As usual your last post like all the ones before is an excellent piece.

Your reasoning behind not investing on Zurs reads very well. That said , one could argue that the trainer knowing he was a `plodder` had cleverly placed him on a stiff track which should have suited.

It just so happens that the trainers decision turned out to be the wrong decision.

One thing is for sure we all learn something everyday and yesterday was no exception.

**** I`d be very interested in some of your thoughts pre race, ie - it may save me some money as my betting boots will be back on in the not too distant future.

INFACT COME ON ALL OF THE EXPERTS LETS PUT OUR CARDS ON THE TABLE OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND PUT UP SOME PRE RACE SELECTIONS.

IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE EVERY QUALIFYING RACE JUST SAY ONE A DAY WHICH WE COULD EASILY AGREE BEFORE HAND.

GUEST HAS DONE IT AND THE MAJORITY OF US THOROUGHLY ENJOY HIS PRE RACE COMMENTS - LETS GIVE HIM A LITTLE REST AND HAVE A GO OURSELVES.

Regards,

THERE`S TOP QUALITY RACING MOST OF THIS COMING WEEK SO COME ON LETS

Fulham and others,

My comment regarding saving me some money was a `tongue in cheek joke` and not an ulterior motive which is hopefully the way it was taken.

Regards,

Determined

No offence taken, I assure you. And you make a valid point re Zurs' placing yesterday. The real point I am trying to make in drawing attention to contra-indications to selections such as Landing Light, Mytimie, Colourful Life, Adiemus, Caqui d'Or and Zurs is that, in each case, they existed. Just as they did in all the historical examples that VDW has left us. Very few bets at longer prices - say 3/1 and above - are wholly unproblematic.

As to pre-race posting, that is obviously a matter for each member. My position was set out in my post of 10.23am on 1 December, and has not changed. Which is not to say that I don't believe in the value of pre race discussion - personally I think its at least as useful as post race, because its possible to be more objective when the result is unknown, and something I engage in regularly. But its not for me in a forum with nearly 400 members, of whom only a score or so (assuredly including your good self) have ever contributed a worthwhile thought to this thread.

Keep drawing the thread`s attention to the `contra-indicators` as they are very useful.

The more one reads this thread the more clearly it shows how easily it is for VDW followers to draw different conclusions and dare I say make different investments.

Although it will never happen wouldn`t it be interesting to compare investments placed by all the experts over a 12 month period. How many would read the same. Non.

That said, I`ve no doubt the methodology works very well and will continue to do so for many years to come.

One point is very clear and here I totally agree with both you and Mtoto, ie - race value alone is no way to evaluate class.

As to pre race posting I feel in hindsight that my earlier invite was a little unfair especially to Hedgehog who to his great credit has been doing just what I`d like to see from others.

Regards,

I think we all agree that race class can`t be
taken at face value so how do we know the class
of a race ,could it be to turn back to your records concerning a given horse and this will
help to balance respective performances.
VDW said to confirm what the figures say it is
necessary to study the form of all concerned,
taking particular note of class in which theyran,
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.I think by looking at these
factors correctly we can know if a horse is
in form or not.

regards


Maggsy

Determined

Just two points:

1) your suggestion re pre race selection and discussion is eminently sensible and not at all unfair. Its just a question of the proper context. If the forum consisted solely of VDW enthusiasts who contributed, like Mtoto, Guest, Lee, Bensam, Crock, Barney, Statajack, Hedgehog, Barney, Investor, Maggsy, Investor and, I hope it is fair to say, the two of us (and with apologies to others I've inadvertently missed), and thoughtful critics like Swish and JIB, I would regard things differently;

2) I think you should beware of assuming there are VDW experts, if by that you mean people who are regularly successful practitioners. Some of us are more familiar with the literature and the examples than others - that is an evident fact. But who, if any, of us is expert in the practical application of VDW's work is almost totally unknown, and I would draw no conclusions about that from posts on this thread.

maggsy

sorry mate missed your post

this fellow has lots of good books and if he doesn't have them he will get them for you and GET BACK TO YOU.

THEY ARE ALL MINT CONDITION i went round his house and had a nice chat,he knows everybody in books and racing.

JOHN T PICKERING 07802 707458

MTOTO,

i dont know if you have satisfied yourself about decent fellow or not but,for what its worth here is my tuppence worth, i remember one statement which goes something like this " some horses have individual weight limits beyond which they cant perform"

this had performed well with light weights but when asked the question could not answer even in low grade.

hope this helps!

i've missed a hell of a lot in only a week


class of a horse

i think speed figures and ability ratings were intruduced to give a hand to those who couldn't spot class.

the class of a race is only a guide as higher class races are generally faster run,after all it is a race.

Barney,

Thanks for the help. I have no doubts about eliminating DF and BL from the Erin. My doubt has always been the reasons offered by Guest and others i.e. out of form. I also think that Guest, and yourself, are very brave to assume that just because the race is worth a few bob. That it in any way, can mean class is involved. I do agree the ability rating was introduced as an after thought.

EVERYONE/ANYONE

I keep going back to the Erin, sad I know. The logic of PK being the class/form horse is based on BL and DF being out of form, and Guest agrees vdw didn't actually say they were. This brings me to another thing, when I queried DF's consistency figure. Guest said it was a misprint. Can I ask a question? 5 horses were listed for this race 4 had the wrong c/f, are they all misprints? I would have thought that when giving an example for the first time, more care would have been taken. Guest have you given any thought to what they may be if not c/f? Another question why is Monksfield in the list? He wasn't in the first 5 in the forecast, when that happened in another example it was explained the horse came from another forecast, in another paper. I ask because I make him joint c/f horse in this race but rejected because of lack of consistency. In doing this I am not taking a horse of inferior class when awarding PK the c/f mantle. Ring any bells?

I honestly think the person that past on the knowledge to Guest, and maybe indirectly the others. Had manipulated the facts to make PK fit. Just my thoughts, but there are other examples that have to be adjusted to fit.

Could someone tell me if the words Maggsy claims were down to vdw (in his last post) were? I seem to remember reading them but can't find them.

Guest.

You say s/f are not the key in this race because some of the horses have no s/f because they ran only in Ireland. Does that not apply to the comments of what happened at the end of the Irish races also?

Regards

hi mtoto

i dont think either out of form more a case of current form not good enough, in my opinion.

in PK race look at the 77 erin race and see the difference in its last race, if it had run that good in that erin it would have won easily.

class horses have to start somewhere and they can be in a £621 pound race or a £8526 pound race.

[This message was edited by Barney on March 31, 2002 at 04:46 PM.]

In hindsight perhaps the word `expert` was the wrong one to use ( taking nothing away from those well versed in VDW ).

I feel I should replace `expert` with `those who consider themselves comfortable with VDW methodology`.

All those named by Fulham in his earlier post clearly fit the above description so why not post your thoughts pre race tomorrow on just one race of your choice.

Regards,

Barney

Can you explain the grounds for your opinion that the current form of Beacon Light and Decent Fellow was not good enough for either to win the 1978 Erin?

My problem with this example is that, working on the penalty value of races won - and it is difficult to do much else with the old examples - I find seven runners which have the proven, or clearly demonstrated potential, ability to win a race of the Erin's class:

Proven ability: Beacon Light, Decent Fellow, Master Monday and Meladon - all had won races of more or less the same class as the 1978 Erin;

Potential ability: Drumgora, Monksfield and Prominent King - all had run well, without winning, in at least one race of broadly comparable class to the 1978 Erin.

Master Monday and Monksfield seemed palpably out of form. Meladon and Drumgora can be eliminated on a direct form comparison basis.

That leaves three.

Prominent King - had the potential class, and it can be inferred is being brought to peak fitness by trainer's placing;

Decent Fellow - had the demonstrated class, BUT was his last race indicative of being in or out of form? At the weights he was always going to be beaten in that race by Night Nurse and Birds Nest. Once he started to lose touch, what does his jockey do - ride him out vigorously to finish as close a third as possible, or finish in his own time, unable to lose third place (provided he finishes) because there are no other runners. As far as I'm concerned, the run was inconclusive and best ignored (much as Guest ignored Caqui d'Or's last run yesterday when nominating him the class/form horse) - and on his Sweeps form Decent Fellow was very much in form;

Beacon Light - at the weights, as I've indicated in an earlier post, his one length defeat by Sea Pigeon was a highly creditable performance, indicative of a horse very much still in form.

Now, when one comes to weigh up the chances of what I regard as the three principals, there are question marks all round:

Prominent King - until winning the Erin, he had shown potential, but had not proved he could win a race of that class. Until a horse does, a question mark necessarily attaches itself;

Decent Fellow - his 28/1/78 run MIGHT have been indicative that he was off peak form and, as you've suggested, there were concerns about the weight to be carried;

Beacon Light - even if in form when coming second in the race on 4 Feb. (as I assume), did that race, in which he was "hard driven" on heavy ground, in the context of a busy season (six runs prior to the Erin compared with Decent Fellow's four and Prominent King's two), take too much out of him?

In other words, it was like the current races that have been explored recently, mostly courtesy of Guest - not unproblematic.

Mtoto
The passage from VDW that i mentioned can be
found in the Golden Years of Van Der Wheil
page 43 .

regards


Maggsy

Hello All,

I'm flattered that some consider that I'm comfortable with VDW. Hear that flapping sound. Thats me bouncing round like a fish out of water. I'm just happy if I get the same C/F horses as Guest.

Fulham/Mtoto - have I misunderstood Guests recent examples. They seem to explain why BL was out of form. I fully expect to be corrected but it does seem pretty clear to me.

All the best
hedgehog

Hi Hedgehog

What about spelling out precisely why you think Beacon Light was out of form - it may be pretty clear to you but it honestly isn't to me?

fulham,

i will try to tell you what i think a bit at a time, but i probably may well be wrong as you know.

PK had proven class, whether he had won a race with it is irrespective, class is permenant.

mr kildare also had proven class,i dont know how you dont mention him, but not as strong as pk.

i think you might be suffering from paralysis of analysis, i often get it when trying to work on my golf swing, i get so ingrossed i forget the basics.

in race 1479 why was pk forcast 2nd fav when out of form and stepped up in class, some one thought he was good enough to win a class 124 race

with decent fellow i consider the race 1497 and 1655 equal in terms of class of performance and his limit,that may go some way to explaining my thinking,it matters not one was won the other lost.but the weight would probably prevent him from winning.


beacon light in race 2175 how can you say sea pigeons defeat of him was a good performance he had never run in this country this year and had no form to measure as such, although highly tried he fell, he was a class horse in form beaten by a first time outer who normally preferes good to firm and was now running on heavy.a race he was expected to win that surely must be a poor performance, coupled with that he quickened to lead a bit too early and then struggled in a grade he should have won. from what i can gather they dont bounce back up as per See You Sometime.

in all there were only two in it with good recent form on the course both carrying weights with which they had previously performed well with as per celtic pleasure.

i think he took risks all the time(vdw) and his second letter (7) is,in my opinion, vastly underated if he was getting 80% winners why was he advocating retrieval to show a profit!!

hope in some way this helps

Investor,
I didnt consider Paperising's race yesterday because it was only class 36. I only tend to look at class 50 and upwards. A quick look at the race card would have led to me ruling him out, not in the top 3 consistency and poor ratings even before going into the other aspects. The initial picture on this race would have led me to decide no bet.
Regards,

Anyone who has read most if not all of VDWs letters and articles, at some point asks themselves if here is a man who knows his stuff. Some answer in the negative and dismiss him as a con artist, whilst others firmly believe what he says to be true and set about trying to solve the puzzles he set. Not many seem to find the answers though or they stop half way dismissing certain parts of VDWs work as unimportant or an afterthought to previous methods. VDW always maintained that we should solve the problems and set about proving their worth for ourselves through hard work and research.

Personally I am quite sure nothing was changed from that first race evaluation. The problem is because some can't see the full picture they are unable to prove for themselves just why certain horses were chosen or not. Some recent posts have posed some very valid questions and there has also been the odd comment that is very close to the answer that I believe is causing most problems. I have tried myself to put across this factor in new ways in the hope it might spark a rethink by some and eventually lead to the ultimate conclusion. Judging by some emails I have recieved I would say certain members are very very close.

The idea that the only horses we are looking for are those who have previously won races of similiar class or value is wide of the mark. There are many routes to judging class and form but they are all related to certain basic factors. Take Beacon Light for example. It wasn't just the drop in race class that proved the negative about his form. It was the fact that even though race fit, he was unable to do something that should have been a formality especially since he lead some way out. It's not as if there was a false pace and he got tapped for toe at some point, such as with horses like Peintre Celbre in his prep race for the Arc at odds on. Similarily there is a world of difference between flopping 2 weeks before a big race, having been on the go for some time, and putting in a bad one at the end of the season after a good spell. It's just common sense really not rules.

The printing errors in the consistency ratings were in the book. I don't know if they were there in the original letter but if they were wrong, why no outcry from the readership at the time?

Having changed my view about posting pre race and naming more selections, I intend to continue doing so even though recent results appear to temporarily undermine certain factors. I have never been worried about the affect on prices as a result. That would be extremley unlikely to happen not to mention also very arrogant. No, my concern has been revealing certain factors surrounding the selection process. Factors which still appear hidden to the majority. It will be interesting to see further posts as to if others head in the right direction.

Hi all,

There have been loads of posts since I last looked in and what with the horrendous amount of activity tomorrow this reply will be short and sweet.

I see Prominent King is still very much in debate and I also see that some VERY important points have been touched upon with regards to the hidden factors. The one thing that I will say on this point is that Mtoto and others that have agreed with him are correct when they say that the penalty value of a race doesn’t conclusively determine how good, class wise, a race is. Indeed, VDW made us aware of this point on several occasions.

The other point I would like to make is that of consistency of selections. Guest has put his neck on the line recently by putting up pre race views in advance, and I must say that they have been interesting to see. Anyone that has looked over the examples that VDW gave should be of the opinion that he didn’t just back 2 or 3 horses a week at short prices. He backed many horses at all manner of prices, however, I doubt there are many that can emulate this with such success. Prominent King and the likes were for me great examples of his methods in action, and served the purpose of knowing and understanding when you were heading up the right street.

I, like Statajack (I think), have a more reserved approach than Guest; I take on fewer selections at generally lower prices. Guest on the other hand really does take the bull by the horns. That said though I know for sure that the hidden factors that Guest talks about are the same ones that I have discovered. How we implement them, are just different. People have questioned why two people who know these factors don’t come up with the same selections, well, that is down to the fact that it is a method and not a system. One thing I can say with confidence is that two people that know the hidden factors will not come up with different horses in the same race.