Barney

Thanks.


Investor

VDW left us about twenty examples where he named, explicitly, the "class/form" horse, and any hypothesising about his approach to determining the "class/form" horse must be able to encompass those examples.

I think that Guest has said that the class/form horse is the horse with the highest ability rating (? from the first five or six, as appropriate, in the betting) which is "in form". To me, that certainly seems to be how VDW approached the matter.

The issue where there are disagreements, and on which (to the best of my knowledge) there is no authoritative statement, is how VDW judged "in formness".

Among those twenty examples, there was at least one horse - Homeson - which VDW made clear he regarded as "out of form" despite the fact that it had won lto. Thus Guest is absolutely right in saying that a lto winner is not necessarily a "form" horse.

On the limited evidence available from the twenty examples, I personally would not have categorised the highest rated horse in the first six in the betting for yesterday's race, Madame Boulangere, as "out of form", though I know I have yet to sort out satifactorily all the circumstances where a lto winner is not a "form" horse. That is, as it were, work in hand.

Thus, for me, MB was the "class/form" horse in yesterday's race, though a very long way from being a bet, as an examination of the form certainly did not support its c/f status. Ditto for my 2nd c/f, Marshman.

The most likely winner seemed to be my 3rd c/f (Fayr Jag), but on recent encounters it was far from clear that, at yesterday's weights, he would confirm the placing with Impressive Flight. So, what with one thing and another, I reached the same conclusion as Mtoto and left the race alone.

i,m sure your,e aware,there is more than one way to determine class,this i feel is where persons who follow or try to follow the methods,come unstuck m.b had picked up a class 79 at windsor that,s a hell of a comedown from winning a class 1299 at ascot relatively i didn,t consider m.b a form horse let alone c/f i understand your point r.e weight with f.j and i.f but on the balance f.j was c/f..there looks to be some good racing in ireland today,have fun

Investor

I think VDW determined the "class" part of the class/form nexus in only one way, ie by his ability rating. The question is, did he determine "form" in its own right, and then bring it into balance with "class" (which is what my researches suggest), or did he determine "form" by reference to "class" and then bring into into further balance with "class" (which is what Guest and Chaz seem to be suggesting).

There may well be more than one interpretation of "informness" which encompasses the twenty explicit examples: if so, each is, prima facie, valid, and may well produce different c/fs when applied to current races.

That said, I think all who have considered VDW's work in any real depth are clear that identifying the c/f was far from the end of the road. So differences, such as between my c/f yesterday and Guest's, should be ironed out (more or less) in the overall form analysis.

Good luck with the Irish racing. I'll stick with the UK's.

i,m still in the early stages,in comparrison to you,i did,nt mean to come across as being blase,or trying to belittle you,i enjoy your posts i just could,nt understand how you considered m.b class/form

Investor

You came across as neither, I assure you.

You asked a perfectly reasonable question, which I did my best to answer. The value of this thread to my mind lies in rational conversation of the kind you initiated, rather than in assertion or cryptology.

Guest and others.

We seem to have moved on a pace since my posting re Stray Shot. The point I was trying to make, is I agree with Chris B. I think the c/form horse is numerical based, to give a starting point. Having found your c/form, then the work starts. If you have to go into such fine detail as looking at the race conditions just to find the c/form horse how are you going to cover a days racing?

I also find it strange that after vdw has shown us the way to find the c/form horse, the experts chose to use other methods! Again why did he bother to give the instructions? if they are not the correct way.

I must ask Barney, in the paragraph you pointed out (letter 19) Does it not say The important thing is to establish PROVEN ABILITY and here a previous s/f of 80 + should give a reasonable base? How does this sit with you statement s/f are rubbish?

Be Lucky

vinnie roe 11/10 thankyou mr.bookie

not a race for me but the scenario intrigues me,was this horse c/f

Investor.

For me she was without any doubt the class horse, I would be happy with her form. If the guide lines for being in form are applied using Guest's formula she would have to be out of form? I will be interested to hear what Guest thinks on this. If you to take the ability rating as gospel, she is well out of it, and the c/form horse is a joke.

Again, not my sort of price.

Be Lucky

mtoto,

you are very selective in your interpretations, if it fits with what you think its ok if doesn't then you ignore it.

Previous to that sentence he states "any reliable method will do although many will find Split Seconds more convenient."

he describes the figure 80+ as a "reasonable base."

mtoto,

you are very selective in your interpretations, if it fits with what you think its ok if doesn't then you ignore it.

Previous to that sentence he states "any reliable method will do although many will find Split Seconds more convenient."

he describes the figure 80+ as a "reasonable base."

he does not say its the answer!

while you have the books out look at page 49 TGY

where two examples are illustrated "from the top of the handicap"

note saher third on ability and third on OR
also aldaniti third on ability and top on OR.


SF and OR are not the answer to vdw. I only say they are rubbish, when trying to get to the bottom of VDW's methods.

"Form as such never changes it still provides the solutions" page 17 RIMS

Barney,

As explained before, I formed my ideas about vdw from Systematic Betting, based on my understanding of how it worked. When I started reading the other books I was confused, because different elements appeared to be introduced. On studying these new elements I decided they where only new filters i.e. the forecast and consistency. I read a lot of things about vdw and after reading what was written very carefully I decided my original ideas worked just as well for the new method (The Consistency)

You are 100% correct he did say any reliable method will do, but this was the one he went into detail about. He could have chosen any of the other reliable methods, but this one also gives a reasonable base for PROVEN ABILITY. His words, and the first time he has shown a way of judging ability.

I'm not being selective, I am just trying to point out where my ideas from SB marry up with what has been written before. I am only doing this because many people seem to think I am making it up, and vdw didn't write it. For a long time I couldn't see the point of going back over the first examples. I had taken the examples from SB apart and was happy in my own mind I understood what he was saying. After examining many of the first examples, I am now even more convinced I have taken the correct message from SB. I have used the same basic principles and applied the new filters, I am more than happy I am on the right lines.

I can only assume you don't consider the examples for Saher and Aldaniti don't put any importance on the OR, but again that completely confuses me. Why do you think he states FROM THE TOP OF THE HANDICAP? Once again if I was only picking out the selective bits, why have I waited for you to raise it?

Be Lucky

could i be cheeky,and ask purely out of interest,how many bets you have struck using the methodology in august

Investor

I'm reluctant to decline to answer such a straightforward question, but if I do it invites further questions such as what were the selections, how many won etc, which I would not be prepared to answer.

Perhaps it will suffice if I say that it is an exceptional month where the occasions on which I put money at risk on a VDW-based selection reach double figures, and as things currently stand August is unlikely to be exceptional.

OK, so Mtoto started with a 1989 book and has worked backwards. G. Hall started in 1978 and worked forwards. In his letter of Jan 11 1979 he names 4 bets that VDW confirmed as "good things" yet (as a couple of others have mentioned) this was long before the ability rating was mentioned. Having looked back at the letters previous to 1979 even with the benefit of hindsight I cannot see any clues that wou;d lead me to the ability rating. The closest being a statement such as "not against much opposition" which could be interpreted in any number of ways. Remember, there is not yet even a mention of how to rate a race for class by using prizemoney!
Are we to assume that G. Hall had a sixth sense and worked it out? Even with the internet and forums such as this, its still hard work and without Guest things would have taken considerably longer yet G. Hall came up with 4 (yes 4) good things in one day?
I have come to the personal conclusion that the ability rating is possibly the most important single aspect of VDW but it was revealed later and plainly wasnt used by G.Hall (even if vdw was using it at that stage). It cannot then be quite the be-all and end-all that some on here believe.
Even if Mtoto is barking up the wrong tree he is at the very least in the same orchard, so just how did G. Hall find Buckskin, Swiss Maid, My Therape and Baronet?
regards

don,t be so guarded,as if i would ask what they were tut.tut anyway iv,e had 20.iv,e been thinking long and hard about what you said r.e only one means of determining class,iv,e also had another good look at the books especially s.b and i,m affraid i must disagree i,m pretty sure he had at least one other means of rating class.

Guest,

Was Reel Buddy a bit like Aherlow ?

After that he stated only when the factors couldn't be balanced should we stick to the c/f horse.



Fulham,

it seems to me form then class also.

Tony Peach talks to VDW, has far more clues, about Roushayd for instance.

"Frequently i suggested watching how horses were placed, but I believe it fell upon deaf ears."..........RIMS, page 9, para 11.

Tony Peach talks to CHE VAN Der WHEIL. Spells it all out ! In 1995 !

[This message was edited by Barney on August 19, 2002 at 06:37 PM.]

Hi Fulham,

Regarding your question about Mr Kildare. What I can tell you is that he was a form horse in the context of what he had done but the level of form that it was achieved at wasn’t high enough to trouble Prominent King. There’s not a lot else I can really say without explaining the ins and outs of how VDW established class/form.

Has anyone looked at the examples gave in a letter to Tony Peach 17 Feb 96? Namely Arthur’s Minstrel/Ever Smile, and Valiant Warrior/Killeshin. How did VDW predict that Valiant Warrior would reverse the form with Strong Deel and Gnomes Tycoon? All the relevant race returns are recorded on the RP-online.

Chaz

I absolutely agree with you re Mr Kildare.


Investor

I wasn't thinking just of you re supplementary questions! Seriously, I happen to think referring to winners that one claims to have backed, if one is not prepared to post them before the "off", is, generally speaking, unhelpful. It easily generates all sorts of feelings of envy and rivalry that get in the way of civil discussion of methodological issues.

You may be right about VDW having more than one way of assessing a horse's class. Mtoto argues forcefully for the relevance of sfs, and for all we know VDW had access to subscription sfs or created his own, so the patchy availability of sfs in the public domain is not a conclusive counter-argument.

But I think that Guest is right in his summary of how VDW assessed class or ability for the purpose of isolating "class/form" horses, because the empirical evidence supports that view. I stress that because opinion here should surely be based on the evidence, and nothing else. And for most of us (most certainly including me) that evidence consists primarily of VDW's published writing and the examples he gave.

Regards.

The question Statajack has recently raised has come at the right time for me as I myself have just started looking at G.Hall`s 4 good things.

I do not have the 1977 formbook therefore I do not know the 2yo form of the Sun Chariot runners. That said I may not need them.

Lets work on the fact that the ability rating didn`t exist.

Cistus was the 11/8 fav` having been supported from 9/4. Based on her winning achievements that season prior to today it was clear to see why she was fav`, ie - a stakes win, 1 x Gp 3 and 2 x Gp 2`s plus a 2nd in the French Oaks.

Best speed figure recorded was 88 in race 980.

Compare that with Swiss Maid, ie - all over the place class(value) wise and in race 2029 she was beaten in a h`cap.

Her 2 runs prior to the Sun Chariot however were both wins in class/value £6924 and £9370.

Whilst it is fair to say she was an improving filly her form couldn`t compare with Cistus yet VDW suggested she was a good thing.

For this to be the case VDW had to be confident Cistus was NOT IN FORM ?

Her last race was a Group 2 win in France worth £16667.

That was only 6 days earlier therefore did VDW come to the conclusion that that race was one too many ?

Any comments ?

Cheers,