Guest,

A/n successful day for you. I always thought Timeform`s Jim McGrath was the `main man` but it looks as though you`ve gained promotion.

You are Mr Class/Form and I take my hat off to you.

I`m on my way out so I`ll come back to you on your last post later.

Its quite clear that each race has a different problem to solve.

Barney / Investor,

I`m `determined` so I`ll never be too far away.

Cheers,

Although I dont bet at odds on I can only echo Investors comments. By using the consistency method and waiting until everything falls into place people cant really go wrong. Is it possibly that some people see Guests lists of class/form horses and get confused as to his reasoning? Guest is an old hand and his choices using some of the "more advanced" methods may not always be obvious.I know they are not to me sometimes. Why not confine bets to a method that you can feel comfortable with, while watching how things pan out with class/form or Roushayd style selections? Take things one step at a time, its better than being a jack of all trades etc.
regards,

Determined

A point that underlines something in my earlier post. Yesterday Guest pre-race posted his opinion of the class/form horses for eleven races. Including Sulphur Springs, which became Guest's class/form horse when Bramblehill Duke was declared to be a non-runner, only two of the eleven races were won by the c/f horse. And if you check, yesterday was not out of line with other days where Guest has posted his class/form horses. Further, it is of note that two of the three horses Guest says he backed yesterday were not his class/form horses in their races. Identifying class/form horses is part of the story, but evaluating all the real possibilities in a race is the greater part in other than the most straightforward situations.

Statajack suggests a way of approaching VDW which has the twin virtues of being straightforward and profitable, and thus has much to commend it as an initial strategy.

Best of luck.

I echo Santajacks comments, find what works for you and stick to it. Like Lee has also said, he never felt the need to know EVERYTHING about VDW's methods. I am the same. I use three methods, all variations on VDW. I am not saying that they are "pure" but they work for me. Mtoto has devised his own method, Max uses his own filters in conjunction with ideas on VDW. To use a VDW analogy of the carpenter and the tool bag, find the tools that suit you and stick to them. Why make things complicated? The basics DO WORK. Test it for yourself, three most consistent, betting market etc,etc. As VDW advised us just try it for one week and see how many winners come from these two factors alone, it will open your eyes, and that is just two factors, combine them and see the result, again just the very bare basics but you cant argue with cold hard facts.

statajack, i'm getting confused again. I thought the consistency method and class/form were all part of the same method?

IMP

if we are thinking along the same lines,did you consider TENDER TRAP or did you see conflict? cheers investor

Oh dear.Just when I thought I was making a bit of progress Statajacks post has taken the wind out of my sails.
Again I can't argue with the logic of his post.Keep it simple, stick to what you know etc. I appreciate Statajack is only trying to guide those of us trying to learn by saying "don't run before you can walk".
The problem I have is that I thought VDW,s methods were merely ways of narrowing the field to the main contenders.Having done that he would then apply his tests of form to see if anything stood out.He would then apply crosschecks in case there were other horses not trapped by the initial method which were possible contenders.That is the basis on which I have been working anyway
I had assumed that VDW's tests of form,and I think he had various ways of assessing form and class, would have been the same whichever method he was using.
Statajack if I have understood you correctly are you saying the form factors that VDW used were specific to each individual method? I seem to remember Guest saying he thought you understood some of the hidden factors that are important.Are you saying that these are method specific?
If I am using the consistency/forecast method alone for example how could I be sure that there wasn,t a horse with better credentials under the Roushayd method or the Travado/Rivage Bleu stategy (whatever that is)? If I don't take these other possibles into account aren't I then gambling instead of investing?
Cheers everyone.

afternoon mate..if we,re thinking along the same lines,did you consider TENDER TRAP or did you see conflict?..cheers investor

Determined.

For what it's worth, forget about the ability rating. I am sure it was an after thought, to help the folk that were just taking the first 5/6 in the forecast and consistent. Very good starting point but not enough by it's self. I think Mr Bingham was not far wrong with his advice to you, although I think he relied too much on the class of the last run. That's not what vdw said, is it.

This is a brilliant thread, so many current examples. All these examples, and I don't think I have seen one that doesn't hold to my theory. Many loser that would have been missed using it. I am more than happy. The list I put up yesterday.......

Water Jump a consistent horses, not class.
Spring Margot as above
Moonshine Boy as above
Valley Henry class/form horse with too much against to trust, I would want 5/1 just for it to get round
Saint Par form horse lacking in real class but not out classed in this field.
Tender Trap looked at from one angle could be classified as the class/form horse

Fulham.

Once again a very good post. I would only say forget the ability rating it causes more than enough confusion. I really think if it worked, people would be further down the road to understanding how vdw worked. It works just enough times to make people think it is the real thing.

Barney.

To be honest I am still lost with the way you analyse a race. If you don't use speed or OR ratings how do you split races that are worth the same to the winner. A horse can win a £15,000 race by 5 lengths going away. If you don't know the class of the horses it beat, how can you gauge it's worth?

Stratajack.

Do you use the ability rating as explained by vdw in his later articles, or some other method?

Let's hope we all have a good week next week

mtoto

answer that and (in my opinion) thats the thing your looking for.


to compound the problem a horse winning a 7k race with a short head can be the form horse.

[This message was edited by Barney on April 21, 2002 at 04:40 PM.]

Mtoto

I agree with you that there is a better means of assessing a horse's ability than the VDW ability rating, and I am grateful to you for showing it to me.

That said - and meant - IF one wants to sort out the class/form horse as VDW used to, one has to use his ability rating for that purpose: its a defining characteristic.

As has been amply demonstrated, identifying the class/form horse in a VDW sense is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for finding winning selections which balance all the factors. For me, the jury is out on whether identifying it facilitates such selections (or indeed perhaps hinders by setting up pre-suppositions too early in the process).

re roushayd,

in the newbury race on 14/5

why were shimshek and al hounnak, who were both coming out of the highest class races on this occasion. the former finishing second and the latter fourth both described as "neither have much in the way of class(AS HORSES)."

IS BEING PLACED IN HIGH CLASS RACE NOT IDICATIVE OF A CLASS HORSE???

If all factors are in favour of a particular horse and it is also the top on VDW`s ability ratings then it is time to fill you boots so i am led to believe.

The phrase used is the `ultimate conclusion`.

The ability rating obviously has its uses and I will still rate every horse in the races I evaluate but the rating itself may not have has much importance, ie - in the Scottish National yesterday the majority of the top 5 -6 rated horses by the ability rating in my opinion could be ruled out within minutes for varying reasons.

An example of the `ultimate conclusion` was ROKEBY BOWL in race 3771 ( year 1998 ). Infact looking back that 3 day York meeting was a hell of a week for VDW followers.

VDW METHODS IN GENERAL

It is clear that since I joined this thread I have become side tracked into trying to solve everything instead of concentrating on what I think I already know, ie - I tend to concentrate on hcaps paying particular attention to a horses last 3 runs.

I`ll stick with that for now using of course all the brilliant pointers I`ve gained from this thread.

One thing I realise is having set filters is vital. All I need to do now is set them and stick to them. Always back winners is not a bad one to have on my side, ie - every season numerous horses win multiple races some in sequence, others playing the illusion game. I`ll concentrate my efforts there using my novice VDW skills as I go along.

MTOTO

Fulham has really set my pulse racing with his statement that you have found a better method of assessing a horse`s ability.
Asking for your method would be down right rude and I`ve no doubt you`d tell me so but if I could be cheeky and ask for a hint. PLEASE !
Perhaps its been mentioned in one of your recent posts ?

Cheers,

I was told never to answer a question with a question but I`ve never done as I was told.

Q - is the Derby full of class horses ?

HI DETERMINED

surely these two had shown form in higher class judged by being placed and then dropped to collect .text book roushayd ???


i know the derby is full of day outers, but in running and being placed in higher class what would their OR have been???

Determined

Its not my method, but Mtoto's, so the credit is entirely due to him.

Despite starting with a considerable prejudice in favour of the VDW ability rating, as a result of using it for more years than I care to remember, Mtoto persuaded me to give his approach a go, and I have to say I now rely upon it.

To be honest, I can't now remember whether Mtoto described his method earlier on this thread, or in direct contact with me, so I'll leave it to him to post on it or not. But knowing him to be one of the most open and generous contributors to the thread, I am sure he will.

It should, however, be stressed that, like all that VDW has shown us, Mtoto's approach to assessing ability doesn't get you far in isolation. As a component in the overall picture, though, I've found it really helpful.

Fulham.

The point I was trying to make is vdw gave a method (in later articles) on how to rate ability. I don't think it was the method he used, but it came up with enough of his winning examples. He could hardly say the revised method isn't the way, and proceed to give away the original method. The one he had gone out of his way to protect.

As I don't use the new ability rating, I was interested to see Redback was the class/form horse using it. The only difference is in this case, Guest and others having the methodology passed down to them, would dismiss him as being out of form. We will never know if he would have been vdw's c/form horse. Although you have found an example that doesn't appear to hold the guide lines, wonder if it works my way?

Determined.

I am sure you know the answer to your question, but you are having trouble going against all you see written on this thread about it. Think on for a while, if you still can't figure it out e-mail me
Are you dismissing Marlborough because of weight? He didn't stay, nothing to do with weight. He ran the same race as when he carried 10st 5 lbs he stopped then, and I believed them when he said it was because he was injured. I know better now.

Be lucky

Once again some interesting points of view on display. Before responding to certain parties it might be worthwhile giving my own view of VDW and how he approached the task of conveying his methods to the SCHB and later Raceform readership.

In VDWs last known correspondance with Tony Peach, he made several points. One was that he had intended to give everything away in due time, but Tony had called a temporary halt to VDW articles owing to the backlash from some readers (some things never change eh?), and so all was not revealed. He also said that to just splash the whole lot in front of everyone would have been pointless and so he just advanced the methods slowly piece by piece in the hope that readers would be able to see how to put each piece of the jigsaw in place. It is my view now that everything VDW explained was being used by him for years before he wrote about these factors and considerations. The ability rating came about half way through his lessons but I'm sure it wasn't devised in retrospect to help readers understand. It was devised a long time before by VDW to help him view the picture numerically. Those who think it was backfitted are missing some vital points and if only they thought about it very carefully they may see how things should be done. VDW did say in Systematic Betting that it appeared most punters preferred to have things on a numerical basis, but also that various numerical ratings didn't always agree about a horse. It is true that once form and class are understood, it is possible to work well without recourse to the ability rating or a speed rating. Understanding class is one half and form the other and the balance between the two will show the way. Shimshek & Ala Hounak had little in the way of class as horses (ability rating) but had class on a race contested basis. Iben Bey in the same race had a lot of ability and had raced in much higher class races. When evaluating, VDW reminded us that in practice every horse receives the same attention as that given to Roushayd in his exercise. A time consuming process you would think then and so it is as VDW suggested. You can't find winners without putting in the time, though I am aware many on this thread do so but some are unsure as to what to look for.

One particular paragraph in Mtotos earlier post suggests he knows what to look for but not quite the means of how to do it as VDW outlined. VDW told us in a roundabout way but conveyed it in a rather clever fashion. When searching for the answers it can get very confusing as to which horses should be supported. Just because a horse wins it doesn't mean it was a bet in the way that VDW showed. It should be obvious that no method, however good, can eliminate all losers and find only winners in every race it is applied to. VDW gave us filters, if you like, to focus our attention on profitable areas. Better races, consistent horses, betting forecasts, class and real form all narrow the field. Sure, some class horses win when apparantly out of form and some form horses win when apparantly lacking in class, but they don't win consistently enough to predict. The Infrasoniques and Redbacks appear as VDW type selections to some, but others must see that they lacked in other areas. When a class/form horse is overburdened Canny Danny style you will get results such as Kadarann/Turgeonev. The trick is spotting when these situations occur and avoiding them. Marlborough has been a much hyped horse as have others from the stable this year and Mr Hendersen doesn't need reminding the power of the hype in keeping good opposition at bay from a good conditions race. The last horse Marlborough beat was Go Ballistic by a very short head almost a year ago. If his sights are lowered he could be back in the winners enclosure.

For those who are confused, I agree with Statajack that just sticking to one strategy is a better way to learn, hence why VDW only put small pieces in place over time. It has been suggested that isolating the class/form horse/s is a waste of time, but this is definitely not the case. It is dangerous to stray too far from the form horses with the better ability and class. When those missing points are found, you will see why the whole process is neccessary.

Is it only me but guest put up a list of horses and on saturday and failed to say which ones he was going to select. after the race he says he selected 2 winners and a narrow looser.

titus

Im a bit surprised that my last post confused a few people but it doesnt always follow that the class/form horse is also one of the 3 most consistent. What I would say is that factors outlined in the consistency method will turn up when using the later methods and will add confidence to any selection that is found. A lot of class/form horses were actually beaten on saturday but if you look at the winners of these races you will see most of them possessed factors shown from "spells it out" whether cons, ratings or abilty. Milligan is a good case in point in the scottish champion hurdle. For me a Roushayd qualifier and with the right conditions, he was 2nd on ability with ratings support to c/f horse Copeland whose form for its last 2 runs had taken a downturn. in my view it was handicapped out of it and had a prolonged battle with Vol Solitaire last run. As it turned out that form was better than I thought and VS battled well but in the end was it not Milligans extra class - expressed as ability in vdw terms which just got him home? Letter 36 in Golden Years offers up Royal Bond as a past example although the circumstances cannot be exactly the same.

Mototo,
I guess the above answers your question re the ability rating and also why I think it was chosen by vdw. I think this is more important in top races and tells you more about a horse's character than speed or form ratings can.

Investor,
Id have left Tender Trap although in hindsight it didnt have much to beat.

regards,