Epiglotis

I've never questioned your ability in respect of horse racing: merely your capacity to make any serious observations about VDW's undoubtedly idiosyncratic approach, GIVEN your self-acknowledged lack either of his written work or study of his historical examples.

Thanks for the reply. The posts I've made on the method of VDW have for the most part been with serious intent. As you say, I haven't read the books so my approach may appear trivial nevertheless I do have an interest in this arm of the subject.

Epiglotis,

I will try and give you a break down of the horses ages in the examples if you really want it. I don't think the age has any real bearing on VDW's thinking about weight. I do think he was interested in the older horses because they had more exposed form to work from. After all he did say it's what happens on the track that is important.

As you say weight is a factor the same as the going, course, distance, etc. I just think far too much importance is attached to it. Ok it can sap a horses strength, but so can many things. I personally think the pace of the race has more effect on tiring a horse than weight, closely followed by the configuration of the course. Just because a horse can run well carrying a big weight in a 70 or 75 handicap doesn't mean he can in a 90/95 race. He wins carrying a big weight at Doncaster, York or Newbury, doesn't mean anything when running at Ascot, Sandown, or Newmarket. If they can't compete in the class, or on the course, less weight very seldom makes a difference, and certainly can't make them run faster.

I also think the weight for age and sex allowances are a nonsense. Why give an allowance based on those factors. Some fillies/mares are built like brick out houses, like wise some 3 year olds.

When I say I don't take any notice of weight I mean I don't look at how much or little weight is being carried. I only look at the OR to judge class or the lack of it, and even that is not taken at face value. If I think it is wrong I will adjust, or ignore it.

Be Lucky

Thanks for the reply. I agree that weight in isolation is not the issue as much as the combination of various factors. One of the things I was trying to say is that I think it's meaningless to talk about horse A giving horse B weight on a previous occasion but on the next occasion horse B gives horse A weight and thinking that this will mean a reversal of placings if both horses are still well within their limits. In that kind of situation weight is unlikely to be a major factor as far as I can see, however I think that it is worth while being able to define the respective weight limits of the horses participating in a race. To that end it seems that it's not just a question of exposed form but also of full physical maturity that allows us to feel confident about recognising those limits. The upshot is that I dont expect you to go to a lot of trouble over this, if you're not interested yourself I'll be happy if you dont post any figures, mainly I was interested in how many of the strongest bets were in chases.

Epiglotis

Seriously, why not buy the books - you can get the whole set from Browzers by credit card for about £30 plus, I would assume, whatever the postage cost to Japan might be (and they are not very heavy).

You never know - you might find them helpful, and if you don't you'll be able to criticise from a more informed basis. And if you don't find them worth having, I'll willingly buy them from you at the price you pay, as I need two more sets in due course. Now there, surely, is a reasonable offer: the most you would be out of pocket is the postal charge to and from Japan.


ps

I've just checked, and the "VDW set" of five is £35, and I would advise getting VDW's "Systematic Betting" as well, for an extra £10. My offer still stands, for the whole £45 worth.

[This message was edited by Fulham on January 11, 2003 at 08:52 PM.]

Epiglotis - A very generous offer there from our friend Fulham. You would be crazy not to accept it if you are remotely serious about understanding VDW.

At the moment it's like criticising a film you haven't even sat through.

I`m presently going over the whole thread which may take me forever and yes I`ve been reading some of my posts.

I cringe.

Some of you chaps must think I`m a complete idiot.

What the hell.

Bye now,

which ones making you laugh?

All of `um.

JIB,
my question to Fulham was a general one and not about any specific person. Its interesting that only you felt the need to reply in personal terms though.

.

must ahve just logged off as i posted,

anyway, with CE do you think we have a rifle brigade on our hands or even a JDC from fto last year?

re-CE,to much to soon.dont allow yourself to get caught up in the butler bandwagon.

I would have to disagree with your last post re G Butler.
Compton Emperor got upset on the track, and in the stalls, and didn't run his race. This does not alter the fact that G.B. is a very good trainer; and, as his strike rate shows, is more interested in training winners than landing 'touches', which makes him a damn sight more predictable and punter-friendly than many.

i agree hes an excellent a/w trainer but you have to judge each of his runners on its own achievements.
the horse was vastly overbet and the punters got swept up in recent trainer/jockey form.
it had done nothing beforehand to suggest saturdays race was suitable or even within its capabilities no matter what he had at home to judge it against.

while there is not much going on i must disagree with some of your points and yet agree on others.

my baby is 21 months old he has never asked me a question yet, this does not stop him learning something new everyday.

I have never taken anything said on this board as a fact. However what I have done is look at vdw's examples and see if the comment's merit further comparison against other examples. As I have done with yours as well.

something you seem reluctant to do.

Barney,

Why do you think I don't examine EVERYTHING that is written, or posted on this or any other board?

The fact that VDW showed us 5/6 different methods of narrowing the field seems to be being forgotten. All the methods being rolled into one, and then fiddled with to MAKE them work. This is easy when the result is known, more than a little harder when it's not.

I have asked Guest if there are any of the examples he doesn't understand. I can only assume by the lack of an answer there isn't. Fulham, a highly intelligent person admits there are some he doesn't fully understand. You on the other hand don't seem to have that problem, or at least you don't seem to ask many questions. You would rather make a statement Rosette is out of form, that can only be because VDW bypassed him. Could it just as easily be because he wasn't placed in the first 4 in one of his last 2 runs. as he explained in the previous example? Many are now looking for reasons why Rosette is out of form, but why? Was he, he only needs to be if the c/form method was being used? Then what happens is a reason has to be found to make sense of the example. That reason is then used as an example of VDW thinking about how to read the form book. I hate to say it but to me that's what happened to Beacon Light, but in his case the reason has to be ignored in subsequent examples. If they are to make sense. I agree VDW had a thing about weight, but I'm not at all sure about some of the other things that are being laid at his door.

Let's be honest, it would be far easier for me just to agree with the reasons put forward for ruling out these horses. It doesn't matter to me if you believe them, and I can follow the reasons. They could make sense in the individual races, but if it holds good for one example it should be the same for ALL the races.

Re your son, he isn't asking questions because he is learning by example at the moment. Give him a couple of years, and every second word will be WHY? Enjoy the peace it won't last long!

Be Lucky

re aberthatc

class

how do you explain dropped to collect(your way) for this horse?