HI,

Good to see you back.

From the list I keep there are two horses in this race. Imperialistic and St Andrews, neither are consistent (as I see it) Of the 2 SA is the highest rated, he has some + points, and the trainer/jockey go well on this course. I think the trainer has already fired the bullet with this horse, on my reading he was meant to win the Ascot race on his second last run.

With him I have a big doubt and that is the course. His best form has been on stiff tracks, why this move? Looking at his entries it looks as if the going was main concern. Also a little worrying is the 10f entries, does the trainer think he needs a longer trip? Another slight worry is the lack of rating support, there are 2 others rated higher.

Imperialistic is one of the higher rated horses. She is proven on the course, and though I have a ? against her class. She is not that far behind SA on my figures, too close to have any confidence that SA is a bet.

The point of this post isn't to cast any doubt of your analyses of the race. It is more to show why folk can use the same basic idea and come to very different conclusions. I don't make either strong enough to back, but by the same token I wouldn't lay SA.

JIB,

You asked about a method/system that wins using recent form. I have been looking at this and would like to suggest.

Using the Daily Mail take any horse that is in the first three in the forecast. Been placed in it's last 3 races. Take the highest rated horse 78, if this horse doesn't qualify take the 2nd rated 77 (if it is consistent). I would say no bet under 6/4.

I have no records on this, but it is based on something I used when I was working. Quick and simple, no form study as others have done it for you.

Be Lucky

well done guest!

Spot on Guest

Nicely done Guest! An auspicious return!

Mtoto,

Thank you for the DM idea. I ve followed something similar with 78 horses that are 4 or less days since lto and were placed lto.

However the atmospheric conditions out here at this time of the year make my pc v slow or stopped altogether and Gummys DM page takes an age to load so I ve given it a rest for the time being.

Mtoto
With all due respect,To say that St Andrews isn't consistent is wrong my friend,I know that you stick to the figures for consistency that vdw gave.But the horse was in the top 3 cons and had consistent form the way vdw was trying to pur accross.He did say that "subject to other considerations a high percentage of winners come from the 3 lowest figures leaving out sellers and handicaps it often traps the winners in all races on the card"This was evident with st Andrew today.Having said that i didn't back the horse but Guest gave a fairly thorough evaluation of the race and all credit too him.

Guest
Well done with St Andrews.
Good to see you return with probably your most open post ever. Pleased that it worked out well for you.
Been to busy to post much this week, but will put up my thoughts on the QE 11, on the other thread, tomorrow. Your input would be appreciated.

Thank you Guest -

Posts like that will help restore credibility to a thread, which in the eyes of many on the forum - had "Completly Lost the Plot" - and become a laughing stock !

It shows that VDW is about - much much more than just, adding up a bunch of numbers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

MAZUNA:

2nd LTO in £60K race over 1m 6.5f.
Today's race £29K.

Her Best TS this season was at Ascot over today's trip (1m 4f).

Why didn't I post that before the race??

SR

Why don't we all ??

Hopefully tho - we can - all examine - our mistakes - and - learn from them !! -

The "Result" - "After the Race" - is - "Always" - "Painfully Obvious" -

well - "some of the time" -

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

Thanks to all.

JIB - The list takes in any age group, it all depends on which are the two most valuable races on the card.

The idea was of course VDWs and it has a logical basis. It was printed in his book back in 1988 and it still works. Not a great price today, though 7/2 was around before racing, but a good result.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuppenycat:
sorry, johnd - missed you out ! - why so quiet ?

---

Tc
Simply because it is pointless banging your head against a brick wall.
Ectoo is the 'new' expert on VDW, yet he obviously understands far less about the subject than many VDW'ers do about speed figures.
I asked 2 simple questions, both of which he swerved. Is this thread about the issues regarding VDW, or is it about promotion of ego?
I am loathe to pursue the matter because I may be accused of the same mistakes, but in the circumstances I will say the following:
I have studied VDW for a number of years; know more than many on here, but less than a very few. If you would care to re-read my appraisal of today's race you will find it accurate in most detail apart from the conclusion that Norse Dancer was a reformed character.
That may not be the epitome of VDW, indeed the final decision was no bet, but I would immodestly contend that it was far mor accurate than any list of ratings with a stab at the winner.
Some may consider VDW worthless, others have given it a little more thought.

In the year 2004 I dont think it matters who wrote the original material. Those that currently read and study it have to do so in its historical context because racing, betting and technology have moved on from the time of the articles origin.

Its hard to say how sensible the ideas were at the time but in modern day racing the insistance on certain aspects flies in the face of common sense. Traditional VDWers have the fulcrum of 'form' far too far over to the side of the horse.

From what I have seen of the original writings the author(s) seem to have been on a steep learning curve as the level of sophistication is constantly rising.

All the ideas that concern the horse form and constitute the early writings are as time goes on shown to be as valid as the trainers whim. As the Roushayd example shows, you bet when you can see the horse has been placed to win. You can arrive at that conclusion in several, if not many, ways. Rising sfs and being dropped in class being just one (or two) ways of spotting this.

The problem with form books is that they dont include the trainers preferences for courses, races, jockeys, preparation or training tactics. They dont include sires stats or SFs, they dont even give analysis over the first 5/6 in the betting, or CRs or EPS etc etc. Anyone who thinks that the old races given as examples plus the form books for those races is going to find anything revolutionary is suffering from reality isolation.

Stubborn insistance to the contrary, allied to the inability to make selections in the majority of races before the off, suggest individuals who have lost their way and like shipwrecked wretches cling to even the most unlikely objects in the hope of keeping afloat.

An honest open non cynical question to the VDW'ers.

What would Gerald Whiley (a pseudonym and non existent person like VDW, though his inventor hasn't killed himself - yet. And is probably the finest comedian we have ever had - IMO) have made of the modern day computer ratings?

I do know for sure on the 2 occasions TC put up AM results - which were good, Turftrax made 30 points plus on those occasions - maybe TC will back that up. Now surely to goodness these ratings use much of what VDW wrote about (well in so much as somebody that doesn't exist can write).

Jib
As you are no doubt aware, my perception of VDW is a little different from the mainstream on this thread, and for some time I have railed against the must have all the old form books to understand mentality. Many who have had them for years still make elementary errors in their understanding, and some stubbornly refuse to recognise the importance of trainer's intentions even though great emphasis was placed upon them in VDW's later writings.
However, I would disagree that the concept doesn't apply to his earlier work; as far back as his first example there is good evidence to the contrary.
Even with that in mind, the trainer still needs the horse, and the punter still needs to understand the horse's best circumstances, its class, fitness, etc, and that of its oppostion, for which there is no finer guide than previous form.
VDW understood that, and gave us the tools to understand the form book better, but as with most tools, their performance is limited by the user rather than the designer.
He was also strong on temperament, which, more often than not, precludes a bet in most races, not least such as yesterday when there were question marks against most runners, including Rakti's lto run and the drop in distance.

Nfp
Forgive me if you read my earlier post as a rant against ratings, that wasn't my intention.
The point I tried to make was, that no matter how good the ratings, they can always be improved upon by judicious use of the form book, for which, (IMO ),there is no finer tutor than VDW.
He didn't, as far as I am aware, commit suicide, (Jock Bingham did), though he might have had second thoughts had he read this thread.

JIB,

I agree with some of what you’ve posted above. Unfortunately by pretending to be something they are not posters on this thread are actually retarding their own progress towards the common goal.

Racing hasn’t changed; the job of the trainer is still the same as it was 30 years ago. I agree that technology now enables the trainer to assess his horses more accurately but the technology is there and available to them all. However, Just as back then, there are trainers and there are trainers.

The ideas of VDW are wonderfully sensible, but may I suggest that you must be missing a point with your insistence that certain aspects of the method flies in the face of common sense. If by this statement you are referring to the simple addition of form figures and calculation of prize money won to direct one to winners, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, this suggests that your knowledge of the method is no more than the majority who post on here, only that you are sensible enough to realise the obvious shortcomings of these ridiculously simple ideas.

The method really is based on only a few simple factors that remained consistent throughout the years that VDW wrote, that are apparent in EVERY one of his selections, and in practise, they are entirely relevant today. Without the form of his selections one would never dream of what that common denominator is. To that end my stance is that one cannot have an informed opinion unless they have studied his work, and as such cannot put forward a creditable argument against anything that VDW is seriously about.

Your arguments against the consistency rating and the ability rating are of course justified if all you’ve read are his letters. People have their own ideas on what VDW is all about, however with respect, that is all they are, their own ideas, that are in most cases miscalculated versions of VDW due to inferior knowledge of the subject.

To clear up a few points from my previous post.

I was indeed referring to the AR and form figs as the bits that fly in the face of common sense, most of the rest is not only sensible but often wise.

I ve not read all the articles though I ve paid attention to what the 'experts' thought they taught when they were discussed on this thread. So yes my opinion has been formed second hand especially as to the earlier works.

My point about technology wasnt clear as to where racing has changed. The biggest change has been seen on the punting side of things. Easy access to stats etc has made it far simpler to identify the 'good' things both for the punter and the bookie. When VDW was being written you could still pull a 'Gay Chance' stunt at Cartmel. Nowadays the only valuable info still being hidden from the punter is the horses' bodyweight. And of course the eternally inaccurate going declaration.

This change in technology is much more likely to have reduced the average SP of a VDW horse than to have increased it.

Punting technology also means that modern (as opposed to the few traditionalist older generation) trainers are much more likely now to be more elaborate in disguising their intentions. Thus further exposing the danger to the reliability of horse form, principally the 'consistent horse'. When Clive Holt started with these they were a great money spinner, after he went public about it they've never since recovered in terms of profitability, though the SR remains much as it was.

The members who are best qualyfied and able to comment on VDWology (the criterium for this I regard as pre-race selection) all have one thing in common: they have each adapted an idiosyncratic approach from the articles which surprisingly seems to work despite their obvious differences. If I am correct in this then VDWology is catholic rather than castist and as a consequence can be used by all in the manner that their consciences best allow.

catholic rather than castist
Hmmn
Nearest I could get with my Dictionary was cast iron

Caste = A more or less exclusive social class (Oxford Reference Dictionary) No adjective was given so I took the liberty of creating 'castist'.

http://www.chetna.net/reports/caste_in_canada.htm

LEE GUEST OR ANYBODY THAT KNOWS

quote:

---

The method really is based on only a few simple factors that remained consistent throughout the years that VDW wrote, that are apparent in EVERY one of his selections, and in practise, they are entirely relevant today. Without the form of his selections one would never dream of what that common denominator is.

---

do you know what the 'common denominator is' ? Does it really ocur in EVERY SINGLE VDW selectin?