Guest,

It was you that all along said I was wrong. All I've tried to do is get you to show me how I'm wrong.

You mention Roushayd and how people haven't understood what VDW was trying to put over. I agree but for very different reasons. If those self same people had read the Golden Years and the other publications they knew all about ability ratings. So why does he think they missed it, if they were what he was trying to explain. I think it must have been something else he thinks they missed. I asked a little while ago how Roushayd worked the c/form way, how can a horse beaten 9 lengths be in form? I have tried to explain to you how I work, have you tried reading it again from my perspective? Speed = class, isn't saying that what VDW is saying in these examples? By taking the class of the race, the s/f is only used when the horse drops in class. He didn't worry if there was a higher s/f in the race. If that doesn't make sense to you, how about.........

{The important thing is to establish proven ability and here a previous speed figure of 80 plus, should give a reasonable base. Now check the running in the present race and judge prospects for the future.}

You said one of the 'other' ratings was speed. You must have noticed his other rating were given in the Little Owl (and other) examples. Can the fact that ALL the selections were top rated in both columns be coincidence? He then went on to say any ratings would do, but then had to go to the second rated in one of the examples.

Be Lucky

Mtoto - It was something else they missed, but in addition the ability rating still helped to find the class/form horse in each race Roushayd ran in.

When VDW wanted to give us a nudge, he drew our attention to something often by issuing a warning.

"Please bear in mind that in practice every horse receives the same attention" VDW quote.

Thanks for posting that extract. It struck me as peculiar that the pundits are worried about compromising the profitability of the method by explaining it. This relies on the method being quite distinct from vulgar selection methods which is impossible to reconcile with use of starting prices as starting prices are defined by the opinions of the public punter. The other problem with this is understanding why they are so keen to drop hints if they dont want to transmit the knowledge. There is an underlying assumption that anyone who gets to understand the method will also adopt this attitude of hinting but not explaining, which assumption is nonsense. Further there is the point that Gummy's board has a limited membership so there is very little harm in explaining the method fully to the Gummy membership as they, of course, will not pass it on any further except in the usual obscure hinted form. In short there is no reasonable case for refusing to explain the method and one is forced yet again to conclude that the entire business is general head wanking.

"I HAVE thoroughly enjoyed the many years racing and can look back on lasting
memories of a complete life within a life that the sport provides. Memories of owners, trainers and jockeys, great races, events and friendships" this quote from VDW strongly suggests that he was involved in the social side of racing, if this was the case his identity and existence could not be in doubt yet it is in doubt. The inescapeable conclusion is that falsehoods exist.

Grundy

In my view, you have put your finger on exactly the right point.

Although some on this thread seem not to accept it, in a later article VDW explained that he decided to spell out aspects of his approach piece by piece. Thus the earlier articles often raised an aspect - concentrating on the first five/six in the forecast, the consistency and ability ratings, the alternative way of rating ability for 2yos and early/mid season 3yos, etc - without discussing other aspects material to particular selections. And both VDW, and on this thread Guest, have emphasised that real success cannot be achieved just by using this or that aspect, but by using the approach as a whole.

A complication is that the approach as a whole is not just an aggregate of rules, an impression that could (though wrongly) be taken from the famous "Spells it all out" article. Rather, it is the intelligent application of what VDW hoped would have been learnt by study of his work, including the examples, during which the "student" would have gained a clear sense of what aspects of the approach were essential, and what aspects merely indicative.

If we take consistency as an example, in an early article VDW drew attention to the fact that, by applying the consistency aggregate to the first five/six in the field, the resulting sub-set of the five/six was alive with winners. That was, and remains, true. But nowhere did he suggest that that was either in itself a means of arriving at a selection, or that runners not highlighted by this process should not be considered.

It is the case that many of VDW's selections were from the first five/six in the betting forecast, and/or the three lowest consistency aggregates. But examples such as Love from Verona (betting forecast) and Righthand Man (consistency aggregate) showed that VDW saw neither as an essential characteristic of a selection.

I haven't got to grips with all of VDW - especially his Handicap Hurdles and Best Bet/ Next Best methods. But leaving these two methods to one side for the present, among VDW's other examples the only common, ie necessary, factor I've found is that all the selections he gave were form horses in his sense of that term.

Arguably, therefore, (and in my view most certainly) the key aspect of VDW's approach to understand is how he assessed in-formness, and this is perhaps the aspect about which he was least explicit. I could be wrong, but I believe that the only way of gaining this understanding is by study of his examples.

To the extent that certain people (among whom I include myself) believe that they understand VDW's way of assessing in-formness (either fully or in large measure), they are able to see how VDW arrived at certain selections - Prominent King (or perhaps more precisely NOT Beacon Light), Baronet (and not Petronisi) etc - which, from other ways of assessing form, might seem odd.

Perhaps the most important question then becomes "so what?", and I for one have never said that VDW's approach as I think I understand it is either the only means of selecting winners, or necessarily the best. It is entirely possible, for example, that the approaches of others on this thread (such as Mtoto and Johnd) or on other threads (such as Max) are more successful. For me, the answer to the "so what" question is simple: the approach has been successful since at least 1978; I have proved to my own satisfaction that it continues to be successful; and because of the logic of its bases I know exactly why I am backing a particular horse (and indeed not backing others).

So the bottom line is whether individuals judge that the time (and expense) involved in understanding VDW's approach (and particularly the way he assessed in-formness) is likely to be worthwhile. If they do, they will find much in Guest's posts on this thread to help them, though they won't find everything spelt out.

Some clearly resent this. Fundamentally, the position of such people is that they ask that the considerable efforts of others should be given to them on a plate, for free. And some - Epiglotis most recently - go further, and seek to erect a facade of moral justification on what, at depth, is their wanting something for nothing (in other circumstances described as scrounging), by imputing that not to be forthcoming is itself a moral defect.

Well, the bottom line is that no one who has put in the necessary effort is going to put at risk his or her own future income stream by spelling everything out. The security of that income stream is, indeed, guaranteed by the effort, and capability, it takes to become proficient with the approach, which means that very few get there. Many could, but don't: but in the main that is their choice.

I have explained the nature of my interest and involvement in this thread, either you are incapable of understanding what I have written or you choose to ignore it. Regardless of which case corresponds to reality the fact is that you are misrepresenting me. If your judgement on other matters raised on this thread is equally lacking I suggest the general reader skim very lightly through your posts.

FULHAM
Would a ' Student of his work', who had understood what VDW was saying, contrive to have a horse, ( Adiemus ) as out of form, when the horse had just run the race of its life.
Only if that student had misunderstood the method, and then needed to justify his incompetence by fiddling with the method to make the ridiculous appear plausible!

Johnd

Whether Adiemus had run "the race of its life" is a matter of opinion.

I have explained why, in my view, his performance prior to the Lincoln was a downturn in form compared with his previous race. I may, or may not, be wrong and, whichever, it is of no fundamental importance. After all, VDW said that "to isolate the "class/form" horse can often prive a tricky problem", and I certainly make no claim of infallability in that regard (or indeed any other!).

As regards incompetence, I certainly made a mistake (from my perspective) in initially seeing Adiemus as the c/f, and in backing him. In fact, the second error of analysis within a week. But the tipping contest league table suggests that, relatively speaking, compared with you I have little to worry about.

Epiglotis

I've seen enough of the "I want X without being prepared to work for it" mentality to recognise it when I see it.

[This message was edited by Fulham on March 25, 2003 at 09:16 AM.]

[This message was edited by Fulham on March 25, 2003 at 09:17 AM.]

FULHAM,

an easy mistake to make with adiemus,

did you ever satisfactorily answer, for yourself, the Horus point? it will help.



I discounted him because the distance was all wrong. after last years race I thought he should have come out over 1m4f and if he really was going to do himself justice on saturday he should have run over a mile at least once in preparation.

Barney

You've lost me a bit re Horus. Was it his run in the Mildmay on 12/3/03 to which you are referring? I've re-read your post to Mtoto in which you mention Horus, but can't find that of Guest to which you refer.

I didn't bet in the Mildmay, but I certainly didn't have Horus down as a form horse for it.

fulham,

not sure which race it was, if I remember correctly you had him oof guest had him 2nd c/f.

Fulham,

You seem to be suggesting consistency is not of paramount importance. I think it is, and VDW has never gone against this fact. Love From Verona may not have been in the first 6 in the forecast, but he was in the first 3 for consistency. Son Of Love also was not in the first 5 in the forecast, he was consistent (8). The same can be said for Righthand Man, not in the first 3 but consistent. I have tried to explain how I see the Philodantes's race, apart from the 1 consistent horse (who was held on form) non of the other were consistent. Would it be possible to show a VDW selection with a high (13+) c/rating taken in front of horses with lower ratings?

I don't know about others on this thread but I am getting very confused. Guest says Adiemus is the c/form horse. You say he was, then you found you had made a miscalculation. Guest has seen your statement, but still thinks he is right. If everyone is going to find the same horse, how can 2 intelligent people who understand horse racing, and how VDW works, come up with different ideas? I know you will say Guest knows more about VDW, but who do you think is right in this case? This isn't the first time you have had different views about the VDW aspects in a race. At Cheltenham I think you made Youlneverwalkalone the c/form horse. Guest didn't agree, and he selected a different horse in the race. For something that is meant to be that simple you will wonder how you missed it, why is it going wrong? (for one of you)

Until I find that 2 people who think I'm wrong, constantly come up with the same selections in current races, I will stick to my ideas about VDW. In the mean time I will refrain from giving my ideas about the ability rating, as no one is interested.

Guest,

Thank you for the VDW quote. Why do you think I need it? What did you think of the passage I posted? it was written by VDW as well.

Be Lucky

Barney

Thanks. I've now found the relevant posts, relating to Horus's race on 25 January, and your memory is spot on.


Mtoto

I don't see consistency as paramount, but I do see it as important - as I've pointed out recently, very many of VDW's selections had a consistency aggregate of 12 or less.

You are quite right that, from time to time, my judgements about in-formness don't coincide with Guest's, and I can think of four particular cases.

First, there was Horus on 25/1 where, thanks to a hint Guest provided since I think I understand why he regarded the horse as a form horse. If I'm right, it seems to me to represent an extension of thinking demonstrated in the Roushayd example, and I've yet to check VDW examples to see if I can find one "on all fours" with Horus. Guest's hint has, however, led to a modification in the way I assess in-formness and was, for example, directly responsible for me assessing Kepler as a form horse and decent bet on 3 March. I hope it was the correct application of the thinking, otherwise I was just lucky!

Second, there was Youlneverwalkalone on the first day of the Festival. There was a question mark about Y's penultimate run, and from one of Guest's posts it seems we reached different judgements about its significance.

Third, there was Exit Swinger, which Guest named as the c/f in the Grand Annual on the third day of the Festival, when I had him as out of form. Again, I think I know why Guest had him as a form horse - on a similar basis to Horus - but for me this marked yet a further extension of the basis, about which, in advance of further research of the VDW examples, I do not feel comfortable.

Finally, there was Adiemus on Saturday, where I have set out the thinking that led me to the conclusion (which I still hold) that Adiemus was not a form horse.

I'm not unduly worried about the differences in respect of Youlneverwalkalone and Adiemus - they seem to me to be matters of relatively marginal judgement in the overall context, where on the large majority of horses Guest has named as c/fs over the last year I reached (either prospectively or retrospectively) similar conclusions. Horus and Exit Swinger (assuming I'm right in my assumption) represent an extension of technique, and I want to research the VDW examples further.

But the general rule for anyone trying to make progress in understanding VDW should be, in my opinion, to take Guest's judgements as very much more authoritative than mine.

I’m obviously missing something here (apart from the necessary number of brain cells to sort this out)

Mtoto,

For a long time I’ve thought that you used OR to establish class but you recently put paid to that idea.Now you seem to suggest that s/f are class. VDW made repeated references to speed in his letters so speed figures are definitely not rubbish.I think this point may have been made before, but I’ve gone back to the start with Prominent King and I can’t find any s/f for him. You ‘re saying VDW did his own figures are you? In Systematic betting Roushayd appears in 2 chapters (class form evaluation and speed figures) which tends to suggest to me that the two things are different though not mutually exclusive.

All,

The point has been made a few times before about the amount of work required establishing the class form horse whether there is a bet or not and that it’s an on going process. Although I think I can understand how some are suggesting we should operate (how many times have I thought that), it still begs the question to me about how G.Hall could find all those winners without presumably a database of thousands of horses and the considerable effort involved. If the class/form aspect is pertinent to all VDW’s examples and requires constant effort then another similar question is how VDW ,having been indisposed for most of the 89 flat season, could return to the UK and the next day come up with Zilzal and Braashee.

On a different VDW matter I seem to remember Mr Ed mentioning the Canny Danny/West Tip example some time ago now.I can’t tell from the form books but does anybody know if the weights were raised for this race due to defections, leaving Canny Danny even more disadvantaged against West Tip and if that was the case was West Tip in the handicap proper or carrying more than his long handicap weight?

All the best.

Bream

Obviously no one knows for sure, but I think Mr Hall found his four by narrowing the fields in the way VDW suggested in the Prominent King example, and applying ordinary form analysis to the sub-sets so produced. (All four selections were in the first five/six in the betting, and among the three lowest consistency ratings.) I simply don't believe that, on the info. at his disposal at that stage, Mr Hall could have found the ability rating or "missing link".

Assuming VDW had kept his Form Book subscription up to date, with that and the Sporting Life he would have had no problem finding the two winners on the day after returning from holiday.

As regards Canny Danny, weights were raised 18lb, with West Tip 9.12 in the adjusted long handicap, and running off the minimum 10.00.

IN REPLY to G.Hall (11-1-79) can I first say that, it was a method not a system, a point as I recall that was stressed. However, I congratulate him on 'spotting the key' as he describes it. The four bets mentioned were in fact 'good things' on the day in question.

Well VDW certainly thought hed spotted the Key (missing Link)
Perhaps your version (one of many) is the wrong one

Bream,

Prominent King was awarded a good s/f in the Triumph Hurdle, in fact it made him the fastest of the consistent horses for the Erin.

The race Canny Danny ran in on 5/1/85 the weights were raised 18lb. West Tip carried 2lbs more than he was set to carry in the long handicap.

Maybe I haven't explained myself very well about speed = class it is not the bare s/f that is the important element, it is were it was achieved that defines the class of the horse. Form is what it did, Class is were it did it.

Be Lucky

Bream,

Mr Hall would also had use of the Split Second s/f, they may of been of some help. just a thought.

Be Lucky

Fulham/ Mtoto,

Thanks very much for the West Tip info. That’s saved me a fair bit of effort, which you’ve obviously put in. Thanks for sharing it.

Fulham,


Re Zilzal and Braashee .I agree that he could have had info from subscriptions to form books.I was thinking more along the lines of the necessity of constantly having to keep up to date with that info which is what I thought some were suggesting.

Boozer,

I think you could be right .G.hall had spotted a vital factor, or possibly factors, that tied everything together (although presumably at such an early stage of VDW’s writing he wouldn’t have known what everything was) and made the probability of a win much greater than that of most peoples selections.

Mtoto,

Thanks.I’ll look into that.

BREAM
There can be little doubt that class and form was the basis behind all VDW's selections. Where we are at variance is in the different interpretations as to how he arrived at them.
If you believe in the c/f method supported by Guest/Fulham etc, then you must also believe that VDW was lying when he said that "You will wonder how on earth you could miss it".
You must also believe that the method was so painstakingly difficult, that not only could you not always agree with others who worked the same; you would also, even after years of research, quite often have to revise your own thinking on the c/f aspect after the race, and modify your initial impression of what constitutes the c/f horse.
This would become an ongoing process, so that every time you made the wrong choice, you would have to go back and add a few more whistles and bells to make it fit.
You would also, at various times, claim to use a consistent approach to every race, ( As VDW stated ), except of course when it didn't fit a particular result, then you would call it variously, the consistency method, the c/f method, the 3yo method, or any other method that you consider appropiate to that particular result.
There is fortunately, an alternative. That is to start from the premise that the method is simple and logical, ( As VDW said it was ), and that G. Hall discovered the simple thinking behind the method from the few selections he had at that time. That would also enable you to believe VDW when he
said " After some time, Tony Peach asked me to put everything together, and this was done", ( In SIAO).

FULHAM
As you obviously are obsessed by my selections on the tipping forum, and you seem to be convinced that these are a true reflection of my understanding of VDW's method, you will therefore not have any qualms about taking me up on my previous challenge.
I will post my selections, against yours, either on this thread, or privately through Gummy to ascertain who has the better understanding. As you have so often verified, this can be the only true measure, so either you will accept this challenge, or let others draw their own conclusions.
I will make only one stipulation; that you will have to, in this instance, post your selections before the race!