as the one with Mr Pipe at Cheltenham last week defending his horses running on their merits.

Max,

Firstly, I do not like my integrity questioned as you will not find a more genuine guy then me. That said, I accept that my recent posts may have confused and if that is the case then my total and sincere apologies. I will try to answer the points you have raised/questioned.

One thing to bare in mind is that all my `selections` are a paper exercise at the moment mind you I suppose that is irrelevant.

ORIENTOR – be left in no doubt `O` for me was a decent investment yesterday and if I was betting at present I would have done my money. With regards the price I thought he was such a good thing I`d have been happy with 15/8 never mind the 9/4 available on course. My comment at 5.38 this morning regarding the jockey in hindsight was irrelevant to the thread. The jockey factor was certainly part of my evaluation but whilst Culhane is no Fallon it didn’t detract from my final conclusion as to me `O` was that far ahead.
My words this morning, “ losing bet” translated for those who misinterpreted it meant – it was a bet for me but unfortunately a losing one.
Your reference to 5 hours between posts with respect is irrelevant and perhaps bordering on the sarcastic.

2.00 NEWBURY – firstly my comments making Lussino the 2nd class/form horse as found by the VDW methodology was incorrect. Whilst I was happy to make him my 2nd class form horse he definitely wasn`t per the methodology. SINCERE APOLOGIES FOR ANY CONFUSION.
My evaluation – for me C. Life was as I stated before the race in my opinion reaching too high. And yes, I was very keen on Lussino and yes to be absolutely honest whilst keen on Ravenswood I did feel `L` was the one however closer inspection led me to the conclusion that backing both was the `safe` option at the available prices.
After all if I was confident the forecast favourite wasn`t going to show and equally confident one of the 2 named would win then why not make a book ?
In my defence I did make reference in my post of 1.21pm that Ravenswood could be a handicap blot.


I hope I have cleared up any misunderstandings if not I`m sure you will let me know.

Sincere apologies again to anyone I confused. One final comment, I will be more careful in future.

**** I`ve been preparing this post for a little while so if further posts have arrived since oregarding my recent comments then I`ll reply later.

Regards,

Hard lines with Adiemus yesterday.

I am going to ask a direct question which I suspect the majority will call me a plonker for asking but I`m not proud.

Honest yes but maybe not to proud.

Question - how many methods are there ?

Regards,

thankyou for your reply i am not in any way accusing you of misleading anyone all i wanted to do was raise the point about conflicting posts on this thread before and after the race.
my comment about 5 hours studying the race was also not intended sarcastically.
however i have taken the liberty of pasting your comments regarding ravenswood at 1.16 yesterday and the content of it suggests to me that it was not considered a bet from a vdw point of view in your opinion.it seems a big jump from the below comment to then saying it was one of two that you would have backed.
maybe i am wrong but it would have saved any confusion if you had said one way or another.
the same comment goes for orientor.

Today however I believe is his toughest task to date against better opposition, ie - Ravenswood although having shown nothing to date ( illusion ? ) could be a hcap blot ( well supported this morning ).

max.

i would also be interested to read your thoughts on how ravenswood could have been considered a vdw selection if like you say has shown nothing to date,i thought consistancy was the main stay of the vdw concept.
regards max.

Hello All,

Investor/Barney - thanks for the response.

Investor - I was hoping to get a no but your answer highlighted other things that have helped as well.

All - I'm not very good at this yet. However when I looked at Guest's good things I thought the following.

Orientor was not a horse that ran well when fresh.

Colourful Life was 5lbs ahead of the handicapper having won carrying 10-7 (7lb ex) when it should have run with 9-11 (without the 7lb ex and weight minimum) and was only raised 5lb by the handicapper. That leaves 5lbs in reserve. At least thats the way I see it.

I was not sure my form reading was good enough for Lord O'All Seasons. I was not sure it was in good form. This is not uncommon with me, my form reading is rather poor.

All the best
hedgehog

Ravenswood,

Identified through my own reading of form and NOT VDW. Lussino on the other hand was however identified via VDW as I see it at the moment.

VDW IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR ME BUT I HAVE MY OWN SKILLS WHEN READING FORM WHICH I MUST NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF.

Funnily enough nearly all `my limited success` down the years has been based on trainers methods.

*** I know you are a very knowledgable chap and whom am I to give you advise but if following Ravenswood`s career from now on I`m sure will prove fruitful.

Haydock in early May might be a good day. There I go again making `confusing statements.`

Regards,

Barney
I`m looking for Raceform 80/81,83/84,84/85,86/87
and 1978,1979 flat.
I would be most gratefull if you could get
any of them if you see them.


cheers


Maggsy

interesting your thoughts concerning certain trainers strike rates at particular courses however i would be interested to read your views on trainers who at most courses have a perfectly acceptable win to run ratio but when bringing a horse to a "bogey" course fail right across the board regardless of hurdles,chases class or distance.do you not think that this somewhat illustrates just the opposite of your last post?
max.

thanks for clearing that up,once again appologises if i got my wires crossed.look forward to your future posts.
max.

Maggsy

I had occasion to speak to both Mr Way and Janet Carter last week. Both were expecting to receive collections of old form books at the weekend, and it should be worth ringing them tomorrow.

A minor hiccup which is hopefully forgotten by both of us.

Regards,

Thanks for your support.

Regards,