From your list, only 2 races of interest to me.

JAZZ MESSENGER Cannot totally dismiss this one, but it is worth noting that his lto win was on an entirely different track, different going, and a different distance. Also the better horses in the race finished out the back, casting some suspicion on the strength of the form. 2nd placed yesterday, but on much different ground. Also trainer had the 1 mile Brittania in mind, which, along with the quick outing, suggests that the prize has changed the plan.
ANANI I am glad this one is in, because it shows what a mockery ability ratings are. Strong finishing 2nd in a 40k h'cap lto, under very similar conditions to todays'. Improving, top jockey up, and almost certainly targetted at this race.
My main bet will be on Anani, with a small csf JM to beat him.

In the Derby, Magistretti won the Dante, but what did he beat?
IMO the principles are REFUSE TO BEND, ALAMSHAR, and KRIS KIN, with RTB having the strongest form,
followed by A.
However, the 2 imponderables are the distance, and the amount of improvement each will have made.
In a recent ATR interview with Emma Ramsden, John Dunlop admitted that they do not know if a horse will stay until they actually try them in a race.
If a trainer of his standing can't tell, who am I to guess?
Brian Boru already has 2 defeats by A on his cv, and despite the hype, they must have been gutted by his last race.
As a dutch on the 3 above would only pay peanuts, I will have 6 small csf's.
Good Luck for today.

High Chapparal
Shortist price in Lto Betting
Alamshar
Shortist price in Lto betting

Coincedence?

This is mainly addressed to JohnD, because despite his continual put downs of various VDW theories on this thread, he himself continues to offer no explanation of how he sees it.

His latest beef is with the missing link. It is clear to me having read all of VDWs articles and letters AND researched fully every example he ever gave, that VDW was only saying that there was no one magical factor that tied it all together. It was a combination of well thought out factors that would either pile up and tip the scales in favour of a horse or go the other way against it.

Mr Ed has quoted a very telling paragraph from VDW concerning his views on winner finding. To be honest he didn't need to say it, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has tackled VDWs examples that he was holding plenty back for himself. Only a complete fool would explain every aspect of a subject they know about that provides them with a profit. This idea that anything worth knowing would be in the public domain is absolute crap. Racing has and always will be filled with those who can't or won't change their habits. Just one tiny example was displayed by that giant buffoon John Mcririck earlier this week at Lingfield when the whole team of "experts" supported the view that Override was a certainty at short odds for the showcase handicap. His one glimmer of hope came in his after race comments when he asked "why do we do never learn?". For the same reason many others don't.

JohnD says his answer is there to see, but he doesn't give any clues as to what he thinks it is. He knows part of mine, but he disagrees even to the point of explaining losers away as the horse having an off day. This of course does happen but nowhere near as frequently as many believe especially when that horse has everything in favour.

Let me say this. VDW once gave many examples of class/form horses one Boxing Day and listed them from the minor meetings to show procedure. He then clearly stated that only 2 of those listed should have been backed. He also clearly stated that when we figured out why only Stray Shot and Zamandra should have been taken we could consistently find winners. So what is John's explanation for their selection above and beyond the others listed? I know mine and it is clear facts in the form book that stick out a mile when the races involved are evaluated in full as VDW strongly implied they should be. These facts cannot be disputed, they have nothing to do with race readers running comments or other subjective opinions. They are clear facts along the lines VDW indicated and they show up time and time again in his selections. If anyone hasn't evaluated the six races VDW set out in full then they will be unlikely to see those facts. They will not see the glaring difference between Stray Shot/Zamanadra and the other 4 horses. Have you performed that task John? And have you then gone to check the discovery against other VDW examples?

Anyway, this was just a fleeting visit, don't worry JIB and other patients on your ward, I won't be staying. Sometimes though I do get irritated by those who constantly put others down, especially others who have put in the hard work and actually learn't from it. Until JohnD actually offers some definable insight into his approach, he can't be taken seriously.

Which year was the said Boxing Day? Are the races available at the Post? If so, what times were the races?

Same old Guest, same old baloney.
The fact that VDW wrote, "It was all there, and nothing was covered up", either makes him an abject liar, or means you are mistaken, ( I am trying to be polite!).
You cannot see what is there in front of your eyes, and given the path you have chosen, you probably never will. Your stubborness and rigidity has been passed on to many more on this thread, and you have obviously helped some gain some understanding but, paradoxically, has precluded them from reading VDW in the true and honest context he intended.
And what is it that holds you back? Vanity, sheer bloody vanity, a trait that is obvious in many of your offspring.( Screw the polite).
JIB, lll,Epi and others are all intelligent men, only a fool would not recognise that, but they do have a point, and long may they continue to make it.

Finishing Distances dont fit stray Shot and Zamandra

That is reasonable and logical but nothing new
space behind to the following pack comes under winner without penalty sort of strategy
I will have a peruse.

I think that Investor has started chucking Red Herrings

If Guest doesn't furnish me with the information requested above perhaps you would be good enough to fill the breach.

Fulham
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I believe that you recently said that you reply to any personally addressed messages. Please explain to me why those who follow the word so exactly have chosen to ignore the days since factor, after all we are constantly being reminded that VDW never wrote anything purposelessly. Also is the missing link a blinding flash type enlightenment or an inexorably creeping realisation?

The first race at Epsom today is of course a 3yo event, a type of race VDW clearly stated should have unadjusted speed figures as a further guide to a horses true merit so far. JohnD thinks this race shows the ability rating up, but the study of the form does not back his view up.

If we take the horses in ability rating order and study their form relative to this race and opposition, we see that top rated Jazz Messenger is clearly running to his best and improved last time, but did he improve for carrying less weight last time? And whilst Soyuz is clearly improving with racing, what had he shown prior to Haydock?

So VDWs approach shows Jazz Messenger at these weights as not a form horse relative to the race despite dropping in race class.

Logsdail, Crathorne and Barney Mcall are also not "form" horses in this race.

Anani was raised considerably in class last time, like JM, but carrying 9-2 and was just beaten. The clock showed it wasn't as fast a race as the Ascot maiden he won, but given the class and form he has to be respected. With just 3lb more to carry he is a 'form' horse in this race and also the class/form horse. However, like First Division or Merce Cunningham or Billet he doesn't have the full hand today. He looks by far the most likely winner but not one I or I believe VDW would put hard cash on.

You may ask why I dispute the claims JohnD makes regarding ability rating, given that JM has a much higher one. The answer lies in how we use the ability rating in conjunction with form study. It's a good guide but not a magical number. The other factors will either back it up or show it to be false. It's Knowing how to use it beyond the basic platform. If it was simple then yes, everyone would be using it. Unfortunately to use it properly takes time and effort, something a lot of punters haven't got.

Epiglotis

The Boxing Day in question was 1984. Too early, I fear, for the relevant material to be available from the Racing Post website.

As to your two questions, perhaps you could spell the first one out, as I don't understand it. As to the second, no, it's not a road-to-Damascus-like flash of inspiration (leave that to Johnd and his view of matters). It's like all other hard-won knowledge - a matter of interaction between mind and material, with hypotheses being generated (their richness and quality depending on the capability of the mind in question) and being continually tested, refined and re-tested until, hopefully, on Popperian lines, none of the currently available evidence falsifies one. I'd like to be able to say I got there on my own, but the thoughts that first put me on what I think are the right lines were provided by Crock and, particularly, Guest.

[This message was edited by Fulham on June 07, 2003 at 01:26 PM.]

Okini.

Johnd,

I'm with you about Anani. I agree with your doubts about Jazz Messenger (nothing to do with weight). The other doubt I have with JM is his s/f, I think the going allowance given for Haydock is a bit of a guess.

The slightly worrying thing is I also agree about Refuse To Bend. So we both eat well next week or starve together.

Be Lucky

Epiglotis - The date was 26th Dec 1984 and I'm pretty sure the RP site doesn't go back that far. Sorry, but that is one reason why I had to buy the form books. You can get them for around 4 0r 5 quid each, but you will need the ones to cover a horses entire racing career upto that point.

JohnD - The phrase you keep repeating that nothing was hidden or covered up does go on to say that unless the problem is approached in the right way things will remain obscure. The factors I refer to were not covered up, in fact they are in black in white in some of his more detailed examples "Spells It Out" included. You are trying to twist the meaning of that phrase to excuse you doing any further research. By your own admission you haven't checked your theories out against VDWs so why are you so sure you found the answers?

True, you may have found a successful approach, more power to you if you have, but it doesn't mean it is VDWs. In my view and others, you haven't been anywhere near as descriptive as I have, though I admit I have long held info back. Your evaluation of the first at Epsom and the Derby today is telling. A lot of what you say could easily come out of the mouth of James Willoughby or Gerald Delamere. All reasonable opinions, but do they actually work in the way VDW did. The answer is no. VDW went against the generally agreed grain.

If you read my evaluation of the first at Epsom, it uses facts or factors if you like that VDW said were important to find the class/form horse. Things such as going or courses,etc come after that process to back up a selection or not.

And one more thing, why do so many believe trainers know everytime one of their horses is going to win? yes, they sometimes are convinced but they get surprised as much as we do most of the time.

Thanks.

Fulham
I replied before you'd edited in the second part. Among the primary filters along with ability, consistency and forecast market position is the advice to choose the 'x' horses with the most recent runs, do you use this or not? If not why not as it is specifically stated by VDW and therefore must have a purpose?

But as Guest leves the bulding I dont get my chance to ask if strayshot and zamandra have the same link with Alamshar.

bugger. and ill never no if he liked my tables eithr.

Oh well.


ps was investors horses the same as you would pick. too late hes gone.

I see nothing much has changed in my absence although its good to see a couple of new posters.

The derby is interesting today as it throws up 2 main contenders which both embody 2 main aspects of the methodology.
Looking at the "class of horses beaten" aspect we have Alamshar(which is why Guest has plumped for it), while on the "figures" (for want of a better name) aspect we have Refuse to Bend.
If prices permit both could be backed as it needs something to show dramatic improvement to trouble them.

The missing link is distance beaten? Thats a good one!

regards,

Epiglotis

Where does VDW say that one should be concerned with the horses with the most recent runs - apart from using that factor in one example? Have you any reason to think that that consideration applied in any of VDW's clear "bet" examples?


Determined

These Pricewise arbs are like finding money in the street (without the questionable legal status of the latter). I hope you backed JM.

If it is indeed true that VDW never said anything without a reason, one example is enough. Do I understand from your response that you do ignore this advice from the master?