Bensam

I had no ulterior motive of the kind you are wondering about: from my point of view (and I think yours) the value of this thread is as a resource for learning, not for point-scoring.

Its simply that, as I see things, there is more than one way of interpreting whether a horse is in form. I know what mine is - developed from my understanding of VDW's efforts in trying to take account of all relevant factors. I obviously don't know what yours and Guest's are (or, indeed, whether they are precisely the same). But through Guest's preparedness to take the risk of pre-posting some selections, and your courtesy in answering my question, I have a sample of your approach(es) in action and can evaluate their results against mine in respect of the same races.

Thanks.

sorry mate busy at the mo,will chat with you at the weekend,keep on analysing.cheers investor

Some answers and a few more questions.

Bensam,

After your first response to Fulham question re speed figures, I am a little surprised at your certainty that it does not apply in this case. Also that you think that the study of OR's was conventional and ingrained at the time vdw wrote the article. They were not readily available at the time.

Guest,

I haven't many of the vdw books but would it be possible to show me the article where vdw said Beacon Light and Decent Fellow were out of form. The only thing I can find is BL was well out of it on his ratings, and had a hard race last time out. DF was given a consistency rating of 7 by vdw. Judging on his last race before the Leopardstown win, (beaten 12 lengths when odds on favourite) it would be very brave to assume he was out of form. As I have said before it is easy to finish last of 3 in a prep race.
This brings me back to the class/form horse. I agree it is easy to have more than one form horse, but more than one class horse? Would that not be the horse from the highest class race? I posted a couple of vdw quotes on the subject but I will use another one to explain why I think the method you are using is wrong.
"To isolate the "class/form" horse can often prove a tricky problem, but some stick out like a sore thumb and it is these which should have support."
Why is it tricky if all you have to do is keep going untill you are left with a horse following your method? I think there are some races where the class/form horse is at the time not consistent, that means no bet, not keep trying until you find one.
I'm not trying to score points, all I want is to solve the puzzle. I do get frustrated when I am told I am not using vdw, when my ideas are based on his thoughts and writings. The only difference is they are not prejudiced by other peoples views, and if I can see a flaw I will try to find an answer. It would be a lot easier to just except the ideas that obviously must work quite well. I just don't feel they are as logical as I would expect from vdw.

I would like to apolgise to the people I own e-mails too. I have been having a few family problems, and have fallen behind with my e-mail's

Regards

Fulham - the race referred to was the actual race under evaluation ie the Erins Food Champion Hurdle.

Mtoto - As you must be aware, VDW left lots for us to complete though he did give some subtle hints as to what parts needed this completion. He didn't actually spell out that Beacon Light and Decent Fellow were out of form, but he did give us the hints to draw these conclusions. He later stated that any horse finishing last should have their consistency rating marked for that race marked as 10, but to use common sense if the horse was beaten not very far in a small field. Decent Fellow was beaten on his last run 3 weeks prior to the Erins Champion at Doncaster by 25 lengths last of 3 at 9/4 outsider of 3. The rating should have showed 14 not 7 as misprinted. The form needs to be checked to confirm what the figures say, and it is this part that causes most of the confusion, though it has to be said I am amazed at some of the interpretations put forward by some for even the initial numerical stage.

The balance you refer to of the class horse in the race which is both in form and consistent is the ultimate balance, but not all of VDWs selections were top rated on class (ability). When VDW put forward a further class consideration namely the penalty value of the race, everyone seemed to think that this was the magical answer and the selection had to be the ability horse who had run in the highest class race. If you check many of VDWs examples though you will see that there was no such ruling, in fact there were no rules just guidelines. All we are basically looking for initially is the form horse who has the highest class. Having class is no good if it is out of form. Also being in form is no good if the horse is being sent out against form horses who have more class. It's quite simple and logical, perhaps I'm not explaining this part well enough. There were many reasons why various procedures were given by VDW and unless someone actually understands exactly why they were put into the equation then they will struggle. Let me make this point clear though, speed figures were not required to operate the consistency method. VDW used them from other starting points. The basics of the consistency method are consistent form coupled with class.

The question to answer is when is a horse deemed to be in form. I don't think a horse failing to do something that should have been no problem constitutes being in form, do you?

Again, if your method is working then why change it Mtoto?

Hello All,

Bensam - I wasn't having a pop and I've realised that the bones remark came over as flippant. It was not intended that way. I'm also sure you are giving hints in your posts.

All - I don't want to become some sort of ArchDuke Ferdinand and result in a kick off of another war.

Guest - your elimination method seems to work to me. I looked at 3 races today to try it out, after the event, and of the resulting horses it found 2 of the 3 winners and 8 of the 10 places. It would have been 3 for 3 except for a 33-1 winner. I know it's not much of a sample but it does make sense to me.

All the best
hedgehog

Guest

Thanks. I confused myself re your post in reply to Mtoto and see exactly what you meant.

If I understand your latest post correctly (and there must be some doubt given my misreading of your earlier one!), I take it that counting Decent Fellow's 3rd place as a 10 is absolutely central to your view that he was not a form horse for the Erin.

May I further assume that, on your reading of VDW, had there been a fourth runner in the Doncaster race on 28/1/78 - an outsider at say 10/1 - who finished 4th (ie last), and Decent Fellow had finished a close up 3rd rather than a 3rd beaten 25l, the 3rd place would have counted as a 3 and Decent Fellow would in fact have been the class/form horse for the Erin? (Not, of course, that in those circumstances Decent Fellow would necessarily have been VDW's selection for the race.)

Dear All, whilst over in the UK I was fortunate to get a very comprehensive education from Swish concerning amongst many other things; vdw. Swish lent me a booklet called Systematic Betting written by vdw which is, if Im not mistaken, his most recent work. As such it must be considered as the most proven of his ideas, being composed of those that have stood the test of 30 years.

I must immediately say that much of which you gentlemen discuss cannot be found anywhere in this work, surely this booklet being from the man himself, means that the omission is extremely relevant. The conclusion being that the complexities so beloved by the contributors to this thread are probably of little importance and possibly great hinderance. I think the title Systematic Betting probably indicates its true intention. I further believe that the concept of the WINNER IN THE RACE confirms this. To be blunt if there is no clear pick of a horse being dropped in class after improving its speed fig. (the winner in the race or cert as Swish calls it) then the encouragement is not to bet.

This being so then it is futile to discover the winner of every race as most do not provide a clear candidate. To continue to do so appears vain.

Regards JIB

Guest.

I fear it must be me that isn't explaining my self clearly. We appear to nearly agreeing except for one thing, vdw said ability doesn't fade/fluctuate. So if you take a horse (consistent and in form) but of inferior class, are you not going against the first vdw quote I posted yesterday?
Your question about a horse not being in form because it didn't perform as expected, I must ask expected by whom? From some of your previous posts, I may think you mean the punters, but that can't be right. You can't mean every beaten favourite is out of form, and should be discarded. VDW said Celtic Pleasure was an outstanding bet in the Sandown Cup on the 21-4-78. He was a beaten favourite, and I find it hard to believe vdw would use such a naive method to judge form.

I have no plans to change my method of selecting my winners, as I said my only objection is to the people that say I don't understand vdw.

JIB,

I have been down that path, and still find it hard to believe vdw wouldn't have gone into more detail to explain about ability rating if they applied to that method. To be fair it is a different method, as I tried to explain to Swish at the beginning of this thread

Regards

Fulham - The award of 10 to Decent Fellows consistency rating total is only really relevant to the consistency picture. Consistency has nothing to do with establishing form as such. It is just a device to help put the odds in our favour. Many winners come from the 3 most consistent ratings from both the entire field and the 1st 5 or 6 in the betting forecast. With Decent Fellow being awarded a total of 14, he was outside of this particular area. The reason he wasn't a form horse was different. In this case it was because he made no show in lower class last time even allowing for the opposition. Had the scenario you described actually happened, then he still would not have been a form horse but yes, his total would have been 7 on the cons. front, although it would depend on how close up he was and if he actually got into the race at the business end of it. VDW did tell us that the form issue was very important but also quite complex with any amount of permutations. For instance, a horse set to run in a class 50 race that had finished unplaced in class 70 then dropped to 40 and finished 5th with no real show and finally dropped to class 20 against moderate opposition and won, would not be considered a form horse in the context of the class 50 race. This is just a basic example and obviously more has to be taken into account, but you can see that there are endless permutations.

John - Systematic Betting was one of the later examples of VDWs work but much was of relevance to his earlier methods. As he later stated "Form as such never changes. It still provides the solutions." The main point of the book was to give us an insight into how VDW gauged the strength of form. The methods within the book had their roots based along different lines to that of consistency, but the examples of how to measure real form were very relevant to the earlier method. Again though he left us with work to do and certain things needed figuring out. Do people really believe that all that was needed was to note horses who were raised in class 3 times with an increasing speed figure and back it next time if dropped in class ? There was far more too it than that, as with the consistency method or any other he showed us. It's the same with finding the class/form horse. We were never instructed to back the class/form horse blind and for very good reason. A lot of them actually lose because they don't have the rest of the credentials required.

The other point is that VDW hated the title of the book, as Tony Peach will vouch, as he always maintained he used methods not systems. I think you will find it was Raceform who insisted upon the title. VDW also said that he actually wrote 2 versions, one of which included his method that found horses such as Rivage Bleu/Ever Smile/Valiant Warrior/etc but he decided to only let the less informative version be published. When they asked him to write another book, after SB sold out, he declined scotching ideas from some that VDW was some sort of con man out for a quick buck. Whoever he was, I have no doubt that he was quite genuine in what he had to say. I agree with you John that it is futile to find the winner of every race because whilst every race has a class/form horse in it, that is not enough to back it blind.

Having dealt with Decent Fellow , can anyone else understand why Beacon Light was not a form horse ?

Mtoto,

The facts lead you to the answers in the Prominent King race NOT speed figures which, although have use in some of VDW's methods, can only ever be employed as a guide. I have never said, nor implied, that ''the study of OR's was conventional and ingrained at the time vdw wrote the article''. What I did say was that, in my opinion, OR's are not needed in evaluating the form horses in a race as Fulham seems to think is the case, in the Prominent King example.

Mtoto - Just saw your latest post. No, I don't think VDW relied upon the betting market as a guide to opposition though it was and still is part of the process. Shock winners have a habit of not winning again next time when more strongly fancied by the betting public, though this is not set in stone as far as VDW was concerned.

Here is a question worth considering - If the Derby winner failed to beat the winner of listed race, having led at the furlong marker and passed soon after, would you consider it in form for it's next engagement in the King George at Ascot ?

Hello All

A confusing day.

2.40 Exeter
I started this race and found lots of horses to consider. I'll leave this until after the race and try again and see what it teaches me.

3.10 Exeter
In form horses are Un jour A Vassy, Nocksky, Handyman, Desailly and Hidden Valley. I spent a lot of time trying to decide if Cherokee Boy was in form and eventually decided against.

Going through the methods the same names kept coming up. I made Un Jour A Vassy the Class/form horse.

In the end I was left with Un Jour A Vassy and Handyman. After applying Guests cross check and one I thought of myself I came down to Un Jour A Vassy. Time will tell and give me another opportunity to learn.

3.40 Exeter
Is Valley Henry in form? That's what I came down to. If it is then it's the class/Form horse and the probable winner. If not then I think it will go to Arctic Gamble. Another case of time will tell.

All the best
hedgehog

Hi JIB

A most interesting set of suggestions on how we might think about "Systematic Betting", which deserves serious reflection.

My first, quick reaction is that you've certainly captured the tone of the "Roushayd" chapter, but I'm not sure he was as lukewarm in his "dutching" chapter as you suggest.

Thanks for a stimulating post.

JIB,

In comparison to his chapter on multiple betting, I believe you are correct when you say that VDW appeared to be more enthusiastic about his chapter on Roushayd, and indeed his examples of horses to follow who’d achieved certain speed ratings at certain tracks.

However, it is my opinion that, like most things that he wrote he did so for a very good reason, and in a manner, sometimes, that reflected its importance. In this case I believe it was his intention to play down multiple betting in comparison to learning the method (roushayd) that was his principle reason for writing the book.

He didn’t want the uninitiated to get their fingers burnt by blindly betting on 2 or 3 horses in a race expecting to win, and so emphasised in his writing that it was necessary to learn the game from A-Z, by understanding the method that he was putting forward before they ventured on. But he did want punters to be aware of the worth of multiple betting but only once they knew what to look for.

He made the point that no one should take his word for what he was saying, but they should prove it for themselves, and this was his way of saying that there was far more to his words than what he’d actually written down in black and white.

John/Fulham/Lee - Some very relevant points there and well worth thinking about. It's my opinion that VDW presented his methods in a simplistic way for several reasons, one of which being that the whole process is actually quite complex and tricky to explain in anything less than extensive terms. A point I'm sure he stressed at the beginning of the chapter Form Class Evaluation.

Some time after publication, VDW voiced his concern that the object of the Roushayd exercise had been misunderstood by so many and that had readers understood it, it would have carried them a long way. Now for me, the penalty value and speed figure parts are so clear cut that VDW could not possibly have thought them misread at their face value. No, what I think he actually mean't was that he was disappointed that no one had delved further into his way of evaluating form and discovered the hidden parts that needed a bit of logical thinking to uncover. These hidden factors are also the same factors that help to show the class/form horses using the consistency method among others.

When I discovered these factors for myself, as he strongly suggested we should, I then proved to myself their significance by checking all his examples including those within Systematic Betting. Imagine my delight when the pieces of the puzzle fitted them all.

The Roushayd exercise was indeed a master class in form evaluation. The basics as outlined are useful if selective, but the deeper meaning of the article/s is far more revealing and powerful.

Dear JiB,
That last piece was superbly written. Absolutely brilliant in fact.
I can't write as well as JiB has just done but I have to totally agree with what John has just said both about VDW and The Roushayd method.
The method works without any shadow of a doubt, especially in non-hcps because not as much thought has to be put in to it regarding the strength of the opposition, whilst in Handicaps (as every one of you know) a lot more thought has to be put into it.
One of you chaps (sorry I can't remember who at this moment) that anyone who thinks they can win backing horses with improving speed figs that are dropped in class is wrong (or words to that effect). Well, I am sorry but it is you who are wrong, my "certs" prove it. I am not saying just blindly do any, not by a long way, there are plenty of other factors to weigh up, which I would say, firstly the strength of the oposition, then as lesser factors dis, going etc.
I am also going to join the hindsight club by saying that DESAILLY (W14-1) yesterday was one although I confess I dropped it from my short list of 3 and didn't name it atall but again when one takes a second look it scored 132 in an 80 (C), allbeit 4 runs ago (which is what made me drop it (4 runs ago)), and plump for UN JOUR DE VASSEY instead. Allright I have read that Handyman would have won if it hadn't blundered but even so Dessaily was an each way bet to nothing and more fool me for not realising it.
Yours
Swish

JIB,

You started your recent series of missives by stating that Systematic Betting was VDW's ''most recent work'' and ''as such it must be considered as the most proven of his ideas, being composed of those that have stood the test of 30 years''.

Having read all of VDW's writings, I do not agree and instead, view everything he ever wrote as having equal importance. Indeed, all of his work dating back to 1978, can be considered as a complete course in successful betting and only studying part of it, will only take you part of the way.

Something else worth commenting on with regard to Systematic Betting is that VDW was commissioned by Raceform to write this book, after ''proving'' his racing knowledge via his letters to the Sports Forum and articles for Tony Peach. This is a practice of Raceform's that is clearly evident today. Although, it may well be felt that VDW would have taken this opportunity (as ill as he may well have been) to write a symphony of his best methods, if you care to read and absorb all of his writings, you should quickly come to realise that this was not the case.

Swish,

I have never heard it said on here that you cannot win backing horses with improving speed figs that are also dropped in class, or words to that effect. The fact that yourself and others do though, stands testament to VDW's ideas as a whole. However, it is a misnomer in terms to call it the VDW method or even the Roushayd method, simply because there is so much more to this method than most give credit for.

You do mention that you take into account other factors but as you agree with John, who appears not to rate the earlier methods much, it is safe to say these cannot be the same hidden factors attributed to the VDW/Roushayd method. Nevertheless, congratulations with the winning method you have found.

In saying this, I would like to point out that I am not indulging in point scoring but merely debating the points you both raise, which I have enjoyed reading.

Dear Bensam,
It was Guest who said:
"Do people really believe that all that was needed was to note horses who were raised in class 3 times with an increasing speed figure and back it next time if dropped in class ? There was far more too it than that, as with the consistency method or any other he showed us."

It is a few letters up.

Anyway thank you for your nice letter. Yes you are probably correct in saying I have adopted and improved on the Roushayd as it stands in Systematic Betting. But blimey what a basis to start on!!!!
Yours
Swish