Well done swish 12/1!

I wish i could spot these.

I wouldn't have touched this one today even though it was carring less weight and was running in a lower class to its last winning race.

Titus

Just realised,
CEDAR GREEN'S last 3 figs were 536 silly me. Of course it wouldn't fit to your limited way of thinking.
By the way I had a certainty Sat night at Wolv. It was called BLUSHING PRINCE and won at 5-2. It was in a G seller (oops bottom of the scale race) and last 3 form figs were 942.
Mind you it only won by 6 lengths,
Swish

well done with the winners swish.

SWISH
2 nice winners, and understanding some of your approach, I can see some of your rationale. Blushing Prince was a brave call, though, given how it had run in its' previous race. Any chance of you explaining what you made of this?

Swish

That was my way of having a bit of fun,I didn't mean to offend,As for 10/1 winners have a look on the 3+ system MERCATO you could have got 11s on this one.

Hello All,

hope you and yours are well and happy

Thanks for the replies. I found them interesting and informative as always.

All the best
hedgehog

"Shove It", cracking northern phrase, often accompanied by a destination.

hedgehog, thanks for the info, regarding telimar prince, i agree with barney this horse can win a decent prize?...swish could i ask which speed figures, you use or do you compile your own figures, what are your comments on raceforms figures,. topspeed, weekender,.grundy

Classified.
Food for Thought

from 38 V.D.W. examples ('78 to '81)
only 2 horses were backed odds on, both were chasers down in class, down in distance, one up in weight one down. The raceform comments where (a) ran on well. (b) clear at last.

Bumper
Iv'e said my bit on Classified,If i'd have known what you put up before the event,I would still have backed the horse,Thanks for the info though.

arrowson,

I think that may be a bit harsh only considering one track, is there a track grading system similar to over here?Perhaps I wasnt very clear.

I was hoping to see the ratings for Hold that tiger and Brian Boru up there somewhere, wishfull thinking eh.

I can still remember hold that tigers run at Longchamp, it was nearly as good as arazi's run, i wont forget that in a hurry.

As there is so little worthwhile racing at the moment, would anyone like to post their early thoughts on Saturday's Racing Post Chase?
With the topweight likely to run, the going predictable, and the form in today's R.P., this should be an easier race to analyze than most, and at 8/1 the field, may prove rewarding.

Barney

I have no idea about Irish track gradings, so, going by the number of Group 1 and 2 races, only The Curragh and Leopardstown would be top class.

Neither of the two horses you mention would be included in a VDW style 3yo list since both won a race as 2yo.

Hi Pipedreamer,
Interesting post on how VDW had wagered on first time out runners of the season and as Fulham has said there were quite a few. A brave move some might say !!
The first mentioned “Fair Season” running on the 24th of March 1979 in a 24 runner race Fair Season forecast at 8-1 3rd fav and carrying 8-10lb he had won his last race of the previous season against Black Minstrel and Kitherion, by “staying on well” by 3 ½ length’s in a class 61 race at Haydock of 1m 40yds. He carried 9-8lb on soft going a bit of improvemnet. His race before was nothing to write home about coming 5th in a class 23 race. He then went on to lose his next race in April to another VDW selection Hawaiian Sound.
You personally feel he used the C/F approach, for which I’m sure I’d agree.
Again Kings Ride was another Lincoln winner with some similarities to one of his more better know selections.
These old examples are worth researching for anyone that is interested !!!!

Cheers Mimas.

arrowson,

the method is... any horse... blah ..blah.. blah.. that has not had more than three races, WITHOUT winning.

a win does not preclude the horse from the list providing that its not "run into the ground", however 4 runs without a win does.

[This message was edited by Barney on February 18, 2003 at 07:49 PM.]

Barney

Surely VDW was quite explicit: "From Split Second's list [of horses that had clocked a sf of 40 and upwards] SELECT those which were raced not more than three times without winning and which achieved the rating over a minimum of seven furlongs at Ascot, Doncaster, Goodwood, Newbury, Newmarket, Sandown or York". Thus, strictly, any horse which has run four times or more, or has won as a 2yo, is a non-qualifier.

Which is not, of course, to say that additions cannot usefully be made to the basic list: I include horses which qualify at Kempton, as well as the seven tracks VDW specified.

have I got it wrong?

it seems perfectly clear to me.

from the list immediately preceding that statement, I am using systematic betting for reference,

I will take assatis to illustrate- won first time out in class 50, HAVING THE HIGHEST CLASS RATING IN THE FIELD.

I have to admit that i have not looked at this horses 2yr old races but that seems to support the point I make.

Also from the 81 list, this I have checked, beldale flutter ran five times and won once whereas cut above ran twice finishing third both times.

Barney

Yes, you have got it wrong, for two separate reasons. First, you are confusing two different sf-based 3yo methods VDW gave, and second you are making a mistake re Assatis.

The first sf-based 3yo method VDW gave was that in the 10/10/81 article, where he recommended looking at horses which had achieved an sf of around 70 on one of the seven major courses he favoured. Horses on this list tend to be among the very best.

The second sf-based method was given in Chapter 6 of "Systematic Betting" and was as quoted in my previous post. By and large less exposed horses than those on the list compiled by the first method, though usually with some overlap.

Assatis was a 1987 2yo qualifier under the second method, and the few sentences under his name in Chapter 6 of "SB" relates to his 3yo form.

fulham,

you learn some thing everyday.

Bit of a waste of time the lower rated list then, if comes third three times, I want the six that beat it on my list.

the point you make about sf

in the first list rated above 70 using the figure issued in the formbook.

in the second list SPLIT SECOND rated above 40.

in those days what were the respective maximum ratings, do you know?

If as you state assatis had not won, but yet vdw said he was the highest class rating in the field, how do you think vdw was rating class.

Barney

I don't know what the highest sf was, but you'll get a sense of the range from the sf listings in the back of the old Form Books. Few horses achieved (adjusted) ratings over 90.

When VDW wrote that Assatis had the "highest class rating in the field" he meant that it was coming out of the highest race class lto (ie the same basis as that shown in the various Roushayd tables in chapter 5 of "Systematic Betting").

I think the point of listing the 40+ horses was to note less exposed (in terms of numbers of runs and no wins to date) but potentially good horses which might throw up some less obvious betting opportunities. His two 1988 winners beginning with the letter A were at reasonable prices.