quote:

---

Originally posted by Mtoto:
2:45 Goodwood.

I make this a race not to play in. The class horse is Riyadh, (nothing to do with averages) but as Max says he is out of form. In fact I make all the class horses out of form. I can only assume Miss Fara is at the price she is, is because she didn't perform well in the last NH season. I must admit I was tempted by the 30/1 + on Betfair, 7/1 + for a place! Something has got to win, and it will most probably be a horse stepping up in class. I wouldn't put money on which one it will be.

Irtahal is the BEST HORSE in the first, but I would want a better price. Rawyaan is the BEST HORSE in the next, but I very seldom back in races with so few runners.

Another watching day I think.

Be Lucky

---

MTOTO
After reading through the posts again I was just wondering about your above post.
You mention the class horse being Riyadh and also say that you arrived at this without the use of averages.What i want to say is that whatever way you look at it your way or mine the class horse will always be the same one,now I know nothing about the finer points of VDW apart from what i have picked up from this thread and i do not have a clue as to how Guest works but from the numerous examples given by Fulham,Guest,yourself and others who do know what they are talking about one thing for sure is that my class horse has always been the same.
What I really want to know is how do you arrive at your class horse if you dont use averages?what other way is there but simply adding up prizemoney?The only thing I do different is to take the prizemoney figure and reduce it further in relation to finishing positions.
There has been numerous postings on here about what the class form horse is in a particular race.This is another problem I have when old hands like Barney or Fulham want Guest to post his up,why do they want him to do this?The class/form horse is there staring anyone in the face who bothers to have a look for it.ninety nine percent of the time there is only one class/form horse and it is not open to interpretation.There are odd times where two individuals will come up with differing slections but thats down to interpreatation of other factors like recent form or suitability to track,trip or distance and invariably if one person makes a horse the class/form horse then it will be the second class/form horse with someone else,there are never any great surprises for example if I have my three class form horses in order there is no way someone else is going to come along and make something not on my list of potentials as top rated.
I really cannot see any big mystery in identifing class/form horses it is just the question of whether or not these horses should be bet that causes confusion among everyone.

Mtoto

I'm not away yet (going Tuesday, returning Saturday 1 June).

Like you, I've found it a difficult week to find clear selections in the better class handicaps upon which I focus, and have placed just two small EW bets (both selections sent for discussion with other board members hours before the respective "offs").

21 May: 3.15 Goodwood - Naahy, W11/2 (early price) - the c/f in my view;

24 May: 3.30 Doncaster - Freya's Dream, 4th (four places), 10/1 - the 2nd c/f in my view, but very well weighted with the c/f, Cardinal Venture.

barney,
havent been on here in a while,but id like to say well done with the tipping competition.

Max

You said that whenever Mtoto, Guest or I named a class horse in a race, yours was the same.

But that can't be correct. For in the very race for which Mtoto named Riyadh as, from his perspective, the horse with the BEST FORM, I posted Miss Fara as the VDW class/form horse.

It is clear to me that Mtoto, Johnd and Guest (and I try to use the same approach as Guest) have three very different interpretations of VDW, and although sometimes these interpretations will lead to the same conclusion as to what VDW termed the class/form horse (and which Mtoto and Johnd helpfully term the horse with Best Form), often they won't. Of course, mostly these selections, whether Guest's, Johnd's or Mtoto's will have evident class and form, and some of the time will match your, non-VDW based, ideas, but not always.

The reason why some of us find it helpful when Guest posts his class/form horses is because of the singular meaning VDW gave to that term "class/form". We readily acknowledge that Guest has a fuller understanding of VDW's approach than we, so when we have found the same c/f as Guest it suggests we are following the correct approach. When we have a different c/f it usually (though I like to think not invariably) means we are wrong, and re-consideration of the race in the light of Guest's c/f can, and in my case certainly has, led to the correction of errors in technique.

Max,

Did you make Riyadh the class horse in that race? I ask because you say what ever way we look at it we will all have the same horse. Class = ability, surely if we have a different criteria to judge ability, we will have different answers? I don't use races won, I use BEST performance. I don't use/like averages, if you are going to use races won, why not use the best (strongest) and base the ability on that? Averages by their very nature, often reduce a horses true ability. I don't see how prize money equals class, the strength of a race can ONLY be judged by the strength of the competitors.

I think Barney and Fulham, like to see Guest's c/form horse because it gives them an insight into how VDW viewed form. The class eliminate is reasonably straight forward as they use the same method to find it. This is the part that bothers me, has Guest got it right? Or does he read too much into some of the examples, trying to make them fit the c/form method (without the other filters, consistency being the main one to be dropped). Also many times a c/form horse is passed over as not being in form, when I can see no reason it isn't in form. The conditions may be against it stopping it being a form horse, that is very different to being out of form.

Investor,

I can see no reason why counter arguments are harmful, or bad. We can only learn from them as long as they are logical and sensible. Some on here are happy that Guest has it right, fair play to them. That doesn't mean we all have to sit back and except everything at face value. I have read very post Guest has sent, often many times. I think he is well on the road to understanding it. I have asked him questions, he couldn't or wouldn't answer. Until the questions are answered I will have doubts about his ideas. One thing that sticks in my mind is VDW said J Bingham was well on the way. His ideas seem very different to Guest's, but VDW didn't dismiss them. Was he just being polite? I don't think that was part of his nature, he didn't hesitate to say so, when other people had missed the point.

Be Lucky

mtoto,
you are again giving very good points in your posts,i also use strength of competition in races,just because one race is worth 10 grand and one is worth 20 grand,does not mean the 20 grand race was a better one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by max:
RAB
You are right about RIYADH but it is not in form is it?
Roughly looking at it from Nessies angle you get

RIYADH 100%
CANADA 80% (n/h rating)
DISTINCTION 60%
FLOWNAWAY 56%
ROMANY PRINCE 56%

I overlooked RIYADH in my earlier post,which led me to believe DISTINCTION came out second.

If you take it one stage further and allow percentage reduction to determine the sort of form they are in the picture changes (this is how I saw it when posting earlier)

CANADA 100% (But again its n/h form,so whats it worth ?)
DISTINCTION 90%
MISS FARA 90%
FLOWNAWAY 75%
ROMANY PRINCE 50%

Interesting to note Chester Barnes rates Canada a small e/w chance at best and whatever the Pipe camp think about Miss Fara they wont convince me the distance is right today.Which leaves DISTINCTION clear.Before I even looked at Nessies way of sorting them I had this one clear of the field and the one that worries me is Theatre who at a bigger price is better than it has shown so far.

---

FULHAM
As you say MTOTO did put up Riyadh as the class horse in the race but it was not in form,a point both he and myself agreed on.Miss fara did not figure on my top 5 class table (from memory it was 6th or 7th I think)but it did come to the fore when you looked at its finishing positions in relation to the class it had been running in,a fact bore out by its presence on the second table when percentage reduction had played a part.
Putting aside for a moment the fact the race would not be suitable given the distance (finished last)Miss Fara could in no way be described as a potential class horse in that race and as I have already mentioned you would only have considered its chance relative to the finishing positions it had previously ran in.
Like I said in my previous posting anyone who uses the basic VDW principle could not fail to isolate the class/form horses 1,2 and 3 but then it is down to individual interpratation as to which one would prevail under the actual race conditions.You took the view that Miss Fara was possibly worth a place,where I looked further down the list and chooose Distinction.
Forget class/form for the moment and concentrate on only finding the CLASS horse of the race,now whatever way you work by whatever method you could not fail to have been of the opinion Riyadh was the principle.It was only after looking at the recent form of the horse that you would have moved on to the second CLASS horse and so no until you arrived at a selection that was not only one of the CLASS horses but also was in some sembalence of form and could be considered a CLASS/FORM horse.
It was all about balancing the two but granted the race was not a good example because the top class horses in the race could not be considered form horses.You then have the problem of moving away from the class horses to find something that is in form.
My original point was really to illustrate the fact that the class horse whether in form or not in any race is black and white and not open to interpretation.It is only when you start to look for form to go with that class the differing opinions emerge.

MTOTO
Could you please clarify how you go about finding the class horse if you do not use averages?I do not think there is another way and even if proved wrong it is of no consequence because the end result is always the same.

MTOTO
Just saw your post we must have been typing at the same time.Will read,think and reply.

Mtoto
I have tried really hard over the past months,Unfortunately i find it difficult to express my thoughts the way that Guest and Fulham do i think that is probably why my posts may sometimes come across as nonsenseical.Also i have said in the past that i have used mainly systems which involve a set of rules,Thus i have never really took much notice of form,Until i found what i did.

you put some examples up recently which enabled me to try and understand how you work,And there is a great deal of logic in what you do.The thing is maybe it would be a good idea if you were to have a good look at Guest's selections and of course vdw's and look for patterns because they are there mtoto,I'm not for one minute saying that Guest should be compared to vdw because he has got it wrong in the past of that i'm sure he would admit.As you probably know i don't possess form books,But just recently a poster on this thread e.mailed me the form for Little Owl,Sunset christo and Kenlis and the patterns i have banged on about in the past are clear to see in these 3 horses.

Max

You say that Miss Fara "could in no way be described as a potential class horse in that race". I think you would do better to say that, from your perspective ...

From a VDW perspective Miss Fara was the highest rated on ability in the race (ie the top in class terms, WELL clear of Riyadh) and, on the way VDW assessed in-formness, a form horse: QED the class/form horse.

But, as VDW himself made clear, not all c/fs are backed - indeed, only a small minority are. There were pointers against Miss Fara, but that does not alter the fact that, from a VDW point of view, she was the c/f.

With due respect, I think that your difficulty in relation to those who take VDW's approach is that you assume that the way VDW saw things must have a lot in common with the way you do. In this, in my view, you are almost certainly wrong. VDW had many idiosyncratic views - how he assessed both class and form being among them. One thing that all those who follow his approach have to do is to ignore much "conventional wisdom". But there again, not many punters, I imagine, have strike rates in excess of 80%, backing horses at all prices.

The 'Guest Method' is wrong, TOTALLY WRONG, for Christ's sake, but you guys just cannot see it!
VDW wrote "What a lot of punters don't seem to appreciate IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF HORSES ARE NOT THERE TO WIN"
Brian Boru was a recent high profile example of this, but it happens every day, in almost every race.
If you accept this, and I know it to be a fact, THEN THE IN FORM/OUT OF FORM APPROACH IS TOTALLY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER, utterly, completely, and irrevocably.
Why do you think that his disciples cannot agree on the c/f horse their way? Because it is manufactured, and perpetuated by people who cannot see any other way.
They are wrong!

jOHND
You have made your views perfectly clear,And you may think the class form approach is flawed or whatever.But there is one thing that CANNOT be taken away from the Guest approach as you put it,And that is the patterns or trends that are clearly there to be seen if one looks with an enquiring mind.You may have found another way of coming to a conclusion,But to say that the approach that Guest and others use is wrong,Is clearly the wrong thing to say the be all and end al of this johnd is YOU don't understand how these conclusions have been arrived at,I could e.mail you with a dozen horses (recent) where the conclusions or decision wether to bet or not,Would be the same as they were for the examples in the books.

quote:

---

Originally posted by investor:

...I could e.mail you with a dozen horses (recent) where the conclusions or decision wether to bet or not,Would be the same as they were for the examples in the books.

---

Yes please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnd:
The 'Guest Method' is wrong, TOTALLY WRONG, for Christ's sake, but you guys just cannot see it!
VDW wrote "What a lot of punters don't seem to appreciate IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF HORSES ARE NOT THERE TO WIN"
Brian Boru was a recent high profile example of this, but it happens every day, in almost every race.
If you accept this, and I know it to be a fact, THEN THE IN FORM/OUT OF FORM APPROACH IS TOTALLY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER, utterly, completely, and irrevocably.
Why do you think that his disciples cannot agree on the c/f horse their way? Because it is manufactured, and perpetuated by people who cannot see any other way.
They are wrong!

---

johnd,

I need a sure fire way to supplement my pension when I retire... are you confident that your way would suffice?


cheers

Ima
Mug
Punter

FULHAM
I think with regard to Miss Fara we may be talking about two different things.From your above post I think you group class and ability together wheras I view them as two seperate things.Class being judged by 1.the race value of previous runs.2.The ammount of'class' being allocated dependant on finishing position.Ability on the other hand as I see it is judged on the ammount of win and PLACE prizemoney won in relation to total runs.
I am not saying for a minute that this is a credible way of making money backing horses infact like alot of other members I personally do not think the concept of totting up different figures makes one jot of difference to a horses chances it is just how I interperate the method and afterall when I post on the vdw thread I try to look at it in the way vdw put across.
There can be no denying that the basic principle i.e finding what horse has the ability and is competing in its right class is the way to go but good old basic form study will lead you to the same conclusions without all the hype that seems to be attached to this thread.

Investor,

One thing that quite intrigues me with this pattern you find in the winners. Is this pattern there with all the selections Guest made? I'm thinking of when he made 3/4 selections in a race. If it is there, and Guest had to have so many selections. Either there are quite a few losers using it, or Guest hasn't spotted it. Otherwise he wouldn't have chosen to include the losers.

I have spent many hours with Little Owl and the others, if the pattern is there could you just point to the races it falls in? I'm not asking you to go into detail, just which race does Little Owl and Sunset Christo have anything in common. I.E. LO race 2 SC race 1.

Fulham,

The thing that bothers me about the c/form method is when a horse is c/form but the conditions don't suit. Why on occasions has Guest (and VDW) moved on to another horse taking the 2nd or 3rd c/form horse? Are you saying Miss Fara was the only horse in form in that race? If not, why didn't you move on to the next highest class horse that was in form? At times I have seen the remark 'not in form for this race' do you agree with this? Either a horse is in form or not, and the relevance of the standard of form isn't a question e.g. Desert Hero didn't have form to the standard of the race in question. As long as it is the highest rated on ability that is in form.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
The form is evident in ALL 3 runs prior to the runs that were given in Spells it All Out,For both sunset Christo And Little owl,Just staying with little owl for a few extra words,Vdw backed this horse at cheltenham when winning at 6/1 given what it had done previously that isn't really surprising,If you do spot anything that sets light bulbs off,Check them out with Pegwell bay to my mind this is the best example there is.

Investor would you say these examples spelled it all out without having to aquire the form books ?, you said in an answer to a question of mine a while back you did not possess them at the moment but would get them as you wanted to confirm your findings. Have you done this ? or have you found an easier way?.

Btw max i asked a question a little while back in relation to nessies tables i think that distance btn in class is as importantant as the position attained therin dont you?.

[This message was edited by walter pigeon on May 25, 2003 at 08:47 PM.]

Max

I agree that we are talking about two different things, and that is why the horse you regard as the class horse in form in a race and VDW's class/form horse will sometimes be different.


Mtoto

VDW's main approach involves isolating the class/form horses and, beginning with THE c/f (highest ability rated in-form horse in the race) considering whether any is a credible bet when viewed from the point of view of capability (including going) and available price. (As he made clear in the Little Owl example, even a "racing certainty" would not be a bet at too short a price.)

In the few examples where, arguably, VDW selects other than the c/f (Swisss Maid, I think, is one) he did so because a fuller appreciation of the form of the principals in the context of the conditions of the race led him to that conclusion.

To quote two more recent examples, Guest stated (and I'm sure he was right) that Edredon Bleu was the c/f for the 2002 Champion Chase, but backed the 2nd c/f (and winner), Flagship Uberalles. In my view, a look at the recent form of the two suggests why Guest's judgement was right.

Second, on Saturday I made Cardinal Venture the c/f for the 3.30 Doncaster, with Freya's Dream 2nd c/f. Bearing in mind the weights both were due to carry (very favourable to FD compared with the weights carried when CV beat FD by 7 lengths on 3 May) and the fact that on 7 May CV was having his second run of the season and FD her first, I concluded that FD was certain to reverse placings and almost certain to place - hence the bet.

As regards your point that either a horse is in form or not, that was not how VDW saw things. He only considered horses as form horses or not in the context of specific races. Thus, for example, not all horses that won their last races (and they couldn't do more) would be regarded as form horses for their next races. Guest gave a good example of this in the case of the race about a year ago where Maceo, who had won lto, was not a form horse. There are similar in VDW's examples, eg Pearlstone in the race won by Desert Hero.

Walter
In answer to your question,The form books are needed.When the individual posted me the last 3 runs of Sunset christo,Little owl and kenlis i was looking for something in particular,And that thing was there to be seen.