Hi Mtoto,

I think the important thing to bear in mind when considering the evidence of Soaf's defeat to Lucinda Light is not just the evidence available prior to that race but also the evidence VDW would have had subsequently but before Soaf's Nursery run.

I would'nt argue that at the time Soaf was defeated by Lucinda Light it may have been viewed as disappointing as Lucinda Light had only run her 2 maiden races at that stage.

The difference between Soaf and Beacon Light (in my view) was that subsequent events had shown Lucinda Light was much better than her form at that time suggested and being beaten when conceding her 6lb wasn't the poor run first thought. Yes, the same could be said of Beacon Light being beaten by Sea Pigeon in hindsight but Sea Pigeon's true class wasn't apparent at the time of the Erin whereas Lucinda Light's was prior to Soaf's nursery run.

Cheers

I think that its misleading to use that horse as justification for soaf's last run.

VDW hinted as much in another illustration," ....was second even though to the grat Desert orchid, but look how he was only just in front of........."

NO way were the "old fellow" or "soaf" bets, they were used to either a)confuse or b)clarify the ratings issue with which MR swann was struggling.depending on one's point of view.

in the same example connaught bridge and philodantes can readily be identified as "good things".

VDW seems to have been a bit of tricky old bugger as he does it again in letter 35 when he introduces "ability ratings" to either a)confuse or b) clarify, depending on ones point of view.

diamond edge, crown matrimonial and parkhurst are indeed highest ability, but he soon gets back to normal with Ascencia and kings ride.

Interestingly when VDW "spells it all out", well not quite. HE introduces newspaper ratings as well.

That must be what 5 or 6 methods of rating but again vdw says "...... must be a fool if he thinks i will disclose my methods of rating"

if you think i picked eltegri just because it won of higher marks,i would have named another ten on sat,and many before?

Barney,

I have to disagree with you 100% here. Whilst I agree that VDW went some way towards disguising elements of his methods then I don't think at any stage he set out to mislead or confuse people.

It seems to me that you are saying 'this example doesn't fit with my thinking therefore VDW was misleading'.

If VDW wanted to devalue the ability rating aspect then why on earth would he choose a 2YO race to do so?

Hand on heart I can say that I haven't done enough work on the Soaf example yet to categorically state I see him as a good thing (my response to Mtoto was purely to question his view that the defeat was a bad run) but Soaf was certainly a 'form' horse based on his win in the Lily Agnes at Chester and his subsequent defeat by Lucinda Light does nothing to change that status IMO.

Cheers

soaf=tuwof,pg14(para 1 last sentence, para2 1st sentence)

p.s

dont worry crock I am used to going against the crowd

Barney,

Now you've lost me completely, I can see nothing in the paragraphs you refer to that suggests VDW was trying to confuse with Soaf. The article in question is discussing a method of noting 3YO's to follow!

Cheers

Barney

There are at least two different editions of both the major collections of VDW's letters and articles. The content is identical, edition to edition, but the layout differs, and the first edition of "The Golden Years" didn't even have page numbers. It is thus highly probable that you and Crock are looking at different editions - hence Crock's difficulty in understanding your last post.

We owe Tony Peach thanks for bringing all the material together, but his organisation of it leaves something to be desired.

Hi

'expected by whom?'

Morning.

That is the question I asked when the expression was first put to me by Guest re BL. I don't think I every received a satisfactory answer. I was only trying to use the same terminology that was used as an answer to me.

Crock,

Two small questions arise from your example. I would be happy to except Soaf's run as good, if he had finished 2nd. In your reply to Barney you say he is a form horse based on the Chester run, doesn't that make BL a form horse based on his Windsor run?

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Based on the evidence available at the time of the races in question then Beacon Light could have been expected to win his race against Sea Pigeon whereas Soaf would not have been expected to beat Lucinda Light under the conditions.

Therefore the form of Beacon Light had taken a definite downward turn IMO. I don't think the same could be said of Soaf.

Just my opinion, I know

I also find it interesting that Soaf was given a long break after this race. 2 possibilities spring to mind, it is of course possible that something was found amiss with Soaf after the race. Alternatively, one could take the view that Barry Hill's (a known gambling stable) had given him 3 runs to get a handicap mark and then put him away until the Nursery season started. If the latter was the reason then would you expect the horse to be hard ridden when it was apparent he couldn't win the race.

Pure conjecture I know

Cheers

I wish people would make themselves clear,

crock,

in race 627 lucinda light was an outstanding bet and soaf would have had a mountain to climb to overcome those obstacles.As you know.

BL was a good bet LTO and should have won.
Soaf Could not win( he was up against the full magnitude of VDW's methods)


looking back a bit of a waste of time this post apart from to concur

[This message was edited by Barney on December 30, 2002 at 02:26 PM.]

[This message was edited by Barney on December 30, 2002 at 02:27 PM.]

Barney,

I don't think we can consider Lucinda Light 'an outstanding bet' in race 627, not without the hindsight of her subsequent runs.

Apart from that we are in agreement, I think

Cheers

PS I'm not really sure which part of my posts you don't think I'm making myself clear in.

[This message was edited by Crock on December 30, 2002 at 02:55 PM.]

You say knowing the form of her runs before Soafs victory makes soaf a good thing with that i disagree 100%.Form has nothing to do with it.

under the conditions of race 627 with the facts available at the time, lucinda light was an outstanding bet and soaf could not win.with that I agree.

Almost Identical to the laboured points illustrated in the pegwell bay race

Barney,

You have me completely baffled. Where do you think I need to make my mind up!

I didn't think I could make my position any more explicit!

I don't see Lucinda Light as an outstanding bet in race 627 when considering her 2 maiden races against Soaf's Lily Agnes victory.

However, when Soaf's Nursery race in August was run and I have the hindsight of Lucinda Light's subsequent form prior to this nursery then I consider that Soaf had no chance of beating her and therefore don't consider Soaf's previous race a 'poor' run.

Apologies if I can't make my position any clearer!

Cheers

Barney,

Probably time to draw a line under this one

You have made your position clear before in that you don't think form has anything to do with VDW's methods.

I take the opposite view and we are therefore poles apart in our opinion of the method(s)

Cheers

sorry if I have caused you any confusion.

the story so far


your early post indicated that form was the reason for LL victory over soaf.

Susequently when I challenged that basis you appeared to state the often unmentioned reasons for LL victory.

ITs probably me reading too much into your statements.

Sorry.

Barney/Crock/Mtoto

This is an interesting race being, I think, the only 2yo example VDW gave us, and significant on that ground alone.

In my view Soaf was a form horse for the 4/8/79 race, for precisely the reason Crock has given. (I also agree with Crock that there is nothing misleading in this example. Indeed it is clearly consistent with, while adding to, what VDW had shown us previously.) I am almost certain that VDW would have regarded Soaf as the class/form horse, because I doubt he would have regarded the possible co-c/f, Rosette, as a form horse.

As to whether Soaf was a bet for VDW, in item 24 of "The Golden Years" he wrote:

"The Goodwood meeting produced a string of good things .... The only other race of the day to consider provided Soaf at Newmarket."

In my view this suggests, though it certainly doesn't conclusively prove, that VDW regarded Soaf as a solid enough c/f to back.

Turning to the race in which Soaf came fourth, I believe Barney to be way off the mark. Soaf was the clear c/f in that race and it is questionable whether VDW would have regarded Lucinda Light as a form horse. LL proved, in that race and subsequently, to be a useful horse, which as Crock has explained, is why VDW would have regarded Soaf as a form horse for the August race. But prior to the 15 May race LL hadn't shown enough to be a bet, let alone an outstanding one.

As to Soaf in the 15 May race, whether it is wise to back, especially at heavy odds on, seemingly good-thing-2yos so early in the season must be doubtful, as many 2yos improve a great deal with a run or two. And of course we have no information whatsoever as to VDW's view of the 15 May race or whether he had a bet in it. But I doubt that he did. As the August race was (I think) the only 2yo example he gave us, and that well into the season, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, by and large, VDW focused on older horses with more extensive and settled form.

Is there anybody on here who can make a 50 point level stake profit over a full flat racing season using pure VDW methology?

As you have probably noticed,Interpretations vary quite a lot,I think what your asking is a very difficult question to answer,Afterall what is pure vdw.A majority of posters on here are still unravelling races from years ago to try and come to terms with all the methods he put across,But there is one thing for certain,You can make a decent profit,Just by getting familliar with the factors he put forward in one way or another,As for 50 points i would say it's quite possible,But i don't think anybody will tell you outright.With your interpretation do you think it is?

I would have thought 50 points was realistic
if not then lets say 30 points
Depends on how much money you have to invest and how much confidence you have (over a period of time)

If you have neither
Dont dump the day job