Crock, your course analysis is first class. Thanks. JIB

I rest my case.

On many ocassions VDW clearly stated that his methods as outlined needed careful consideration as to what was contained within the small print. He tried to draw our attention to basic areas worthy of consideration so that we might narrow the field of vision. With those such as Prominent King and Little Owl or Sunset Cristo, he was showing us how the combinations of class, form and consistency could highlight a potential winner. With his list of horses to follow he was using a combination of speed figures attained at classy demanding courses as the initial starting point, but clearly stated that a full evaluation was needed to determine when to support those horses on the list.

In the Roushayd approach he used a combination of improved performances gauged via speed figures and race class, but as ever with VDW there was more to it than just the basics. He didn't directly bring our attention to some very crucial factors because to do so would clearly reveal a bit too much to all with little effort on their part. He did however give very subtle hints as to factors we should be looking at and that is why he later made the statement about "had readers understood the exercise it would have carried them a long way." Don't be fooled into thinking that because he didn't lay it all out in lay mens terms that the small print wasn't there because it most definitely was and to quote him again "I know many readers failed to read the small print on the ticket and it has caused them a great deal of needless frustration.....and to unpack their bags because until they understand it they won't be going anywhere."

As Chaz rightly points out, VDW laid out the examples in the Roushayd method in the way he did for very good reason, though it would seem this point has been lost on most people. He subtly drew our attention to certain key points with horses such as Billets last run or First Divisions. He mentioned the difference to note between race class and class as horses, a particular factor that seems to completely bypass so many punters.

These and many other points all make up the overall equation providing the material to dot the eyes and cross the tees where all of VDWs horses were concerned. The Roushayd example was a thinly vieled lesson in how VDW equated class and form and it went some way beyond race class and speed figures alone. The horses from his lists were also confirmed as bets using the same process as Roushayd, but it takes more analysis with any method he gave to establish the real class/form horses. Think about how the initial processes were approached by VDW and then think how best to utulise them to establish real class and form.

As to the 7.20 at Sandown, well there were only really two horses for consideration and using VDWs approaches the class/form horse was Scotts View. Court Shareef had relative class and one very good effort this year to his name, but his form had taken an apparant downturn thereafter. I made Scotts View a good thing to take on Saturday against poor opposition, but at levels tonight and more physical weight against a better horse (than last time) and given the odds I didn't bet him this time. Once again though this race illustrates how punters are taken in by an apparantley visually impressive winner rather than actually considering the real achievement in the book. Scotts Views run just prior to Saturday was outstanding in the context of Saturdays race but not as so in the tonights context.

A big pat on the back for your very nice win last night.

That said, several of the well respected posters on here have questioned your decision to bet CS from a VDW perspective and I would have to agree with them.

I firmly believe making sweeping and cryptic statements like you do without a more detailed explanation leads to 2 things,

(a) confuses / frustrates those in the very early process` of understanding VDW and

(b) leaves yourself open to the kind of flak you have been receiving.

I`m on your side but can I respectfully suggest that you become a little less cryptic and explain a little more without spelling it out of course.

Once again, well done last night,

Cheers,

Didn`t a similar M.Johnston horse namely Spirit Of Love lose a race of this nature several years ago when a short priced favourite only to bolt up in the Cesarewitch several weeks later ?

Cheers,

to all my respected fellow posters please accept my humble appologies for the red herring that i threw in last night.

it seems that some people have more brains than i give them credit for. with the abuse i have recieved lately i felt it necessary to test the water and post something.

with a thought to clarity i cannot in fact say why the winner won although, for what its worth now, i will say why the winner(in the numbers game)lost.

most of the horses runs, let alone wins have been on easy tracks with comparitively light weights. to lump that weight an a stiffer track with 9-13
was asking the horse to do something that it had not shown any inclination towards before.It may look ar first that the horse is now out of form as it was pushed from four out(the bottom of the hill)but he stayed on really well considering the weight i will have to look at the actual form to see if it was a decline and if its had too much taken out.IT is interesting that the class of this race was less than the horses actual ability rating.M JOhnstone is no mug, he knows that running up hills with a big weight will make him that bit stronger and fitter.

it has similarities with BS from saturday although they are opposits,that had proved that it was strong enough to carry that weight on a slow track but it was unlikely to do it on a faster course.

JIB,

i think i told you once before that you would soon be able to turn pro with what you had found.Unfortunately its not that easy in most cases.to go with the clock i would respectfully suggest you get a theodolite a good set of scales and a penetrometer then devise a formula that balances out the relative merits of each horses performance in comparison to ITS capabilities and then the other runners.IF you cant devise a formula then get some of vdw's books and check the examples he shows you how to do it.

[This message was edited by Barney on August 08, 2002 at 07:00 AM.]

Red herring, or a bare faced bloody lie, you choose ?

Guest

If you feel able to tell us, I would be interested to know the lowest price at which you would have been prepared to back Scotts View on Saturday.

I ask because the race in question happened to be one under "pre off" discussion on another forum. While contributors there saw Scotts View as a good thing, there were interesting differences of view as to the lowest price at which should have been taken, ranging from evens to 5/2.

Your summary of the realities of Scotts View's race yesterday was spot on. There was no sane VDW-based bet in the race.

I can see that it may take two steps,

why didnt you have much to say when i was on here last night, waiting.. waiting..waiting.

as usual you get it afterwards!

i bet your little fingers were itching wern't they?

please dont stand my last insult in isolation, line up all the others alongside it.

LOL

Fulham - I rated Scotts View around a 3/1 on chance on Saturday, but I wasn't prepared to go much beyond 8/13 or 4/6. As it was 5/4 could have been obtained. Last night I rated him as no better than an even money shot with slight negatives surrounding weight versus opposition. The course was also a factor.

In fact last Saturday saw many good things enter the winners enclosure though mainly away from Goodwood. You could have had a field day at Newmarket especially with Promt Payment being made 2nd favourite when on real class/form it should have been around 4/6.

The conflict that appeared in the 7.20 at Sandown last night often rears it's head in one form or another. Take todays 3.30 at Haydock. With Martin House well out of form, a study of the 3 remaining runners shows a conflict in the form. Class/form Portacasa has a lot in favour but also some negatives relative to Muwassi who has the better form. It's unlikely a book will be possible at the odds so a watching brief is the only option. For what it's worth the probability is that Muwassi will have too much toe for Portacasa, but as I say I won't be putting money on the outcome.

Guest

Thanks, very helpful indeed.

I think that with shorter priced selections colleagues and I are perhaps unduly cautious about recognising a "racing certainty" as just that. With Scotts View on Saturday the basics and well beyond all seemed fireproof, but the possible concerns raised by those contributing were:

1) there were others in the race which had achieved better sfs;

2) SV had more than proved he could carry Saturday's weight, but had done so in markedly lower class, and therefore had yet to prove he could do so in Saturday's class;

3) by comparison with some runners, SV had had a busy season and, despite having demonstrated that he could win within a few days of a run, might he not perhaps be running out of "freshness" (as perhaps to an extent he did last night, according to the report of the jockey's comments on page 5 of today's "Post").

If you have any comments on any of these concerns, they would be very welcome indeed, particularly perhaps if, in your experience, any of them should not have figured as concerns at all.

Would it be fair to say that your unwillingness to take a price much below 8/13 or 4/6 on something that you regarded intellectually as a 1/3 shot was your "margin of insurance" against such minor concerns and the element of intrinsic uncertainty in any race, eg jockey error, stumbling, being impeded by another horse, etc?

Regards.

Guest,

I was interested to read your thoughts on Scotts View's saturday race.I analysed the race and saw Scotts View as the most likely winner but I was worried about the rise in weight.I had in mind Awake,who people on the board said shouldn't have been chosen at Ascot,who like Scotts View won and then faced a large rise in weight.Awake was going up an extra furlong however.With that in mind I had a look at Scotts View when carrying around 9-8 and he had won 3 times but in my opinion not beaten very much.Being unsure how to balance everything I left the race alone.

Exactly what factors need to be taken into account and how to balance them seem beyond me at the moment.It's impossible to estimate from the board but I wouldn't be surprised if you were finding 6-8 times as many bets as I am at the moment..Personally I would be perfectly happy if I could get to the stage of having 4-5 confident bets a week bets a week, but as a measure of how far along the road I am it seems I've still got a long way to go because I definitely did not have a field day last Saturday.

On the subject of balancing factors.I got a copy of "Betting the VDW way" to have a look at the Pegwell Bay article, which I had never heard of until Bensam and yourself mentioned it.In it VDW says "suggestions that he is a Newbury horse are negated by the significant jockey change".Do you know who the suggestions came from? The media or connections maybe or perhaps VDW's reading of the formbook?

Bye for now.

Hi Fulham,

Hope you don’t mind me butting in on your question to Guest.

Remember that when assessing form everything is relative. In particular your remark that Scotts View had proved he could carry the weight but in markedly lower class is not actually correct. The question has to be, markedly lower class relative to what? At Beverly on the 5 Jul Scott’s View actually put in a very good performance by beating better horses, relatively speaking, whilst giving away weight, even though expected to do so.

Compare the task he faced on Saturday to that on the previous Tuesday, when he beat the likes of Darasim and First Ballot, and the class/form really stands out to be supported.

Bream,

The balancing act is what it’s all about and so don’t punish yourself because you find it difficult. One major factor that seems to elude us all at the beginning is that of time. You need plenty of time to operate the method, I’m afraid its full time, full-on if you want to work it to it’s full potential.

Hi Chaz,

No, you are very welcome to join in. No exclusive conversations on here.

The point about having carried weight only in inferior company was not, in fact, a concern to me, but to a colleague who, as far as I know, does not post here. As part of the cross checks I satisfied myself that SV should be fully capable of carrying 9st 8 succcessfully in Saturday's race, and in my analysis of the race prior to the "off" referred to him as a "racing certainty" on all VDW criteria and in that regard comparable to Little Owl. (And, for the suspicious, at least four other contributors to this board could confirm that this was posted before 10.00am on Saturday.)

My colleague was not, however, so readily assured on the weight point, and his line of argument was as follows. Yes, SV has shown he can win carrying more than 9st 8lb, but he did so in, relatively speaking, minor races: both were of markedly lower class in VDW's terms (ie penalty value), on lower grade courses, and in each SV was clearly the highest rated (on ORs) in the field. By contrast, Saturday's was a higher class race both in terms of penalty value and the ORs of the runners, on a top grade track, and (although SV was still the highest rated horse on ORs) more competitive with, relatively speaking, more higher rated animals in opposition than at Catterick or Beverley, some much nearer SV's own OR.

I think this is a plausible line of argument, and I certainly agree with it to the extent of regarding the Goodwood race on Saturday as a stiffer challenge than the wins at Catterick and Beverley. If, as seems possible from your comments, you regard the Beverley race as a stiffer one than Saturday's, it would be interesting to explore the criteria that are most useful in making such judgements.

Regards.

For what it's worth I thought Scott's View worth avoiding yesterday evening:

a) because I try to avoid backing at under 2/1 in handicaps.

b) there was every chance he would be tired after 2 races the previous week.

In the end I think he was sent clear too soon and might well have won with a more restrained ride.

Rob

P.S. On his recent form I wouldn't have backed Court Shareef with buttons!

Hi Fulham,

You appear to do things along the same lines as Mtoto, as you make mention about comparing OR’s. I’ve spoken briefly to Mtoto about this issue and the way he sees things, and although we disagree I wouldn’t be so arrogant to suggest that he was wrong and I am right, instead it is far better to reason why. Like I said to him, I’m always interested in how others have seen things. Do you, like him, disregard the weight issue that VDW made so much noise about?

Hi Chaz,

Mtoto and I conduct a lively email correspondence as well as "meeting" here and in other forums, but we have rather different approaches. He is much more concerned about sfs than I, and does not regard VDW's ability rating as being as useful as I do (and, I think, most other VDWers). And I most certainly do not disregard weight.

But among other things, we share the view that ORs are a potentially useful set of ratings. And on that basis, as well as the VDW basis of penalty value, I think (though I haven't asked him) that Mtoto would probably agree with our colleague (Simon, for ease of reference) and me that the Goodwood race on Saturday was a more testing one than Scotts View's win at Beverley. Knowing Mtoto, I have no doubt he'll speak for himself on this matter before long.

More generally, VDW barely mentioned ORs. But it needs to be borne in mind that for most, if not all, of his "active" period, although of course there were ORs, they were not freely available, and time-consuming (and sometimes impossible) to derive. Some of the younger posters to this thread may not realise that - or indeed how much less conveniently available were basic VDW "facts" like ability ratings. Had ORs been as straightforwardly available in 1978 as they are now, I cannot but think that they would have featured more in VDW's writing.

Regards.

Hi Chaz,

A very interesting post earlier and one I can certainly empathise with regarding the workload required to follow the method, although I do find it a little more manageable by only maintaining records of races above a certain class level, dipping back on an ad hoc basis on the few occasions I need to for other specific races.

I would be very interested in your thoughts, and possibly those of Guest if he is prepared to comment, on how you handle the 'storage' of the necessary data. At the moment, I maintain mine in written or should I say scribbled form in the paper based Raceform book. Unfortunately this means a fair amount of transcribing from my notes and updating once a week when the update arrives.

I have often considered that one of the computer based products would be much better served for this purpose but I've yet to find one that easily handles user notes and ratings. I've tried Computer Timeform, Computer Raceform, and several others but still end up with my paper based scribbles.

Cheers

Hi Crock,

Certainly a problem.

I wonder if you or any other contributor have tried Profile software (www.nomadicpress.co.uk), a site and product I've only recently come across.

The software can be updated weekly, and is horse-based rather than race based, but seems to include much of the data we need, and to have scope for user notes. I'd be very grateful for any views on the software and company from anyone with experience of using it.