The way I can best describe it is,

Picture VDW's approach as a hand, with vdws methods of establishing form and class the palm.

Then systematic betting and roushayd is one finger of the whole approach.

just to work out all the aspects in that out, in itself, is no mean feat.

but the best place to start any journey is, as VDW said many times, The begining.

Barney

Thanks. I understand your position, and had had an incorrect idea about how you might have reached your conclusion as to the four non-bets.

from the begining

Uther pendragon has nothing going for it
soaf is half way there
The old fellow is an illustration of a point
Lyric dancer he tells you why


Only my view of course,

Barney

Yes, and a perfectly reasonable one though, as I've said before, I read VDW differently re Lyric Dance.

Sadly another day's racing with very restricted opportunity, VDW-wise. Still, as the man said, during the NH season there can be long waits.

would it be possible to ask guest,if he is looking in,john d, lee ,mtoto, barney,swish fulham,forgive me not mentioning any other vdw devotees,regarding compton commanders performance at lingfield.was this horse a possible example of improvement in higher class, then being dropped over the best distance,i would appreciate any assistance.

john duncan

Grundy

I'm never quite sure what exactly the Roushayd method is. In the actual example VDW gave, Roushayd was raised in class twice, showing considerable improvement on the latter occasion, and was then dropped in class to win. But I have seen it argued on another board, by a very respected member of this one, that Ad Hoc's win in the 2001 Whitbread was an example of a selection found by the Roushayd method, and Ad Hoc was of course raised in class when winning, having previously contested the Scottish National.

Johnd has given an account of the reasons why he regarded Compton Commander as placed to win, and a better proposition than Linning Wine. From my point of view, that reasoning (with which I would not disagree) needs to fit within an analysis of the whole race from VDW's class/form perspective.

Briefly, Compton Commander was in my view the clear class/form horse in the race (ie the in form horse with the highest ability rating). In VDW's terms, therefore, he was the horse "most likely to win", but not of course a bet simply by virtue of being the c/f.

When one looked in depth at Compton Commander's claims, they were impressive. He had shown improvement when raised in class last time out, and was now running over what seemed to be his best distance, on a surface with which he had shown he could cope, and with a weight he had shown he could manage. Thus he was a fairly solid c/f.

There were other form horses in the race, but none had an ability rating comparable to Compton Commander, and thus at the price available I thought him a decent bet despite the fact that he was not supported by my principal cross check of ability and capability, and his alleged quirky nature. For me, he was part of a book rather than a straight bet.

Just to clear up a couple of points from your posting.
Compton Commanders last 3 races were all on the A/W, and all in handicaps. As these were, almost certainly, the only races open to a horse with his OR, I seriously doubt whether the weight was a consideration for his trainer, but, as I said, an accident of class. One point I omitted to mention was the addition of a visor, for both the 2nd & 3rd races, which tells its own story.
You may be missing the point somewhat with Linning Wine, his postmark figures did give a clue to his best distance, but the factor which sealed it for me was the form that I highlighted, i.e. the class , the distance, and most importantly, how he performed in the closing stages of each race. ( God knows where I came by such outlandish thinking?). This view was entirely vindicated by the way he ran on Saturday.
As to the use of s/f or p/m as a template, neither, in my view, are reliable enough to to use alone, but either can be used to verify an opinion in conjuction with other factors in the evaluation.

Grundy

Compton Commander was probably a good example of the Roushayd method, but as Fulham says, the other factors must also be taken into account, and, likewise, with all the other runners. Where I am at variance with his approach is;
A In the use of ability ratings, which can and do mislead, even for those who see them as scriven in stone, and
B The identifying of the class/form horse, which is also dependent, in some peoples view, on the self same ability ratings, and therefore, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed.
Ther are,of course, other considerations, some of which have helped to point me in a different direction, but, nevertheless, they are successful, they are based entirely on VDW's teachings, but are not,on my behalf anyway, open for discussion on this thread.
Others on this thread also have their own way of doing things (e.g. Swish, Mtoto, Barney, etc.) which do not conform to mainstream thinking, but they all appear successful, and all seem to embrace some aspects of the Roushayd method, the final choice, as always, is with the individual.

Regards
Johnd

Grundy,

I can see nothing wrong with saying Compton Commander was a Roushayd selection. The way VDW explained it, and my understanding of the problem. I have seen other interpretations, so if someone said that's wrong, I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't use the ability rating as used by Guest and Fulham, but I have him joint c/form horse, improving, and proven in the class. I very seldom back on the A/W, but this race is one of the few strong enough to interest me. I must admit to having a quick look at the race, and the horse. His reputation was more than enough to keep my money in the wallet. His winning didn't surprise me though.

Be Lucky

Grundy,

I didnt look at any racing on saturday, I was out golfing. By the sounds of it I missed a good thing.

Fulham,

Thanks for posting that on Ad Hoc.
Just out of interest what was you position in that debate, back then.

Johnd

The reason Compton Commander was going down in weight was because it was raised in class, hardly an accident of class.

I think you will find Roushayd was being dropped in class to collect, whilst CC was raised in class. 20-1 LTO half that price in higher class, - not for me.

Mr. Toto

What on earth are you doing considering horses raised in class & dropped in weight, an accident perhaps. LOL

Mr. Toto

LOL = Lots of Love

Good morning,

Food for thought there.

Not all horses are dropped in weight when raised in class.

Soaf spings to mind, Are you prepared to give us your view on that one?

Mtoto

I was interested in your comment re Compton Commander that "His reputation was more than enough to keep my money in the wallet." And I, too, was conscious of his rather quirky reputation and I'm sure it led me to be more conservative in backing him than I would otherwise have been.

But the thought occurs, how justified is such a reputation, or are we being fed comments by the trainer and others which could serve the purpose of allowing the horse to run, when "expected", with less betting attention than his actual track performances allow?

It is hard to know how to sort out reality here - for example, is it really fair, to conclude (as I did and I think Johnd did, too) that 12f is this horse's preferred distance? For these middle distance horses, how significant is one furlong more or less?

IF that is a fair conclusion that CC's proper distance is 12f, to my mind consideration of his record at that distance does not suggest anything but a decent, consistent horse.

CC's first run over 12f was a winning one, in class 103, on 9/5/01. Then he was pushed up substantially in class, to 358 on 21/6/01, finishing a decent 4th.

CC didn't run again at 12f until last year, when his first run over the distance on 25/5/02 was a close 2nd in class 66. Then pushed up to class 319 on 18/6/02, when he was 14th after failing to find a clear run 2f out. His third run over the distance was back down in class - 69 - on 29/8/02 when he won by 5l.

Then this Autumn CC ran at class 82, under a hefty weight on 23/11/02 (though I know you and Johnd are less concerned about than me), finishing a decent 5th, before winning on Saturday up in class to 122 but with a more manageable 9.00.

It seems to me that IF we assume that 12f is CC's distance, there really is nothing quirky in this record. Are we, therefore, being misled by comments about his being a "monkey" by his trainer, and to what extent are comments suggesting that CC is ungenuine in the various Form Book entries for his races the true observations of the race-readers or them interpreting what, for other horses, would pass unremarked, in the way they have because of a preconceived sense of the horse's character?

I don't, of course, know the answers but if I was a trainer, letting it be known that I had doubts about how genuine a particular horse was would seem an obvious way to engender caution on the part of punters. Mix that up with running the horse over less than ideal distances, and in races over the right distance either too high in class or where he carries too much weight, and without any actual "stopping" one would achieve very much the mixed and seemingly inconsistent pattern that CC's record shows. Then for those occasions when everything is right ....

Barney

That Ad Hoc post was on the now defunct VDW Methodology Group board, in the Summer of 2001.

At that point, I had a narrow view of the Roushayd method, ie two rises in class with improvement demonstrated by sfs, and then back the horse when dropped in class (very much as illustrated in numerous examples in Jock Bingham's booklet, "The Key"). So the post as a real eye-opener for me, and it was but one of a series of posts by someone who, with hindsight, I now see really knew what he was talking about.

Alas, in those days, too, even among those genuinely interested in VDW's work there were very similar concerns to those we have seen here: concerns about some posters allegedly being condescending, not being prepared to prove their competence by putting up selections prior to the "off", etc. And then I was one of the sceptics, believing (quite wrongly, as I now see) that the way forward was through the analysis and discussion of current races. Together, us sceptics, and the numerous "lurkers" who never contributed anything, made the board an uncongenial place for those who had the most to teach, and unsurprisingly they ceased to post. (Sound familiar?) That, and especially my own, short-sighted part in it, has been a matter of regret ever since, but at the personal level at least I like to think that reparation has been made.

If it would be of interest, I will ask the author whether he would be authorise me to copy the Ad Hoc post to this thread.

Sounds all too familiar.

I would be very interested in the post, if its not too much trouble.

Nice to hear that you have moved on, I cant really imagine you as a rebel.LOL.

Barney

I'll ask and post it if the author agrees.

Not so much a rebel as someone who was out of his depth but didn't realise it.

I believe the original 'Mr Ed' used to talk from the other end of his body, and usually had a reasonable grasp of his subject!
( With apologies to Gummy)

Fulham.

I think your memories of the methodology group are starting to mellow with the passing of time. There was little if any explanation, unlike this board. If you remember there were posting like did anyone find the stand out bet at Ascot today. In fact it was hard work just to find out what the said good thing was. If people posted horses they considered, win or lose they were told that's not right, read the book again. Even Mr ED is now trying at least to give an explanation of why we are wrong.

If people had been more forth coming like Guest, on this board, the group would still be in existence. I still don't understand why VDW wrote Systematic Betting and according to some missed out important elements, weight, ability ratings, etc. He said himself everything was written for a purpose. I don't think he needed to have people put in words, didn't he say read what is written?

I am happy that Guest has helped you to a greater understanding of VDW. I just worry that it is Guest's thinking not VDW's. Isn't this what happens when answers are found by examining examples? The result is known, so reasons have to be found to eliminate the other contenders. We can only guess. If VDW was using the c/form method why was Celtic Pleasure's not so good run excused. He didn't excuse Tragus who was right in the race until he blundered. If he had gone down would he have been the c/form horse for the next race? He said what the horses do in the last 2f is important, so why does it have to be the Irish form that is used in the Erin? Son Of Love also brings major problems for the c/form method, no ability rating and no s/f to use the OTHER method of judging ability.

Barney.

I look forward to Mr e d's answer, I have asked him before for his thinking on Soaf's race. It wasn't an accident that race was chosen. It takes a fair bit of explaining, if all the factors against him are explained, without contradicting the preconceived ideas on VDW's thinking. Up in class, up in weight, up in distance, fair bit of juggling to get rid of the c/form horse, all this without being able to use collateral form (if you don't want to go against Guest's thinking) as he says VDW didn't use it.

Be Lucky

Mtoto


You may be right about memories of the Methodology Group, but I've found the postings there by Matt Kent and Raffingora very helpful. As one learns more, one can re-visit these posts and gain much more from them than when one read them the first time.

The reasons why I believe class/form is central to much, though perhaps not all, of VDW's work are twofold. First, he explicitly said so more than once, and second it provides a consistent and (to my eyes) satisfactory explanation for the examples. (Or at least, all those I've looked at save for two categories where VDW said he was showing something different - the handicap hurdles approach and that involving the six horses starting with Rivage Bleu and Travado. I'm far from understanding these yet.)

As regards the three horses you mention:

with Celtic Pleasure, in my opinion it is not a matter of excusing the last run (a view I used to hold) so much as understanding it fully, bearing in mind the point to which Guest has regularly drawn attention, that the class of a race, and the class of the horses in that race, are sometimes markedly different;

Tragus pulled up when beaten in a race markedly lower in class than the two he had successfully contested previously, which is a different situation from a fall. Had Tragus fallen, VDW might have "excused" the race, but it would have turned on the circumstances. A fall early in the race, or when clearly in contention in the latter stages, would probably have been "excused", as it was with Beat the Retreat and Strombolus, for example. A fall when clearly beaten would be another matter, and that, I presume, is how he regarded Carved Opal's. The principle is surely right, even if its implementation in a specific case is open to discussion;

Son of Love did have an ability rating (one needs both the Form Book and the Sporting Life material for some of these) though, like Desert Hero, there were plenty of others in the race with higher ability ratings. But were these form horses in the context of the St Leger?

I think the fundamental question, on which everyone is entitled to their opinion in the current absence of irrefutable evidence, is whether VDW was a fundamentally honest individual with exceptional understanding of how to find winners, or a back-fitting fraud. If one takes the former view, the examples are accepted as genuine, and they become the obvious database from which to deduce those important elements of VDW's approach not explicitly set out in the letters and articles.

Fulham or anyone else

Which book is the handicap hurdles approach in ?

thanks in anticipation