Yesterday's VDW shortlist included 3 winners from 5 races (15 horses) or 4 in 6 (18) if the 3:40 at Perth is allowed. From the clearly indicated 3 horses there was 1 winner (10-1) 1 2nd and 1 loss. The control group shortlists included 2 winners from 6 races (10 horses), from the clearly indicateds 1 winner (4-1) and 2 3rds. It would've been encouraging if the VDW shortlisted and clearly indicated winner had received some mention either here or on the other site. For the moment I will just be listing horses clearly indicated by the two systems.
VDW
Sandown
3:15 Whitenzo
Market R.
4:40 Brown Teddy
Wolverhampton
8:00 Toffee Vodka
Control
Sandown
5:25 Torrid Kentavr
Market R.
3:00 Monti Flyer
5:10 Brigadier Du Bois
Ripon
4:30 Blueberry Rhyme
Wolverhampton
6:30 Edged In Gold
8:00 Brandexe

Which ratings are you using epiglotis ? Do you mean consistency and ability or two other rating methods as well?

Nat: I'm using PM and TS.

ok thanks, nice winner yesterday by the way!

Hi Walter,

I thought the whole article was good, but in particular this sentence:

"But VDW knew that this would leave him vulnerable to other types of winners, and so it is my understanding, from studying EVERY example he gave, that the Roushayd method was to combat this angle."

BlackCat

Well here we go!!

have looked at 3 races at Sandown and get the following:-

3.45 Sandown

Hurricane Alan

Norse Dancer

Stream Of Gold

Seems to me that Norse Dancer is stepping down to this level, whilst Stream Of Gold is stepping up.

Hurricane Alan had the advantage of 2 previous runs over Norse Dancer on their previous meeting - Norse Dancer is 3lb better off today.

Only worry is, that Stream Of Gold could be anything - but Norse Dancer has solid form at Group 1 level.

I would say that my fiver goes on Norse Dancer.

4.20 Sandown

Quiff

Hazyview

On the face of it Quiff should win this - but will it be fully fit? - will have bigger fish to fry later in the season.

The distance is short of his best and may be a problem.

Hazyview has had a pipeopener and is in receipt of 4lb from Quiff.

The distance is ideal for Hazyview - the Derby form would put them not too far apart.

A big spanner in the works according to the ability rating is Osorio (Osorio 1414 & Quiff 753) from its win in the Italian Derby - but Osorio showed no sign of anything like that form on its comeback run this season, after a 2 year absence - so don't have it on my shortlist.

4.50 sandown

Fine Silver

Cimyla

Nero's Return

Dumaran

Have no real confidence in this shortlist.

Fine Silver giving weight away all round - don't know that it can.

Cimyla and Nero's Return weighted to dead heat - Cimyla 1lb better of for a head defeat on their Pontefract run.

Nero's return didn't run well in next race, so perhaps Cimyla should turn the tables (especially if he gets on with the job and doesn't try to take a chunk out of Nero's Return this time).

Dumaran is there because of its run at Kempton - dropping back to 1 mile today on a stiffer track - might lead and be able to hang on?

That's all I've had time for today and I think it will adequately display my lack of understanding VDW beyond its basic level.

With 3 places on bf I took 2.3 on Hurricane Alan to place.

At a mile his form figs are: 232337305152671 and of course he won this last year at 25/1 (same going).

Looking at his last run he looks to have been prepared for this one again Last year the average OR of the serious contenders was 113, this year only 111.

Saturday 23/4/05

Sand 3:15
Royal Auclair 142
Kelami 134
Whitenzo 127

Sand 3:45
Hurricane Alan 116
Stream Of Gold 112
Babodana 113
Pentecost 108

Sand 4:50
Fine Silver 105
Royal Prince 101
Evaluator 97

Leic 3: 40
Polar Bear 115
Meshaheer 114
Azarole 109

These are the consistent form horses as I see them. The figure is their a/rating. I start from the highest rated and work capability and probability against the rest of the field. Under normal circumstances I would have rated the first 2 races at Sandown, I never back in what I call novelty races. This title chase gives some of the recent NH fields this look, for me anyway. The Sand 4:50 in a race of this class I would be looking for a higher a/rating than that shown by the top rated.

Be Lucky

Thats how to do it JIB
Just pick one that wins from the lists

And this one is easy to back fit after the race
reading the raw form isnt it?

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

JIB

Well done - I thought Norse Dancer had the beating of it today - but I have proved I know nowt!!

JIB,

Glad to see you are on the mend. I don't suppose it escaped you notice that your selection was a consistent horse. I'm not for one moment suggesting that was the reason for backing it, there again I have never suggested that a lone is a good reason.

Boozer
One step at a time, let's just start by finding the consistent form horses, and get into the habit of using a sensible a/rating. A rating that does show ability.

Investor
Where are you? How can posting a few horses you think are consistent form horse be of any harm? No one is even asking you to explain why you think they are consistent or worse still form horses. Help from a real expert would be a big help though. Who did you make the c/form horse in the 3 :45 and did the usual a/rating help you find it?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Ok I see your point but
the only use these lists have is to prove that VDW's statement
narrows the field and Traps the winner is true

In fact I think you have jumped the gun with the lists
Cos adding up form figures would appear to be a science/black art according to some of our in the know experts on here

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

Boozer,

I have to say I'm one of the lesser mortals, I have even been told I can't understand plain english. Plus, I can't get to grips with the simplest of things. When I read TGY'S to me it quite clearly shows VDW formulated his idea around BASIC form figures. He showed stats saying the lower the figures the more chance a horse had of winning. He then showed us while he was looking for low figures he as not just looking at the lowest three but the horse had to be CONSISTENT. This doesn't involve cherry picking and making excuses for horses, unless the horse hadn't finished the race. Even then a fall, pulled up, etc. isn't an automatic reason to forgive the run. The same as a last, isn't an automatic 10.
To me that is a simple basis to start with, but many seem to ignore this and have very peculiar lists of CONSISTENT horses. I can understand as VDW wasn't that clear about what he meant by form. Shouldn't these lists only consist of consistent horse when we can decide whether he meant is a horse in form, or a has the overall form?

Be Lucky

I suppose it is as vdw writes i.e simple
But you get people like Investor who makes things muddy by saying ah but when you know what you are doing
467 could look like 221 if you know what I mean nudge nudge wink wink if you add up the form figures that matter.
A simple operation made to look complicated
Mind you what do you expect from a salesman.

Perhaps we should take no notice of such fools.

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

Hi all
As anyone thought about backing the VDW horses for a place...

when you have whittled the races down, maybe a higher strike rate can be acheived and profibility can be made.

now betfairs on the scene

Just a thought...keep up the good work guys its enjoyable reading.

All the best
Tony L.

Boozer,

That's where the old form books come in. Folk can say what they like if there is no way to disprove, or challenge what they say. Investor once said consistency as VDW saw it, and Lee asked straight away how did VDW view it any different from the obvious?

VDW said read, and understand what has been written, some would like to think it must be more difficult than the obvious. It makes you look a clever bunny, and adds to the mystic. There are a few things that need serious thought about VDW, but I think when he says consistent that is just what he means. Until he starts on methods that don't have consistency as a base I challenge anyone to show me where VDW selected an inconsistent horse. If the selection isn't consistent (with a low count of form figures) it is one of the lowest in the field. Ekbalco with 13, and Philodantes with 15, are high but in the lowest 3 for the race.

Be lucky

Mtoto

In your opinion when does consistent become in-consistent. Just the bare rating i mean, is there a cut of point?

Also, if a selection has form figs...

1201

But you feel there's a valid reason for the duck egg, would you consider this horse consistent?

Nat,

As a rule of thumb I use 12 and under as consistent, unless the horse in the lowest three. There were consistent horses today that didn't make my short list because the list was for consistent form horses. The consistent horses that didn't make the list I didn't consider form horses. There were also form horses that were not consistent they also didn't make the list.

For the 1201 horse to get a 0, it didn't finish in the top 9. VDW did excuse horses a bad run for a good reason, but even after excusing Gaye Chance he didn't back him. Was that because there is no way of knowing for sure if that excuse was valid and there may have been other reasons for the defeat? I would hesitate having him in my short list as a consistent horse like Norse Dancer today. He would however be looked at when assessing the short list for capability/probability against the field. Off hand I can't think of a good reason to forgive a really bad run, it certainly wouldn't be the course, distance, going, etc. Although the draw would be taken seriously (drawn the wrong side when ALL the finishers were on the other side). I think the reason for sticking to consistent horses is to find horse that give their best even when things are not in their favour.

Be Lucky