Mtoto
A few points.
"If a horse has been targetted at a specific race", does that not in itself imply he would send it to a suitable course, rather than "guessing"?
Motivator's Eclipse did lack pace, and any s/f's that tell you different are, at best, misinformed, (Hardly surprising, knowing the ones you use). Apart from the visual evidence and the comments by trainer and jockey, the race was run 1.3 seconds slower, relative to RP standard times, than the Derby, which was run on slower ground. Neither can you claim, on the one hand that the pace was taken out of the race by the defection of Shamardal,and on the other, it didn't make a difference.
Incidentally, Epsom isn't a flat course, good luck with your lay, you may need it!
You question my contribution to this forum, and while i will never put my understanding of the method on this forum, (Not least because prats like Fulham still have access, no doubt through the offices of some sympathetic and devious current member ), I have given some of my thinking, in various ways, publicly and privately, to those who have asked, including yourself, and will continue to do so.
Not done in the Fulham manner of "Buy the books and do the work yourself" and vague references to even vaguer points in ancient races, but with the intention of speeding the process for those interested, and with references, whenever possible, to contemporary racing. I have also consistently tried to convey that the answers I have are based on simple processes, exactly as VDW indicated, rather than the 'deeply intellectual' garbage foisted upon this thread by those inadequate enough to feel it important.
Hopefully, some will have gained from this, though others will always prove too intransigent, that is their problem.
Finally, on my judgement of people, I would remind you who first brought to the attention of this thread the devious and underhanded conspiracy, by Fulham, yourself and a few others, to pirate its membership for their own gain, and predicted its fate, while you still, years on, continue to be impressed by his bullshit.
I rest my case.

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

Getting back to yesterday's race and the question of procedure in implementation of the basic method, if one had followed what appears to be the recommended process of taking the three runners with the lowest figures from the first six in the forecast then from among those three defining the class/form horse, checking it for compatibility with the race conditions, etc, one would have arrived at Celticello as the selection. If, on the other hand, one had defined the class/form horse from the entire field one would have arrived at Middlemarch, at this point using the forecast and consistency rating to check the statistical soundness of the selection would have given the conclusion 'no bet', a definite improvement over the first implementation. It would be interesting to know what VDW followers think is the function or value of the "narrowing of the field", certainly it seems to me quite foolish to ignore the majority of the field . In any case the race in question would, in my opinion, have been disqualified from the outset as a "VDW race" by the impossibility of evaluating Sound Breeze.

Epi

A couple of points I would disagree with.
It wasn't 'impossible' to evaluate Sound Breeze.
A proper evaluation, using ALL the factors in the method, showed him as the likeliest winner, though, IMO, he wouldn't have been a bet as there were a couple of higher class horses in the race which couldn't have been totally dismissed, though both failing on at least 2 counts.
As Lee pointed out a while ago, there shouldn't be a bet unless everything lines up, or put another way, no element of gamble must be allowed to creep in.
Likewise with narrowing the field, VDW drew our attention to the areas most likely to contain the winner, which it did again in the above case. He also advised us to check the rest of the field to ensure that no other horse had been 'brought along', though usually the others can be more quickly dismissed, again using all the factors.

Johnd: how can one use "all the factors" when evaluating the form of a horse that has only run twice, both times in maidens? I thought VDW involved hard work? I agree with Old-Timer, it was no surprise that Sound Breeze won but neither would it have surprised me if it'd come last.

Epi
You pays your money and you makes your choice!

Slightly related to this problem of lack of form history, is a point I noticed on A Massey.

Most of us are so familiar with the oft-quoted stats re 2yo maiden favs, priced 2/1 and under, and still we forget to take advantage of the terrific strike rates, BUT

one idea ,I certainly overlooked myself, was this little KISS :

" Backing unraced, first time outers from certain yards, or with certain pedigree, is profitable."

There were a few filters, of course, but the point is that the "unknown" and "unconsidered" runners may well be a danger to success, even with with VDW methodology.

I realise, of course, that sprints for maidens, with previously unraced animals involved,are not going to be the subject of most VDWers' study, but the principle of " unknown quantities may be a threat" will probably still apply, in a few cases.

However, i have to say that cutting down the field(s) with specialisation and/or fairly strict elimination processes has helped me a great deal.
In fact, in some of my best winning races ( Oratorio's Eclipse, say) there were some runners that I just didn't even look at.

For this step forward in my punting, I have to give a deal of credit to this, long, long VDW discussion, though, I must admit that I'm no expert.

Even though I am quite sure that this is NOT a suitable race for using VDW methodology, I've given the 8.30 Leicester ( Wed) a spin.

This is because I have an interest in the race. I regret to say that my selection isn't strong on speed, RPR or VDW ( my version).

Nevertheless, here are my top four:

DOITFORREEL
FANTAISISTE
PARISETTE
ZAYN ZEN

Of these, I thought Zayn Zen was the clear best bet, but, following a bit of juggling, I get

DOITFORREEL
PARISETTE.

In a way, i'm glad, because my bet is Parisette, which is a horse I follow.
Actually, this critter shouldn't be winning at Leicester tonight, imo, but, I'm damn sure she will before the summer is over!

Well, complete and utter failure with my picking!

My two were right down the field, though the other two - which were more fancied by the market - were placed at reasonable prices ( on the Tote).

The winner was a 22/1 shot of Hannon's ( Hughes up) and, to be fair, has a superb record of 3 wins from 9 runs together with good earnings per race.
I completely overlooked it. of course.

Seanrua: was overlooking it a consequence of "narrowing the field"?

Absolutely, Epi!

In fairness, perhaps we should remember that people like Hannon/Hughes, The Hills gang, M Pipe & co, pty, have been screwing the game for ages, AND getting away with it - God bless 'em!

Didn't one of them win a big race the other day with a 100/1 shot? They couldn't get away with that in Australia, but that's another matter.

Point is, NO method can be 100% watertight, in any case. In the deceptive game of racing, VDW methodology seems to offer a middle of the road, boring, but fairly effective way of dealing with certain types of races, PROVIDED there ain't no " sting" arranged and operated.

In an uncertain world, " narrowing the field" has its merits, perhaps.
Avoiding the losers seems to be slightly more acceptable than missing the odd ( yes, "odd") winner.

Strictly speaking, even my rough and ready VDW-type method did produce 2 placed from 4.
If i had followed market pointers, rather than having a soft spot for Cecil and a love of the long shot ( ie. backed the two "sensible" ones of the four, and rejected my own "fancies"), I would have more than doubled my money with two "place only" bets!

In fact, I think backing all four to place ( an impossible outcome) would have made a few cents profit.
My mistake ( yet again). I'm a greedy, reckless bastrd.

I did the wrong sort of narrowing!

The problem with trying to work the system without the booklets for reference is that elements of the method are overlooked.

I did not look at the race concerned and this may or may not have helped. Nevertheless, from the foregoing comments, I can see that you are missing a step (imo).

Narrowing the field shows you in reasonably quick time whether there is a potential bet. However, once a potential bet is identified, the hard work begins!

The entire field should be rated for class (AR plus supporting ratings), and an examination of form for every competitor is done.

Hope that helps.

BlackCat

The 3.05 at York is an interesting race from a VDW perspective.
The majority of the field can quickly be dismissed, leaving Bluebok as much the likeliest winner, with Mimi Mouse as a slight danger.
Not a price to enthuse about, but a good illustration of a winner in the race,IMO.

Thank you, BC.

Obviously, I don't know the "proper" VDW way, but am I correct in thinking that the missing steps are, in fact, further filters which eliminate more contenders?

This would be my strong hunch. I'd expect the most usual conclusion to be " no bet", as the final runner failed the "test".
This is, of course, perfectly logical, imo. Realistically, I'd expect 98% of races to be technically " no go races".

The fact that I tend to force a bet when I shouldn't is my main source of loss!

Time to get down to the nitty-gritty, with a VDW- type bet in the

350 NEWBURY.

A quick zip thru shows me one outstanding contender.

My bet, therefore, is

BON NUIT
£500 to place.

For non-VDW reasons, I class Red Peony as the main danger.

In the lesser value, preceding race, i haven't bothered to give the runners the spin as I have already packed Golden Dixie to place.
Pricewise and a tipping organisation given me by FTSE have also gone for this one.

Btw, how is/where is old Ftse? Didn't see many enquiries about him elsewhere.

He was a helpful member, in my experience.

quote:

am I correct in thinking that the missing steps are, in fact, further filters which eliminate more contenders?

This would be my strong hunch. I'd expect the most usual conclusion to be " no bet", as the final runner failed the "test".

Hi Seanrua

Please remember, I am not an "expert". Just passing on my opinion based on reading the material.

As regards, "further filters", I would say not so in a systematic way. More a case of form reading using the factors I mentioned before (going, distance, pace/time, etc) along with what each of todays competitors did in their last 3 races, again looking at the factors that may be relevant together with class run in and distance run over).

I am not saying it is easy or quick. I find it quite difficult and time-consuming in fact. That is why I developed my "Flash-in-the-Pan" system.

At the moment I am completely 'out-of-the-loop' due to work, which is frustrating. 10 minutes on here at lunch is all the racing contact I can manage at the moment.

BlackCat

Well, my "knock-out" bet just about knocked me out! Terrible! Dreadful effort.

Poor selection by me. I would, however, challenge the VDWers to show how the winner was a more worthy choice from a VDW standpoint.
On speed figs, I had Echelon down as tops, but I've cocked up badly here, by going for Bon Nuit.
Dutching, at best prices available, would have helped, but there's no getting away from it: I fkd up good and proper!

Sean

It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel after the race, but surely the following extract from the winner's lto run should give some indication:

Echelon's rider went for an optimistic gap at the three-furlong marker, which the filly failed to make it through, and she was then trapped behind rivals for more than a furlong. When things opened up for her she ran on strongly, but the post came just too soon. A leading fancy for the 1,000 Guineas through the winter, but disappointing in the big race itself, she is clearly on her way back

The trick is to learn from your mistakes, rather than curse them.

I entirely agree, johnd!

"Excuses" are

a) didn't heed the statement given by you above.

b) did not heed weight factor ( not an issue in my book)

c) did not realise that my selection was a "fast ground " horse racing against a " soft ground" horse of my old favourites, Stoute and Cheveley Park, on SLOW, HEAVILY-WATERED ground.

d) my animal was not drawn as well and had an inferior jockey up.

Well, no excuse, really, for missing that lot - but these points do offer some explanation for my flop!

I'll try to get a more realistic description of the going for tomorrow's big 'un; That going was anything but "good to firm", imo.
I knew my fate before they'd run the first furlong.

Tomorrow's another day.

Is "tomorrow's big 'un" the 4:20 at Newbury? If so I propose Gamut as a 5-minute selection, I'd be interested to see how it gets on compared with any hard-work selections (VDW or otherwise).

4.20 Newbury

Initial Short List:
Azamour (not won over 1.4)
Bago (beaten by PM LTO)
Grey Swallow (short of race fit?)
Phoenix Reach (short of race fit?)

Summary:
Grey Swallow and Phoenix Reach do not have recent runs (62 & 69 days), but are good examples of "a winner in the race" (imo). My slight preference for the latter and 22.0 on Betfair.

BlackCat