Fulham etc. mention that the books need sudying,now what would be the best one to start with.
A list may have been posted at some time, but the amount of non VDW on this thread puts me off.
I spent 3 hours yesterday slowly going from page 1.
Informed opinion would help some of us I am sure.
What about extending a hand to Barney whos early post I have been reading and have found of some help.

Warrington,
I would suggest you start with the Golden Years of VDW which contains all the early letters and in the main focuses on the Consistency Method.
Next would be the Ultimate Wheil of Fortune IMO.
I think a detailed grasp of the basics contained therein is essential before studying this thread.
Good Luck

Graham

Hi all,
May I just ask a question which arises from VDW's evaluation of The Mackeson Gold Cup 1988.
In his article 'VDW spells it out' he states that you should apply ability rating to entire field. But in the above race he only applies it to the first six in the betting.
I know it sounds like a contradiction but I just wondered how many (if any) members rate the entire race and how many only rate the first 5/6 in the betting.
If, as in the numerical picture, we are only looking at the market leaders does this make more sense?
See you soon, Mike.

Mike,
I rate the whole field to make sure i consider all the class horses whether in the first five of the forecast or not. In my view it is just as important to establish why a class horse is not at the front of the betting as it is to consider all those in the first five.
Referring to the 1988 Mackeson I think VDW left it to those studying his examples to complete the missing data with the intention that they then go back and consider why he left it out in the first place. Only my opinion of course.

Cheers

Graham

Mike
VDW says to rate the entire field for ability, and then to begin any further analysis with the horse with the highest ability rating. So from my very limited understanding of VDW it is essential to rate the whole field for ability - providing a cross-check by which to "disguised" form can be highlighted.

Mike,

If only the first six in the forecast are rated, how did he find Son Of Love, Love From Verona and Desert Hero? If you take the first six that would include Smart Tar, who he hasn't given an ability rating. If he had, I make his rating higher than Pegwell Bay's. Would this then make Smart Tar out of form, so he wouldn't be the class form horse? VDW went into fair detail about his thoughts on the runners, again he didn't say out of form. I think some have suggested he didn't rate Smart Tar because he was held on form, or out of form. This prompted my question, why rate Beacon Light if he was out of form. Somewhere it does say ratings are part of the numerical picture, is it possible he only showed the ability ratings of the horse that did well in the other ratings?

Be Lucky

Mike/All (who are interested),

Mtoto is right in that Smart Tar was amongst the first 6 in the forecast, but VDW decided not to include his ability rating. For information Smart Tar had a class rating of 55 going in to the Mackeson, higher than Pegwell Bay, but not as high as Townley Stone. So, if Smart Tar’s ability rating wasn’t mentioned, why was Townley Stones?

VDW gave his thoughts on the horses concerned but as Mtoto mentions he never categorically stated that any of the contenders were, or were not, form horses. I can tell you now that neither Townley Stone nor Smart Tar was, which should beg an answer to the above question.

Also, VDW stated that he wouldn’t have wagered on Pegwell Bay had the ground been heavy, why? Most will answer that he’d failed on both occasions that he’d faced heavy going. But in fact that is only half the reason for the comment. Smart Tar was a better class horse than Pegwell Bay going in to the race and had gone under to him LTO, on good/firm ground. VDW mentioned that Smart Tar would prefer the ground softer, and had the conditions suited Smart Tar there would have been further conflict.

Now look at the horses that beat Townley Stone and you should be able to judge why he was also NOT a form horse for the Mackeson.

GRHAM, Thanks for your reply does not get us much further.

Lee, did vdw consider form on heavy going as unreliable as guest did state previously that the long waits during the national hunt was down to the weather, and to quote vdw i would not have bet him "pegwell bay" if it had been heavy?.

LEE
Thanks for that, short, succinct, and informative, as usual.

Very good posting Lee, lots of information that when looking through the letter VDW wrote is not that clear at first glance. I can tell you have also studied the old examples and put the effort in, as Fulham has said before I believe this really is the only way to learn.
From example(s) !!!
Get the form books and go through them !!!

Lee,

A couple of questions about your last post. First are you saying a horse may not a form horse for other reasons other than not being in form? Smart Tar ran a perfectly expectable race last time when you consider the conditions were against it. As the conditions were still against it, does this stop it being a form horse, although it isn't out of form?

I think the reason Smart Tar's ability rating was not included was because the rating was only shown for the 3 lowest on consistency (that were in the forecast). This begs the question, when are the horses outside the forecast included?

Hopefully this thread will pick up now the nonsense has stopped. That is unless everyone has gone to Barney's new forum. I hope not, as this forum has gone a long way in helping people understand VDW thinking. We don't need the silly posting, but sensible questions from sceptics DOES help everyone really think about how we work.

Over the last 18 months I have read nothing that makes me think the VDW logic doesn't work. Even though my ideas about it may disagree with some of the others, the fact remains. The only way to win CONSISTENTLY, is to back good consistent (or improving) horses that have the proven ability.

Be Lucky

MTOTO
It would be ironic if Barney, who has been nurtured by this thread, was responsible for its eventual demise. Hopefully, that will not be the case. For whatever reason the 'aggro' seems to have disappeared, which must be a good thing.

TODAY'S RACING

To hopefully stimulate some discussion on today's racing, I will give my early thoughts on the 3 main races, albeit from a 'best form' perspective, rather than the ability ratings approach.

2.30. Newb.
CENKOS undoubtedly has the best 2 mile form in the race, and, although this is not his main objective, he should be a laydown in this race. As discussed previously, LADY CRICKET, (IMO), needs a stiffer test to show her best at this distance, and the trainer makes it obvious what he thinks of KADARANN's chance in the R.P. preview today.

3.05. Newb.
COPELAND (IMO) has the best form in the race, but he needs softer ground, or a stiffer track, to show it. A.P. McCoy has chosen to ride PUNTAL in preference, and although he has won a 23k race, laughing at the opposition, it was only a summer jumps job at Market Rasen,may be capable of better, but has not got the form in the book.
CHAUVINIST won 'The Ladbroke' at Ascot, but in much heavier ground than today, and his form suggests that he needs soft ground at this distance. 2m 5f at Kempton would also seem a strange preparation for this race.
NON SO has a lot to find on class, but he won his last race with consumnate ease from Hawadeth, who had previously run well in a valuable handicap behind SPIRIT LEADER, another horse who may find them going too fast for him in today's conditions.
IN CONTRAST probably had his finest hour when beating Westender by 8l at Aintree last year, though his form when falling behind Rooster Booster would put him in with a shout.His lto run in a race run at a joke pace, is best ignored.
GRALMANO would be no forlorn hope on his close 2nd to Intersky Falcon last year, although I.F. has improved since then.
In summary, NON SO has had a very similar preparation to Landing Light, N.Henderson's last winner of this race, and the trainer has gone to great pains to ensure that his jockey didn't forfeit his 3lb claim before today, the jockey was booked some time before it became clear that M.Fitzgerald would be unfit, and all the signs are that they expect a very big run.

3.35. Newb
MARLBOROUGH's lto run (IMO) is the best form in the race, but his record at this track raises some serious questions.

Luck to all

Mtoto,

I’ll get back to when I’ve got a bit more time.

John D,

I agree pretty much with what you’ve said above. It seems that today the best horses don’t have the conditions to suit them

The one horse that I’m confident will go well is Cenkos, however, like you’ve said it is a stepping-stone and for me the price is too skinny.

A piece of cake also looks to hold a good chance in the 1.40 at Ayr, but I reckon he needs more of a test to produce his best form. That said there are negatives about the other runners in the race.

Johnd,

I agree with most of what you say about the big one at Newbury. I think Copeland has been left in to keep Puntal's weight down (and to get rid of some of the light weights). I think Puntal's campaign has been geared towards this race, and I think he has got the form in the book. I also think it has been hidden a little along the way, by running him on the wrong tracks. Most of his races have been right handed on easy tracks. If Pipe is/was serious about the Champion, he must be happy Puntal will be as good, if not better going left handed on a stiff track. I have taken some of the 14/1 about him for this race, and I am more than happy that today is the day he really shows how good he is.

Be Lucky

Hi all,
I think one ofthe main problems withVDW is that if you read his books he seems to have had several different methods of arriving at his selections and the hard part is working out which one he has used for a particular race.
As in the Mackeson, where he only used the ability rating on the first 6 in the betting to the examples given in his 'Spells it out' article to his Roushayd method, the scrubber race example and probably more I have missed.
He says that his method(abilty/form) works on both codes but on the flat with a bit of modification. For hurdle races he uses a different method again and its all this that I think confuses people.
There are obviously members on this site who understand more than most and they like VDW can't be expected to give away what has taken them a long time to learn.
I don't know what anybody else thinks of this maze that is VDW but I like everyone else have been drawn into it and the only solution I can think of is to keep working.
They say a winer never quits and a quitter never wins. I've had my moan now,
See you soon, Mike.

Mtoto

I must agree with what you say about keeping Copeland in to keep Puntal's weight down and it has not done Holy Orders any good at all. Glad you got the 14’s and I wish you luck as I will only be watching.
Nice to see this thread turning into what I always thought it could be.

Good skill

Jimmy

Copeland is clearly there for the reason stated by Mtoto.

Mtoto goes on to make his case for Puntal and who am I to argue with one the shrewdest on this thread. Good luck to you.

I have put In Contrast up on the tipping challenge as I expect a very big run indeed.

With regards Mr Pipe, I may look silly later on but I suggest everyone has a look at the courses, distances, etc MR COOL has been running on. In my opinion the 25/1 is far too big and I expect MC to be in the frame.

Mike

VDW did indeed refer to several methods, and personally I have yet to get to grips with two - his Handicap Hurdle method and his Best Bet/Next Best method.

But the core of all the others (and, I expect, if/when I fathom them the other two) is the balance of class and form, when other factors such as weight line up.

The class side is reasonably straightforward. Taking today's big race by way of illustration, the class horses, in descending order of ability ratings, were:

Copeland - 297
Holy Orders - 238
Chauvinist - 216
Scolardy - 207
Quazar - 180
Polar Red - 177
Spirit Leader - 170

All the rest well below these seven and thus well out of it on class IF some of these seven could be regarded as form horses with conditions to suit.

Of the seven, three were palpably not form horses (Holy Orders, Chauvinist, Polar Red) from a VDW perspective, leaving four for serious consideration.

Copeland - had won a handicap with more weight than today, but a much lower class one. Has shown nothing since winning this race last year to suggest he could win it again off a mark 15lb higher.

Scolardy - off the course for eleven months; no form in handicaps;

Quazar - driven out to win lto having been beaten 25l by Spirit Leader the time before on 6lb worse terms than today;

Spirit Leader - consistent form in classy handicap races; beaten 5.5l lto when raised in class to 511, a better race than the last run of any of the other three possibles. Today running off 18lb less.

Given that one arrives at four possibles by the straightforward application of VDW's class and form considerations, I would respectfully suggest that the great man's comments re the selection of Saher for the 1981 Lincoln seem appropriate as regards identifying the winner from these.

FULHAM
It is good to see yours and some other well-known names have not deserted this thread.
A couple of points from your posting; 1. Any method that didn't consider NON SO today, for whatever reason, is obviously missing something. 2. Any method that is not cognisant of today's conditions, and how horses have performed in the past relative to today's conditions, MUST also fall short of the total answer. The inference is that a part fare will not take you the full journey.
One further, more general point, was the trainer's comment after the race that Spirit Leader "Got outpaced down the back on the sharp track lto, and was unable to get back in the race" which shows that one can still get it wrong, even with the further considerations. No mention, however, of the lto class being a problem, just conditions on the day.
Food for thought?