Barney,

Sorry can't find 'aberthatc' have you spelt it correctly? If so could you give me a date and meeting? I have used my search facility for the VDW books, and can't find it as spelt on the RP site.

Be Lucky

sorry abathatc

SB pg29 last para

Barney,

Found it. There are two completely different factors working here, when I check the old examples I use the facts as VDW presented them and/or the facts that were available to him at the time. I am happy using the logic as presented, he thought it was a drop in class.

When I work now, I can't see running in a 110 handicap after running in a 100 handicap can be a drop in class. Would be interested in your explanation of how this can be. The RP site doesn't give the OR's so I can't be 100% certain if it was a true 110 race. So I will say after looking at the horse I wouldn't have backed it when it won at 9/4. All things being equal (I haven't the s/f for the next few races) I wouldn't have backed it when it ran at Newmarket up hill finish and failed at Sandown. I may have backed it at York but it looks a fair proposition at Ayr (flat track).

The difference is I have no problem with this example, it makes sense as explained by VDW, and fits with what I expect from him.

Be Lucky

does this not then highlight the relevant factors?

from a vdw point of view.


vdw did have these facts available to him (or) he clearly still considered this a drop in class.

Sorry to interupt.

The 0-110 h`cap referred to was top weighted by Polykratis on an OR = 106 who on his previous run had finsihed 2nd in a Listed event beaten 2 lgts by Perion.

Bye now,

JIB,
You seem to have added Fulham to the "conspiracy" against you. You've lost the plot big time.
BTW whatever happened to that email you were going to send me? Yet more bullshit then.

Barney,

What point are you trying to make? My argument is with the way the results are being worked i.e. everything by the c/form method. I say there is a different way to find them. Not a way I thought up, a way VDW suggested.

I happen to think the VDW ideas can be improved on, that is a completely different matter. He said racing is changing, and we must adapt with it. I have always said I work class differently, I am still waiting for someone to show me a better way. I wouldn't have backed that horse then, the chances are I would have backed it when it won at 9/2, instead of 9/4. There is no way I would have backed Rifle Brigade how does this make me wrong?

Be Lucky

I happen to think that was a cracking bet when one also considers the wing and a prayer implications in that race.

my point is you wont balance all the factors, that vdw told us to consider, that go into the race analysis.

well spotted

i have him in form/ out of form for the race


rosette?

LOL

Barney,

Another interesting statement, could you tell me what factors/balance I'm missing? I have consistency, ability, can it act on the track and going. (something that seems to be missing with many of the ideas shown) I have ability for all it's opponents, fitness of the horse, and trainer. The only defiant VDW factor I don't use is weight, for every example of weight beating a horse I will show you the reverse. Or explain why it wasn't just the weight that beat it. I would be interested in a reply to the factors missing.

Be Lucky

the relative conditions of the race under inspection and the relativity between each horse and its previous runs.

Mtoto - As you know, we have had many exchanges in the past over our differing views on what VDW was actually saying. I have always stood to be corrected on my views, but I have examined his work in such detail and I have made extra sure I have understood as much of what he was implying as I could, that I don't think anyone could point to my thinking being wrong. Not by way of quoting VDW correctly that is. All I have ever hoped for on this thread is that, rather than people coming back to the points made in my posts and saying I'm wrong, maybe they would try and unravel how I came to my conclusions.

I put it that much misunderstanding occurs regarding VDWs methods on even the clearest points he made. For example, you say that one method he gave suggests a horse has to be placed in the 1st 4 in both it's last runs. That is not correct and the text clearly indicated at least one placing was 4th or better. Not both.

Rosette was not a form horse in the way VDW viewed form. Beaten comprehensively in lower class twice before dropping to collect in lower class against a 25/1 shot with no form to speak of. A win does not mean "in form". Please think about the phrase consistent form. This has nothing to do with consistency ratings. You could have a horse with last 3 placings as 222, but it could be out of form as VDW saw things. I have said before that no fiddling was made with the method to make horses fit. Beacon Light would have been viewed differently if it had been given a good long rest prior to Leopardstown. But the fact is it wasn't given a rest, it was run into the ground in matter of weeks before failing against a lesser horse.

Form is made up of many components and they all have to be weighed. The chief component is class and class goes beyond just race value or ability ratings or even speed figures used as merit ratings. These things taken in isolation are of little use. Combining them as VDW intended us too proves much more useful.

Any night owl up for a chat?

JIB,
You seem intent on turning yourself into a figure of fun-so be it.

posted January 09, 2003 02:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statajack have you got the courage to send me your email?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1266 | From: boa vista, roraima, brasil | Registered: February 10, 2002

What a wally!

Hi Guest,

I must admit the mistake was to try and get you talking again. I was well aware it was wrong.

I still can't see how Soaf works with the class/form method. If Rosette is not in form for the reasons you say, it is logical Soaf is also out of form. He has NEVER won a race of the class Rosette did, in fact I don't think he even ran in one. The fact remains he (VDW) wasn't using the c/form method to explain this example, and Rosette wasn't considered BECAUSE of his consistency rating. In, or out of form he wasn't in the 3 most consistent.

I also don't make a win form good enough to be the selection, I have never said it is. I can follow all your thinking, but I still can't except all of it is correct. I want you to continue to post, you have been very helpful. I take on board every thing you say, I do look at it in great detail. It makes me think, but sometimes the logic fails. I make Soaf the selection my way no problem, but it takes a leap of faith the way you have explained it.

The statement you have just made about Beacon Light is different from the ones before. If that had been said before, I wouldn't have had a problem with it, but what difference would the rest have made to the figures? Wouldn't he still been out of form?

I will ask have you ever looked at my selections and/or the way I work? I get the feeling you think I just work of s/f, this is far from the truth. I except if you are happy you have cracked it there is nothing anyone can offer you on this thread or anywhere else. Don't you ever wonder how I can come up with many of the same selections as you by using a completely different method? As I said the mistake I made was calling them class/form horses but to be honest I don't know what else to call them.

Hope to hear from you soon, I've lost your e-mail address and the posting with it on has disappeared, along with many of your postings!!

Be Very Lucky

Well JIB,
Ive had a little think but nope, I still dont get it. My email address was posted up some time before which you could have found anyway. Maybe you should spell it out for me and the benefit of everyone else on the forum, after all its a request you often make of people on this thread....No, you wouldnt be so childish, would you?

Mtoto

re Beacon Light, Guest's recent post is open to interpretation, but I don't assume that he is saying anything different than hitherto, ie that, had BL been rested between his Kempton run, or even after his Windsor win, VDW would have considered him in a different light.

On the face of things, the trainer made a mess of BL's race planning. The Kempton win on Boxing Day 1977 was only seven weeks before the even more valuable Erin, yet Turnell chose to run BL twice in between the two, the second on heavy, for a relatively small prize, only a fortnight before the Erin when the indications are that he was given a hard race (the SCHB comment includes "went on fourth, clear after next, hard driven and headed flat").

No one can know with any certainty whether BL would have won the Erin without those two runs early in 1978 but, particularly without the second, he'd certainly have been a VDW "form" horse (and, having the highest ability rating, the class/form horse).