Investor,

While I agree penalty value can be used as a guide to class, I think it is a poor guide. You mention the fact that Jim Thorpe had been dropped to a 29 from 92. Are you saying if the last run had been the 92 he would have stood a better chance? The truth is the 92 was good enough although it would have put him into both of the short list. He horse wasn't good enough, period!!

If this was an isolated case of the 'new' a/rating being found wanting fair enough. There are many cases in the first few examples. That'd because it wasn't used then. The examples only start to reflect it after the rating was introduced.

Attraction, yes she was a form horse, in fact she was the c/form horse. Did I back it, no? Why not because the price took me by surprise. I wasn't interested in her at shorter prices because there was a slight doubt about her bouncing. Hard race, best ever time in last race. 3/1 would have covered that doubt for me.

St Andrews, think I've already said I made him the class horse in the race. He wasn't consistent, all be it you didn't agree. I wasn't sure he would run to his best and again the price was good enough considering the danger was closely rated.

JIB,

While I don't rate this a/rating I think an accurate rating is a must. I use speed backed up by the class of the competition. Something I think VDW suggested.

I may have miss understood your last post, but why would you expect a horse to reproduce it's figures from Cheltenham at Liverpool? Some can act on both courses, but how many can reproduce their best form? I also think the two meeting are to close to allow a horse to get over a hard race.

I also disagree that s/f are of more use at races of a mile or under. Some of my best wins have been over the jumps, or in races of 10f +


Be Lucky

Snow Knight
Don't put me in the same catgory as Guest/Lee they are miles in front of me when it comes to vdw.But in answer to your question.There would be clues there,But sometimes you have to delve a little deeper.Guest did mention on one occasion that more horses have to be looked at than are running in the race.Sometimes you don't have to go to those lengths,But you have to study the form of all concerned,That is imperitive for obvious reasons.

Mtoto
Well i'm glad that you at least saw the merits in Attraction,You say that St Andrews wasn't consistent.Of course he was.You obviously stick like glue to the consistency rating.But that doesn't mean "a horse" hasn't got consistent form.Have you actually got together the info on the horses that vdw gave And evaluated them as he would have done.I don't think you have,Because you wouldn't be classing St Andrews as not consistent if you had done so.

You say Jim Thorpe wasn't good enough period.Why wasn't he good enough in your opinion.

Investor,

I do hope that isn't a hint of sarcasm creeping into your post. Yes, I have looked at all the horses in all the races I have studied so far. As I have said I don't go galloping on until I am happy with a race. I see little point in just studying the selections without looking at the rest of the field.

You can put any interpretation on consistency you like. I think VDW was very definite in how HE saw consistency. This is born out by his selections that didn't come under the heading of any other method. He must have spent hours getting his stats together, and can you find a horse that was not consistent (12 or under) and not in the lowest 3 if the score was higher? St Andrew didn't come into it on consistency.

Why wasn't Jim Thorpe good enough? I think VDW explained why he would have thought that if you look at the Little Owl example. Wayward Lad came from the same class of race. Although he was 2nd on this a/rating he was only 3rd in the other ratings. The horse that was in front of him was only a handicapper with a poor 'new' a/rating. Have you ever asked why that is?

I have explained that in a way you can understand. Can you explain why Baronet is the selection? I can eliminate the top on ability your way. In doing it I have to resort to the distance being wrong, but in other examples VDW doesn't seem to have worried about distance. What about the other horses that have a better a/rating, or are they ALL out of form or non form horses?

Snow Knight,

The question you should be asking is are the missing link and the key the same thing? I don't think so. To answer your question I think (if I'm right about the key) he could have found those 2 selections using the key no problem.

Be Lucky

8 October, Result.

In the VDW race of the day,

my attempted VDW selection ( Calcutta) came nowhere.

Of my own three selections, I had the winner Naashab 14/1 and the third, Literatim, with the other one nowhere.

N the winner was not top OR. He was 90, Calcutta was 100.

N was co 2nd top Best RPR, 120.

On value of past races, N ran in a £75.4K at Newmarket lto. Today's race was a £13.5K.

I feel Boozer's point ( I mentioned it earlier) can be very, very, helpful.

Oh, last three form figures?

Nashaab, the 14/1 winner - 7,8,0.

Calcutta - 911
Dunaskin - 111
Mrs Moh - 122 all unplaced.

Mtoto,

I am not refering to the same horses that run at Cheltenham and Aintree. I refer to the similarity of class of horse that runs at the two meetings and the similarity of class of race they compete in. As the two tracks are so different trainers are more likely to choose one over the other depending on the nature of their charges. However the sfs awarded at Cheltenham are significantly superior to those awarded at Aintree. (Topspeed)

There are of course other 'brands' of sfs on the market and my comments are solely confined to having used the RPs Topspeed.

investor

I have just ordered the form books from 1977 to 1982.Have you spotted the trait that lee says runs through all van der wheils cosistent and roushayd type horses.

Lee

Is there enough information contained in the above form books to find this trait that you talk about.
Thanks

Mtoto
I'm not going to argue anymore about st andrews.But i completely disagree with you,So we'll have to agree to differ on that one,

Jim thorpe had been dropped in class to collect lto and was now going back up against higher class animals with proven form,Very much in the same vein as Desert Orchid when meeting Pearlyman and very promising.Slightly different scenario but nevertheless he had it all to do.I can't help you with Baronet it would mean going through it all again.Some of the paperwork i had has been discarded by my silly wife and if i remember rightly that is amongst it.I'll have a look to make sure and if iv'e got time i'll go through it again.You'll have to bear with me though.

Mtoto
Iv'e just realised why i haven't got Baronet.I don't posess the 74 flat book.So i can't get the 2yold form for all concerned,Unless you want to put the prize money won as 2yold's or whatever.If not i'm stumped.

hi,everyone,,does anyone have a copy of winning ways..by van der wheil..i believe it was printed around about the same time as systematic betting, anyone willing to help with form and ability rating of horses used in evaluation process, have not been able to locate form books?

Mtoto,

Yes, you did misunderstand me, but that may have been my fault. My point is that with both the OR and the AR, it is IMPOSSIBLE to gauge, accurately, the class of a horse. Whether that is before or after the race. Form is where one should be looking.

However, VDW stated that class is kingpin, and this, in context with the above, needs to be thought about. It appears to me that VDW ALWAYS left us some work to do. But just because a horse has the highest ability rating means nothing, and just because a horse has raced against horses with high ability ratings, in comparison to the opposition, also means nothing. This is not important to the workings of the method, contrary to popular believe. The past examples, if studied in detail, will bear this fact.

Grundy,

It takes me less than half an hour, each day, to verify if there is a winner in each race I look at. If there is then I do take the race apart, but 9 times out of ten that winner in the race is a bet. It appears to me that when a horse is boiling in the sense that VDW meant the trainer rarely gets the placement wrong i.e. distance, course, going, and opposition etc.

Investor,

Which example, consistency wise, would you highlight for others to compare with St Andrews?

SK,

Those years don't cover all of VDW's writings so therefore won't cover every selection.

I maybe slow, however, it wasn't until after sometime of detailing and researching EVERY example that I got lucky.

Lee
Phew,Now that isn't easy.To be quite honest with you,I can't of the top of my head,The point i was trying to make was that St Andrew's was consistent in higher class in comparison to the rest of the field.It's the old "consistent form combined with ability in higher class".I wasn't really prepared for that question.But that is how i viewed it.

Mtoto
Iv'e dug out some notes i made on Baronet.I must admit i haven't got the abity ratings but this is what i wrote.

No ab ratings.Petronisi is obviously the main danger but had been dropped a long way in class and was recieving 7lb of Baronet.Baronet only going down by 1.5 lgs now 2lb better of could be a reversal.

Town and country Upped in class and not showing a great deal.

Rhineland has shown a complete downturn in form and was a false favourite.

Nothing else to look at bar these 3.

Like i say i'm missing the 74 flat book so culdn't do the full evaluation.

JIB - Can't say I agree that a rating such as the Official Handicappers is based on unemotional cold blooded logic. It is one persons opinion, nothing more nothing less. There are plenty of private handicappers all compiling along similiar lines, yet they don't always agree. That was something vDW noted and his conclusion was, treat ratings as a guide only.

Speed ratings also have an element of opinion in them, the going allowance is just that. But at least they start from a reasonably unbiased benchmark.

Mtoto - If you look at Baronets last race with an eye on the same points regarding Pegwell Bays last opposition, you cannot fail to see an obvious benchmark.

My reference to Beacon Light vs Sea Pigeon was in regards to an exchange we had on another board recently. I have in front of me, a sheet showing these 2 horses last 3 runs with details of the business end of the race in full. VDW said "try not to think of a race as a whole.." So what is important? Surely the answer has to be, those that fought out the closing stages?

I have to say, Mtoto, I am still perplexed by your insistence on only choosing parts of VDWs methods to use. This is something he categorically stated would only lead to frustration. Even when a clear reason is given, and reason that runs throughout all the VDW examples, you still don't or won't see it.

You may say I'm a hard task master. Maybe, but I thought nothing of compiling the sheet I refer to above because I wanted to see what could be gleaned from it. Yes, it took a good hour of my time, but it was time well spent.

One reason I chose St Andrews as an evaluation to share was that it was well down the list on the ability rating. However, through a combination of class of race, class of horse and form I could establish that his rating was not the full story. This idea that the basic rating will deliver winners is rubbish. It will but only at around 10% of the time. It is not infallible, but it is a fair guide when weighing up opposition.

Investor,

Ok if you don't want to argue a particular horse, argue the principal, it's all the same to me.
RE the 78 Cambridgeshire there are no runners with winning form going back further than 75. Those runners who have form from that far back don't really feature in the possibles.

Baronet has an a/rating of 17, there are 5 runners in the first 6 in the forecast with better a/ratings. Plus 3 of these have better c/ratings. If you have the 77 form book you should be able to make a decision on this race.…

JIB,

I did wonder if that was what you meant. I can't speak about Top Speed as I have never used their figures. I can only say I have never noticed any major differences with the figures I use between the courses. I have always had the theory the Post has a tendency to inflate all figures from the top class races, but that could just be me.

Be Lucky

Guest

Why not just tell Mtoto what the obvious benchmark is
You have known him long enough
Did you not talk to each other on your VDW exclusive thread
I would have thought you would by now have nothing more to explore

Well done So far Investor
With your selections
Seriously
Credit where its due

Lee has quit while hes ahead

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

Mtoto
O.k,What were the ab ratings for Rhineland and petronisi.I must say though,That Judging by the ab rating you have just given.Baronet was still running well within himself when going down to Petronisi.I can't argue the principal because the sme traits are there in this example.Don't forget that Baronet had won previously class 38 carrying 10 stone.

Boozer
Don't butter me up mate,Your probably in e.mail contact with T.c.Just get your selections on the other thread and let's see what your made of.

Guest,

While you are perplexed about me, I have to say I'm just as perplexed about you. You say there are factors that run through all the selections, I agree with that. They are just different factors that we see.

I just can't see what Roushayd did at the sharp end of the Epsom race. We don't know what PK did at the end of his race before the Erin. We do know what Petronisi did at the end of his race he beat Baronet. We do know Baronet didn't/couldn't quicken. Somehow in their next race one is a form horse the other. the winner has to be rejected as a non form horse to make it work.

You say you sent an hour or two compiling a sheet, very good move. Did you ever spend any time compiling a sheet to look at other factors than the ones you think are important? I have but I can't make them work in a consistent factual manner. To make them work your way I find I'm having to make excuses when in reality there is no real excuse. With me you have the ready made answer, I will never understand how VDW works because I don't use weight in my day to day workings. I have explained many time I use weight when I'm working on the examples.

I'm perplexed because you appear to add words and other meanings to the words written by VDW. He said read what is there and understand, not add bits on to make it work for you. You say expecting the basic a/rating to produce winners is rubbish, I agree but I would expect any good rating to do better than 10%. In fact I would be happy if it managed to point you at the 3/4 best horses now and again. You say St Andrews was well down the ability ranking, he wasn't working my way. He was top on pure ability he failed for me because he wasn't consistent. VDW point out he had a class horse that wasn't consistent that won at 33/1. He left it because horses with that profile don't win often enough to make it worthwhile. Who is following VDW, you who ignores the advice, and goes looking for reasons to back this inconsistent horse at 5/2?

Be Lucky

Bollocks Investor
Dont get too cocky

You are far too good for me Nowadays
If Ever I meet you remind me to curtsy

Email contact with TC?
Youre getting paranoid
Even if I was so what ?

You are INDEED a silly Bugger

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