reading jock binghams book methology not kidology,there is a point i have to disagree with,on page 8 he talks about rivage blue.
his words are there are no worries about it carrying a penalty if it wins,he is wrong,it will carry a penalty if it wins,has anybody else spotted this?

Greg

The point JB was making was that Rivage Bleu was rated 9lb below the minimum weight for the race on 21 November 1995, and under the minimum weight rule was therefore effectively carrying a 9lb penalty.

For future races (provided he got into the handicap proper) RB would effectively be carrying 9lb less. Thus he would still be relatively better off if he won the 21/11 race and had to carry say a 7lb penalty as a result. PROVIDED he got into the handicap proper, after the win he would, paradoxically, be running off a 2lb lower mark than he ran off on 21/11.

thanks for that,off to work now,will post how i saw it later

Titus

I think you have hit the nail on the head. My best selections are normally the ones which stand out fairly quickly, and I've no reason to think that VDW's should be any different. The fact that a selection is a stand-out doesn't always mean a short price.

Rob

This is why the insistence of, for example Guest, on backing a handfull of runners in fields of over twenty just on account of the prize money shows a complete lack of understanding of VDW's most basic concept i.e. that the punter is constantly putting the odds against himself.

Epi

I reckon you are spot on with that point. I didn't consider looking at the Hennessy last Saturday as 25 runners in a handicap chase set the alarm bells ringing loudly.

Incidently, as a vaguely linked point, during the discussions over the over the Lunchtime attheraces a rep from Corals stated something to the effect that the punters wanted big fields and open betting. From my point of view that is a load of cobblers! I and,I suspect,many others, want a race where 2 or 3 have a live chance and I can bet at 3-1+, and it happens more often than some might think.

Rob

Epi/Rob.

If Guest has got it wrong, why are so many of VDW's examples the top handicaps? Lincoln's, Cambridgeshire's, National's, etc. Many of those that are not, are tight competitive handicaps.

Is it possible it is because of the large fields, and good prize money? They at least ensure all the runners are trying, and usually the races are run at a true pace. Plus class, like cream (and other things) always rises to the top.

I do hope Barney sees fit to explain himself in the near future. If form, s/f's, and OR's have nothing to do with it. Is he suggesting VDU just used a lucky pin?

Be Lucky

Good Afternoon
I accept your point r.e Bacchanal,But on further inspection,I would'nt be at all surprised if guest statajack and chaz,Didn't go in on this one,He had good claims and i strongly believe it would have only been the point you mentioned that would have gone against him,Other than that he looked a sure fire winner to me.. Do you think truckers tavern can win first time out for the third year running,Tough race,Ifeel Ryalux will be there abouts at the end,But i'll only be watching.

Investor

It has never been my policy to discuss races on this thread before the off, or to discuss my own bets afterwards for the good reason that Chaz gave in his post of 4.35pm on 30 November. The only exceptions I've made have been in relation to selections which were posted elsewhere and could be verified by other members of this board. As it happens, my analysis of the 2.25 at Kelso was shared by email with another member of this board hours before the race, so I do feel able to comment.

As far as I was concerned, Hugo de Gretz was clearly the c/f, and a reasonably solid one, though it was not supported as firmly as I would have wished by one of the VDW cross checks I use.

Despite this shortcoming, with the possible exception of Trucker's Tavern (tackling this distance for the first time), nothing else seemed to have any realistic chance of winning. (Ryalux, inferior on the ability rating, was in any case much flattered by his last win.) So I backed HdG on Betfair but, increasingly troubled about the shortcoming suggested by the cross check, layed much of it off when a decent arb. position developed.

Well done,I took it at face value without reading any comments,It was always going to be tough for T.T Having looked after the race,I can share your view but neither ryalux or hugo were backed by myself,So again congrats and long may it continue.

Was Ryalux your bogey with your
X checks on HdG

Mister Ed

Yes in part. Although I couldn't see Ryalux winning, he was a form horse and on the cross check I use for ability and capability Hugo de Grez did not came out as well with him, or Trucker's Tavern, as would have been necessary for me to regard him as a really good bet.

Surprising looks a good bet in the 1.45 at Hereford on Tuesday

Thanks for that.....Using the same criterion
as for HdG, would you have "thrown out" Von Trappe?

Mister Ed

No, quite the reverse. The cross check confirmed that Von Trappe was a solid c/f and a good bet.

Andrew, I will certainly be having a bet on him. Did you notice the time of his penultimate race?

J.I.B

Yes i had spotted the time

The only other race that was ran quicker than standard that day was the Swinton and look who won that

A future Champion Hurdler? Well spotted Andrew, I hadnt seen that, but I did note that none of tomorrows opposition have any remarkable times. Neither can I believe that Hobbs hasnt taught it to jump fences.

I'm writing a letter to santa for Xmas could anybody suggest the best the best VDW books on the market.

Titus

Has anybody noticed if any of the paper tipsters use VDW?

I have just e-mailed JIB and I shall tell yourself, a hurdle was omitted in the race that SURPRISING beat standard by 9 secs.
It makes a difference.
Having said that it should win. It ain't a cert though,
Yours
Swish