class form combinations

race 2m4f chases gs

last race, gs weight 12-00 sf 2secs outside std

what is the class and form of this horse??

Dear Determined,
With all due respect, you picked A PIECE OF CAKE, not GALAPIAT DU MESNIL,
Yours
Swish

Mtoto,

You've obviously got your ideas on VDW, and good on you for stating your case as you do. From one of your previous posts I'd be interested in how you came to the opinion that GDM was the class/form horse. It has always been my opinion that it was the 'form' side of things that people have difficulty in understanding, not 'class'. This really is a genuine question.

Dear Barney,
I for one can't answer that.
I have to see what it's running against and its whole career, before I could even begin to start,
Yours
Swish

You are absolutely right. I did pick Piece Of Cake which goes to show how much I do not know.

I have also quite clearly stated that all my comments regarding GDM were in hindsight which I know is very easy.

Reading the board I can see you have had several differences of opinion with a few. With the greatest respect to you I hope you are not going to start on me.

One of my strenghts is knowing and admitting my weakeness` and one of the latter is VDW methodology but it won`t always be.

I have always been very respectful of everybody on this thread and know my place. That said I can look after myself.

Enough of this. We`ve got a great weeks racing ahead. Lets enjoy it. One think I can safely say is that I won`t be losing money simply because I won`t be placing any investments,

Regards,

Investor could you post your email address.
The link for your email doesn`t work.

cheers


Maggsy

Hi all,

A dealer who I had some form books 'on reserve' with has now taken delivery of a collection.

Although I have obtained many of those reserved since, I have still taken my 'option' on those reserved, as I know somebody will be glad of them.

This means that I now have 'spare' copies of the following:
1977 FLAT
1978 FLAT
1981 FLAT
1976/77 NH
1977/78 NH
1978/79 NH
1979/80 NH
1980/81 NH

They are in varying condition from calf bound leather to loose leaf 'weekly' format.

If anybody wants any of them drop me an e-mail to crock_uk@msn.com. First come, first served I'm afraid.

Cheers

hello all..first of all i don,t know everthing, but there have been massive clues on this thread, i,m personally glad it,s not been spelt out because i,ve had loads of enjoyment, trying to find the answers for myself,my advice is to look back over guests posts get all the horses together, then backcheck 5 months r/ps but you,ve got to understand,what vdw really meant by form happy hunting investor

why,ifyou already make money with your longshots and dutching,do you get so uptight,about certain people,and certain things that are said on this thread, if your that good mate,why don,t you sod off and leave us in peace.investor

Good evening,

Please do not feel I am taking sides but Swish and all the valuable knowledge he brings to this forum belongs here and long may it continue.

I know he appears to have his moments ( sorry Swish ) but we are all different and lets be honest words don`t hurt that much do they ?

Come on chaps as I`ve said once today already lets concentrate on the brilliant racing we are about to be blessed with.

Regards,

Dear Determined,
I aren't starting on you. I realise you are honest with what you say. As you know you can ask me any question you like. If I know the answer I shall say so.

By the way the 2 races you asked Mtoto about, I didn't reply because you directly asked Mtoto. I have examined both those races and the only horses you could have picked were indeed the winners,
Cheers
Swish

Blimey.
I only asked 2 simple questions. A simple yes, no or don't know would have done, "sod off" isn't the right answer,
Swish

Just who the hell gave you the right to tell anyone to sod off. You’re such a big shot professional punter you should not need to read any of this.

Jimmy

Lee.

If you read my posts of Feb. 15th and 17th on pages 38 and 39 respectively I am sure you will know where I am coming from. The ability rating as explained by vdw is the only thing about vdw I'm not happy with. I am convinced it was not the yard stick he used to measure class/ability. I think it was introduce to give the people that where just using the bare figures, another set of figures to add up. Rough and ready, but better than nothing.

Regards

The 2 horses Galapiat Du Mesnil and Choisty seem to have provoked some debate which is always interesting. I see Swish is having another swipe, which as I have said before, doesn't bother me. I would pose this question to Swish though. If you were getting 80%+ winners would you feel the need to change your methods or agree with views on factors that you know are at fault? Assuming the answer was No, I would ask "would you feel it worth your effort to maybe nudge those interested in the right direction and at the same time discover what levels of success others have achieved and how they came to arrive there?"

As stated on saturday, the class/form combinations did not have the required attributes. However using another line of investigation, 2 horses emerged as good prospects. This was based upon the factors I found to be of importance in the bets that VDW gave as "really out to win" such as Rivage Bleu/Valiant Warrior/Ever Smile/etc. The same method could also have been used to find Prominent King, something I think was instrumental in VDWs use of the horse for his first example. Stone Cold was also found using the same platform. VDW used many lines of investigation to crosscheck his findings. How many use the following crosscheck ?

Take the five most consistent in the entire field and from these extract the 3 highest ability ratings. Then study these 3 probables to determine if one has the required attributes. VDW demonstrated this method with Saher and Aldaniti in the Spring Double of 81. This is just one way to crosscheck.

I agree with Lee that it is form that causes the most misunderstandings. Form evaluation can involve many threads and there is a constant balancing act that needs to be performed. No one factor will work in isolation. It is the sum parts that form a useful picture from which we can determine if there is a horse posessing the attributes of a winner in the race. No one seemed to pick up on the question of why Idaho D'ox was not considered a form horse at Sandown. It was for much the same reason as Beacon Light not being one either.

Something VDW said during the Roushayd articles that may prove of interest was that we should bear in mind that in practice all horses recieve the same attention.

There will certainly be plenty to attend to this week at Cheltenham. What will be found?

Yes Guest,
Fair enough, but will you answer the question then?
Are you getting 80% winners in hcps, non-hcps, or both.
And how often is there a bet?
Also what is the average s.p.?
Can you not see why the question is relevant?
I am currently, well since Jan 16th getting 50% winners in Novice Chases (not all vdw). There are about 2 a day at an average s.p of around 9-4, producing 60% profit on turnover.
Now if, for example, you are backing 2 races a week with 80% strike rate at, say, 4-1 s.p over 7 weeks to a £10 stake you have had 14 bets, layout £140. 12 won therefore return =£600 ,ie profit £460, yes?
In the meantime I have had 100 bets to a £10 stake =£1000, return = £1600= profit £600, therefore, in this example I have won more money than you, do you see what I mean?
If on the other hand you are also betting 2 a day, and getting 80% your £1000 would have returned £4000= profit £3000, so you would be doing far better than me. That is why I would like to know the questions I have asked,
Yours
Swish

Dear Jimmy,
Thank you for offering a bit of support here,
All the best
Swish

Could you let me know if you ever get a straight answer to your questions, could you post it on another thread, say under humour, to save me venturing on to this hallowed ground.

Thanks
Jimmy

I think that Lee and Guest are right in saying that it is form that causes people the most problems in the successful application of the VDW approach, and for me the Choisty example goes a long way to illustrate why.

In various of his letters and articles, VDW exphasised the need to eliminate risk. For example:

"No element of a gamble should be allowed to creep in" (the "Spells it all out" article of 28/3/81);

(referring to Merce Cunningham) "... a most likely winner, but not a certainty ... Many would plunge in and this time just save their bacon but it is still flaunting the odds which is a cardinal sin" (Chapter5, "Systematic Betting").

Now, against this line of thinking, there is no way that VDW would have put up Choisty as a bet. Guest, in his post of 1.02pm on 10/3, gives (at least) two very fair reasons for thinking that Choisty could win. However, in his of 12.41 on 10/3, Mtoto points out some of the considerable negatives.

However, just because against the quotes I've given (and others could have been listed), Choisty would not have been a VDW example, that is not the end of the story with this complex man. For in the "Spells it all out" article, just before the quote I've given, VDW wrote "with experience it is not difficult to sort out the eventual winner [Gay Chance]", and I think that these words should be taken literally. That, for me, means that, for VDW, Gay Chance was indeed a bet but that he realised that you did need experience to get there and his prime purpose was to introduce his readers to the more straightforward propositions.

And in my view, the more one explores the historical examples the clearer it is that very few were unproblematic. As I've said before, in such early examples as Prominent King and Rifle Brigade there were doubts, but clearly ones VDW regarded as minor when weighing up the whole situation. When one moves on to Love From Verona and Rivage Bleu ...

So from my point of view, there is a pool of near certainties, that everyone familiar and reasonably competent with VDW's approach should find if they analyse the races. And a much bigger pool of selections that can potentially be found with experience.

From this perspective, the issue of form becomes more specific. With the necessary research, it is perhaps not difficult to lay out all the factors that are relevant in an evaluation. But knowing which, in a particular case, should be regarded as decisive, and which can reasonably safely be ignored, is, I think, often very tricky, and something with which, frankly, I'm struggling.

And here I think there is a complicating factor which, in his own inimitable way, Swish has highlighted. Unless I've missed something, VDW ALWAYS gave his examples retrospectively. His ability to balance the factors and reach so many right conclusions would have been the more impressive had even some of the selections been given prospectively. For after a race, depending on the result, in my view it is often as easy to justify a win by reference to factors A, B and C, as to justify a no bet decision where the horse lost by reference to factors X, Y and Z.

I am not suggesting for a moment that VDW deliberately deceived anyone. I am suggesting that for him (and all of us) there is a danger in post-race rationalisation. It is understandable that those of us who (at whatever level of expertise) have found ways of making VDW's approach pay, and put in hours of work to find a selection, are unwilling to post them, pre-race. But while we take that position, the scepticism of Switch and others is understandable.

just think about this for a minute,if your bookie mate came up to you and said,swish mate i,ve got ten bets coming up of which i,m certain 8 or 9 will win,would you wait solely for them bets,or would you carry on regardless?