Determined

From a non vdw perspective - so please ignore if you wish - but castlehane and wave rock - their recent win ratios - especially the formers werent that good if you looked at say the last 8 or so races.

Re Marlborough (dont think this was you)- with that weight I had to oppose him - few horses with 11 stone 7 and above win long distance chases. He had also tried before and failed .

I wouldnt get depressed - its a tough job - especially handicaps - and I can assure you if I was trying to find handicap winners my losing run would exceed yours !

Statajack.

Thanks for your quick response. Unfortunately your answer still makes me wonder if you do use the same formula as Guest. I made Milligan the class/form horse in that race but inconsistent (at the time). VDW said the class/form wins most of the time when the prize is right, surely that would hold for ALL methods. It does for the way I find the class/form horse and I wouldn't go against it in any method.

Interesting to see although Guest worries about weight, it is only the over all weight, and doesn't worry about the weight factor in the collateral form. My mistake about the weight M carried in the SN last time it was 11st 7lbs not 10st 5lbs as stated yesterday. Eyes aren't what they used to be.

I can't find a vdw bet today, is that right, or just another misunderstanding of the method on my part?

Mtoto,
If we are talking about class/form horses, how could Milligan be said to be in form? 2nd on ability rating and btn 18 1/2 lengths last run which was his best for a while. Not in the 3 most consistent either so fails under that method too. OK, recorded a much improved speedrating last run in higher class and racereader comments hint at return to form. Now has his favoured conditions so the signs are right, but in form no - how can he be?
Granted the race was a tricky one for finding the c/f horse with Copeland for me having gone over the top but on balance and recent achievement I would have to call it the same as Guest. Copeland followed by VS. I can only surmise after reading some recent posts that you appear to be using different criteria for your interpretation. In this case it seems to have worked but I think the ability rating was put in place to demonstrate courage and willingness to battle as opposed to a simple measure of average winning prizemoney.
regards,

Statajack.

Can you point me to the article that says the c/form horse is based on recent form? I'm also a little confused with Guest giving more than one c/form horse in a race, I would have thought by definition there would only be one. I can see more than one form horse, but it must be rare not to be able to split the class element.

I am also getting worried that Guest putting up so many c/form horses that are being beaten. People will not realise the true worth of finding the true c/form horse. I may be wrong but I think it is a very important factor. It runs through all the methods and if you wander far away from it you are going against the odds. You say in this case it worked, I think it work in a few cases on Sat. When you consider I only had one horse per race.

Yes, I use a different criteria, I have never been able to except the ability rating, as you say vdw didn't use it for the first examples. That's what makes it interesting we all agree vdw methods work, but use them in different ways. I must say I am glad I didn't meet the same person as Guest. Other wise I would hold the same views as him on how it is meant to work as it appears to be very plausible, until you have to fiddle a few factors to make it work. Wonder what people would be saying if I had given my version first.

Be lucky

I am interested in thoughts about Harlov at Hexham today,would he have been a vdw selection?The class/form horse?,consistent,jt fav,everything in his favour,me thinks,would be interested in any comments,
regards

pipedreamer,

on the surface of it harlov was the only one near to a selection (in my opinion)in the races i checked, there was conflict amongst the form from some of the others in the numerical picture though, and that was enough to put me off.

mtoto,

i would have thought that mr rambo would have been on for you ??

Barney,

I have only a very very small idea how Mtoto works but I suspect a class F race at Ponty was not a race for him.

Mtoto,

Hope you don`t think I was speaking on your behalf.

By the way, I`m still `thinking` before I e-mail you.

Question - do you work out your own speed fig`s are do you rely on the Split Second fig`s produced in Raceform ?

Cheers,

Hi all.

I've just read a post on another board which suggested that a [the] book by Frank George was the basis of the VDW methods.

Anyone got any thoughts on this.

cheers IMP.

Mtoto

In answer to your question as to when the term was first specifically used I would refer you to Fulham's quotes from Ultimate Wheil of Fortune on page 92 of this thread.
As I understand it, finding the class/form horse starts with the top rated for ability. If its in form, it is the class/form horse and according to vdw the likely winner if every other aspect pans out. If its not in form, look at the 2nd top rated for ability. Is this horse in form? and so on.
Everything was in place for a big run from Milligan and I took the view that Copeland had gone over the top, too high in the handicap due to the Tote Gold Trophy win and confirmed in my view by the subsequent defeats at cheltenham and Chepstow. Over the top perhaps but hardly out of form. For whatever reasons we have to go back to Milligans race against Landing Light in December for his last in form run.
Roushayd yes, class/form no by my reckoning.
regards,

Statajack

It just goes to show that there are differences of understanding, as in my book Roushayd was indeed the class/form horse when winning the Old Newton Cup. It will be interesting to see what view Lee and Guest take.


Guest

I would not - at present - argue that isolating the class/form horse was "a waste of time", to quote your words, but I think the utility of doing so bears reflection.

Assuming, for the purpose of this post, that the majority of the class/form horses you have put up before the respective races would, indeed, have been VDW's class/form horses, then subject to human error I make the record as follows:

2/3 - 0 winners out of 8
9/3 - 0/6
12/3 - 1/2
13/3 - 0/6
14/3 - 1/4
22/3 - 1/1
29/3 - 0/7
30/3 - 1/3
4/4 - 2/6
5/4 - 3/7
6/4 - 1/5
19/4 - 4/6
20/4 - 2/11

Overall 16/72

Now I know full well that there is absolutely no assumption that the class/form horse is a selection for the race, still less a bet. But this low percentage - just over 22 - surprises me.

The ultimate aim, of course, is to identify horses to be backed which win, and VDW made it abundantly clear, eg in the "Little Owl" section of his "Spells it all out" article, that there was much to be done after the class/form horse was identified. But for me the question is does identifying the class/form horse really help in the quest to identify the horse which, when form has been fully, rather than meretriciously, examined, best balances class and form?

On the "yes" side of the argument, the class/form horse provides a benchmark. When everything else lines up, one has the "sitters" as I think Statajack has referred to them. When everything else doesn't line up, it offers a point of departure for the work of seeing if anything else worth backing emerges.

On the "no" side, I am wondering whether too much time might be invested in identifying class/form horses at the expense of the post-identification work, as VDW envisaged it. Further, I am wondering whether, subconsciously, having identified the class/form horse, one might become biased towards it, and not therefore assess the form of all concerned in as detached way as is desirable.

Until I was helped to see how the class/form horse was identified, it was my practice first to address the issue of ability, and then to assess the form (in the full sense of that term) of those which could be regarded as possibles from the ability perspective. I welcomed the ability to find the class/form horse relatively quickly, as a potential short-cut. But now, for the reasons outlined above, I am not so sure.

While listing the class/form horses you have kindly posted since the beginning of March, I also listed the selections you gave, either explicitly or fairly unmistakably, before the relevant "offs". Again, subject to human error, the list is:

12/3 - Landing Light, l.100/30, and Like a Butterfly, W7/4.
14/3 - Baracouda, W13/8.
29/3 - Adiemus, l. 5/2, A Piece of Cake, l. 7/2, Colourful Life, l. 4/1, and Lord O'All Seasons, l. 6/4.
30/3 - Caqui d'Or, l. 9/2.
4/4 - Florida Pearl, W5/2, Classified, W9/2.
5/4 - Barton, W3/1, Westender, L5/4.
6/4 - Bilboa, l 5/1.
19/4 - Isio, WE, Korakor, l. 2/1, Ravenswood, W E.

Seven winners from the sixteen selections (44%), and a nice level stakes profit of over six points. Congratulations.

Both Mtoto and Max put up Milligan as the class/form horse.

Guest and I (for what its worth) put up Copeland and VS as the class/form horses.

Guest backs his 2nd class/form horse namely VS.

Just proves how difficult this business is.

Copeland - over the top ? His Cheltenham run was solely to keep the wgt` down for Polar Red and his last run trying to concede 28 lbs to VS was a good effort.

GUEST - I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS PLSE.

Milligan - last run I accept was sign of a horse coming back to the boil judging by his improved speed figure in that class and trying to give 23 lbs to a very well hcapped horse. Whilst clearly a good run why then given that he was 2nd rated for ability was he not a c/f horse for Guest ?

I look forward to any comments.

Cheers,

I hadn`t read Statajack`s latest post. I must have been in the middle of preparing mine.

All the same further feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,

hello everybody,

in my opinion,(for what its worth) milligan and redback are the same, recent form not quite good enough in comparison, but both showed improvement and marked their card accordingly,wheras roushayd(not forgeting redbacks on the list) was not backed until the next race after his card marking.Its no use trying to predict which race will show peak,according to VDW, as shown in the roushayd case. Now we have to see where they are placed.

similarly kaiteur.

[This message was edited by Barney on April 22, 2002 at 10:35 PM.]

Fulham,
Roushayd may well have been the class/form horse in the old newton cup but my meaning was to show under which method Milligan initially qualified for consideration on saturday. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
regards,

statajack,


what do you mean may well have been???

i can hardly type for laughing

it was one of his favourite races which provided a cert year after year!!

anyway night,night i,ve a feeling there will be more joviality(pehaps i should run that through a thesaurus) before breakfast!!!

Fulham/Mtoto/Determined/others - VDWs approach was a methodical one as you know and therefore this involved evaluating things in a methodical manner, hence the idea of starting with the class horses first. If the top rated on ability is out of form then go to the next class horse and so forth, but he did warn not to stray too far from the top. We also have to check the consistent horses as a further crosscheck. There were quite a few crosschecks he suggested such as the 5 most consistent in the field and from these note the 3 highest ability ratings or the Roushayd method where in every race VDW evaluated for Roushayds first 4 runs that season, the class/form horse won but was backed only in the form of Roushayd at Haydock. As said many times, whilst this particular strategy appeared as just the basics of improved speed figures in higher class races, there was much more to it than that. The same additional information is also vital to the consistency method and form evaluation in general.

Milligan did have a fair amount in favour before Saturdays race granted. We all know he comes to hand at this time of year and was following a similar route he took before winning last years Swinton hurdle. Yes he did improve his handicap and speed ratings last time but it was after a slight drop in class (2nd consecutive drop) and the information that is vital to long term success with VDWs methods was not up to scratch. Anyone who has evaluated Roushayds 4 races in depth should know what this information is bearing in mind my quote yesterday from VDW in the same article.

Copeland was dropped in class but back in a conditions race when failing to contain Hors La Loi giving that horse 4lb. Then back up in class with topweight in a handicap he showed a downturn then dropped a long way in race class trying to give 28lbs to Vol Solitaire himself dopped from a grade 1 high class race at Cheltenham. At the end of the day it was a very close thing and whilst Milligan won, it wasn't the class/form beforehand via the exact methods VDW gave us. The percentages quoted by Fulham are not a total surprise, though I haven't posted every bet struck or class/form horse identified and therefore they are not an accurate total, but it does go to show just why VDW let so many run unbacked. Let's make one thing clear. In every race there is a class/form horse but they don't all win. I have identified some class/form horses to hopefully demonstrate when to go in and bet them and when to leave them alone. Some unbacked class/form horses have gone and won, but many more have lost (as VDW said they would without the required attributes). I am not fiddling factors as suggested by Mtoto, and I would say to him that does he find a class/form horse in every race evaluated? If not why not, because there is one in every race, tricky to isolate or not. If the answer is yes then does he back them all? If so, do they win the vast majority of times?

The 2nd on class/form is noted because there can often be a good reason as to why the top class/form horse can be opposed. ie Edredon Bleu/Flagship Uberalles, Copeland/Vol Solitaire, Big & Bold/Valley Henry and Bramblehill Duke/Sulphur Springs (even before the withdrawal). This is just to show procedure.

Unfortunately to totally argue my case in explicit terms would not be worth proving the point so to speak. We'll just have to agree to differ.

Statajack

That's the second time I've misconstrued you. Sorry.



Guest

The 2nd c/fs have certainly provided you with some decent bets. Is that as far as you personally depart from the class/form horse, or do you ever find yourself eliminating both the c/f and the 2nd c/f and backing as the sole selection an even lower-ranking c/f, or indeed one that's not a "f" at all?

[This message was edited by Fulham on April 23, 2002 at 06:30 AM.]

Barney,
Without the 1989 form book I cant personally say for sure whether Roushayd was the class/form horse or not as I had no way of finding the ability ratings for all the horses in the race, but was prepared to believe Fulham when he said it was. Glad I brightened up your evening.

Guest,
I would agree that Milligan was not a strict Roushayd qualifier for the obvious reason but for me, given my view about Copeland's latest form and Milligan's fondness for decent ground explaining the runs you refer to and the circumstances surrounding them, as they were all still in greater class than saturday I was prepared to chance my arm.
As it was I was lucky to get away with it which I would put down to the difference in ability between M and VS.
regards,

Statajack/Barney

For the avoidance of all doubt re Roushayd, using what I believe to be the "missing link" referred to by VDW in assessing "form" for the purpose of identifying "class/form" horses, Roushayd is the class/form horse in the 1988 Old Newton Cup.

But as VDW never set out in terms how he judged form for the purposes of identifying "class/form" horses, and it has to be deduced by study of his texts and examples, one cannot be ABSOLUTELY sure that one is in fact using the exactly the same way as VDW.

Given that the approach I have been helped (by another board contributor and Guest) to find gives all twenty of the "ordinary" class/form horses that VDW explicitly named as such, and such oft-mentioned examples as Prominent King and Roushayd, my confidence is well into the high 90 percents, but I fear it will never, indeed can never, be 100%.

However, I note from his most recent post that Guest, too, makes Roushayd the class/form horse in the 1988 ONC. It will be interesting to see whether others have different opinions.

I see that Gummy is introducing a modest charge for new members, and those who have not posted 25 times by a given date.

Most of the "usual suspects" on this excellent thread probably do not qualify to pay the charge, but I hope that they will give consideration to paying it anyway, as I shall.

I'm lucky enough to be a member of the VDW Methodology Group, now alas with closed membership and almost dead, and a much smaller private group. But for the range of constructive contributions, its general good nature, and lack of "in your face" advertising (which alas is a characteristic of the Meth. Group which relies on a Yahoo group site), this forum beats them both hands down. It would be a great pity if Gummy was to find the cost of resourcing it such that its future was imperilled.