Nessie,

LOL. Did you notice if he took his coat with him if not he might come back for it. I wanted to ask him if his remark about trainers was directed at me .Probably never get the chance now.

Sometimes I know how Homer Simpson must feel.

Oooh, that could be an answer.Come on brain, come on brain hold that thought, don’t let me down, come on.......Dohhhh!!!!!!!!!! What was the question again?

Boozer.......Cheers.

Boozer
No red herrings,Honest,Have a gander at the first 2 at haydock it's all a balancing act find the horses that are capable of winning the race in question.

Epiglotis

I certainly don't take it literally, any more than I do "first five/six in the forecast" or "among three lowest consistency aggregates" etc., which were all given for good reasons but (for VDW) did not have the status of dogma.

As has been regularly pointed out by those who have clearly put time and trouble into their researches, it is class and form which are the keys: how to assess each, how to balance them, and how to make good bet/no bet judgements. (Note, for example, how Guest got it exactly right with Anani, whereas others took the plunge and left their money with the layers.)


Graham

Nicely judged with Gateman.

First 2 winners at Haydock?

Of course a recent run no more guarantees fitness than the ability rating guarantees ability so why so much emphasis on the ability rating?

boozer
yes the winners mate,in the case of topkamp you also want to be looking at ENTRAP and PRESTO VENTO but youv'e got to remember that topkamp is a 3 yo.in the case of WITH REASON you need look no further.

Does your reasoning fit with Stray Shot/Zamandra??

Epiglotis

Because - allied with form - it works, time and time again. (And even when the form aspect is seemingly not there, one must always beware a well-clear top ability-rated horse: recent winners Mine and Jazz Messenger being cases in point.)

Meaning you're convinced by Guest's assessment of Jazz Messenger's form's inappropriateness.

Boozer
very good question,No it doesn't but it fits the examples i have access to and also a majority of horses that guest has put on this thread,What you must also remember is not all the horses will be supported,Well that's not entirely true vdw did say that only 2 3 or 4 horses could possibly win,so there's plenty of races to dutch.i must also say that even if i came straight out and gave you my interpretation because it is so unorthodox you would probably dismiss it as rubbish,That is the reason i feel a lot of people have not persude these methods.

Did you agree with Guest that Alamshar was a bet in the 4:00 at Epsom?

Epiglotis
There were about 6 horses in that race that were capable of winning,of course Alamshar was one,But so was Kris Kin,In answer to your question i considered that Alamshar hadn't done enogh at the business end of his races so therefore didn't play.

Okay. Guest seems to think one has a responsibility to bet in the Derby, what do you reckon his strike rate over the years is likely to have been?

Epiglotis

My position remains as set out earlier in response to Determined. The outstanding issue is a technical one - whether one factors in weight before or after the assessment of in-formness. The answer is the same whichever, and I completely agree with Guest's no bet assessment, both in respect of Jazz Messenger and Anani.

Of the three long term fancies for the Derby, it was no surprise to see that Guest nominated the winner. (Presumably Brian Boru and Refuse to Bend have finished by now?) Just a pity that Alamshah didn't pick up as quickly as was necessary, given how much his jockey left him to do over the final three furlongs.

Epiglotis
I think this has been said before,S/r is irrelevant when you have a staking plan that puts things straight after a winner.I also know that there are loads of horses that guest hasn't put on this thread,And wether people like it or not there is a lot to be gained by understanding the points he has been trying to get across for well over a year.

In answer to your question i haven't gone over past Derby's and of course every race has different problems to solve,But his knowledge far surpasses mine and i'm sure he has made it pay handsomely over the years.

Some nominated the winner before the race maybe Mr Stoute would be in a better position to argue if Kris Kin was a long term fancy or not, but judging the weight of money that changed hands in the betting ring almost halving the odds of the winner it would be a brave man that suggested the horse won unfancied, not that anyone is saying that of course.

It may have escaped your notice, but Guest managed to give the losers in both races. You are so deluded that you are trying to convince us of his success. Is there no end to your stupidity?

investor.there you go again tempting me to ask questons after the race.

you dutch a lot yes? can you share your staking plan with me?

bet you say no

I am only asking about Guest's strike rate in the Derby (over the years), strike rate is not irrelevent, it has been highlighted by Guest himself as the "benchmark" by which success with the methods of VDW are assessed. Staking plans are a different story, if you can show a profit using a suitable staking plan and Guest's selections at the National Aintree meeting then you might as well forget form study and blindly back favourites.

Johnd

There, there. Been an expensive day, has it?

If you read the relevant post carefully, you will see that Guest was quite clear that he was not betting in the 1.40. In his view Anani, while the most likely winner, was not sufficiently "solid" to back. (If you read VDW as carelessly, no wonder you've not found that "missing link".)

I presume Guest backed Alamshar and if he did, of course he lost. My point was that, of the most favoured horses up to today, Guest comfortably picked out the one that ran the best, whereas others expressed mis-placed confidence in Refuse to Bend and Brian Boru. While his judgement is not perfect (nor, indeed, was VDW's - don't forget the losers he mentioned), it is quite clear that, as regards the two races under mutual discussion today, it was a whole lot better than your's. But there again, that's true generally, not just today.