epiglotis,

if your serious get the books and use vdw's horses not anyone elses.

Thanks for the suggestion but in fact the VDW approach, from what I know of it, doesn't appeal to me.

Epiglotis,
I think Barney has a point. By visiting this thread as regularly as you do, you seem to be spending rather a lot of time on something that doesnt appeal to you(?).
regards,

Thanks for your reply MTOTO. It`s nice to know someone will feed the slug a bit of lettuce now and then. But don`t overdo it, or your mates won`t talk to you, especially if they suspect you`ve not only cracked VDW but also found a SOH.

PS I like the clever pic

Mtoto - Whilst we continue to disagree over the Prominent King race, I do agree with your point regards watching the finish of a race. What we think we see is often proved false when the form is studied after. I try to be very objective about a race that I have seen the finish of, because whilst many may expect a visually impressive winner to be a horse to follow, unless the form passes the tests he often turns out to be anything but.

Without you spelling out how you find Beacon Light not to be good enough, I can't comment much further. I have spelled out why I know VDW rejected him, as he did with many other false favourites, etc. Does your way cover those VDW rejects also ? I only ask because to my mind you have decided to reject VDWs real answer as to why Beacon Light could be discarded along with his suggestion that Prominent King was a good bet. Surely if VDW was wrong about those two points then the rest of his method must be worthless ?

Obviously I have known for some time now that they are very worthy and I would be amazed if anyone has an alternative way that measures up in both strike rate and profit.

Hi Fulham,

Thanks for offering to put the Bingham selections that you have up,but I've decided to devote what time I have for research to the horses that VDW gave us to look at.

Cheers

Mtoto

I think you've made it clear that your view that Beacon Light simply wasn't good enough to win the 1978 Erin does not turn on whether he could be regarded as "in form" on the basis of his last run. In other words, you'd have taken the same view even if BL had gone straight to the Erin from his one of his victories on Boxing Day or 2 January.

If I've understood you correctly, you are effectively saying that, at that point in his career, BL had not shown that he was good enough to beat at least one of his competitors in the Erin (you might put it more positively, ie that he had shown that he wasn't good enough ...). And the result of the Erin is consistent with such a view. Its how you reach that judgement that would be of very real interest, if you feel able to say.


Bream

Undoubtedly the better option.

I think Barney misunderstood the motivation behind my enquiry, I take it that he thought I wanted to look for Roushayd features in Indian Country whereas reality is that I was just curious as to which horse was his selection. Naturally I read most posts in all fora unless I have already decided that they concern narrow topics that dont interest me. Sometimes I enjoy this thread and feel like taking part but that doesn't imply that I have any set ambition to adopt VDW's selection process. On the other hand the nature of the process is presented in such a sketchy manner that I cant say whether I think it has usefull points or not, so I do look at those posts that seem to have relevent content. However I am not at all interested in wading through dozens of races from donkey's years ago. Anyway, thanks for your concern.

Guest.

Lets get a couple of things straight. I do agree Prominent King was the bet, and I also agree Beacon Light was one to leave alone. The only thing we disagree about with this race is BL being out of form, and vdw didn't say that. You and/or the chap that explained it to you did. I just examined this race from a different angle, I still used vdw's words that are there for all to see. I came up with a completely different horse as the likely winner. So I sat down and read the whole thing again, applied the filters vdw had shown and there it was. As I have said many times the only thing about the vdw experience I am not happy with is the way he judged class. I can understand why he use the method then, but I don't think he would use it now.

You ask about strike rate and profit. As I used to only work in handicaps my strike rate was never as good as his. The profit has always been there for me, it had to be as I only started with a small bank. It did mean I couldn't/wouldn't back many of the shorter priced horses, again not helping the strike rate. Unlike Raceman I can't see the point of laying out £2000 to try and make a weeks wages.

You ask does it sort out the false favourites, I would say yes. Although to me it does better than that it also shows which horses to back, i.e. Kates Charm against Marjed. You isolated Marjed, but found a reason not to back him. I have a friend that uses the conventional ability rating, and many times we agree about the c/form horse. This is one reason I think vdw gave the new ability rating not the one he used. It does the job, and he didn't have to give away his secrets.

Barney.

I haven't solved Son Of Love, I think he, and Love From Verona are both variations on a theme.

111. Legs.

It's not a case of finding a sense of humour. I just happen to think good manners are more important. Glad you liked the little drawing.

Be Lucky

Fulham.

Sorry if I left it to any doubt. Of hand I had BL 4th best in the race, 2 of those horses finished in front of him. Without looking I'm not sure about the third. On past performances BL just wasn't good enough. That is to win the Erin, or beat Sea Pigeon in his last race.

Be Lucky

Mtoto - Without going back and double checking all our exchanges, which have in the main been conducted in a civil manner i think you will agree, I seem to remember that you have re evaluated your view on Prom King at some stage. Nothing wrong with that in itself as I had to go back to the race many times myself before certain points hit me. One of these points was only hinted at to me by someone who had been using the methods successfully for years, not spelled out or suchlike. I had to make the discovery for myself and when I realised just how class and form came together over many races I did indeed kick myself for not spotting it before. The best advice I can give on the process is treat each race as an evaluation much like the ones VDW showed is in the Little Owl,Sunset Cristo events. In fact VDW says as much within that article.

The point is, doing things VDWs way showed Beacon Light should have beaten Sea Pigeon. The fact that he didn't doesn't highlight a flaw in VDWs ideas on class and form, in fact quite the opposite, it shows when a horse has reached and passed it's peak for the season. It also takes into account that no method can predict 100% winners, but over 80% is very attainable if being selective and using the criteria VDW laid down as he actually intended. Beacon Lights failure against Sea Pigeon was one of the inevitable losers the method selects from time to time.

One further point is that if we imagine that P King had in fact managed to beat Drumgora on his last run, what price would he have been in the Erin Foods ?

Guest

You`re missing the French GP

111
.

The 2002! GP

No Guest, Niki Lauder`s not still driving the Ferrari.

Mtoto,

At the risk of being impertinent, could I press you a bit harder on the issue of Beacon Light?

Your approach had BL as the third or fourth best in the Erin field, but against what criteria? As we know, VDW used a monetary criterion for assessing a horse's ability (class) and on that BL came out clear top. But, as we also know, its that aspect of VDW about which you feel least comfortable.

Looking at it a somewhat different way, there were seven horses in the Erin who had won, or run well in, races of broadly comparable class to that race (penalty value 90): in value order:

Monksfield - had come 2nd in a race of penalty value 181, 4th in a 125, 2nd in a 96 and 3rd in a 89;
Master Monday - had won races of penalty value 125
and 89;
Decent Fellow - had won a race of penalty value 117 and come 2nd in one of 105;
Drumgora - had come 3rd in a race of penalty value 117;
Meladon - had won a race of penalty value 105;
Prominent King - had come third in a race of class 96, and 4th in one of 89;
Beacon Light - had won a race of penalty value 85.

Leaving aside promising unexposed horses like Mr Kildare (just two runs, two wins in races of penalty value 7 and 14), there were, I would contend, seven horses whose earlier performances prima facie suggested that they could win a race of the Erin class.

VDW offers a way of excluding six of these, on "form" grounds, thus leaving the winner, whose "story" over the last couple of seasons suggested (to me and others) that he was ready to win and therefore a class/form horse who could be backed. But leaving VDW to one side, how do you go about the task of assessing the seven and deciding which (if any) was the probable winner?

Its particularly puzzling to me as the aides that some (including yourself) see as relevant were either unavailable (sfs for many of the horses' performances) or possible only to estimate through laborious effort via the Racing Calender. Do you perhaps rely on working out your own sfs for each horse from the race times given in the Form Books?

Three Legs - Everyone knows who will win the GP anyway. I don't want to die of boredom watching the "race" to confirm this.

Sorry if repeated references to old races is tiresome for some, but there is only one way to learn VDWs methods and that is by looking at his selections given years ago. Short of him coming back from the grave to give you a complete breakdown of his thinking processes involved in race evaluation, you'll either have to do the research or live in the dark on it.

Right, where`s those mushrooms !

Fulham.

You say vdw eliminated the 6/7 on form, I thought his other ratings did that. Including BL, but if you wish to use the method explained by Guest. You have to be convinced BL was out of form for it to hold together. Guest has explained BL was running in ever decreasing lower class races and was beaten, so out of form. Didn't vdw say the class of the race is NOT the class of the horse, or words to that effect.

You have asked a straight question so I will be as straight as I can. Yes, I am using s/f. one way would be to go back and work out the missing figures. I don't think that is necessary. I will ask you to remember what vdw said about class and form, while accepting what he said about speed. Looking at the missing races (s/f wise) I think there are none that make a difference to my findings. I am working on the best a horse has ever achieved, and in the relevant class.
Before anyone says yes but what about........ I will say, yes but what a bout the improving horse that is beaten a short head in it's first attempt at a £20,000 race? Does that race count for nothing, towards an accurate guide to it's ability.

BeLucky

[This message was edited by Mtoto on July 21, 2002 at 06:45 PM.]

Mtoto - Surely it would depend on the horse that actually won the 20 grand race?

Mtoto - Also, with reference to the first paragraph of your reply to Fulham, I have also outlined an even more telling reason as to why Beacon Light showed a downturn in form. The class in which a horse runs is not the same as the class of horse it runs against.