JIB - Well done on your confident selection of Kyllachy today. I think your assertion that no horse alive could beat him is overplaying it somewhat when you really look at his past form, but well done nonetheless.

He was one of the main reasons I couldn't have Continent or Dominica as a bet today, as he was 11/10 fav and slightly unlucky against those two at Ascot. Continent had gone and won his race after beating Bahamian Pirate who had also been in that Ascot race as well as Sandown and Newmarket when very close to Kyllachy. From a value perspective, then yes Kyllachy was indeed better value than at Ascot and that's a very interesting area to look at.

I agree with Statajacks comments that the visually impressive winner can override everything sometimes, but often it is just an illusion. VDWs crosschecks seek to eliminate most of these illusions and I'm only interested in going in with the cash when everything adds up. Sure I miss winners, but it's losers I prefer to miss. I'm happy I only made one mistake this week in finalising my bets namely with Kazzia/Islington. I was a bit too reliant on the basic numerical picture, which is dangerous with 2 and 3yos and also overlooked something that VDW pointed out regards 3yos when he mentioned Royal Palace and Reform. RP hadn't raced since winning the Derby when losing the Champion Stakes to Reform who in contrast had been mopping up races. We knew why Islington had an absence before she beat the group 1 middle distance placed Quarter Moon by a long way at Goodwood, but just why had Kazzia not been out since Epsom ? Shame on me for not doing my homework.

Given that I couldnt back Kyllachy today as it was some way behind on ability ratings etc and given that this also ties in with my recent posts, the following is not simply "hindsightis" but what the initial numerical picture of today's race threw up.Lets look at the Nunthorpe without taking account of class/form horses and ability ratings. i.e. from the possible viewpoint of G. Hall and F. Chester. Are some of us missing the obvious? Hopefully some replies will help answer this question.

1st 5 in the betting forecast:
3/1 Kyllachy,
11/2 Malhub,
6/1 Dominica,
7/1 Continent
7/1 Danehurst,
10/1 Jessicas Dream

Top 3 cons from 1st 5 in betting:
3 Dominica,
5 Kyllachy,
6 Danehurst.
Applying 2 ratings methods (in this case Split second and Raceform handicap ratings as they were available in vdw's time):
Split second:
120 Kyllachy,
118 Malhub,
114 Danehurst & Continent,
112 Jessicas Dream
111 Dominica
RHR:
128 Kyllachy,
124 Danehurst & Continent,
123 Malhub,
120 Jessicas Dream,
119 Dominica.

Kyllacchy is the only horse to feature in the 1st two for both methods, indeed he is top rated on both. A potential winner in the race?
Now we could take the following view: Danehurst's best performance over 5f came in winning a listed race at Chester and he is essentially a 6f performer.
Dominica had a hard race at Ascot and has to carry 13lb more in actual weight as well as being 4lb worse off with Continent and Kyllachy for a narrow victory.
Continent while a G1 winner over 6f is not in the top 3 cons and has only actually won a £8k over 5f. Kyllachy is a proven 5f performer with a very fast timed win in a G2, who would probably have won LTO but for meeting trouble in running and who is weighted to go close over his best distance. Ratings confirm this.
Hey presto Kyllachy! Well alright its not that simple - or is it? I dont know.
Mtoto doesnt believe in the ability rating, Guest takes the opposite view. Maybe the answer is somewhere in between but maybe the trend for choosing the class/form horse instead
of sorting out the basics first is a bit misguided. I know this is only one race but Kyllachy was top of just about every commercial rating method you can think of, on whatever lines they were compiled.
What conclusions might G.Hall and F. Chester have come to had this been the 79 Nunthorpe? One last question: How many class/form horses identified by VDW as good things are there that are not also in the top 3 for consistency?
regards,

JIB.

May I congratulate you your on your winner today. I think it was a very good, and brave shout. Unlike you I didn't have the faith in this horses ability, I to saw his win at Sandown. I have seen many horse that looked as if they have accelerated up the the Sandown hill only to fail on a flat course. If you look again at the runners in that race, do you still think they are some of the best sprinters in the land? They where mainly 6f horses, or soft ground specialists. I'm not being churlish, and I am happy to think we now have a true champion sprinter. He proved that today, before today he had only shown he had potential. Enough potential to stop me backing against him. You say VDW's methods failed because it didn't hightlight him. I use a different method to rate ability/class, and my method also didn't highlight him as the winner. That in both cases was because until today he hadn't shown it.

I don't normally take much notice of jockeys, but today there where 2 great examples of race riding. J Spencer and Fallon, I hope the people that sacked Fallon where watching. I know they can't do it without the horse, but today they both showed true class with their riding.

Silverbuck.

The c/form horse is only the result of a rating. No rating should be taken at face value and be an automatic bet. It may show a horse that has a good chance, but it is only a starting point.

Investor.

All the horses I put up where my idea of the c/form horse in their races. I had forgotten to state that in my posting, sorry. I backed 2 of them, the Roushayd horse and the last one. The price ot the other 2 where too short, and I couldn't stop looking at Kyllachy's s/f, not the Sandown one, the Newbury figure.

Barney.

If your serious, good luck. I don't think many professionals worry over much what other people think of them. If your sure your right why worry?

Be Lucky

Statajack

Re:Kyllachy
Does G Halls key fit?

Mtoto

In VDW’s words I think
The Rouyshayd method was a viable method for EXPOSED horses
How ironic that the winner of the 3-15 was relatively unexposed

Boozer,
In short, "yes" it did. However, the key was G.Hall's and not vdw's, as he makes clear in the 1st paragraph of the 24/5/79 letter.
regards,

Has anyone on this thread put all their studies of VDW type races both past and present, on a spreadsheet, and compiled themselves several hundred races to help show (God forbid) any flaws or advancements that could be made?
I aren't asking for the results of any such study, I am just wondering if any of you have.
Because that's what hard work means, HARD WORK!

Ok, there were no such things when VDW was around but you can bet bet your bottom dollar he kept meticulous notes.

NO MAN and I mean NO MAN whatsoever could learn to really win at racing with odds against horses, without meticulous records of all his successes and failures.

We dont know when VDW first had a bet (do we?
). It is IMPOSSIBLE that he found the way to do it immediately (say aged 18????).

There are only 2 possibilities.

He either taught himself or someone taught him.

HE ABSOLUTELY, CERTAINLY, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, MUST HAVE KEPT NOTES.

My books of notes fill an 8 foot shelf, but, thanks to spreadsheets they will (eventually) all be on spreadsheets.

WHAT PRICE VDW'S notes?

Who got 'em?

Yours
swish

Swish,

So very true. If I could give up the day job and spend a year studying ( hard work ) this methodology I might get somewhere close.

That however will not happen so I`ll have to continue scratching the surface.

Cheers,

Swish - VDW most certainly did keep records as he clearly stated on several ocassions, one of which was within an example he gave and had more people picked up upon this fact then maybe a few more would have figured out the missing factors.

Like yourself I also have a mountain of notes and records, mostly detailing all of VDWs examples and it is from these I learn't his methods.

Statajack - I agree it was G Halls interpretation not VDWs and G Hall only detailed one good afternoon. If he was regularly getting the percentages VDW said were there (very early on) then yankees would have surely gone out the window. How do we know though that G Hall wasn't simply appraising a horses career record in a similiar way ? Afterall, with the really top horses a mere glance at their career can reveal what sort of races they are capable of winning.

At the end of my Navel Gazing post I asked how many class/form horses identified by vdw as good things were in the top 3 for consistency? These were specifically identified as class/ form horses,
Stray Shot
Zamandra
Righthand Man
Beau Ranger
Desert Hero
Buckbe
Canny Danny
Wing and a Prayer
Cool Gin
Beat the retreat
Wayward Lad
He also reffered back to Little Owl, sunset Christo, Gay Chance and Kenlis as being class/form horses. Lets look at the horses which he considered not to be bets:
Buckbe
Canny Danny
Gay Chance
Kenlis
Despite GC and K actually winning their races he considered all 4 to be no bets and the reasons are readily apparent both from the numerical picture and his explanations. But just concerning the consistency rating, lets move on to Determined's recent list of horses thought to be good things by people on this thread:

18/05/02 Noverre lost
18/06/02 Rock Of Gibraltar won 4/5
09/07/02 Feet So Fast won 7/2
Millenary won 5/2
26/07/02 Repertory won 7/2
27/07/02 Grandera lost
02/08/02 Nayyir won 9/2
03/08/02 Prompt Payment won 6/4
Scotts View won 6/5
10/08/02 Feet So Fast won 6/4
16/08/02 Systematic won 4/11
17/08/02 Reel Buddy won 7/2
Fayr Jag lost
Mubtaker won 11/8
18/08/02 Alasha won 4/6
20/08/02 Bandari won 4/5.

Thats an 80% strike rate which bodes well. Lets remove those horses not in the top 3 for consistency and we are left with:

18/06/02 Rock Of Gibraltar won 4/5
09/07/02 Feet So Fast won 7/2
09/07/02 Millenary won 5/2
02/08/02 Nayyir won 9/2
03/08/02 Prompt Payment won 6/4
03/08/02 Scotts View won 6/5
10/08/02 Feet So Fast won 6/4
16/08/02 Systematic won 4/11
17/8/02 Fayr Jag lost
17/8/02 Mubtaker won 11/8
20/08/02 Bandari won 4/5.

A small sample perhaps, but thats 11 bets with 10 wins or a 90% success rate if you like, with Fayr Jag unseating his rider in the stalls and not taking part in the race. Only 3 selections were odds on too! Anyway, I think thats in keeping with vdw's 80/90% claimed success rate.
Perhaps the key is actually "temperament" and waiting until everything lines up. That means at the very least leaving any race where the initial numerical picture does not show up an outstanding candidate.
Its also interesting to note that on wednesday Kazzia was well behind on that other method vdw advocated for assessing 3YO ability, the speed rating.

Guest,
G. Hall's 4 winners in an afternoon could indeed have been coincidence, in fact probably was but that letter and more importantly the F. Chester letter and vdw's reply to it set off the above train of thought when they were recently mentioned.
regards,

Hi Statajack
Well done on some great postings regarding G.Hall, you are not the only one to find this area very profitable, just read the "silver lining".
It's remarkable that G.Hall only took about four or five months to crack the method, he made a reference that he thought it was a system, which VDW said was not the case. I do not believe that class would have entered too much into his calculations because the selections he had to go on, there were quite a few horses that had raced for or had won more prize money than the eventual selection.
Also another thing that was noted was that VDW and G.Hall said about the long wait between good things over the jumps, why?
Interesting that F.Chester came up with the comments that the key lies in V.D.W's percentages, this in no way was denied by VDW the opposite in fact !
Therefore does this lead us to the conclusion that there is more in the percentages and numerical side of things and all the form study came later !!!

Cheers Mimas

Hi Guest / Statajack
I feel it is just too much of a coincidence that G.Hall should come up with four selections in the one day and all four were selected by VDW also. We never heard from G.Hall after his second letter I wonder why ??
I can see the keeping of records helped as VDW put it "to balance respective performances", but this was mentioned much latter on down the line, and was certainly not something that was mentioned early on so how much importance would you put on it.
Cheers Mimas

has muchea finally come to the boil,after a losing run of 30 at the distance

well what a shock,if where still on the subject of c/f have a good look at this one

Investor,

It would have been a braver man than me to take 13/8 considering the long losing record at the distance.

Oldtimer

i,ll not bore you with detail,this horse was miles clear of anything else in this race, it came second in a 35k race yesterday at york dropped to 7k at thirsk,if you evaluate the race,it was the only horse at the races irrespective of 30 losses

Determined,

In case you`re wondering, the cap fits perfectly. In my 1300 odd posts I`ve never claimed to know anything about racing. On the contrary, many times I`ve made it abundantly clear I know sod all.

But, I do know an anchor when I see one, or in this case when I read the words of one.

Care to comment ?

111
.

Wasn't G.Hall one of VDW's soubriquet?

To save anyone who hasn`t got a dictionary to hand, we`re talking nicknames.

Thanks for providing that service, however I'm sure that anybody capable of reading between VDW's lines wouldn't be seriously put to sea by mere lexicological obscurity.