Barney,

Guest went to the trouble of spelling out why he bypassed Youlneverwalkalone. Either you didn't read it, or you don't agree with him. It's Guest's working of VDW I'm trying to follow not yours, so I will use his thinking. However this is what he said.....

{I rated Youlneverwalkalones form as suspect based on it's 2nd last run relative to today's race}

Then backs Joss Naylor.

I never thought Money Train was a selection for the Triumph. The ability ratings had him top that's the only reason he was mentioned. As he was top rated and in form I was asking why he was eliminated, as he was not made the c/form horse. This also applied to Hardy Eustace, I can see the top rated have to be in form to be of any use. Why, if they are any good ignore them when the horse is in form? You mention Nas Na Riogh, but she had improved since meeting Lillum De Cote and Don Fernando, they hadn't. Also as you know I don't take any notice of weight, that is why I didn't think Adiemus was a good bet today, and had the winner at 5/1.

Determined.

As Guest says a horse going up in class, has a lot to do. Add to that his best form was in novice races, and he had not improve since. More cold logic!

Be Lucky

To every VDW fan.
Do you honestly (and I mean honestly!) think VDW was the only man who ever lived who has superb and extreme knowledge about horse racing. Is it not possible even in your wildest dreams, that anyone else who existed on earth knew as much?
Did not ALEX BIRD, PHIL BULL,WILLIAM HILL, and that geyser whom I told you about a year ago who made unknown thousands (became Martin Pipes adviser) know anything? Were they just "lucky" then?
And (absolute sacriment!) is there noone else alive today that is as knowledgable?
Cheers
Swish

SWISH
Having studied the works of Alex Bird, Phil Bull, William Hill, Roy Hawkins (The Pipe man),
Andrew Beyer, James Quinn, and many others, it my absolutely honest opinion that none of them could hold a candle to VDW, which is why I'm here, and not there.

Mtoto,

Thanks & well done with Parasol. He happened to be my nap of the day.

With regards Adeimus, if the rains stay away thus ruling out the 2 I`ve had for the Lincoln for months then `A` may return to the winners enclosure next week.

Cheers,

Horses to follow - VDW method - 3 runs or less as 2yo on certain tracks without winning and with old speed figure of 40 plus

Question if I may.

From memory some used 95 last year and others used 100. Any thoughts would be very much appreciated.

Cheers,

Determined

There is a prior issue. Should one be using, as VDW did years ago, Split Second's (adjusted) ratings, or do Topspeed's serve as well or better? I'm not clear about the differences in the way the two sets are compiled, or how sf buffs (of whom we have some as contributors) evaluate the pros and cons.

Last year I used Topspeed, frankly because I hadn't realised that both were included in the Form Book. This year, subject to any advice on respective merits, I'm planning to revert to Split Second's, though his current policy as reflected in "Timecheck 2003", seems to mean quite a bit of work establishing the adjusted ratings. (And of course that is necessary for all the 2yos, not just qualifiers on the method to which you refer, if one wants a database of adjusted sfs to use as an alternative to the standard ability rating for class/form analysis of early/mid season 3yo races.). Does anyone please know if one can get a list of adjusted Split Second ratings, which in previous years I got from the annual "Timecheck" publication?

As regards cut off points, my suspicion is that it is more important to have a manageable list than to be over-concerned at the sf mark at which one draws the line. 20-30 to keep an eye on is enough for me.

Mtoto
Thanks for pointing that out.

Fulham
I dont know much about the situation in Japan. I've been told that there are betting shops but I've never seen one and never been told where there is one. I've only been to the local track once, 12 or 13 years ago, I dont know how the prices work, we did reverse forecasts, all betting is with the same company. Entry to the track is free and there's a free bus from the town centre so I imagine the track are making their money from a commission on the bets. My wife thinks the government has half ownership of the tracks, I'm not convinced but working for the horse racing association is a high status job so there may be a government connection. There has always been each way betting but accumulators have just been introduced. A peculiar feature is the pairing of horses in major races, so if your selection is no.9 your stake will also go on no.10, these races dont occur locally though I have occasionally bet on them through a friend's telephone account. Internet betting has also just been introduced, I dont know if betting on UK racing from Japan is legal. You could try here for more information: http://www.jra.go.jp/flash-index.html

Fulham,

I may be missing the whole point but the `pure speed rating` figures in Timecheck 2002 and 2003 which I have at my side as I post are based on the same method of rating aren`t they ?

ie - the weight adjustment is no longer taken into account.

Out of interest I reviewed the likely candidates using the Raceform annual this morning ( by course - Gdwd still to do ) and using 100 as the cut off point there were approx` 18 qualifiers.

Cheers,

Determined

I don't know about "Timecheck 2002" because, rather lazily perhaps, I selected my list for last season from the Topspeed listing at the back of the bound version of the Form Book for the 2001 season. This year I decided to use Split Second's figures, and it was only when I got a copy of "Timecheck 2003" that I realised the rates aren't adjusted which, of course, they need to be if one is to follow the method as per VDW.


Epiglotis

Thanks. It is clear the situation re shops is very different in Japan: here, almost every small parade includes a betting shop nowadays, though whether that will continue to be the case given the apparent pressure on margins remains to be seen.

Fulham,
In view of the recent debate over the ability rating and the fact that you as a historian are likely to have full and accurate records of all the past vdw examples (as you proved so well in answer to my consistency question a while back), could you tell us how many of the old examples were not in their respective top 4 places for the ability rating?
All flattery aside I think it would prove a useful excercise.
regards,

Your reply to swish surprises me
Alex bird Phil Bull e.t.c all made money in realtime
VDW only said he did
He never proved anything So he had plenty to proved but shirked the issue

If you had to give 10 grand of your own money to one of the above to invest on the nags on your behalf

You telling me it would be VDW?

Boozer

Phil Bull made his money ripping off punters and Alex Bird made his from photo finishes.

A bit like Tony peach then EH

Boozer,

So Tony Peach is VDW afterall

Statajack

Just to clarify the terms of your request, do you mean "examples" or bets - ie do I include, for example, Kenlis and Gaye Chance, which were the former but not the latter?

And am I right in presuming you mean the top four ability ratings among the first five/six in the forecast, or do you mean in the field?

Mtoto,

Another question if I may before I go watch the football.

The PURE SPEED FIGURE now shown by Split Second after each horses performance does not now take into account the weight the horse carried.

Should we add/subtract the weight carried to 9-00 or leave as it is ?

I`m not asking for all the finite details just the basics please.

If I`m asking to much please say so.

Cheers,

Could you really be certain?

No
I am not suggesting at all that Tony peach was VDW
I am refering to his books and the constant Churning

No doubt somebody else will put Mr Ed right regarding Alex Bird and Phill bull

Thats just reminded me
No
Nobody aswered the question regarding wieght and un adjusted Sf's

Determined
You use the SF's unadjusted
Because weight doesnt matter in this instance???

Arowson

I've compiled my list of last year's 2yos to follow as per the VDW method from the adjusted Split Second figures, using 96 as my lowest.

This gives a list of 23, of which 18 are common to your list of 19 rated 50+. The one on yours not on mine is Wondrous Joy.

The five on mine not on your 50+ list are all in your 40-49 list - Illustrator, Chief Yeoman, Theatre Time, Back in Town and Bravo Dancer.

The differences suggest to me that the respective raters must factor in the going differentially. Illustrator, which does not make your 50+ list, is miles the highest of my 23 on the adjusted Split Second figures.