Ditto

Time will tell as to Johnd's claims although if he ignores the ability rating I would suggest he is hardly putting the odds in his favour (to coin a phrase). However, people do seem to be ganging up on him a bit prematurely as I'm sure he can sink or swim of his own accord, its starting to look like he's on trial for heresy!
For my part, Guest mentioned that he thought both mine and Johnd's methods were similar. As my knowledge of how to use the ability rating (class of horse as well as class of race etc) comes directly from Guest I am rather surprised. As for Poliantas not being a vdw selection, I came about it by directly following the consistency method from "Spells It Out" so I suggest anyone claiming that the bet did not fall in line with the methodology should look again.
Going back to ratings, whether vdw's own or press ratings I would say this: there are numerous horses going off at odds on which arent top rated. Conversely, as vdw showed-there are numerous horses going off at good prices which are. VDW makes it clear how to use them properly but no-one seems interested, although Johnd is taken to task for ignoring the ability rating in the same way.
Guest mentioned Impek on saturday. I was travelling that day but I looked at the race at the 5 day stage. Impek was not even in the top 5 for ability of the 7 acceptors, but was well clear on all the commercial ratings. What did a further dig into the form confirm? Exactly what the ratings gave a clue to.
regards,

I'll answer further after dinner, but for now here are some extracts from exchanges relative to the 2 shortest priced forecast favs method between John D and myself just one month ago.

Nov 1st
JohnD - 1.30 New. Howle Hill
Guest "Using the 2 shortest priced forecast favs from the 2 main meetings, the two qualifiers were Epervier D'or and Howle Hill by my calculations. The former was dropping in class, but the latter was actually going up and therefore the price was a risky one to accept, given the market factor previously."

Nov 2nd
JohnD - 2.30 New Beauchamp Pilot 2.50 Wet Lord Noellie
JohnD "Beauchamp P has all the credentials ( In my view ) of the classic VDW good thing.
Lord Noellie has the profile of a likely winner, but soft ground would be a worry. Guest, any thoughts?"
Guest - "I make the 2 shortest priced forecast favs from the 2 main meetings as Beauchamp Pilot (10/11) and Abundant (5/4).

Evaluating the races in question shows that the class/form horses in each race are Smirk and Feabhas. Therefore neither of the above forecast favs qualify for selection.

So in summary, the shortest forecast method shows no bets, but another approach shows Smirk as a bet."

JohnD - "I take my hat off to you, an excellent day, and Smirk was an unbelievable price. Keep posting, and we'll keep learning.

2 shortest price fav's method.
It is obvious from Guest's post that I have made some errors in selection of the qualifying races, no problem.
I will continue to post these from Monday, but am now in a quandary as to whether to recognise the ability ratings, as Guest suggests, or to stick to the format known at that time,( i.e. cons + ratings ). Some feedback from other members would be a help, as ( Guest and Chaz apart), I feel I am p****** in the wind at the moment! "

Nov 4th

JohnD - "3.20 W Bay Island"

Nov 5th

Guest - "Catt 1.00 Justbetweenfriends"

JohnD - "Glad to see you maintaining your interest in the 2 shortest price favs method; I would have to agree with Swish on Robber Baron though, it can only improve for the step up in distance, and is miles clear on the figures."

Nov 6th

JohnD - "SPF method; 1 qualifier = Ibis Rochelais 2.05K"

Guest - "Sir Toby is a form horse, in fact the class/form horse and looks like being a value price if the fc is correct. I'll be backing him at better than evens."

Nov 7th

Guest - "The 2 main meetings are Haydock and Thurles and the 2 shortest fc favs from these 2 meetings are Thurles 1.00 Hard Shoulder and Thurles 1.30 Major Title. Both horses qualify for selection and both will be backed at better than 4/6."

JohnD - "2SPF's There are no qualifiers tomorrow (IMO)."

Nov 8th

JohnD - "2.30 UTT The Biker 3,05 UTT Joss Naylor"

Guest - "The 2 shortest priced fc favs at the 2 main meetings are both at Down Royal with Dashing Home 1.00 and Davenport Milenium 2.30 both qualifying as bets. Again I'd personally want 4/6 or better to bet either horse."

"Hopefully the 2 shortest priced fc favs method has demonstrated one way to get a high strike rate from just a few bets per week. As far as I can tell the races I have commented on in relation to this method has resulted in only one qualifying loser (Justbetweenfriends) and all other qualifiers winning. I have even shown a few occassions whereby the fc fav is a false one and have isolated the class/form horse in the race that can be backed (Smirk 7/1, Sir Toby 7/2) via other methods.

Today showed an interesting development. The class/form horse Davenport Milenium was withdrawn early in the meeting. Subsequently Scottish Memories became the clear class/form horse in the race relative to the opposition. Re evaluating the race showed him as a good bet at better than 4/6 for me."

Fulham,

You ask about other examples that don't add up. To me there are quite a few, Inside Quarter and Soaf are just 2. You say that when you have examined other examples you can find a logical reason why they make sense. Isn't that because you know there has to be one because they are VDW selections? My disagreement is not with VDW, he didn't say Beacon Light was out of form. He said he had just had a hard race. The out of form comes from finding a reason to exclude him, that has to be done to make sense of the selection. The reason given for counting him out of form is logical, but if you apply it to other runners in this race, and others it gives you problems. So you them have to find reasons why it doesn't apply to them. There were mitigating circumstances in BL's favour, having to give weight to a better horse, wrong going, etc. These are ignored, because he was expected, little or no notice taken of the fact that this 'expected horse' drifted in the betting. I except PK's last race was a prep race, but why didn't he win? There would have been no penalty, and a win against Drumgora would have done little to effect the price in the Erin. As he also had the same scenario (dropped in class for the last 3 races) why isn't he out of form? Plus, add to this there were no comments in running for the Irish races, so why do we think these are the races the decisions were based on?

Although I have never purchased all the books, I HAVE read them. I will never be as eloquent as Guest and your good self, but a life time on the building taught me a few expressions. Bullshit baffles brains being one of them, if you let it! Are you happy the explanation given by Guest for finding the winner of the Erin is pure VDW?

Be Lucky

VDW was first and foremost -

A "GENTLEMAN"

Some contributors seem to have forgotten this fact !!

TC

Mtoto

The answer to your first question is an unequivocal "yes".

The basic question anyone has to ask is whether VDW's letters etc represent a genuine attempt by someone who understood how to find winners to convey that to others prepared to put in the time and effort, or whether they represent some kind of hoax or scam, of which, God knows, there are enough in the racing game.

If one takes the former view - which I do - the task is to unravel VDW's approach from the material HE left us - the letters, articles and examples.

Methodologically speaking, therefore, I think that the only way to research VDW's examples is to take his selections as the product of his approach and, using what one gleans of that approach from his writings, to understand those selections.

Now, we have 21 horses that VDW explicitly named as class/form horses - 'though we know that one of these (Bonny Gold) was incorrectly so designated because of a mistake in the Sporting Life. However, that leaves 20 c/fs from which to derive how VDW went about isolating the c/f. Further, having established a hypothesis about that (which, to get anywhere, must explain all 20), we can test it (and indeed extend it) by reference to about another 30 horses which VDW explicitly said were either form, or not form horses.

We can then test all the remaining examples in the light of the knowledge of how VDW assessed ability and form, and further understand his approach.

Thus when we come to Inside Quarter, for example, all we are given is that in VDW's view it was a "good thing". In analysing the race, we can say straightaway that he is one of the form horses. Further, unless I've miscalculated, he is the form horse with the highest ability rating. And he has a consistency rating of 8 - not the lowest in the race, but only three other horses in the race had lower consistency ratings. So, almost immediately we know that Inside Quarter was very much the kind of horse VDW focused upon.

Now, we have to look in depth at the form of all possibles, in order to try to understand why VDW regarded this particular c/f (assuming I've calculated correctly) as a bet - like Little Owl and Sunset Cristo, rather than one to watch, like Kenlis and Gaye Chance. Etc etc.

And of course once one thinks one has learnt something new from an example, one can re-visit all those one has previously examined and, hopefully, see VDW's thinking there all the more clearly.

With over 150 examples, this is a highly intellectual research project, which I am a long way from completing. But it is finite and thus, for those with the necessary persistence (and capability) there is a real prospect of going all the way.

As to inconsistencies, VDW, whoever he actually was, was undoubtely human, and there may indeed be minor inconsistencies. (I still regard the issue of Carved Opal in the race won by Beau Ranger as potentially one, ESPECIALLY in the light of the comment on the race in the Sporting Life.) But whenever I encounter an apparent ambiguity my first effort is to try to understand it, as a possible widening of my understanding of how VDW worked.

When one is engaged in piece of research of this magnitude, reading the books once or twice is not sufficient - they need to be constantly at one's elbow. But you are certainly better off than Swish or Epiglotis and, I would expect, get more out of Guest's posts than they.

If one conceptualises the task of understanding VDW as I do - and of course there are many other ways of viewing it - the nature of the enterprise should not be understated. Having a doctorate, I know what is involved at the highest level of academic study, and I promise you that trying to unravel VDW in the way I (rightly or wrongly) see it is FAR more demanding than my doctoral study ever was.

Finally, you ask whether I am happy with Guest's explanation of the 1978 Erin - Prominent King's race. If I remember it correctly, in Guest's view Prominent King was the c/f (various horses with higher ability rating such as Beacon Light and Decent Fellow being out of form), and that close inspection of the form shows he was a worthy c/f and thus a decent bet. Assuming I have summarised Guest's position correctly, I am entirely in agreement with him.

[This message was edited by Fulham on December 10, 2002 at 09:04 PM.]

[This message was edited by Fulham on December 10, 2002 at 09:06 PM.]

[This message was edited by Fulham on December 10, 2002 at 09:07 PM.]

yet again your openess and generosity know no bounds.

Why? I dont know.


A bit like Jesus on the cross " forgive them for they know not what they do"

Clearly - Contributions from "Bloody Colonials !" are not appreciated!!

TC

I know that you are embroiled in other issues at this time but a quick yeh or neh will do.

Did you excuse tikram today ?

You have gone to great lengths searching through previous posts to prove your point, trouble is they are all from before I began using the method as I see it, a date which I made clear from the very start, and are, therefore, worthless in this particular discussion.

Fulham
I thought I made it clear that I am certainly prepared to post my selections before the race, with the only proviso being that they are alongside yours and Guests.

Generally,

This is no ego trip, nor did it start out as a character assasination on Guest, though unfortunately that it the way it has turned.
I genuinely feel I have something to offer, and I have given several recent indications as to where I am coming from, and it is all VDW oriented.
However, every time I post anything, it is folowed by cries of 'prove it Guests way' or 'VDW didn't do it that way' ( Usually by those who have learned from Guest), and I really do not think that Guest has proven that his is the ONLY way.
Those who have learned the method his way, will, in the main, be convinced that they have the right method, and that is only human nature, but even his most ardent follower would admit, if they are objective enough, that it still is a long way from where VDW said we should be.
Then there are others, like me, who have their reservations about Guest's interpretation, and are not afraid to voice them; were that not the case, this thread would quickly become sterile and meaningless to a lot of VDW followers.
I accept that some of my remarks may have been a little over the top, and for those I will apologise. However, I will in no way accept that his interpretation of the method is superior to my more recent findings, and in truth, I have yet to see substantive evidence that anyone else has really understood, or applied, the method as I see it. This may not be everybody's cup of tea, and I am intelligent enough to know, that, right from the time I first mentioned it, that I was leaving myself open to the scorn and ridicule that is often present on this thread. That matters little, what does matter is that I now have a very succesful method, which apart from being simple and logical, holds to many of things, ( If not all ), that VDW said we should consider. For that I owe this thread a debt, for were if not for posting on this thread, I doubt very much if I would have sorted out my thinking enough to see, what is now, patently obvious.
Some of what I have, I am willing to share, but the members who can only see things their way are not making this easy. Perhaps the answer is to have two separate threads, one for those who see it Guests way, and one for those who don't, or maybe I'm being flippant again.

JohnD - You say you have spent thousands of hours on VDW and therefore I suppose like myself, you have examined all of the selections that he gave in depth. If you did indeed look in depth at all or most of VDWs examples then surely it is no great hardship to check your new findings against these. Personally I have also spent years trying to unravel the mystery and looked in depth at every selection he gave and when I made a new discovery or put another factor in place I checked them all again to confirm findings. How could any serious investigator fail to take such action?

Eventually I came back to an idea that was staring me in the face and just as VDW suggested I did indeed wonder how on earth I could have missed it. It is simple in essence,but needs careful examination in practice. Following on from this discovery, further parts fell into place and like Chaz, the Roushayd races proved very informative to me armed with the new factors to consider. Just why do you think VDW went out of his way to fail to mention ability ratings in that article, only offering the fact that some horses in the evaluations had little in the way of class AS HORSES?

The class of a race is different to the class of a horse or to put another way, the class of race a horse competes in is different to the class of horse he encounters within it. Poliantas came up against a class horse in a class race at Cheltenham. He also beat a class horse at Sandown. Royal Auclair had class and form, but was unproven with such a weight against class horses in a handicap. Golden Goal had class as a horse and carried a low weight. To my mind it was a 2 horse race and worth backing both at the prices available. To pick just one was bucking the odds given that GG had the form to win.

Mtoto - Spirit Leader was beaten into a place on all 3 runs but against similiar or better horses THAN HERSELF and giving them weight. I have said before that VDW treated handicap form establishment in a slightly different way or should that be weigh? The form establishment is always relative to the race about to be run and nothing else. Had Spirit Leader been set to carry 11-10 then she would not have been selected.

Why does it concern you that Prominent King was unable to give so much weight to Drumgora, a horse who had run so well in a class handicap off bottom weight last time, and finish 2nd by 5 lengths?

Why is a failure to hold off a horse with only one run that season under it's belt (remember this was February) and in a chase at that, who had up to that point been rated lower than Beacon Light by VDW seen as not out of form in the context of the Erins race?

JohnD - You can crab me all you like, but I have been far clearer on my approach than yourself. In fact I can't find any approach of any detail in your postings, just quotes from VDW himself and certainly no selections since your new discovery last month. I may not have posted any selections in the last few weeks before racing, but I have done so many times before and the strike rate is certainly higher than 30%.

John,

I appreciate a little of what you are trying to say but the reality is that your way / Guest's way / Fulham's way / My way all mean very little in the scheme of things. What we are talking about is VDW's way.

Until you are prepared to undertake your own research and establish to your satifaction that your method finds the same selections as VDW's method in the examples he gave, then I fail to see how you can claim that 'your' methods are 'VDW's' methods.

To be fair to Guest, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, he has at least taken the trouble to ensure he can balance his thinking with the examples VDW gave.

That, for me, I'm afraid can be the only logical reason one could think they had solved VDW's methods rather than inventing their own.

Nobody is asking you to prove anything John, just to go back and establish if your thoughts are consistent with the selections the man himself gave. If you can come back and tell us that you can reconcile your thoughts with these selections then I'm sure people will respect your views.

Cheers

I'm baffled, where did your post from page 312 disappear, up your own dirtbox.

By the way, thats one embarrassing excuse of a cat that you have as a mascot.

JohnD - I hadn't seen your latest post when I posted mine so here are a few further replies.

It is impossible for me to dispute your claims without any knowledge of your approach. Indeed it is not my intention to disprove your new findings, i don't know what they are anyway!

Similiarly you do not know my approach in detail, though in one of our emails exchanged you did suggest we were not so far apart.

You did make mention of ORs recently but that is just someones opinion of a horses ability. VDW didn't specify their use at any stage other than to say that they could only be a guide as they were open to wide variance with private handicappers. VDW used his own way of measuring class and made further use of it to establish good relative form.

I will be posting selections as I find them as I have done so in the past. It will indeed be interesting to see how we differ or not.

Barney - I didn't do any races today, other fish to fry, but Tikram was one to treat with caution, especially if anyone heard Gary Moores comments about his sons riding of the horse at Ascot.

John ,
please , all I ask is that you stop using all these fancy words.
It goes way over my pea like brain .

Re Mascot-

Complain to GUMMY -

He provided it !

As to your other question-

"YES " it did !



TC.-

"I repeat." -

VDW had some "MANNERS !!!"

Unlike You _

You "Pommy Bast*rd !!!!"

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on December 10, 2002 at 10:35 PM.]

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on December 10, 2002 at 10:47 PM.]

Tuppenycat.
LOL
Can you blame me for bringing it up.
For f*cks sake, the mangy old things cross eyed.

TC - "The Cat who Walks Alone !"

Is that Better - ?

For Gods Sake I Wish that you Guy`s would -

" Lighten up" a little, you might get a little less "Flack" and a few more constructive "Contributions" !!



TC