thanks

Hi John
I'm glad Determined and Fulham have sorted the data you required

Chris

***** `s ( FIVE STARS ! ) for that !

That is realy in the spirit of the Forum. !! well done.

Do you happen to have the info on the 1985 George V1 ie - Wayward Lad. - that is a real connundrum esp the remark about Cheltenham !

Best Wishes

Tc

I have a spreadsheet detailing the career form of all the runners in the PK race in addition to much of the 'racecard' from the day.

E mail me offline if you want a copy.

crock_uk@msn.com

TC

Sorry, the data files cover the early examples only - 1978 and 1979.

ps

I've just done a quick check, and the latest are the two examples from 20/1/79 (Love from Verona and Gaffer). As far as I can see, data for all the examples up to those is available.

Great post i echo tuppenycats post, great for the forum.

all the best
Michael.

Thanks for the effort !

This example still gives us a puzzle - with no Data to go on !!

Any ideas any-body ??

His contribution a few lines earlier also sets puzzles , again with no Data given !

Was he just being "Bloody Minded" at this point - or are there some "Hidden Clues" ??
That I have missed ??

Tc

Michael/TC/Epiglotis/Grundy

Thanks for the kind words but do, please, take seriously my comments on the data.

About a year ago I commented in a post about the Derrylin example that, to reach a conclusion on the race, I'd had to work through the form of about 80 previous races. That post brought a sarcastic comment on the lines of how absurd to have to consider 80 odd races to sort out one race.

Having learnt quite a bit over the last year, largely by working away at the hints Guest has given, I can now analyse a race rather more quickly, but whether it is a VDW example I am coming to for the first time, or a current race with a view to finding whether there is a bet, as a rule of thumb I need to sort out bits of data from at least six races per horse. (It took me all of Friday evening and several hours on Saturday morning to analyse seven races for Saturday afternoon, and two or three of those only had half a dozen runners.)

I say this because it is true, and IF I'm right in my understanding of VDW it means that the data posted from the Meth. Group board is only a small part of what is needed. It thus seemed odd to post it, when in my view it is in no way an adequate substitute for having the Form Books, and ideally the material from the Life. However, others have different ideas, and may feel they can find the answers from the data posted - hence the decision to ask permission (almost instantly given) to copy the data from the Meth. Group board.


TC

On the matter of the 1985 King George, you will find Guest has posted on the race more than once, giving some of the relevant data and some hefty clues to its solution.

thanks again. -

re Guests publications . - I would love to look at them , but with almost 400 pages to wade thro` this is no small task !

A new thread , or even "publication" which detailed "Additional" information to the VDW articles ( with all controversial comment Deleted ) would help some of us "NEWCOMERS" come to terms with the writings -

Any volunteers ? - Simple Cut and Past from your existing info is all that is needed !

I have to agree with Fulham about the data he has so kindly posted re the old examples. I would also like to thank the author for giving his permission for them to be printed on here.

While they are better than nothing, they for me prove beyond any doubt. You on many occasions have to go back further than the last 3 runs to get the picture.

TC.

The King George was run at Kempton, a flat track suited to speed horses. Cheltenham is an undulating, galloping track with an uphill finish, suited to stayers. In the 85 race there was a Cheltenham specialist, plus a horse that is proven stayer. His selection for the race was a speed horse, that has proven himself on flat speed tracks, I think that is why he wouldn't have made the same selection at Cheltenham.

Be Lucky

"Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly."

Fulham
Your reluctance to to reply to my recent post suggests 1 of 3 possible reasons;

A/ Ignorance.
B/ Arrogance.
C/ Guest hasn't told you yet.

Whichever is the answer, one very good bet for the future is that this thread will not be bequeathed to the palientologists.

Thanks !

Those were my thoughts.

It is good to have the confirmation.

That finish at Cheltenham is a "Right B**std"



Tc

Spirit of the Forum "RULES" !!!!

Was wayward lad the "consistant (Form) horse" ?

Tc

dont want to piss on anybodys chips

this will ultimately lead to frustration with VDWS methods and even more of the same vitriol.

anyone who thinks its just a matter of looking at a few lists of numbers are in for a big shock

there is NO WHERE near enough information on which to base an informed opinion.


good luck anyway

????

Heroin - or Canabis ?

Tc

TC

I don't really want to get into this, as you know I work differently to other members on this board. I don't want to highlight the difference, as it is being used by doubters and hecklers.

Yes, Wayward Lad was a consistent horse, so was BHL. VDW came up with WL as the c/form horse and the selection. I had BHL as the best horse, but not the selection because of the course. I have no problem with that as VDW said a horse couldn't be expected to perform if the course was against it. The bit I find puzzling is VDW saying BHL was out of form. Does running on a course that doesn't suit mean a horse is out of form, or not capable of running to it's form?

Be Lucky

Johnd

There are at least two other possibilities, but in your case that that most certainly applies to three other board members doesn't, and the right answer is that I had assumed your question was rhetorical.

The answer, as you are well aware, is that VDW regarded the points you highlighted, like numerous others, as relevant though not decisive.


Mtoto

I'm interested in your view that the course was against BHL, given that he'd won the same race the previous year against half the 1985 field including, of course, WL. BHL not being in form at the time seems to me the more likely explanation.

[This message was edited by Fulham on January 28, 2003 at 07:38 AM.]

TC

While it is the case that Guest has been a prolific poster, a search for his posts with "Burrough Hill Lad" as its subject throws up just ten.

If it was neither the course nor the recent runs how do you think VDW concluded that BHL was not in form?

Quote taken from The Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune p.25

'Burrough Hill Lad was not a form/horse in this race.'

I take this to mean that he was not considered to have the form to win that race under the prevailing conditions. A horse may be in good form, but if the conditions are wrong then it is not favoured.

Rob