Mtoto

I'm afraid I can't yet comment usefully on Park Express.

Working from the distinction between bets and non bets made in the March 1981 article, I have placed all the selections of which I am aware in one of three lists:

a) those where Van der Wheil stated he backed the horses concerned, or said that they should have been bets for Mr Spiers, or described them as situations where the betting boots should have been on (this latter a phrase used only, I think, when discussing Desert Orchid in chapter 6 of "Systematic Betting"),

b) those where Van Der Wheil specifically stated the selections were not bets;

c) the rest (and by far the largest number), where Van der Wheil sometimes gave a sense of the strength of the selection ("certainty", "outstanding", "good thing" etc) but did not state explicitly whether or not he backed them.

My thinking here is simply that if Van der Wheil's approach was rational the contrast between those on list (a) and those on list (b) should be marked, and the differences very informative. When I feel I properly understand those differences, it will be time to move on to list (c) when I hope to be able to form reasoned views about which of those selections were bets.

Obviously, with a minority of the list (c) selections (those described as "certainties" and "outstanding", including Park Express), there is a very strong presumption indeed that they were bets. But at the moment I am working on those on lists (a) and (b).

Valery Borzov 250G.

This is a surprisingly easy C2 hcp which rates a difficulty rating of a modest 87.

Valery Borzov has what I regard as a classic profile for a top class handicapper.

Top class handicappers are usually set on this career before they even see a race course. And knowing that a horse will only be at full strength and at the height of its abilities by half way through its 5th year they are carefully and sparely treated before being allowed to do justice to themselves as 4yos.

Valery Borzov only had one run as a 2yo when he took his maiden in a humble C5 Catterick affair being awarded a mark of 75 for his effort.

On his 3yo debut he won a small hcp and was upped to 80 by the Handicapper. The rest of his 3yo career sees him being steadily upped in class but managing to end the season on the same modest mark of 80.

As a 4yo he came out on the soft in March and then followed up with two preps on the sand. However it was at Thirsk on 17th of May that he posted notice of the fearsome competitor that Mr Nicholls has prepared for the rest of the season. Valery Borzov ´s performance at Thirsk rates an excellent 94 and the race comments of'quickly away, made all, ridden and quickened clear over 1f out, easily˜ are a clear warning that there is yet far more to be tapped.

With firmer ground and a good draw today Valery Borzov has been placed to win and should take the prize his undervalued mark deserves.

George J

In letter 2 How about a Swop Shop, VDW wrote "I myself am prepared to offer proven winning ideas." In letter 4 G Hall begged him not to wait for others and be first in offering the ideas. Letter 8 Narrow the Field is the result.
In this letter VDW tried to explain everything in a clear and meticulous manner. Why would such a person, who is genuinely trying to help, DELIBERATELY put misleading information in his letter?
The figures as stated in the letter are the numerical picture. They are meant to be the consistency ratings and the probables are the 3 most consistent of these, as stated in the letter.
If you wish to join the merry band who thinks VDW was a member of the Knights Templar leaving hidden messages that lead to the Holy Grail then don't let me stop you. All that will happen is that you will come to the wrong conclusions and end up starting all over again.

Garstonf


Jib

Good luck with your bet, though I think that Express Gift wil prove different class to these, if the visor does what it's supposed to.

Garston

quote:

They are meant to be the consistency ratings and the probables are the 3 most consistent of these

The evidence is against you. Most importantly, Prominent King's record was 4/2/2, giving a total of 8, not the 5 shown in the list, and he was not one of the three most consistent horses.

come on george what do you fancy today never mind all our yesterdays goodwoods on whats it to be

Les

I'm in no position to evaluate races from a Van der Wheil perspective at the moment, as I'm still trying to sort out how he assessed form, let alone how he decided which selections to back and which to leave.

three top weights for me jibs valery borzov,alonso de guzman,and amicable terms crossed up for fivers see how we get on

a wee refreshment walter ya dancer i think i,ll join ye

we may have to retire to the steve balsamo lounge wattie

taking the boy into the rangers v liverpool game tomorrow so i,ll need to watch but a wee teeth foo ull need tae dae

Mtoto

I have spent some time today looking at the strongest of the selections in my (c) list - those described as "certainties" or "outstanding". Of those going up in class, most have the characteristics of the (a) list bets, but I am struggling with two, including Park Express.

With Park Express, it must surely have been her last performance that led Van der Wheil to conclude she'd win the Lancashire Oaks, and I think I can see why - the form of Fleur Royale and Lake Champlain. What I can't at present see is how one could be certain enough that that run really did demonstrate sufficient improvement to be sure that Park Express would reverse placings with both Mill on the Floss and Santiki. So at present I'm a bit stuck. Any thoughts you have on this would be very welcome.

George,



I think this is now VDW would have been looking at this race. Remembering he said the ratings are just a guide.



Santiki = 1
Sue Grundy = 2 but not consistent
Park Express = 3 but not consistent
Mill on the Floss = 4
Fleeting Affair = 5
Old Domesday Book = 6
Bambolona =??
Shtaifeh = ??
Barsham ??


" With Park Express, it must surely have been her last performance that led Van der Wheil to conclude she'd win the Lancashire Oaks"

I don't think this last performance was the deciding factor, but it did show PE was ready to reproduce the form that showed she could beat the top rated. So on bare form PE's last run was better than the one before. The best performance of the top rated consistent horse wasn't good enough as SE had a better previous performance in the bag. To win this she didn't have to improve, just return to her best. Class is the kingpin, in this case I think the performance shown in that last race was the over riding factor over consistency.

I hope this makes sense, but it is as far as I'm prepared to go on a public forum.


Be Lucky

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

Mtoto

"but it did show PE was ready to reproduce the form that showed she could beat the top rated"

Before I have a go at working out your ratings, and assuming I then agree what you wrote above, do you regard "could beat the top rated" as sufficient for "certainty"? It strikes me that "good prospect" as per Prominent King might have been a better way of describing the strength of Park Express.

quote:

do you regard "could beat the top rated" as sufficient for "certainty"? It strikes me that "good prospect" as per Prominent King might have been a better way of describing the strength of Park Express.

George,

Certainly not. As said before I think you, and others before you are putting to much credence on a turn of phrase/expression. PK for me was a stronger bet, and if judged by the VDW wording was underrated.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Thanks. I'll have a go at working out your ratings soon but doing it your way and as per the March 1981 article method we seem to be in agreement in viewing Park Express as something less than a "certainty". Either Van der Wheil was being rather extravagant in his comment or we are both missing something.

Having now been through all the "going up in class" examples, I think Van der Wheil chose very well in his March 1981 article. Personally I can't see any of these selections as being as strong as Little Owl on 7 March 1981, though Wing and a Prayer (article of 13 April 1985 in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune") runs it close.

Next task the "going down in class" examples.

Mtoto

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mtoto, August 03, 2008 03:13 PM

You really are pathetic!
Is there nothing you wouldn't stoop to?

quote:

You really are pathetic!
Is there nothing you wouldn't stoop to?

Would you care to explain what your twisted little mind is thinking now???????????????

Mtoto

You know exactly what it's about; the editing just verifies it.

JohnD,

While I can guess what its about I wanted you to put it in writing. Not only are you rude, you are also very stupid.

If I wanted to "poach" George Johns I would simply have PM him from the Racing Forum. I had tried to answer a post and on reading it I thought perhaps I hadn't made the point I was trying to put over as clear as I would have liked. Rather than leave the post saying that was as far as I was happy to go on a public forum I added my e-mail address. That was to show I would be more than happy to answer any queries in private. I took it down as soon as I knew he had seen it

At no time have I ever suggested to anyone that they stop posting on this forum. I would have thought you manage to accomplish that well enough by yourself with your rude, patronising attitude.