In respect to the conditions do you think the nature of the track was decisive in considering BHL to be not in form? For example had it shown a poor run on such a track since the win mentioned by Fulham?

Although I haven't got the data in front of me, I'm pretty sure it would have been the distance that would have been a problem for Burrough Hill Lad. He was very good at a stiff track or at 3m2f, preferably both, but was vulnerable round a sharper track at 3m.
I think it reasonable to assume that this was at least part of VDW's thinking.

Rob

Rob

I think you are wrong about the distance being an issue - the horse had won the very same race the previous year.


Epiglotis

I don't think I've said that the recent runs weren't the problem.

Fulham

Possibly, I was trying to do it from memory, which isn't setting a particularly good example. Reading the previous paragraph though there is still a suggestion that the course had a bearing, as VDW says he would not have backed Wayward Lad if it had been at Cheltenham.

Rob

Rob

There is good evidence, which you have quoted, that VDW was conscious of horses' suitability for particular courses, and clearly he didn't see Wayward Lad as suited to Cheltenham. But that doesn't bear on Burrough Hill Lad's suitability for Kempton, and the fact is that in the self-same race at Kempton a year earlier BHL had won, beating Wayward Lad and one of his other three rivals in the 1985 race.

VDW gives a lot of help with this example, naming three of the five runners as form horses (and thus WL as the c/f) and one (BHL) as out of form. This is a very useful race for helping unravel how VDW assessed "in-formness", but in my view it is not a good race from which to start on that path, and it may be no accident that it was the last of the 21 explicit examples he gave.

Probably not but I think Mtoto is asking how can the horse be not in form in view of it's recent runs(?)

Epiglotis

It is how those runs are evaluated that matters, and here VDW had very much his own approach, which he never explicitly revealed. But it is there to be discovered - though both the letters and articles but particularly through the examples studied in the context of the letters and articles.

Fulham

Your reply to me was very well put.

I admit that you must have the data in front of you to understand this one.

Rob

VDW felt it necessary to confirm clearly that Burrough Hill Lad was not a form horse for the KG. It is, as Fulham notes, one of the trickier examples that VDW gave. BHL was not a form horse for the KG in context of his last race when going under to Door Latch and West Tip. Some may be of the opinion that BHL faced a stiff task in giving over 2 stone away, and even the result confirmed what the market expected. But that is not how VDW saw things. Remember that form should be viewed in relative terms. How good was BHL’s performance LTO in relation to Wayward Lad’s?

Lee thanks for that it certainly bears thinking about.
In understanding what vdw was emparting I'd say that to a large extent the answer is down to interpreting/understanding the style.
I.E. What was done,maid,said or written by vdw.

Personally this is the route I prefer to take.
Again, personally, to gain an understanding of what VDW was emparting I have to research the selections of vdw, this for myself is obvious and only just realised.
This ain't everyones cup of tea, as the posts on this board clearly show.

Each to their own.

Take yourself, Statajack, Guest,mtoto, Barney, Fulham, Bensam. You've all reached your own understanding/interpretation of vdw's style.

I take my hat off to you all.
Unlike the cynics on this board, I for one do not doubt all of your individual styles'.

Everyone seems more interested in everyone elses style, so the only logical route to go, would be to research VDW, VDW style, if anyone wants to reach any sort of conclusion.


"To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned" vdw.

I'm very much on a learning curve but what can be made from the above statement.

I'll have a crack at it and of course I'm open to any members views/interpretation/style and constuctive critisism, it all helps.

It seems that we have to study the "form" to have "confirmation" of what the figures say.
So we need to confirm what the figures say.
Can I take it that figures and form are linked , vdw's way.
What figures are we looking at to confirm the form.
Consistency - figures
Ability - figures
S.P - figures
F/cast - figures
weight - figures
distance/
won/btn - figures
lto pos - figures
class - figures

and any I missed.

I'm a great believer that vdw was relient upon favourable statistics/figures to fall in line with each other, thus creating one hell of a bet when he knew that statistically every figure lined up. This did'nt negate the need to apply his own interpretation and obvious expertise of racing which obviously finalised his bets.

In concluding I'd venture to say that a class/form horse is arrived at via a numerate basis.
Although I do not know how class/form is arrived at if the above reasoning was correct it would go a long way in answering any doubts on the more difficult examples, vdw style.

All the best
Chris

Chris

While I don't doubt that it is possible to find a good many winners by thoughtful application of what might be thought to be VDW's basic approach - on which Statajack has made numerous valuable comments which should help anyone to put the odds well in their favour - to my mind the essence of VDW's strategy was the class/form nexus, with the assessment of "in-formness" the difficult element (ie the "missing link"). And I am certain that there is no way to gain a FULL understanding of that without researching the examples VDW gave.

Presuming that you are wanting to discover the core of VDW's approach, I would offer you the following practical suggestion. Assuming that you are familiar with the letters, articles etc, start by assuming that VDW meant exactly what he said in his examples, and to see if you can understand how he reached his conclusions, STARTING with those 21 examples where he was most explicit, naming as a minimum the c/f, and sometimes naming or indicating that other horses were either form horses (like Combs Ditch and Earls Brig in the 1985 KGVI), or not form horses, (like Burrough Hill Lad in the same race, or Lucky Vane in the 1984 Welsh National).

Once you have a proper understanding of how he arrived at these selections, you can make your own judgement on the logic or otherwise of the thinking, and whether you want to adopt it for your own selection strategy.

I'm not suggesting that the examples VDW gave where he did not explicitly name the c/f are unimportant: studying the 21 certainly doesn't provide the full picture of VDW's approach. But my experience has been that it is easier to make sense of many of those other hundred examples when one has a reasonably firm hold on his thinking on "in-formness" gained from the 21.

Just as Statajack's posts are, to my mind, the most useful in developing a thoughtful understanding of how to develop from the Prominent King example with particular reference to consistency and use of ratings, so Guest's are much the most useful if your aim is to understand what I've referred to as the class/form nexus. Though on this latter matter, you may also find some of Lee's posts, and possibly even some of mine (though only those of the last few months) of help.

quote:

---

"He doesn't need the going to be soft, although he goes on heavy ground and he's won on heavy. I would prefer not to run him on it. You can lose the rest of the season if a horse has too hard a race in those conditions."

---

Trainer LL talking about TBB.

Doesn't this line of thought confirm what those posters said was one of the reasons VDW give BL the elbow,...he'd just recenlty had a hard race on heavy ground.

Twoderly Pip

IMP

Thanks for the reply.
Never ceases to amaze me the amount of time and effort you and others give in helping fellow members.

Iv'e looked into a few of the races you mention, I'm waiting to take delivery of a few more form books so as to undertake a more in depth study.
Looking forward to getting stuck into Buckbe's race.
For those interested Buckbe's race was mentioned by vdw in Jan 1985, for me the interesting runner in this three horse race was Catch Phrase, noted by vdw as being 2nd on "class/form".
Catch Phrase's last three runs were 0-PF.
Line this up against "not a form horse" Homeson (Beau Rangers race, mentioned in same article) last three runs, 111-.
It's clear that vdw viewed form differently from most.
I don't doubt that for one minute.
I also do not doubt that class/form was "core" by way of vdw's thinking.

Cheers Fulham, excellent post.
Chris

Chris

It occurs to me that Crock's analysis of the Soaf example, 30 December 2002, would be well worth your while studying.

Your instinct was right about Burrough Hill Lad.
He did need a stiffer test at this level, as the majority of his form showed.
The only twice he won at this level, and in these circumstances, was when meeting out of form, or inferior, horses, including the previous year's King George.
Regards
Johnd.

it was only second on c/f because buckbee was not a form horse for that race

same reason as homeson etc

Dear John
Usually I struggle to lift a lid whenever you post.
To say that I'm totally underwhelmed by what you have to say would be an understatement.
To be honest, I don't like the cut of your jib, JIB.


zzzZZZZZZZZZZZ



I'm sorry, I must have nodded off.
Anyway, as I was quickly scrolling staight past your lastest effort when I happened to notice you personally addressed me.
I was heartened that you kindly dumbed down on the literary content, much appreciated, I almost understood every word you wrote!
Hard for you to belive I know, but I bullshit you not.
Initinally I was highly amused by your post, so much so that my head fell off and rolled across the floor!
Alas a more sinister thought entered my head, why would you be so interested in my well being?
I know you may have tried disguising your unhealthy fixation with me by saying "WE all would be curious" and "please dont leave Us in suspense", why use the "we" and "us"?
Leave the rest of the board out of it, you dirty little bugger.
I'm sorry if I come as being blunt but I'd prefer it if you would concentrate your chat up line on say a bunch of Brazillions (one L or two in Brazilions, oh who gives a fu*k) men halfway up some rat infested river.

Sorry to dump you like this.
In breaking it off, I'd appreciate no further contact.

Oh, by the way, looking back at your last post and you being a literary genious, what the fu*k is a dont.

Love
Chris

That puzzles me.
In my copy of TUWOF, VDW says "there were other factors which did not go in favour of the"class/form" Buckbe.
I'll look over it again, maybe I'm wrong

Cheers Barney
Chris

Barney,

Sorry you have lost me again, didn't VDW say?....

[The race was in fact one to leave alone, because there were other factors which did not go in favour of the "class/form" Buckbe. In the event, Buckbe fell and the second on "class/form" Catch Phrase took the honours.]

There can be no doubt VDW saw Buckbe as a form horse to be the c/form horse. He was a novice but the difference between him, and Homeson is he was running against other novices.

The thing that needs explaining is now was Catch Phrase the second on c/form? He hadn't completed in 2 runs in chases, and the other horse (Darc Hansel) had won twice over the course. The best CP had managed was a fall 4 out when in contention, is that good enough? Carved Opal was classified as out of form when it fell when closing, 3 out against Beau Ranger. Or is there another reason why CO wasn't a form horse?

Be Lucky