Ang on

Re Placed to win
While it is obvious that it is a bonus when they are trying BUT
I have said this before so here goes again
Do you think that only one trainer is placing to win in theses high class expensive handicaps??

Comments to watch -

Just Failed

Ran on Well

Pushed Out

Unchallenged

Quickened to Lead

Impressive

Ran on Strongly

V.Easily

Ran On

Comfortable Winner

Ridden Out

Quickened

Canter

Finished Strongly




any more ??

Grundy,

You have highlighted an area that needs investigating, and logical thought.

You are correct in that it is a factor in horse racing that is impossible to quantify accurately. Class has to relate directly to form, and marrying the two is the essence of VDW’s method. Class is no use without form, whilst form is no use if the level at which it was achieved turns out to be the class limit of the horse.

VDW clearly stated how he assessed the class of both a horse and the race. He wasn’t as open when it came to form though, and it is in this area that one should focus their attention on.

Many of VDW’s selections were NOT the class horse of the race, and likewise many hadn’t competed against the classiest horses in their recent form. So as you can see it is not, at first glance, straightforward.

Nessie,

I have the current edition of Chaseform the officialformbook for last seasons jumps (2003-2004).

In the introduction they have a section that is headed Abbreviations and their meanings and starts with Paddock comments and finishes with firstly Finishing Comments and then Winning Comments.

Each of these sections lists about a dozen or so comments in descending order of merit.

Its too much for my feeble typing skills but perhaps some kind soul can scan it and post it up. As I feel that these are the comments Lee is refering to, especially the top half of each categorys' comments, which offer the most promise for the future.

Boozer,

Exactly, Im doing far better with the DRs than the M and M chasers whose SR was less than 10%! (However I must say in my defence that the M and M list was only a prototype.)

Obviously if I had more time and didnt live so far away I could do a lot better, but I think if you are on a trier most of the time in the end you will be in the black.

Look at Muqbil on saturday a good classy horse (on my DR list) but definitely out of it at 12f.

I hope I haven’t led anyone up the proverbial garden path with regards to the race-readers comments.

The majority are self-explanatory and other than getting an idea of what the horse did in their race, they are of no further use.

The horse in question doesn’t HAVE to have ‘ran on strongly’ or ‘quickened inside the last’ etc. in order to be a prospective selection. Roushayd for one is testament to that when he marked his card in the Northern Dancer:

Hdwy 5f out: 3rd st; hung rt & one pce fnl 2f.

Lee,

I must admit I don't quite understand this:

" Sean,

Your reply only bolsters my argument about the lack of knowledge that posters demonstrate where VDW is concerned.

Anyone with the slightest interest of getting to the bottom of VDW would already no that this stage of the race is where the answers lie.

“To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of the class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and MOST IMPORTANT, HOW THEY PERFORMED IN THE LATER STAGES OF EACH RACE.”

------------

Can you be more specific? I welcome criticism, btw, if there is/was any. It's just that I cannot see where you differ from my earlier post.

Personally, I cannot imagine how a punter can consider the way a horse ran in the last 2 furlongs ,except by

1) being at the track and watching the race.

2) Watching the race on TV or, (probably the best of the lot) watching videos.

3) Reading race reports.

4) In some countries, reading and analysing sectional times.

Even if I never get to know the essence of VDW, I'd be eternally grateful to any who can tell me any other way.
It may even be a lot easier, for all I know!

I'm not too bothered by isolation; my own methods will give me a decent framework.

Here is a copy of an e-mail sent to Gummy by Marchwood in October, 2001. It may or may not be of interest:-


"My own ideas using vdw as a base really comes
from the VDW letter to Rfu of the 23rd August
1979 the outline of which is a follows:

Concentrate on better-class races with GOOD consistent horses.
Consider performance over the last two furlongs in each of the three previous outings. Horses that improve noticeably at this stage to make a race of it without winning can be looked on as potential candidates in the near future and note should be made of how the trainer places them.

Coupled with the further method to reduce the field: -
1. Mark all those horses with form figures 1 -4 in either of their last two outings.
2. Select in days the five most recent runs from those marked.
3. Select from the above the three most consistent by adding together the last three placings.

Use a combination of both elementary and mechanical procedures to narrow the field. The two processes which he describes as elementary and mechanical are clear for all to see.

I completed my own selections by using my own last threeoutings chart (which was sent to Methodmaker), the OR rating and best SF figure from the Rfu added together to give a total and then using the ability figure as vdw procedure as a checking device.

In my previous posting I gave a set of last three placings figures which added up, using VDW methodology, to no more than 5 but suggested that this was not always the case. This is the method above I was referring to because the last TWO outings could add up to 8 but furthermore he says 'in the race example none has a second
place, so mark those with a 5th place'again leading to a much higher total than 5 if we were looking at three races.

The point I am making here is also that it does seem on many occasions, his methodology was not hard and fast but formed a base which was/could be altered to suit the circumstances. I am
sure that many of you could find many instances of this in his methods.

I might also suggest it is this sort of action that gives the doubters support that maybe the methodology is concocted after the race to suit the results. Nevertheless the more you read I am still convinced the more you will learn. This 'backfitting' as it is now called was
also what Jock Bingham was accused of but for my own part I can say that his interpretation of the VDW methodology taught many people including me more about VDW than initially did VDW!"

Marchwood.

"Taken from the Gummy Forum archives.)

Roushayd - final 2 furlongs.

One Paced - ( not tiring , but unable to find a turn of speed)

This has to be viewed in the context of the Class of the Race - He certainly was not "Running Out of Petrol" - and the significant feature surely - is the Big improvement in the Speed figure - 27 up to 65 !

He is of course then dropped into a much lower class of race !


VDW immediatly follows on with his Derby evaluation - "Quest for Fame" - which makes great play of -

Raised in Class - improving and Quickening to challenge and kept on, finishing second. Distance no problem, improving and quickens.

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

JohnD,

I don't consider a £12,000 race for horses of that class anywhere near being a top class race. So why take him, possible just to fill up the horse box. It cost no more to take 2/3 horses than just one. Why run him, possibly to get the OR down as he has gone up 6 points. That will help give a better selection of races for him to run in. Did it work I think so handicapper will drop him a least 2 points, and he more than covered the petrol expenses. Plus many will read the form thinking he must have been trying because he went all that way.

Lee,

Notice you have put up the race comments for Roushayd, but not the beaten 9 lengths. You say that run was an improvement, an improvement on what? The only thing I can see is he finished closer to Vouchersafe, compered to their last meeting. If V was eased, and R never got into the race what does it prove? Take out the s/f and I can't see why anyone would think it was an improvement.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Check out Ahoy - speed figures won't help you here when recent form is evaluated.

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

Raised in class also enhances Sf cos thats whats built into the equasion
An allowance for class
Based on Going allowance I think

Which brings me back full circle --

Has no one got a comment on "Trilemma's" - last "Rotten" sf - for the 4.10 Nottingham ??

lee, thanks for your excellant reply,you mentioned recent form of ahoy, roushayd i believe had previously won at haydock..? i do not have full form for ahoy,does course requirements play a part in your basis of form and class evaulation lee

Sean,

My point is not that you have been able to pick up on a point that many punters overlook, but that you give the impression you were unaware that VDW had touched upon it.

Please, if I am wrong in this assumption, forgive me.

Grundy,

The course is a relevant factor in the evaluation; however, it appears from my research of VDW, albeit only a small sample size where he made mention of conditions such as Forgive and Forget (course), and Pegwell Bay (going) etc. that only if a horse has shown it is unlikely to handle them are they passed over. Otherwise in other examples such as Rifle Brigade (distance) there is no concern. Obviously the balance of class and form compared to the rest of the field will also have a bearing on ones final assumption.

TC,

Trilemma’s last run was as much as she could do – pushed out to beat Madiba by 1.75 lengths. How good is that performance?

Race The Ace did as much as he could do also – steadily drawing clear.

At face value, which has nothing to do with winning distances or speed figures Race The Ace should finish in front of Trilemma, but unfortunately you couldn’t bet on it. It is a winner in the race that we are looking for, not selections that leave us with questions.

Lee,

Ahoy.

I agree his recent s/f are not up to much, there again nor were PK's. That doesn't change the fact it was a s/f that put Ahoy on the list. I can't see Ahoy's form did anything to promote his chances before his win either. The only plus apart from the s/f is the class the trainer choose to run him in. I haven't the form book for the season when he went on the list so can't check. I would be very surprised though if he didn't conform to my idea of how VDW really judged class.

So while I agree class and form is the major factor in both examples Ahoy and Roushayd. I still can't see how the run before the ONC was an improvement without using s/f.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

"I have said I concentrate on the good class races BECAUSE I think horses are placed there to win. Why pay good money, and cart a horse around the country for a prep race? What's wrong with that statement"

"So why take him, possible just to fill up the horse box. It cost no more to take 2/3 horses than just one. Why run him, possibly to get the OR down as he has gone up 6 points. That will help give a better selection of races for him to run in. Did it work I think so handicapper will drop him a least 2 points, and he more than covered the petrol expenses. Plus many will read the form thinking he must have been trying because he went all that way."

If you can't see the contradiction in those 2 posts, then all is lost!

JohnD,

Do you think that was a top class race? Do you think they wouldn't gone ANYWAY for the favourite to run in the last? Do you think they would have gone all that way just to take one horse for a prep race?

I put a line through that race without studying the runners. Not my sort of race. You asked a question, or made some sarcastic type of remark. I tried to give my thoughts on the logic of taking that horse on that trip.

My first statment about horses that are entered in good/top races stands. The remark about horses going a long way for a prep race was in the context of using the good class race as a prep. I think if you can't see the HORSE is the important factor then yes all is lost. For you.

For the most part trainers do not own the horses they train. In the cases of syndicates perhaps the owners do not matter much, certainly Gummys 'Before The Dawn' syndicate suggests that multiple owners are given minor consideration.

But when the horse belongs to an individual who is paying at least a k each month the trainer must be able to give a comprehensive run down on the horses abilities, state of health and future plans.

The idea of just banging a nag into a horsebox and giving it a run at a convieniant meeting is a fanciful lack of intimacy with the horse training profession.

Some horses are easy to train, are tough as old boots and run their hearts out at a variety of distances and goings, (who can forget poor tragic Ei Ei).

However other horses are a story of three steps forward and two back. Here the trainer is obliged to concentrate his efforts and time in preparing the animal to win. Like most professions the more hard work, thought and attention he puts in, the more likely he is to be successful.

Horses are not machines.

Sport requires deception.

Owners want prizes.

Everyone loves a tickle.

VDWology has to fit into that reality.

Have a look at Gosdens' 5 year class win stats:

A = 46/341 13%
B = 17/133 12%
C = 33/177 18%
D = 207/1025 20%
E = 15/70 21%
F = 5/17 29%
G = 6/6 100%

You can see he places to win his horses at all levels. Obviously as he is famous he gets better animals so he finds it easier in the lower classes but his placing is clearly demonstrated. And you dont need much imagination to comprehend how much effort went into this success.

Mtoto,

For information, Ahoy ran only twice as a 2yo, 6th in a class 52 maiden recording a figure of 54, which put him on the list, and next time 3rd in a class 46 maiden recording a figure of 29.

There are others in the race that recorded faster times; also, at least one recorded their best figure in a higher-class non-maiden race.