Re Namroud; a very telling quote from VDW, "Most punters haven't got a clue what's going on, but those who know the game can't be fooled so easily"
Think about it!

FULHAM,

Thanks for the reply re` Freya`s Dream.


JOHND,

No matter how well one knows the game horses will always make fools of us at some point.

Re` Namroud, I believe he only just got home. His OR won`t be effected that much. Rated 84 today. A 4 - 6 lbs rise will allow him to stay in similar class for his next engagement should Stoute decide to stay there.

We now know he can both right and left, carries weight well, is improving. One to follow for a while yet I guess.

Stouty whilst having a stable full of blue bloods will rarely fail with an improving h`capper.

2 very nice memories from the past come flooding back, ie - Abu Kadra winning the Nov`br H`cap at 33/1 and Deposki winning the Ebor at 16/1. Those good old days could be about to return.

Determined

You are quite right about Namroud only just getting home. The early leader, Pieter Bruhgel, looked to have the race won at the furlong mark, but Namroud and Nashaab came after him, with the latter seeming to have the clear advantage. The only place where Namroud looked the winner as far as I was concerned was actually on the line.

I wonder why?

Your timidity is showing, the list of surrogates grows longer.

Hi Guys,

I don’t agree that Namroud didn’t get home. He was 2nd last time out at Goodwood fighting back after being headed 2 out over a furlong further on a stiffer course. If anything I don’t think the sharper 7f at Chester suited the horse and showed his class by winning against the conditions, albeit with the strong pace that the horse needed at this distance. He’s definitely one to follow.

Welcome, your insight does you proud! There may be a God In Heaven after all.
A word of caution though; You can't educate pork, they particularly dislike pearls.

Gilly
Welcome to the thread,I don't know how much research you have put into vdw there are quite a few interpretations of his methods on this thread.As you can see it goes back a long way and is well worth looking back on,Then you can make up your own mind about the contributors and not be swayed by the likes of johnd,make your own mind up my friend.

I don`t know about there being a god, but I do know that when the great and the good have spoken on this thread it`s considered discourteous to contradict.

John/Investor

Thanks for the welcome.

Investor,

I only posted on the thread to suggest what I did regarding Namroud. I have no interest in VDW.

Hi,

This last little spat seems only to be a difference in terminology. When I read Determined's post, my first thought was he must have been watching a different race to me. If I used the expression only just got home, it would mean a horse was hanging on for dear life. Not, it only just got up.

It is of little wonder so much can be read into VDW's words, and very different meanings found by different people.

Fulham,

Can you point me to one example of the Roushayd method the needs the ability rating to come to the selection? By that I mean a selection were the class element is not based on the class of the last race.

On the matter of Fayr Jag improving (based on s/f) we are just going to agree to disagree. I have him improving on all s/f, those that include weight and unadjusted. After read the method again, I still can't find any reason he is not a Roushayd horse, as explained in the method.

Another example that is giving me problems is Lyphard's Wish, run on the 17/4/79. Any thoughts?

Be Lucky

Its a bit late but I ocr'ed this for you re topspeed figures.

 TOPSPEED (Dave Edwards) uses the following chart to convert					
distance beaten and times to pounds:					
					
LENGTHS 	5-6f	7-9f	10-14f	15f+	JUMPS
1	4lb	3lb	2lb	1lb	1lb
3/4	3lb	2ib	2lb	1lb	1lb
1/2	2lb	2lb	1lb	1lb	1lb
1/4	1lb	1lb	1lb	1lb	1lb
nk,hd,sh-hd	-	-	-	-	-
ONE SECOND	20lb	15lb	10lb	10lb	10lb
FLAT standard times calculated at 9st = 140: JUMPS:12st=175					
					
EXAMPLE	(June 2002) Epsom,1m1/2f,Nayyir,9st-4lb				
Standard time 1m41s;Nayyir's time 1m45.78s;slow by 4.78s					
going correction (good to soft) +0.2 seconds per furlong.					
.basic rating		140 -	(4.78x15)	=68.3	
.going correction 	(plus or minus)	+0.2x	8.5x15	=+25.5	
.adjust for weight carried (9st 4lb minus 9st)				+4	
.final Topspeed rating (rounded up)				=98	
					
NB Going corrections: firm=minus;soft=plus.					
Jockey allowances are added back;weight-for-age is ignored					
 

Nessie
Just as a matter of interest which horse was top rated in the 2.55 perth .

Mtoto

re Namroud, I assumed Determined meant what you mean by "only just got up", and that is certainly a very clear description of what I saw.

As regards Roushayd, I don't mean to be unhelpful, but I don't think or work in terms like "consistency method", "Roushayd method" etc. In trying to learn from VDW's and Guest's examples, at the moment I leave to one side anything referred to as a selection via the Handicap Hurdle method or the Best Bet/Next Bet method (because VDW said both were different from anything else he'd shown us), and explore the remainder via class/form analysis. Then, necessarily, the assumption is that the ability (class) rating is material, though not of course that the class/form horse is highest rated on ability, or that the class/form horse is always backed. I thus don't know of any VDW example outside the two categories to which I've referred (which contain just six named examples in each out of the 148 VDW examples on my list) where the ability rating is not material to understanding.

As regards Lyphards Wish, I'm currently far more comfortable about my understanding of in-formness issues vis-a-vis handicaps than non-handicaps, and have only a provisional view of the latter. But from that provisional view, the Lyphard's Wish analysis would seem to me to turn on two issues:

a) that highlighted in VDW's Quest for Fame example, more specifically in his comment re Linamix and Zoman;

b) (as ever) the assessment of in-formness. How many form horses were there in the race? In my view, two.

If I'm wrong about (b), the sf-based cross check must come into play as part of the final stage assessment. In case you don't have easy access to them, the figures were Tromos 92, Lyphards Wish 88 and Warmington 81.

Apologies for those who took my description of ONLY JUST GOT HOME the wrong way.

What I should have said was that Namroud GOT UP CLOSE HOME.

I will be careful with my wording in future.

Fulham,

Once again thanks for your quick response.

Roushayd - I am slightly surprised that you don't have any difference between the 2 methods. Apart form the improving element, the next filter is the horse must be dropping in class. The only exception was when none were dropping. This is not applicable to the 'consistency' method. So perhaps a better wording may be, how many of the horses mentioned under the Roushayd banner were not c/form horses? I mean how many do you make not the obvious c/form horse?

Lyphard's Wish - The speed merit ability rating doesn't really help with this one. I can't make any of them out of form. Tromos seems to be the c/form horse which ever a/rating is used. Tromos could be eliminated (I suppose) because his wins were over 5f. I'm no expert on breeding, but I would have thought he was bred to get a mile.

Nessie,

Thanks for posting the formula for s/f using weight. That explains it far better than I could. I tried writing an explanation, and all it did was confuse ME.

Be Lucky

With respect, you may have slightly misunderstood the 'little spat', so I feel some explanation is called for.
My after the race post to Determined was to highlight, to him, a certain point.
Fulham, (As expected), thought I was claiming a winner after the race, so consequently posted, (Through a third party, a ploy he often uses), to show that the horse only just scraped home. Those unaware of the 'mind games' played out on this thread may not see that, it is, nevertheless, true, and highlighted recently by JIB.
To completely clarify the matter, I should state that I did not have a bet in the race, and my post to Determined would have been exactly the same had the horse won or lost. There was, however, an important point in that post as to how VDW read form.

GILLY,
It is a pity that you have no interest in VDW, as there is a great deal one can learn as a serious student, even one with your obvious grasp of form aspects that escape many. As Guest once implied, there is a shortage of memebers on this thread that can think for themselves.

Sorry its late investor. Notice the ln figure. **** me

  PERTH, 05 Jun 2003, 2:55, Bank of Scotland Novices' Chase (Class D) (5yo+),Winner £6,812.00,3m GD-FM, 7 Runners 

 Bobayaro,,.......................................................Form 2-1-1  (4**)  sp lto 9/4 ln -11* Av = 5.7k, Ab = 5k  Score=5+4
 100%  139E 23f 1/7 4rs  Gd Wet  3K    (14 days)     (Chk Dist  + WIN **)    UP in class from 3K to 6.8k, BUT chk figures
 230%  107C 24f 1/6 6rs**  Gd Per  9K    (43 days)(c)    ** DIST + WIN **
 141%  118D 25f 2/2 8rs**  Gd Kel  5K    (76 days)      (Chk Dist placed ?)
   .................................. (100%)
 Florries Son,,.......................................................Form 2-1-Pl  (13**)  sp lto 3/1J ln 36 Av = 11.3k** , Ab = 3k  Score=7+1
 0%  01B 25f Pl/58 7rs**  Gd Kel  19K    (14 days)     (Chk Dist lengths)    ***DOWN in class from 19K to 6.8k,  No improv
 161%  135D 20f 1/23 6rs**  Gd Hex  5K    (38 days)   (UP in dist,  + WIN **)
 290%  121B 22f 2/1 8rs**  Gd Ayr  10K    (55 days)   (UP in dist, placed ?)
   .................................. (95%) 

Hi all,
Nessie, in your latest example you have:-
Bobayro 100% 139c
230% 107c
141% 118d
I'm completely baffled now. How come the 2nd and 3rd % are higher than the first although the PM is lower?
This isn't a criticism just a question as I have said I'm baffled although my wife would say that doesn't take much.
Thanking you in anticipation,
See you soon, Mike.

John,

Having flicked through this thread I really don’t want to get too in depth regarding VDW.

Most who have an interest in racing will at some stage cross paths with the subject and come up with an opinion.

In my humble opinion racing has moved on in 20/30 years. And what was written back then has been overtaken by events in some cases. Only the privileged few professional gamblers could keep their eye on racing then, however anyone with a TV and subscription to Sky can do the same now. What with Internet bookmakers, databases, ratings, pundits galore, and no tax, well what more can I say. My dad said before he died in 1989 (these weren’t his last words by the way!) “punters uf neva ad it sa gud lad”. What would he think now?

Everyone should make his or her own mind up though. The main problem here seems to be the secrecy that revolves around the subject. From what I can see no-one’s doing any better than anyone else I know, in fact some appear to be doing worse. If it had been cracked PROPERLY we would all know about it. And If I could have my biggest MAX bet (£5) it would be that no-one strikes winners at 80% consistently. It cannot be done. If you think it can then you don’t know racing.

Like I say, I’ll not get in to any long drawn out arguments with anyone because it’s just an opinion and we’re all entitled to one. Just don’t bullshit - because it's transparent!

mickeddy,

100% equals 139 multiplied by 3 (from 3k)

next form line 107 multiplied by 9 (from 9k) equals 963.
divide this by the 100% figure of 139*3=417 i.e. 963/417 gives 230%

hope this is clearer than mud...