Boozer

There is absolutely no evidence that what Mr Hall thought he meant by his phrase "the key" and what VDW meant by the "missing link" were in any way related. All VDW knew is what we know - that Mr Hall had found four good things. How, exactly, Mr Hall found them was unstated, but to me it seems improbable that he used "tools" that VDW had not yet demonstrated, and one of which, in particular, takes a bit of discovering (as is evidenced on this thread).


Bream

All the necessary info. is in the Form Book and racing papers, but races can be analysed more quickly if one keeps records. For example, if one has records of ARs, that saves calculation time pre the race, and if one has records of weight successfully carried, that would have saved a lot of time checking through old Form Books in VDW's era (nowadays, of course, it takes only moments, courtesy of the Post website).


Johnd

What interests me is the evident dissonance between the game you talk and the game you play.

My position on posting selections pre the off, or indeed giving them to third parties, remains (and always will remain) unchanged, although I continue to discuss races before the off with individual members of the board equally interested in researching, understanding and applying VDW's approach, and when I find one (such as Youlneverwalkalone at the Festival) this includes identifying c/fs I'm backing.

You misunderstand my criterion for judging which is the correct understanding of VDW's approach - that, as Crock stated a while ago, is the capacity of different hypotheses to explain VDW's examples. Whether, over a given period of time, one person's selections produce a higher strike rate, or level stakes profit, than another's may well say something about the respective individuals' judgement but it proves nothing about which has the greater understanding of VDW's approach.

[This message was edited by Fulham on March 25, 2003 at 10:45 PM.]

Mtoto - VDW once posed the question as to which was better, a high s/f winner at Redcar or a slightly lesser figure beaten a few lengths at Ascot under similiar conditions. To me this was an indication as to how class fitted in with ratings or achievments for VDW. This seems to be something you yourself place a lot of importance in, but I suspect only in the area of speed.

As noted before and a long time ago by myself, Prominent King attained a very good speed figure in the class 90 Triumph hurdle in his novice season. Yes, a sure indicator that he could perform very well in top class events, but VDW also said he defined ability as class. PK had a class rating of 17 at the start of the 77-78 season. Less than Beacon Light and others in the Erin Foods, but had they shown form in the context of the class 85 Erin Foods?

We can argue til we are blue in the face over the use of the term "form" and VDW was quite clear that his definition was different to most peoples. We often hear trainers saying that their stable stars are "in great form" or suchlike at home, but based on what criteria? Unless they have been racing against decent horses at their level I don't see how one can tell.

Prominent King went under by 5 lengths at Leopardstown to Drumgora giving a heck of a lot of weight in a handicap race. Drumgora had been running well and showed it's best form on it's previous run also at Leopardstown when 3rd in class 113 a handicap race.

Beacon Light had been mopping up decent class races though not against much opposition and what's more it was dropped twice to collect, but failed on the latter ocassion against Sea Pigeon who had run just once in 10 months when falling in a chase abroad. As the fitter horse and with more ability, it has to be a bad sign that he couldn't stay in front of Sea Pigeon. The fact that the big race was just round the corner was a big negative also. Add in the fact he was up against horses from ireland with good form on the track and he had never been out of the country.

And there lies another point. There were no speed figures for Irish horses in the form book and PK got his from his one visit to Cheltenham. Who knows, maybe VDW compiled his own. I think he did, but he didn't do it from scratch I believe he adjusted those in the public domain.

You ask how can Roushayd be in form when beaten 9 lengths. I'd say look at the class and weights carried bearing in mind it was a handicap. In fact do the same for all 3 runs. Had the Northern Dancer at Epsom been a similiar or lesser class race than the ONC then Roushayd would not have been the class/form horse.

Whilst you're at it, note how VDWs analysis of each race showed up the eventual winner via his approach. VDW didn't point this out to show how good he was at finding winners or just to show temperament. No, he did it for a very good reason and if it is understood it provides many of the answers.

FULHAM
I'll take that as a 'no' then!

JohnD - Whilst we don't see eye to eye on VDW, we have in the past exchanged some emails on the subject and on one ocassion I did give you quite a detailed evaluation on a race won by Paco Venture at Bangor. You selected Old feathers who was joint class/form with Paco Venture, but my evaluation clearly showed PV had the better form. The process used is the same throughout and there is nothing dubious about it.

I ask again, why would VDW devise a method of evaluation and then change it when looking at past races?

Guest,

You say study the examples given in Systematic Betting. Do you think it is coincidence that in the very first example he made the final decision based on form and speed.


{First Division and Greenhills Joy are the only others with a run and both showed previous class to be 31. Both ran over today's distance, Greenhills Joy at Haydock and First Division at Kempton, Greenhills Joy won her race and First Division was second in his. Both were first outings but, although Greenhills Joy, won, her form upon inspection is below that of First Division. A slow race and the closing stages show hers was less of a test. In the previous season Greenhills Joy had a hard campaign, running 14 times and winning three races of class 21, 28 and 52. First Division ran four times, winning once in class 78. There is little doubt that First
Division is the most probable winner although the evidence would not have me reaching for my wallet.}

Still no mention of how ability ratings worked, and a clear explanation involving race reading, and SPEED.

Be Lucky

Bream,

Sorry, I seem to have explained myself badly again. I didn't notice until I read Guest's answer to me. I couldn't understand why he was talking about Redcar and Ascot! When I said were, I meant were as in LEVEL, NOT THE COURSE.

Be Lucky (think you need more than luck to understand some of my posting)

mtoto,
based on information that vdw provides for the last seaon

greenhills joy ability rating is 33
first division ability rating is 78

vdw provided all the necessary information to formulate both horses recent ability ratings.

if you check their 3 yr old races nothing is found to contradict that.

You state that the final descision is based on speed, vdw's final descision was no bet, BECAUSE THERE WERE HIGHER ABILITY HORSES IN THE FIELD.

[This message was edited by Barney on March 26, 2003 at 06:05 AM.]

[This message was edited by Barney on March 26, 2003 at 06:09 AM.]

VDW,

Also states, in his opening paragraph, BEFORE ANY EVALUATION HAS TAKEN PLACE,

"recent form is more reliable but you do have to note what each horse has previously done in other years so as not to fall foul of some of the many potholes lying in wait."

he then starts with "class" and regal ambition.

Mtoto

The ARs for the runners in Roushayd's first race of 1988 were as follows:

Roushayd = 231
Professional Girl = 75
First Division = 37
Chauve Souris = 34
Greenhills Joy = 32
Vouchsafe = 30
Dunphy's Special = 19
Regal Ambition = 16

I don't have the highest sf for every runner, but I do know that Roushayd had a higher career sf than First Division.

GUEST
You did indeed send me your evaluation of Paco Venture, though you forgot to mention it was after the result was known.
As you know, Old Feathers was reported as ' Finished distressed ', by his trainer, and there was coughing in the stable at that time.
You intimate that you always work the same way, yet others will know that you have introduced a minimum of 5 different approaches on this thread; how on earth can you justify this when set against VDW's statement, " No genius in finding winners, just a CONSISTENT and methodical approach?

JohnD,

You quite obviously remain convinced that your understanding and interpretation of VDW is the correct one. Who knows, you may well be right.

BUT, I can't for the life of me work out how you can claim to have an understanding of VDW's approach when by your own admission, you are not prepared to subject that approach to any kind of check against the examples VDW left us.

If a pure systemite posted selections on here and I wanted to discover his 'system' then the only way I could do it would be by cross referencing his selections to known data. If I simply stated that I knew the system because I can find winners in my own right then it would be laughable. Yet, it would appear that is what you would have us believe regarding your 'understanding' of VDW's methods.

Mtoto has constantly stated that he thinks the methods as used by Guest, Fulham (and myself) is flawed. However, Mtoto has checked his understanding against the selections that VDW left us and found that, in the main, they also work 'his way'. For that, he has the total respect of others on this board even if they disagree with his understanding because at least he is basing that understanding on the only logical criteria, the examples of VDW.

You claimed a little while ago that you had all the relevant form books but saw no need to check your approach via the examples. If all you are claiming is to have found a profitable approach to betting then I can understand your reasoning but you are claiming a complete understanding of how VDW made his selections without being prepared to check if your methods agree with those same selections. Surely you can see how illogical that appears to others!

My question to you is a very simple one. On what basis do you claim that your methods mirror those of VDW AND WHY ARE YOU NOT PREPARED TO SUBJECT YOUR THEORIES TO THE REALITY OF THE EXAMPLES HE LEFT US.

There would appear to be 3 different 'interpretations' of the methods on this thread. Let us call them the 'Guest approach', the 'Mtoto approach' and the 'JohnD approach'. One claims his understanding solves all the examples, another claims his understanding solves 'nearly all' of the examples he's looked at to date, whilst the 3rd hasn't yet checked against any examples!

John D,
Sorry, one more point I omitted from my last post.

I notice that once again you issue a challenge to Fulham based on current selections. Can you please explain to me how that will prove one way or the other, who understands more about VDW's methods?

A very good friend of mine (a retired trainer of some repute) has never read a VDW book in his life. He is though, a remarkable judge of horseflesh both via the form book and via paddock inspection. Coincidentally he is also far and away the most successful punter I know.

If he also takes part in your challenge and shows more profit than you. Then will you concede that he knows more about VDW's methods than you even though he's never read a word?

JohnD - As you well know, I posted the results of my evaluation before the event on this very thread and stated that the race was certain to go to either Paco Venture or Old Feathers. I didn't back either, because there was a doubt and a book would have been slim. PV had the better chance though via the methods VDW laid out.

In relation I would say to Mtoto that the quote "the closing stages shows hers was less of a test" has been much misunderstood as has the idea of noting what a horse does or doesn't do in the last 2 furlongs. VDW was not simply saying take the racereaders opinion at face value, he was implying much much more. The answer should be obvious and it is clearly shown in the Roushayd races.

Barney and Fulham are very much on the right track as to the missing parts in the examples.

I say again, it is obvious and can only point you back to the quotes concerning "hard work", "when the work is done", "every horse receives the same attention", etc,etc.

Barney,

Could you show me were VDW explained how to formulate the ability ratings. You now appear to be saying you don't have to find the average prize money won to find the class of the horse.

At no time does VDW even hint at finding the class of the HORSE by averaging the winning prize money. For me he is judging the class by the race, and the form from the s/f. If the horse has improved, and is then dropping in class (easier task) it must stand a better chance of winning.

You say about higher ability horses (based only on race class) in the race, but had they improved in their last run? That is the main criteria with this method.

Fulham,

I think I have also answered your query. My BEST HORSE rating like VDW's only becomes a factor when the horse fulfils the main criteria. With this method it is IMPROVEMENT. As far as I remember I do make Roushayd the BEST HORSE in the ONC.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Let's have a look at the Derby 1990 where he said Quest for fame was the only horse at the races.

Quest for fame ran only once as a 2yo coming out late october, class 89 over 1 mile at newbury btn 4 lgs finishing second after making a lot of headway and running on.

this season won first time out by one and a half lgs over 1 mile 3 class 42 with good performance and running on.raised in class for chester vase over extended one and a half miles running well,Imroving and quickening to challenge and kept on Beaten into 2nd place only going down by a length.Distance no problem,Improving and quickens.

Conclusions are that quest for fame is the only horse at the races and indeed placed his name in the hall of fame.

Have a good look mtoto,i really hope this helps you.

CROCK
I will deal with a couple of smaller issues, before answering the main thrust of your post.
I have NEVER claimed a complete understanding of VDW's methods; my only claim is that I understand what VDW was trying to impart in SIAO, which is why I never bother with peripherals such as weight.
There certainly are punters more succesful than myself out there, were they to post their selections on this board, after the race, they would meet with the same cynicism. But of course, they wouldn't do that, because they wouldn't feel the need to prove their adequacy in this manner. The reason for my challenge to Fulham should be obvious to all but the most biased observer.
There is little doubt, that given the time and the inclination, I could make my understanding of the method fit the actual selections of VDW, and far more simply and logically than has been portrayed by the a/r, c/f, approach.
Mtoto appears to be a long way down that particular path, and without all the tinkering and manipulating that is needed for the former method.
Given enough lifetimes, I could probably devise half a dozen plausible solutions to the conundrum; they would prove nothing except my flexibility and inventiveness, which is exactly how I see the mainstream thinking on this thread. Given that a number on this thread have followed that path, do you not find it strange that they still cannot agree on such basics as 'in form, out of form', which is the 'form horse', and often come up with one solution before the race, and a different one after it?
By my own understanding of that which VDW made clear is SIMPLE, I am reasonably certain that I will often arrive at the horse VDW would have selected. I still make mistakes, and still have things to learn, but my view of the method is CONSTANT, SIMPLE & LOGICAL, and IS EXACTLY THE SAME, AFTER EACH RACE, whatever the result.
My application of the method may sometimes be a little tawdry, but it is getting better all the time.
Please bear in mind, all of the above is after 6 months, not 6 years, and I have no doubt that this pace will be maintained in the near future.
Whose definition now fits better with the phrase, "Once you have found it, you will wonder how on earth you could miss it".

Guest
You seem to assume that the definitive sentence in SIAO has been misinterpreted by me, it hasn't!
I am aware of your interpretation, indeed you have generously given it somewhere on this thread, though that is only a part of the total answer, as is the part of that sentence that is used to ascertain capability. There is more to it than that.

Investor
If the above appears arrogant, I will apologise in advance,. It isn't, it is born of a conviction that is quickly becoming absolute.

[This message was edited by johnd on March 26, 2003 at 12:01 PM.]

mtoto,

letter 35 may29 1980 (some time before SB)

" I said there is some controversy as to the definition of class,................"

As to roushayd. I much prefer the "racing in my system" version.

you also state that improvement in last race is this method, here i have to disagree, from my view it is the form horse with the highest ability/class.

[This message was edited by Barney on March 26, 2003 at 12:05 PM.]

Johnd
I have no problem with you,or the way you percieve the methods that have been put forward by vdw.Mtoto said something yesterday about certain posters not agreeing on a selection,To which fulham stated his case All i will say is if you look at the latest post i have addressed to mtoto (with an open mind) you may well see the factors that were evident in Pablo on saturday,I didn't play in the race more fool me.

JohnD,

Before I respond to your last post let me state that I'm not for one minute casting any aspertions on your ability to pick winners or return wothwhile profits. I neither know your methods or your selections to comment and has been said countless times nobody would dispute that it is possible to do that with a variety of methods.

You say that the reason to your challenge to Fulham must be obvious to everyone but the most biased observer. Why? All it would prove to me was who could pick the most winners or return the greater profits. Understanding of VDW's methods would not enter the equation! Now, if you issued a challenge to go through every example VDW wrote and state how you think your interpretation finds the same selection, then I would think it would count for something as regards understanding his writings.

You also say that it is all there in SIAO (I don't diasgree with your statement) and yet VDW illustrated every example using ability ratings, a part of the method you think plays no part. Can you please explain to me then if you think that VDW was blatantly telling lies or if you think he was throwing in a 'red herring' to mislead us all? It would seem to me that you are only taking the bits YOU think relevant and ignoring any bits YOU don't think relevant.

You also say that you find it strange that people can't agree on some of the basics with regards to form. I believe the methods of doing this are simple and logical but that doesn't mean that every race is easy to solve. VDW also said that whilst it can be tricky to isolate the C/F horse, some stand out like a sore thumb. I would venture to suggest that if everybody confined themselves to those that stand out then we wouldn't have that disagreement. When the 'tricky' ones arise then the decision may not be clear cut but that doesn't mean one shouldn't back their 'hunches' if the price allows. If I am faced with a horse that has shown good form 2 races ago but was completely outclassed last time and ran very disappointingly then there might be an element of doubt regarding 'form'. I may well pass up the 6/4 shot but if it was 33/1, I may well decide to take the risk. A similar situation may well arise regarding a horse that ran badly last time after a hard campaign but has now been given a short break to freshen him up. Is that break long enough to have done the trick? Again an element of doubt that we may reach different decisions on. People who have been using the methods for some time may well have found it profitable to 'play' those tricky ones but it doesn't follow that others who pass the race or the horse are wrong. As I said before, if people only posted and discussed the 'stand outs' then I don't think you would see much disagreement from those using the methods.

Investor,

I have looked at the Quest For Fame, and he fits my way. Everything you say about the horse is true. The only thing you don't mention is it has an ability rating of 42* doesn't that tell you there is something wrong? How can you not count the best run, and hope to get a true picture?

Barney,

Thank you for the quote, I do think you should have included the next couple of sentences. The one that ends {By what criterion is this judged, if not by what they have acheived}? I may not use exactly the same criteria as VDW, after all he did say this one was very simple. He also said racing is changing, and we must adapt with it.

Re the Roushayd method.

If you really think improvement is not the main factor, I am not surprised VDW was depressed because people had missed the point. Roushayd was indeed the class form horse for this race. I am happy the form was taken from the improvement factor. I have to, because I'm not clever enough to juggle the facts to make a horse beaten 9 lengths (soon weakened) a horse in form.

Guest

I will answer some of the points you raised, later.

Be Lucky