You mention that yesterday there were 4 or 5 horses worthy of support,I would agree with you on that count.But i believe that yesterday showed that the methods don't always throw up odds on shots,I.e Be My Belle at leopardstown duly popped in at 13/2,Plus some other shorties but nevertheless they are there to be found.

Greg
Well done with Eltigri,Anybody who can't see the vdw element in this horse,Should have a good long look

Mtoto
vdw said there is a difference between dead and live weight,Prominent King coming out of H/cap after shouldering 12/7 on the day in question set to carry 15lb less,Temperement bedevils most punters,If you don't posess the books you won't know what i'm getting at unfortunately but that's where your answer lies,In my opinion of course.

I only meant the uk races.

as you say though that was an outstanding bet. LOL.

Fulham,

Thanks for a clear and concise analysis on BL in his form up to the Erin. However I do feel it does raise some questions. You say there wasn't any reason for his defeat on that Sandown run. Even if he was the c/form horse on the day there is nothing to say VDW backed it. I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest conflict, the going and the course. 0 from 2 on heavy going, 0 from 1 at Sandown, only 1 win on ground worse than good. Plus his defeat by Sea Pigeon at Cheltenham. To me this must raise the question, if there is conflict in a race, and the expected horse is beaten does this constitute an out of form run?

I admire the time and work you have put into studying the VDW examples, but can I ask a question? When you find an example that needs an excuse to excuse a bad run do you just add this to the list of ideas VDW used to evaluate form? I worry about this as the result of the race is known, so there must be an excuse or the horse wouldn't be the selection. If you were evaluating the race pre off are there many occasions you wouldn't except the excuse? Some are obvious like Gaye Chance but to me some require a bit of imagination like Soaf and Stray Shot. Are you confident that Town And Country would find the distance to short? all these decisions had to be made before the race.

I think there is a big difference between 2 exposed horses, and a couple of novice chasers that have had 1 and 2 runs each. The handicapper didn't have a lot to go on.

Investor,

On reading your last post I am a little confused. Are you saying I lack temperament? I am the one that is willing to wait for the right price and bet. I don't start looking for second and third numerical platforms just to have a bet! I didn't find anything I was happy with on Saturday, even after having a very hard look at the horse Greg put up.

Be Lucky

your missing the point which is evident in your reply,I'm not saying that you lack temperement,Obviously you don't have the books,If you had you may have seen what i meant but unfortunately it's gone straight over the top of your head.

Mtoto

Assuming Beacon Light was the class/form horse in the 4/2/78 race (and I can't completely check this for myself as I don't have Form Books prior to 1975/6, but in view of Sea Pigeon's record from 1975/6 onwards it seems almost certain), there is no evidence either way as to whether VDW regarded him as a solid enough c/f to back. As (virtually) always, there were question marks - as there were with the Erin itself (after all, Mr Kildare MIGHT have been another Arkle). But to my mind, for the two different sets of reasons I gave earlier, GIVEN what we know about VDW's approach, it was appropriate to regard Beacon Light as out of form.

Turning to your more general question, I think it is a matter first of exploring the evidence (ie those races where VDW explicitly or implicitly described some horses as form horses and others as not), and then building reasonable hypotheses from that evidence.

Take fallers. VDW gave at least two examples: Beat the Retreat and Carved Opal. The first he "excused", the second he didn't, and you may remember that I had an extended exchange with Guest and Chaz on the latter. What can we safely conclude? That where a horse falls relatively early in a race it should win and showed signs of doing so, VDW "excuses". Where a horse falls later, under some pressure, that is indicative that he was perhaps unlikely to win and the run should therefore count.

Similarly with rises in class. Gaye Chance is the example here: VDW "excusing" a run down the field in a much classier (in both ways) race than Gaye Chance characteristically contested, or was contesting in the race for which VDW made him the c/f. Thus if I am considering a horse with otherwise good, consistent form for a relatively modest conditions or handicap race, I would "excuse" a tailed off last in the Derby, on the ground that he was over-faced, simply because his owner wanted the thrill of having a Derby run, albeit one with no hope.

In other words, where it seems as though VDW has "excused" a run, the task is to identify the probable reason, decide whether one accepts it as appropriate, and take it on board when looking at further examples and analysing current races. As I said in my previous post, my study of the examples suggests that VDW was very consistent in his approach with, for me, the one slight raised eyebrow over Carved Opal (but even there I accept that the Form Book comment makes a Carved Opal win less likely than the Sporting Life form comment).

Turning to your three examples, Stray Shot posed me problems when I was working from a mis-understanding of how VDW assessed "in-formness", but once that was sorted out (largely courtesy of Guest) he's no problem. Solid, consistent form at an appropriate level.

Soaf is an example I have yet to look at in any depth, and thus have no substantive comment to offer.

Town and Country was a runner in more than one VDW example, and I assume you are referring to the 1978 Cambridgeshire. I confess not being sure how VDW analysed this race, because it raises an issue of methodology about which I am as yet unclear.

Did he see Town and Country as the c/f, but Baronet, another form horse with a lower ability rating, as the bet on grounds of weight, distance etc (ie in broad terms the situation when Guest selected Flagship Uberalles as the bet against c/f Edredon Bleu at Cheltenham)? Or did VDW conclude that T&C's last run, complicated by T&C's relegation, in a non-handicap meant he was not a form horse? I'm not sure. However, even if one gives T&C the nod from the in-form perspective, it is surely not difficult to see Baronet as much the better bet in the prevailing conditions.

Nobody seems to mention irish racing much on this thread,Which is unfortunate because there are sa many opportunities as there are in english racing.

Today at Leopardstown there was a horse running Solerina which on the face of things looked a cert,It duly hacked up at 4/9,There were 5 horses in the race,But because of the ground only 2 went off,The point i'm trying to make is the race in question was a Grade 2 novice hurdle,Solerina had good form going into the race highly consistent so on and so on,But this race has added another 32 grand to the ability rating,And must be taken well into consideration when evaluating future races.

And what problem is that,No long words mate i have trouble understanding a lot of your posts,No sarcasm intended.

JIB,

It must be me today being a little simple, (that should please at least one member) exactly which problem do we share?

Investor.

I have the books, and I still don't know what you are getting at. Why don't you just say what's on your mind? I am well aware of the difference between live and dead weight. On all known form I would have expected PK to have picked D up and carried him as well as the 12st 7lbs. It wouldn't have incurred a penalty, or made a big difference to the SP

Fulham,

Thanks for that, but it still doesn't answer my question. Why isn't the Sandown run excused on the grounds of going, and track? As you know, I'm not saying BL could win the Erin, I just don't understand why it is necessary for him to be out of form. Unless it is to stop him being the c/form horse.

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto,

In response to Fulhams excellent post, you say:

quote:

---

Thanks for that, but it still doesn't answer my question. Why isn't the Sandown run excused on the grounds of going, and track? As you know, I'm not saying BL could win the Erin, I just don't understand why it is necessary for him to be out of form. Unless it is to stop him being the c/form horse.

---

Well, yes, in order to make PK the class/form horse (by reference to the ability ratings) then of course we need to declare BL as 'out of form'. That much is obvious given BL's superior ability rating.

What I find more interesting is your post in the early hours of this morning where you say:

quote:

---

VDW has shown on many occasions he is prepared to overlook a bad run.

---

Perhaps it would move the discussions on a little if you were a bit more specific in naming the bets VDW gave, where (in your opinion) VDW overlooked a bad run. Evaluating the merits of the bad run's that you feel VDW excused may prove an interesting exercise.

Cheers

Maybe it is me who is being a bit thick here,And maybe i should'nt be getting involved in conversations about horses i haven't even looked at,All i can say then if you have the books look at letter 49,possibly this will shed more light.

Mtoto

Working from the examples, I can't think of any where VDW regarded going or track as the reason for "excusing" a race - though I stand to be corrected. His reasons tended to be on what he presumably regarded as more "decisive" matters - falls, gross over-facings, etc.

It is clear that many aspects of VDW's approach are open to discussion, criticism or, in principle, improvement. For me, however, what is most important in practice is to try to establish as fully as possible what exactly that approach was, given that it seems to have been successful. If that means not giving as much weight as others would regard as justified to matters such as ORs, sfs, going, draw, track etc, so be it. That said, there is clear indication that VDW took at least some of these into account in the final stages of his analysis, eg when commenting on his bet on c/f Wayward Lad in the 1985 King George he wrote "if the KG VI had been run at Cheltenham I would not have wagered on Wayward Lad".

Hi Fulham,

VDW did indeed say about Wayward Lad he wouldn't have made the bet if the race had been at Cheltenham. He also said if the going had been soft he wouldn't have had a wager on Pegwell Bay. If the going had been soft, and PB was beaten would that have meant he was out of form?

Crock.

I will get back to you later, have guest's at the moment So I am trying to be sociable

Be Lucky

Fulham
Some excellent posts,and I believe that your grasp of the vdw methods,is second to none.I don't believe that you need to back track any further,just apply what you know,to future races,thanks for the Prominent King,info.You are correct about Tarxien,I posted it up before the race.

Barney
Thanks for the reply,would you mind listing the good things from yesterday,to see how mine compare.

Swish
Did you look at the Sea Storm/Eyecatcher race 2.35 at Lingfield yesterday,would be interested in your comments.

Mtoto
Glad to see you posting more regularly,surely from what has been posted up on Prominent King,there is nothing more left to say.

I have read most posts on this thread,and all the regular informed contributors,are basically,coming up with similar type selections.Swish posted up details of what he does,and I believe that the answer,(and I expect everybody to agree 100% on this lol),is applying logic,and a lot of very hard work,ie records such as kept by Swish,to what has been advocated on this thread,then one won't go too far wrong,
A Happy New Year to all.
Mtoto,

A happy and prosperous new year to you aswell.

You say above,
"Maybe it is me who is being a bit thick here,And maybe i should'nt be getting involved in conversations about horses".

For once you are speaking the truth.

Pipedreamer

Kind of you, and would that it were true. My understanding is most certainly a long way behind Guest's, and but for him it would not even be in the arena but still out in the car park!


Mtoto

I think the Pegwell Bay comment supports my tentative view that VDW factored in issues like the going in the final stages of his analysis.

With Pegwell Bay, VDW identified a horse to oppose the c/f, in my view probably at least as much because of the weights factor discussed by Guest as the distance factor VDW mentioned, and was happy to proceed with the bet on the actual going. Had it been soft he would presumably have felt that, given PB's record, in that company the risk was too great. Whether, had PB run on soft and performed poorly, VDW would have "excused" that race when making future assessments can only be conjecture, and all I can say is that, thus far, I have not found such an example.

From his record, the going doesn't seem to have been a factor with Prominent King. He'd won on good and yielding, and run well on firm, soft and heavy.

I will put what i consider Good things/Good bets however they may be interpreted,From boxing day I know Fulham doesn't like what i'm about to do,But i feel it could be benefficial in some ways

Dec 26
Intersky Falcon
Lord Jack
Geos
Best mate
Edredon bleu
Bajan bandit
Le coudray (ireland)
Jungle jinks

Dec 27
Epervier d'or
La Landiere (With the exclusion of Cape Stormer)

Dec 28
Hand Inn Hand
Be My Belle (ireland)
Coolnagorna
Limestone Lad (again)

Dec 29
Solerina

They are what i would normally class as good oportunities,I'm still struggling with the odds thing,Before someone jumps on me,I said a while ago that i wasn't betting on the vdw front at the moment,But i did back 3 of the above which i considered certs.

JIB

What Genesis are you from?