your welcome

Fulham/Barney

You are right – the more we work at it the better we become, and in the meantime it’s about knowing our own limitations that is important.

The 2.35 was one of those tricky races which straight away threw up a problem. Although falling last time out the Class horse had to be given the benefit of the doubt in my mind with regards to form, however, he had a negatives, but personally speaking I wouldn't have taken him on. Having yet to compete in a handicap chase, bar the one last time where he fell with low weight, that factor was definitely one of the negatives. There were also others in there with creditable form, and so those punters who jumped in with the money didn’t read it correctly.

I’ll be interested to here how ‘Guest’ judged Il’Athou form wise.

Fulham,

Did you back Courage Under Fire yesterday?

Hi all
Brilliant stuff at the momment regards "Form".
Does anyone go along with the late Jock Bingham's view that "The class/form horse will always be the same however you look at it".

Chris B

I would be interested in how you viewed the achievements of the race, if you follow in this way.

Do you think "here was a race that il athou should have won against lower ability horses or do you take the view that Red Blazer beat fair and square a g2 winner at leval weights even though it was only a class "100" race?

Very apt that you should quote that paragraph from 'Spells it all out', as the paragraph immediately before it ends: "And making a new beginning using LOGICAL AND POSITIVE METHODS!!!!

Barney,

The form of Il’Athou’s grade 2 novice win in a 3 runner race was questionable as the main threat didn’t run it’s race and is reason why the form, beyond the numerical picture, needs to be assessed. Therefore given the facts prior to the race today it was no surprise to me that Red Blazer beat the favourite, but in reality there were a few in with a chance, including the favourite. Definitely one to leave alone.

Chris B,

As we’ve seen, and as VDW said there are times when it can be tricky to isolate the class/form horse, however, it is my view that if one is experienced enough they should be able to complete the task every time. Personally where I find it difficult/problematic I quickly move on and leave the race alone.

Chaz

I didn't back Courage Under Fire, although he seemed a decent VDW bet, because I was concerned that Garruth, extremely well fancied by connections lto, might just hit what is believed to be his potential. Having seen a recording, I doubt whether Garruth would have won, even without the mistake at the 11th, so perhaps his potential has been over-estimated.

In my view there was a better VDW bet on the same card, a stable mate of Garruth's, provided one took the obvious precaution. Although the odds in running were markedly less than the sp, they were still double CUF's with, in my view, no risk whatsoever (apart, that is, the seemingly daily risk of jockeys taking the wrong course!).

VDW went out of his way to point out that Burrough Hill Lad was not a form horse for the 85 KG Chase and also stated that the winner Wayward Lad was one of only 2 bets he made over the holiday period, the other being Von Trappe.

As I have said many times before things need to be looked at in a relative manner. Take the Chepstow run involving BHL and WL. BHL went there FTO a fresh horse having won many times the previous season, but not running well towards the end of the term. WL had run twice already winning the Charlie Hall easily FTO at Wetherby before UR at odds on against Forgive N Forget at Haydock after going through the fence rail. He then went to Chepstow before his run against Earls Brig.

Then when you look at the run involving Door Latch and West Tip, one of the questions to be asked is should BHL have made more of a race of it against a lesser rival? Ask a similiar though slightly different question regarding Prominent King and Drumgora.

Don't forget about all the factors. Just one factor not going BHLs way was the market. Taking just this factor alone, why should a horse who was beaten into 3rd at 11/4 be a viable proposition at odds on in much higher class ?

If you watch a young child with a jigsaw, he will eventually find a piece that will not fit; he will then bend that piece slightly to try and make it fit. As he becomes more and more frustrated, he will bend some of the pieces even more in an effort to complete the jigsaw. He may eventually even finish it, but he will never have the complete picture.

Fulham
Of those c/f examples that VDW gave, the ones that I recall do fit the method as I now see it, completely and unambiguously; If you are asking me to verify this by once more trawling through old form books, I no longer feel it necessary.

Generally,
In the SCHB of Sep 28 1996, a certain G.R. of Lincs, wrote a long letter, which was even more illuminating and explosive than G.Halls'.
To precis this, he first of all described 'his years of frustration and bloody mindedness, that almost cost him everything' in his quest to solve the puzzle set by VDW.
He then went on to describe how he had been forced to pack up betting, and take up gardening and decorating for two years.
One day he was looking through his cupboards, and he came across his old VDW books, and sat down and began to read them again, only this time something became apparent that had remained unconsidered previously.
Following this,he began to buy the racing paper again, and was amazed to find that over the next few weeks nearly all the horses he selected won.
He eventually went on to describe how he had had nearly 5 years of getting VDW's 85% winners, and given up 'ordinary work' 3 years previously.
He then proceeded to list his bets for 8 days at the end of August,that year. This comprised some 11 horses, 9 of which won, at all prices up to 20/1. These, of course were/are verifiable from contemporary form books, and I recall checking through them at the time, as no doubt did many other readers. As I recall, I found that all the horses fitted in with my understanding of VDW at that time.
I did speak to the organiser of sports forum on another matter a couple of weeks later, although I can't remember whether it was Barry Pocock, or Brian Cottam, and he told me that they regretted printing the letter, as they did not have the authors address, and were unable to contact him to field queries.
As far as I know, G.R. was never heard from again, any many will have dismissed him as a charlatan, but now, I wonder?

Johnd

Good luck to you - though if the method is as simple as you imply it wouldn't take much "trawling through the old form books" to check that it holds for a fairly limited number of VDW's selections, an exercise that just might prove prudent in terms of saving you money.


Guest

You have several times offered the observation that horses which win at surprisingly high prices rarely have the ability to follow up. Once you'd offered this thought, I watched out for examples and have found several, both among the races VDW considered and in current ones, that strongly support your point of view - Balmer's Combe in the relatively neglected race among the 7/3/81 five being a case in point. Thus I am far from unmindful of the market as a factor to be taken into account.

But what one can deduce from it as regards BHL seems to me to fall into much the same category as the reading of BHL's form: that of the ambiguous. Yes, expressed as you did, it seems unlikely that a horse beaten 11l at 11/4 in a class 125 handicap is likely to be value at odds on to win its next race, a prestigious non-handicap with a class rating of nearly double. But is it any more likely that a horse which found nothing at the business end of a class 60 non-handicap (a part of the race to which VDW suggested giving particular attention); and was beaten by a horse that, on their previous run it had beaten out of sight on only marginally better weight terms; would be a strong candidate to win its next race of over four times the class value, when 4th favourite of five runners?

I'm not arguing that for VDW to regard BHL as out of form was perverse, because I can see the basis for reaching such a view (just as I can for regarding Beau Ranger rather than Carved Opal, and Desert Hero, as c/fs in other VDW examples). Rather, the question that interests me at present is not whether VDW had stateable (and reasonable) grounds for reaching those judgements, but whether they were the INEVITABLE decisions, given his method of assessing in-formness. In other words, was his method in this regard a strictly objective one, or was it subjective (albeit with a high(ish) degree of consistency demonstrated over the 21 explicit examples he gave us)? Currently, I'm inclined to the latter view, but alive to the possibility of revising it in the light of further research and hopefully deeper understanding.

I dont know if anyones spotted this already but it may be of interest to some.

Winner of this years ONC is out at kelso in his first race over hurdles 1.00

John D,
I remember that letter, mainly because the "I have seen the light" style reminded me of the type of thing that system sellers usually put in their ads. If you still have it, maybe you could list his selections for everyone to have a look at, as Im sure we'd all find it interesting.
regards,

Fulham - All I can say is that VDW did observe that form was a complex subject and open to interpretation, but there were clear signposts we should look for. Therefore I would agree overall that some of his definitions of form may at times appear to be inconsistent, but it does go back to the same thing namely that a part fare won't take you all the way.

Wayward Lad was consistently in form, Burrough Hill Lad was not. Getting beat very narrowly giving weight to the winner has to be carefully judged but it is quite different to a horse leading some way out and getting beat more than a few lengths.

Below is the list of G.R.of Lincs. selections. For anyone who wishes to check, they make a very interesting read. ( All Flat racing=1996).

Saturday, Aug 24,
Goodwood Wildwood Flower 8/1
Mark of Esteem 11/4
Newmarket Whittle Rock 12/1
and 1 loser (un-named)

Monday Aug 26
Newcastle Orchestra Stall 5/1
Hagwah 6/1

Friday Aug 30
Sandown
Select Few 13/2
Chris's Lad 10/1
Squire Corrie 11/2

Saturday Aug 31
Sandown
Crowded Avenue 7/1
Ninja 20/1
and one loser.
(Actually 10 won, 2 lost)

He then went on to say, "Finding a winner IN a race didn't mean backing two to get one winner. All my bets as shown above were winners IN a race.

Regards

Apologies, the last horse on the above list should be NINIA, and not NINJA, must get some new specs.

If you get a chance, have a look at these 2 today, Diamond Lover 1.10.Ling.,Rainbow Dance 3.20.Lud.

Good luck

Morning,

At the time G R of Lincs posted in the Sports Forum there were 2 other useful articles from a M G of Kent in issues 694 and 704.

What did you think of them ?

If anybody is interested I will list the horses he named.

Interestingly, several are the same as those named by G R of Lincs.

Cheers,

Guest

Having bought most of the relevant form books I am studying VDW's examples and, like others, find some very difficult, including the 1985 King George.

In the light of your replies to Fulham I think I can now see why VDW regarded Burrough Hill Lad's run on 14 December as showing that he was not in form. But I would be grateful if you could say whether I would be right in thinking that if he had won that race he would have been the class/form horse for the KG.

M.o.M

I get rainbow dance as out of form but that could be down to the ground but still, banjo hill?

the only form horse i can see is duke of buckingham and on inspection the run against dantie boy is solid as a rock.

henrietta knight however does have a line on rainbow dance through keep smiling so there is a chance that will be there about

cameron bridge always ends up fav no matter who he runs against so on his debut, I dont know.

I am probably looking to much into it but if I had to have a bet then duke of buckingham.

Much like Barney, I wouldn't bet against Duke Of Buckingham but then again I wouldn't bet Duke Of Buckingham either. To be fully and exactly precise, the only horse I'm considering backing today is Murghem in the 3:10 at Lingfield.