Fulham - As far as I am concerned, you are correct in your first assumption in your last email. However, the point is that using VDWs method showed Beacon Light and Decent Fellow to be out of form and thereby NOT form horses. Prominent King was deemed to be in form, whatever the level of it, and had the highest ability rating of the form horses. He was therefore the class/form horse. But there were further considerations to take into account to determine if he was capable of performing under the circumstances of the race.

Much of the answer lies in how VDW determined horses to be in form or not and how to measure that form.

Fulham,

Beacon Light and Decent fellow’s form was assessed without the use of speed figures.

I know you’ve read over and over the many quotes that VDW made within his letters but one of those which is worth looking at from different angles is “form is simply one performance better than another” or words to that effect. Now, a measure of a horse’s ability can be judged from runs going back over time, however, it should be the most recent runs that tell us if a horse is in form or not? So, what was it that made the most recent performances Beacon Light and Decent Fellow be viewed as ‘out of form’. And what was it about Prominent Kings most recent performances that told us he was in form?

Another quote that is well worth thinking about came on this thread. I hope ‘Guest’ doesn’t mind me pointing it out again in such a way. It was simply “remember that when Sea Pigeon beat Beacon Light the former horse hadn’t at that point reached the dizzy height’s of champion hurdler”. Guest, you were as clever and cunning as VDW himself with that one!

The quote from ‘Guest’ and of course those from VDW are nothing new to those who have chewed their nails to the bone on this subject but these quotes need answering. The answers are definitely there, and when compared to most things in racing they are straightforward and logical, with no trick questions.

Guest/Lee

Thanks. I assure you that my approach to making something of VDW is based on the assumption that, at depth, his was a rational one, and not based on some meritrious combination of numbers, etc. And I think that (unless Bensam dissents) the four of us are agreed that VDW did not base his selection for the 1978 Erin on the fact that, nearly two years earlier, Prominent King had returned what, on the incomplete Split Second ratings available, was the highest SF among the three (Beacon Light, Decent Fellow and PK) in races of broadly comparable class.

To take things further, I am assuming that the three of you read the performances of BL and DF prior to the Erin as evidence either that they were not form horses (Guest's position) or that their form was sufficiently inferior to Prominent King's that they could be discounted. You may - or may not - all have reached your conclusions on the same grounds. I happen to take a different view, and believe that the form of the three was much less readily distinguishable.

Now, sadly, that is probably as far as we can realistically take things, as none of us, I guess, wants to spell out fully how we have arrived at our assessments (though I've given quite a good indication of aspects of my thinking in my post to Hedgehog). But I do think its worth reflecting on some recent examples for which Guest has posted selections pre-race. A case could be made for Landing Light, Mytimie, Colourful Life, A Piece of Cake, Lord O’All Seasons and Adiemus, but as I have posted previously, with each selection there were contra-indications. This seems to me to be the normal state of affairs with competitive races. And I respectfully suggest that, if you look again at the pre Erin races of Beacon Light and Decent Fellow, you might see more merit in their performances than you have to date – certainly some points suggested by respective ORs – which could lead you to take a less clear cut view of Prominent King’s chances.

Fulham,
There are clearcut ways to establish that BL and DF were not form horses. Similarly there are clearcut ways which suggested Prominent King was in form. It has nothing to do with speed figs, handicap marks or training patterns to derive the correct conclusions.

It is certain that anyone who comes to understand the true essence of how VDW assessed form, would arrive at the same conclusion with respect to the Prominent King example. Look at the form of all three horses and bear in mind what has been said already recently because the path has well and truly been lit.

Why do you all just ignore Hedgehog, who got a superb 11-2 winner today and yet you can't even be bothered to say anything atall.
You can't even be bothered to say that wasn't a VDW bet because................?
Fulham name a winner,
Lee name a winner,
Guest name a winner,(not a favourite)
If you can't, at least have the decency to acknowledge someone who does,
Swish

after posting on this thread i promised myself i would never do so again, however i felt i must post to agree fully with Swish. Guest has gone up in my estimation after posting on saturday, however anybody can comment on a horse post race.
You know who you are have the balls to back up your beleif in vdw.

titus

Form, even though CONSISTENT, can mislead if taken alone when the horse is running against others with GREATER ability.

Logically the relative merit of form must be equated to the quality (class) in which it was achieved. This means there has to be at least two elements to jointly equate when judging the relative merits of one performance against another: FORM and CLASS.

Form is what they did and class is the level at which it was achieved.

OK, people you do really think the man that wrote those words would subscribe to the formula that is being used to isolate the class/form horse on this thread? My understanding of the idea, is to find the best horse based on class and form, that is consistent. There are a couple of reasons why I think this 1, why bother to rate the whole field for ability? 2, consistency is not form.

The Erin,

Forget that you know the result of the race, or have read anything about it. Look at the form of the three main contestants. Which one has the best form, and is the likely winner? Using the rating as put forward by Guest and others which horse is the bet? Some of you may decide no bet, but if your honest I don't think many would come up with the winner. I know using my method I would. I'm not arrogant enough to say I'm right and you all are wrong. I do know I read somewhere in one of vdw's articles the word ability was mentioned in conjunction with speed figures. I am also sure that was before this ability rating was mentioned. He also spent a lot of time trying to stop us using s/f in the conventional way. To use them to evaluate the horse and not the race in question. All I have done is follow his suggestions on how to use them. One last thing if I can get the strike rate to 80% will that make some of you think again?

Regards

Bensam

I wonder if, against the possibility of mutual advantage, we could explore your certainty a little?

In your examination of the 1978 Erin, have you derived the ORs of the runners in it, and those of the runners in the races Beacon Light and Decent Fellow contested prior to the Erin? (Its just another form of rating, of course, but I find it a useful cross-check with non-handicaps.)

If you have, we could perhaps discuss the implications of the ORs for the question of whether Beacon Light and Decent Fellow were in form. If you haven't, doing so will, I promise you, pose additional questions upon which, necessarily, you won't yet have reflected, and as a result you may feel less certain about Prominent King's strength as a selection than is currently the case.

Hello All,

Statajack - I have looked at the Donnybrook race again and I see what you mean. I think I was trying to adhere too closely to the rules I have gleaned.

Can I ask is there a ranking of methods? As far as I can see the ranking would be Consistency Method then Winner in a race method then unexposed form method. Am I correct or do you find selections from each method and take the best?

Fulham - I'm glad that at least in the past we held the same view and as expected your greater knowledge has shown the weakness of my arguement.

Investor - Nothing in the mail box today. Are you still interested in a conversation?

All the best
hedgehog

Hello Swish,

Sorry, I forgot to respond to your last post. I got the speed figures from the RP website but these are identical to the one in the form in the RP anyway.

All the best
hedgehog

Hedgehog

Its just that in the case we've been discussing I've explored an angle (and for me a significant one) that you've not yet the chance to do.

And indirectly to reply to Swish, its not that you are being ignored (at least not deliberately so, by me), as my response to your suggestion in relation to the Erin makes clear. Its simply that analysing races takes time (the way I work, rather more than for most, I expect, not having Swish's abilities in that regard), and if one hasn't looked at a race that another poster has referred to, and hasn't the time to do so, one necessarily has nothing to contribute. The fact that, through the methodical approach you are taking, you identify some winners is wholly to be expected: long may they flow.

Mtoto/Fulham,
It is my opinion (which you can freely ignore if you wish) that you are sidetracking yourselves by considering such things as speed figs and handicap marks when assessing form ''the VDW way'', which I can assure you, have nothing to do with the reasons why Prominent King was a form horse with the right credentials, and why Beacon Light and Decent Fellow were not in form. Until you accept this, you will always struggle to get to grips with understanding what constitutes form (as VDW would describe it).

This is what VDW meant by being handicapped by old ingrained dogma. You must forget about your old ways of form reading and approach the issues with a fresh and open mind. Without wishing to patronise, the answers are simple and perhaps, take a bit of time to accept and come to terms with if you are saddled with the above handicap.

There is only so much guidance one can give without spelling it out and my hands are tied with discussing/exploring it further. I have been lucky in receiving clues similar to those that have appeared on here, from people that have obviously spent alot more on resources than me in finding the answers. I am confident that the answers that I have arrived at are the right ones with respect to the Erin.

On a different note and to appease the natives, I for one hereby acknowledge Hedgehog's winning selection.

Mtoto - Just a few points. We could go on & on indefinately disagreeing over guidelines or factors within the VDW methods. Whilst I appreciate your reasoning behind Prominent King and co, I and others are just pointing out that there were other reasons why Beacon Light and Decent Fellow were not form horses in the context of the Irish champion hurdle. VDW used speed figures of that there is no doubt, but if he approached each of his methods in exactly the same way then there would have only really been one method. This is not the case and the whole thing comes back to one very important factor that is completely missed or misinterpretated by the vast majority trying to figure the VDW methods out. Notice I say VDWs methods and not how to win at the races, because as the man himself often pointed out, there are many ways to do the job. The ways he devised worked for him and I doubt they changed very much over many decades. He backed up this view with the suggestion that of the small number who derived a living from the game (of which some were his friends) they all worked in different ways often leading to different horses. He even pointed out one occassion with Burrough Hill Lad where his asscoiates plunged in on the horse he deemed to be out of form via his methods.

A couple of your questions as to why certain tasks were performed in the methodical process are good ones and I asked myself the same questions in the past. As ever there was a very good reason as to why VDW set things out as he did. It just takes a bit of thinking outside the box perhaps. Yes, VDW said consistent form was not enough, but he also said having class is no good if the horse is out of form. Finding the horse you consider to have the best form will virtually always lead to the same selection as the public, a point I'm sure you already appreciate. There can be any number of form horses in the race. For the initial picture all we are concerned with is finding the form horses and which one of them has the highest ability rating. But the game doesn't stop there, otherwise it would far too easy and we would be betting in every race virtually. VDW never said 80% of class/form horses win. He did say in a round about way that when that class/form horse has everything else go in favour, it rarely gets beaten. When ALL the factors are known, it is only down to human error on the compiling of info side that will prove costly (as I still find out when attempting to rush the procedures). The 15-20% of losers will be down to the unknown factors that affect racing.

Guest/Lee/Bensam,

You recent posts on the 'Erin' provide much food for thought as usual.

Would I be right in thinking that the 'form' horses for this race were (in ability order):
PROMINENT KING
MR KILDARE
BEPAROEJOJO
BANSWARA
BUGLE BEADS

Your thoughts much appreciated as usual.

Regards

Bensam

How many of the six horses of Guest's to which I referred were selections under your interpretation of how VDW assessed a race? Note I'm not asking which, so you shouldn't be worried about giving too much away.


Guest

Did you mean Irish champion hurdle in your response to Mtoto, or the Sweeps? If the former, could you please give me the date or Form Book race number? If the latter, you've got me foxed, as Beacon Light didn't run in it, nor did he compete against any horse which did, between the Sweeps and the Erin.

[This message was edited by Fulham on March 27, 2002 at 12:21 PM.]

Hello All,

Bensam - As far as I am concerned there was no need to acknowledge my solitary winner. As I said in the title of the post even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Everyone gets winners sometime. In fact my mum picks winning bets in the National by betting the horses that have "kind eyes"! Not the basis for regular profit I think you would agree!
My purpose in the "Learning by Doing" posts is hopefully to be thrown a bone every now and then, as Statajack did and for which I'm grateful. It's much easier to get to your destination if you correct the course now and then.

All - I'm hopeless at all weather but I much prefer recent form. I've tried to apply the idea of method ranking which seems to make a lot of sense. So here goes.

3.00 Lingfield
In form horses are Florian?, Golden Brief?, Hard to Catch, Malaah, Mon Secret? and Prime Offer?

The horses that interest me are Hard to Catch and Malaah though I think neither should be a bet.

3.30 Lingfield
In form horses are Double M, Illusive?, Madrasee, Paddywack, Texas Gold and Teyaar.

In this race the horses that interest me are Illusive and Teyaar. Of the two I think Teyaar has good credentials and this would be a bet.
I'm not sure if Illusive is in form which is another good reason to pick Teyaar.

All the best
hedgehog

Swish,

We all contribute to this forum for different reasons. Mine is to hopefully help a few of those that are working hard trying to solve VDW, but in particular engage in discussion on the different interpretations of the past examples that VDW gave.

Your reasons for contributing are obviously different, and that is fine by me.

But I am consistent. I haven’t, as far as I can remember, congratulated you on any of your winners, just like I haven’t congratulated ‘Guest’ on any of his, in fact I haven’t congratulated anyone on their winners, so why would I start with ‘Hedgehog’?

Like I say, if we were all here for the same reason it would be a somewhat stagnant board.

Fulham,
All the six horses were noted by me as being more than viable betting propositions based on VDW's methods. I didn't back all of them for various minor reasons. The reasons for some of the last four you mention have already been given in a post on page 71 of this thread. The Mytimie race, I am in full agreement with Guest, in that it was one to make a book in.

I suspect in asking this question you are trying to point out that these selections should have been clearcut goodthings that everyone should have had, with the desired knowledge of vdw, originally made pre-race, that should have provided an 80% strike rate. The answer to this can be addressed by human error and temperament.

It will probably be ridiculed for being too obvious but the latter in my view is all important as to whether a bet is struck or not. Even when the relevant factors balance the probability of winning still has to be assessed. Waiting for bets such as Armaturk is key to obtaining a high strike rate but not necessarily picking selections at such a short price. Some of the discussed ''six'' were not as solid as Armaturk in my opinion, but that should not detract from my opening sentence.

Hedgehog,
I was only trying to appease the natives. As for bone throwing, I feel I've been doing just that most times I post something.

Crock,
The first two in your list obviously were form horses. I haven't the formbooks to pass comment on the rest.

Lee,

Just popped in for a look, couldn`t help but notice you mentioned the word "congratulations" 3 times in your last post re Hedgehogs winner. The question was "Any comments on my selection". I don`t understand why you take the time to reply to Swish and give an answer to a question nobody asked, yet fail to make resonable comment to Hedgehog.

By the way, I was thinking of making a determined effort to get to grips with VDW and wondered if you would care to be my mentor, we`d have to have rules mind you. I`d agree to be civil and in return you`d have to stop speaking out of the corner of mouth.

What do you say mate?

111
.

3,

I can understand how you managed to misinterpret my post to Swish.

With regards to Hegdehogs selection I had no constructive comments to make on it, just like hundreds of other posts made on here. So that’s exactly what I did, made no comment. So, what acknowledgment should I have made when it won, other than congratulations for the winner you picked?

If people get downbeat just because someone doesn’t respond to their post, or fails to acknowledge the winner they’ve just found then I feel sorry for them.

Me as your mentor, I don’t think I’d have the patience!