I don't want to split hairs but vdw actually said, He wouldn't have backed pegwell bay had the ground been Heavy,The horse was already proven on good /soft.

Are you sure youv'e spelt sychophant correctly,I can't find it in the Thesaurus,I'll have to invest in a dictionary if i'm going to follow your posts.

Investor

re Pegwell Bay, you are quite right. It just goes to show that one should check such points at source systematically.

You would have to get someone to teach you how to use one first.

Hi Investor,
A "Sycophant" is someone who tries to win somebody over by flattering them.....cant think of a suitable synonym..which is prob why its not in a Thesaurus dictionary......and yes thats how you spell it....
Regards......

BRICK

Thanks for the help.

I am not prepared to put them on here any more.

Every man and his dog will soon be at without having put in the hard work and the expense of the form books et al.

I will mail you with them.

Investor I suggest you do the same, loose lips sink ships.

Just trying to get across the fact that there are plenty about,But of course it's backing the right ones that counts,But i do take your point.

Nice to see you looking in.

Thanks for all the replies,Barney look forward to it.

I have used the address from the last time you mailed me.

Fulham,

You are far too modest. You answered Mtoto’s questions with a clarity and depth that would have eluded me.Well done.

Re the question of whether VDW would have used the course as an excuse for defeat,I couldn’t categorically say one way or another. One comment he made about the King George VI chase at kempton comes to mind. He said "You should know Kempton is not the track for Forgive ‘N Forget". I can’t tell from the text if Forgive ‘N Forget was one of the several horses taken to make a book, I’ve just always assumed it was. I don’t have any NH formbooks for that period. However, if VDW was considering these factors before an event I think he was far too logical a person not to consider them to some extent in subsequent races if he had already analysed the race in question. No use to you I know because it’s pure conjecture.

Mtoto,

One glaring omission for me in the formlines for Prominent King was the weight it carried.We’ve been down that road before and I remember we differed in our views on it. Your combination of strike rate and SP are beyond what I can achieve at the moment and I hope you don’t think I’m having a go at you.As I think Fulham said, your method may be more profitable than VDW’s.I have no way of knowing.

Your method of discarding any horse not in the top ten OR bothers me however, as I’ve stated before. If you have come to your conclusions by looking at VDW’s examples, I wonder how your method (which even Guest seemed to be unsure of on the class aspect) would have dealt with Celtic Pleasure, Rifle Brigade,Strombolus and Battlement. Presumably you wouldn’t have had those horses under consideration at all. I wonder if your method would have come up with a completely different selection in those races? Would your method have shown these horses as possible threats to any selection you might have made in these races?. Swish has said you "know",but you can’t possibly be coming up with all the bets VDW would have.

Bye for now.

Crock,

I don't understand why the c/form criteria is being used on these early examples. It wasn't introduced until a lot later. The in formness is based on the last race (in most cases) it only appears to involve earlier races in selected cases. I think I understand why PK is in form, but that form is in a 6* class race. I am sure there are other examples were a horse has been rejected when in form, but the class of the qualifying race isn't high enough. I understand the class of the horse can be higher than the class of the race. To determine that records would have to be kept of all runners in the race. I am sure VDW didn't have time to go through all the races in detail when he gave the examples on that Boxing day.

Re the examples of horses that races were excused.
The first that comes to mind is Soaf on the 4/8/79 in a 39* class race. In his last race he was a 1/2 favourite beaten 5.5 lengths into 4th place in a 9* class race.
Pragmatic beaten 7 lengths when favourite in a 17* class race then raised in class and carried more weight.
Lyphard's Wish, Hawaiian Sound, and Stray Shot are others. I know it wasn't VDW but Florida Pearl at Liverpool this year, not just one race excused. I could excuse the Gold Cup at a pinch, but why the other one?
Then there are other horses that have to be out of form to let the selection stand.

Apart from SS, I accept VDW didn't say these are c/form horses, but he didn't say PK was either. It isn't VDW I doubt, it's the way the methods are rolled into one. Then to find the answers words are put in his mouth.

Fulham,

I apologise for my mistake, re Pegwell Bay and the going. I did have a quick check on the ability ratings for this race are they right? I get a much lower rating for Townley Stone, and what happens with walk overs?

Be Lucky

Bream,

A couple of points.

When I examined VDW's examples I used the same class formula as he did penalty value. Of the horses you named the only one I haven't checked is Battlement, the other 3 all worked. Nothing on this earth would have persuaded me to back Rifle Brigade. I have only found one horse that caused conflict with my method, he wasn't in the first 6 in the forecast. In all honesty the other horse was a close second, and I would have gone with VDW.

Nothing is written in stone with racing. Perhaps I should have said if a horse isn't in the top 10 OR's I would have to find a VERY good reason why the handicapper had made a mistake. It is a rule of thumb, that I find works very well, that's all.

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto,

To try and start the discussion off, let's start with the first horse on your list where VDW 'excused' a bad run, Soaf.

Presumably, if you think the previous run of Soaf a bad one where he didn't run up to form then I presume you think he should have beaten Lucinda Light in that race.

Let us consider the evidence that VDW would have had to hand before considering Soaf in his Newmarket Nursery Handicap.

Lucinda Light started life in a maiden at the Doncaster Lincoln meeting where although from the relatively unfashionable stable of Brian Swift she was made favourite for her debut. She performed with some credit here leading until close home before going down by a NK and a HD.

Next stop for Lucinda Light was another maiden at the Newmarket Craven meeting where she was again made favourite against some of the more fashionable stables. Once again she showed good speed leading before fading to 4th.

3rd run for Lucinda Light was down in class to the Hothfield stakes at Folkestone where she accounted for Soaf amongst others.

She followed up her Folkestone victory with another success in the Shoreham Stakes at Brighton before finishing a creditable 2nd in the Upland Park Stud Stakes on Oaks day at Epsom. After the Upland Park Stakes she went right up in class to the Windsor Castle Stakes at the Royal Ascot meeting where she held every chance before being noted as onepaced in the final furlong and finishing 4th of 16. Onto the Tysoe Stakes at Bath next where she made all to see off her 4 challengers. Final race before Soaf's Nursery was at Kempton in the Wren Stakes where she finished 2nd to the high class hotpot Runnett, who had previously won the high class Tattersalls Yorkshire Stakes at York's Dante meeting by 7 lengths.

The question to be asked Mtoto is, knowing the facts of Lucinda Light's form, would you see Soaf's failure to beat her last time out when conceding her 6lb as a poor run that needed excusing?

Cheers

Just had a quick look at the thesaurus and a list of synonyms that fit investor perfectly are: bootlicker, cringer, fawner, flatterer, lickspittle, parasite, sponger and toadeater. I suppose in this case you can add arse kisser.

Hi Crock,

First I would like to congratulate you on another excellent post.

The point I am trying to make is, I didn't say VDW had to excuse the run, the folks that had to do that are the ones who are trying to use the c/form method. If you look at his form it reads....last race first.

9* class race 1/2 on beaten 5.5 lengths
16* class race 4/5 on won 1.5 lengths
19* class race 9/4 won 4 lengths

Dropped in class in his last 3 races, beaten in the lowest class when expected to win. Does this remind you of anyone? If it applies to BL why not this horse? If you are going to analyse the Erin using the c/form method, why not all the races? Perhaps it is the only way to eliminate BL, but do we then switch back when it doesn't suit our purpose?

I have lost my notes on this race, but I think Soaf worked my way.

Be Lucky

Bream

The point you raise is a substantial one, and I hope study of further examples may throw some light, one way or the other. All we have is the evidence of the letters and examples and our conjectures in the light of them, so I am far from dismissing the latter, from any quarter.


Mtoto

According to the Life form, prior to the 1988 Mackeson, Townley Stone has won 10 races, gaining £59,353 in win prize money, which probably explains VDW's figure. I haven't checked through the Form Books to verify these facts, and of course the Life form was wrong in respect of Bonny Gold, but it is lon odds on that VDW's figure is correct.

As to VDW not introducing the concept of the class/form horse in his early letters, that is quite right. But it is a very different matter to suppose that he wasn't working with that concept at that stage. My assumption is that those early letters were consciously "introductory", in which VDW opened up his thinking bit by bit. The examples he chose, and particularly the examples he chose to illustrate (and not illustrate) in the "Spells it all out" article, seem to me to support this proposition.

If I am right, the foresight VDW showed in what he illustrated early and what later, and the fact that, as far as I can judge, over twelve years there were no contradictions or inconsistencies in his texts, is a mark of the man's intellectual quality.

Whether there was one VDW "method", or several (as VDW's own writings, and Guest's comments, suggest) is essentially an academic issue. What seems clear is the class and form, as VDW thought of those ideas, were at the heart of all his selections, and for that reason I tend to think of there being one fundamental method. But I accept that that is an idiosyncratic position.

Finally, as to Soaf, where all I have is the data provided by Crock, not yet having looked at this example myself. It occurs to me that a problem is your comment "expected to win". My comment would be "expected by whom?". The point about VDW is that he took a different and, arguably, much more penetrating view of things than most and, solely on the data Crock provided, would surely not have seen Soaf as a 1/2 shot in that last race.

[This message was edited by Fulham on December 30, 2002 at 09:27 AM.]