Nothing for me today but a fruitful few hours with the form books this afternoon.

Thanks guys.

Gilly - during the short time that you have been part of this forum, you have demonstrated your ability to pick winners by whatever methods or instincts that you use. It hasn't escaped my notice that on the 'Tipping Challenge' thread you found two good winners on 4th June. Only yesterday on your 'Selections' thread you used your powers of deduction to select Aldora having 'rated' the race according to your own criteria. You don't need to confuse your mental powers by adding VDW into the equation!!

I can't identify with VDW and I've already posted my thoughts on the subject elsewhere. It's too nebulous, enigmatic and esoteric for me by far, and I am happy to let those who enjoy VDW's mental challenges argue it out on this thread. It is very much a case of 'each to his own'.

To my mind, the endless 'going round in circles and never coming to any agreement' is a bit like constantly turning the soil over in my garden without ever planting anything in it!

I didn't think Refuse To Bend would win today simply because I (like many others) didn't think it capable of staying 12 furlongs. Pat Smullen's verdict "the horse didn't stay".

fallachan

Guest,

Glad to see you back even if it's going to be a short stay. I don't want this to look as if I am having a go the minute you post. How can you make Anani the c/form horse? JM has to be the c/form horse but not backed for what ever reason, that would bring him into line with the many potential selections VDW passed over. There is no way a horse can win a race by 6 lengths be dropped in class, and not be a form horse.

While I except your not making excuses for Alamshar and Yesterday, can't exactly the same be said about Anani today?

Fulham,

If I start with Roushayd, he is in form as he has just improved his s/f (what is form if not one performance better than another) He is the class horse, in your eyes because he is the highest on ability. He is the class horse for me, as he comes from the highest class race last time. For this exercise only improving horses are included. Is there a selection that proves me wrong, not including the York race were all the horses were going up in class. Although I would expect that selection to come from the highest class of the improvers.

Thanks.

Epi,

I don't quite understand why you don't think the Derby is a race to bet in. It has done very well for me in the past. If you go through the last 10 winners, how many were not consistent, how many were not in the highest few for speed? Very few, I would have thought it would be a very good race to consider. Even this year I was torn between taking the s/f from the Group 1 races, as opposed to the horses that had won their last races.

Swish,

Guest and Fulham are not the same person. Take my word for it.

Mtoto - As I have said before in one way or another, handicaps are structured around weight so weight plays a part in form establishment. Yes, JM was dropping in class but not as low as the Beverley race he was beaten in with less weight than today. These were 3yos though and as such we had to attribute respect to JMs class element. Being a form horse for the race requires some relative plus points to be evident. Weight in handicaps is one of these plus points.

I am in no way saying Alamshar was unlucky today. Most races are won by the best horse on the day and Kris Kin certainly was that. The fact that this was not evident beforehand does not detract from VDWs methods. He claimed 85-90% success was possible, but no selection process can get it right every single time. I have had 2 bets in the last 2 days and the only one I see as genuinely unfortunate not to get there was Yesterday and those who have read my posts will know I rarely note losers as unlucky. The fact is both bets had the factors in favour both seen in the Stray Shot/Zamandra examples. These factors were not evident in Refuse To Bends form this year, but interestingly were from last year and relevant to the Guinneas selection.

Swish - You continue to believe something that I and several others know is totally wrong. What chance have you where VDW is concerned?

Determined - I might make a weekend of it, but as to Ascot I'll have to see.

Mtoto

Taking the nine in order:

1) Desert Orchid, 7/2/87. Won a class 157, having previously (earliest first) come 4th in class 186 (weight 11.6, adjusted sf 82); won class 68 (11.5, sf 94) and won class 317 (11.10, sf 103).

The rest same format, but abbreviated.

2) Desert Orchid, 8/4/87. Won a class 71, having previously won 157 (11.10, sf 78); won 63, (11.11, sf none recorded); and come 3rd 258 (12.0, sf 96);

3) Pipsted, 4/7/87. Won a class 167, having previously come 5th class 38, (8.6, sf 49), 6th class 119, (7.4, sf 21), and won class 113, (8.0, sf 65);

4) Abathatc, 17/7/87. Won a class 12, having previously come 2nd class 17 (9.0, sf 42), won class 13 (9.0, sf 42), and 2nd class 17 (9.8, sf 50);

5) First Division, 14/4/88. Won a class 51, having previously won class 79 (9.4, sf 37), 13th, class 641 (8.13, no sf) (both races in 1987 season), and come 2nd class 31 (8.11, sf 57) (1988 season);

6) Abathatc, 2/5/88. Won a class 80, having previously come 6th class 34 (8.7, sf 47) (1987 season), won class 23 (10.0, sf 60), and come 3rd class 80 (9.0, sf 67) (last two races 1988 season);

7.) Billet, 3/6/88. Won a class 227, having previously won class 49 (8.9, sf 49) (1987 season), come 2nd at class 40 (8.7, sf 38) and won at class 48 (9.1, sf 46) (last two runs 1988 season);

8) Roushayd, 2/7/88. Won a class 171, having previously come 3rd class 51 (9.4, sf 27), come 4th class 78 (9.0, sf 27), and come 6th class 227 (9.9, sf 65);

9) Pegwell Bay, 12/11/88. Won class 221, having won class 78 (11.10, no sf recorded), come 2nd class 52 (11.10, no sf recorded) (both in 1987/8 season) and won, class 58 (11.2, sf 26) (1988/9 season).

(All sfs are from the Form Books, ie Split Second's, adjusted to 9st (Flat) or 12st (NH).)

I hope this helps.

Fulham,

I have no problem with my reading.

Of course you made a personal comment about the Derby:

“Guest comfortably picked out the one that ran the best, whereas others expressed mis-placed confidence in Refuse To Bend and Brian Boru.”

If those words above weren’t your personal view why did you apologise to Walter Pigeon when he took you to task?

Mtoto
How do you know this information? (re Guest/Fulham)?
Swidh

Swish,

I know they are not the same person because I have been a member of different groups to do with VDW. I know both their names, and know for a fact they live in different parts of the country. I have spoken to Fulham on the phone, and trust him. He certainly wouldn't go out of his way to play games like that.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Ok.
Nuff said

This year the Derby had 20 runners, for me that's enough to dismiss the race at first glance. As Determined said, how do you know a horse will handle the distance? You yourself said that you require that your selection be proved in the class, surely the defining point of the Derby is that it is unrivaled for class? On the theoretical side a horse race isn't a complex thing, if you take distance and class on trust there's very little left of which you have any real knowledge. Almost any day of the year you'll find races in which a clearer selection can far more easily be made so why choose the Derby to attempt? I understand that the followers of this thread believe that they should look at the most valuable races but the idea is to make money, it's not about kudos from solving the highest profile races, I would like to hear some sensible reasons as to why this race was particularly suitable for the bettor to attempt.

Gilly

Now you are being obtuse (or disingenuous). You know perfectly well that I offered no personal evaluation as to likely winner of the Derby, either before or after the race, from which you or anyone else could deduce what, if anything, I'd backed or layed.

The primary purpose of my post was to point out that, as so often, Guest's evaluations, formed from what I believe to be a correct understanding of VDW's approach, were a lot mearer the mark than Johnd's (particularly) and others who, in my view, incorrectly interpret VDW. (Walter was not remotely in my thoughts when I posted. I had absolutely no intention of adding to his woes yesterday, hence my subsequent post to him.)

Incidentally, as to why some I don't put up selections on this thread, Gummy recently started another VDW thread, "VDW Selections", where I posted on the point.


Epiglotis

Is the Derby in general a good race to analyse with a view to a bet? Yes, because one can confidently assume that all horses will be trying, and that there will generally be a reasonable amount of decent form to evaluate, ie form that works out (as last year with High Chaparral and Hawk Wing, and again this year with The Great Gatesby and Alamshar).

The risk, well exemplified yesterday, is that a relatively un-exposed horse may show capability that was not identifiable through, in the case of the focus of this thread, VDW's approach. But there is always risk. Even in handicaps, where all the horses have run many times, there is the chance that a horse, clearly out of form from a VDW perspective but top rated on ability, will suddenly produce again (Mine was a recent example). That is why VDW referred to a strike rate in the 80%s as being attainable, not 100%.

[This message was edited by Fulham on June 08, 2003 at 08:04 AM.]

I dont know much about the Derby so one or more of the following assumptions may be incorrect.
The Derby is a race for
1. three year olds
2. horses that have never raced in public over the distance
3. horses that have never raced on the course
If the above assumptions are correct please tell me how this conforms to the VDW advice to choose all age races in which the form of (all) the horses is exposed.

Epiglotis

VDW never suggested that one should confine one's betting to all-age races, and gave many examples of selections he had made in 3yo only races (including the Derby itself).

VDW did not limit his selections to horses that had won over the distance: his second example, Rifle Brigade, being an early case in point (given when running first time out as a 3yo over 1.5m, having never before run over more than 1m).

VDW nowhere suggests that one should limit one's bets to horses with proven ability on the course in question, and it is evident from the large majority of his examples that he did not so confine himself.

In yesterday's Derby, every horse had had at least three runs. That was not the case in the Derby example VDW gave, where three had only had two runs. Further, in another example (Ahoy, 24/5/88, referred to in Chapter 6 of "Systematic Betting") VDW was prepared to take on a horse (Hellovastate) which had never run. Obviously that was a risk (H could have been a future sprint champion running to win a fortune in bets first time out), but it was a calculated one. Given what Ahoy had shown, VDW took the view that H would have to be a very good horse indeed to come out and beat it on its very first run.

(In this latter regard, you might care to consider a bet made not by me, but by another contributor to the thread, on Friday. He backed clear class/form horse Aldora at, I think, slightly better than 3/1, effectively against the Stoute hot-pot, Nayzak. Now Nayzak could have been anything, and the stable is of course bang in form. But given Aldora's achievements, the reasoning was, I suppose, that Nayzak would have to be truly exceptional to come out and beat Aldora on its first run of the season, having only ever run once before, in August 2002, and the the chance of that happening was well covered by the price taken on Aldora. Not a bet everyone would place, but a carefully calculated acceptance of risk, much like VDW's with Ahoy.) Oh, and to save you looking it up, the cca of risk paid off, with Aldora winning relatively comfortably, and the Stoute hot-pot 7th of eight.

Fulham,

So not only can I not read, I’m also stupid?

I’m well aware that you never stated that you either backed or laid any horse in the Derby, however, what you did imply, after the race, was that neither Refuse To Bend nor Brian Boru stood a chance of winning.

You really must think people are stupid.

VDW methodology consists of the application of various principles the most important of which is that there should be no element of a gamble, that VDW chose to illustrate the praxis of these principles with races that clearly contradict them is a circumstance that his students need to find a satisfactory explanation for.

Gilly

You've drawn an implication, fair enough, but all I have said was that, unexceptionally, Guest's judgement proved better than others with (in my view) an incorrect understanding of VDW.

re your final question, (which I see you've now edited out) again you are making an assumption, ie that I had an opinion on the likely Derby winner. But even if that assumption was justified, my view about commenting on races before they are run is set out in my post to Gummy on the other VDW thread to which I referred earlier. Generally speaking, I confine myself to offering a view on methodological questions when such are raised by posters like Determined and Graham Hepburn who, like me, are trying to make progress in getting to grips with VDW's approach.


Epiglotis

Perhaps some see a distinction between a carefully calculated acceptance of risk (henceforth, if I use the phrase again, a ccar), and a gamble.

Fulham,

Don't think your eyes are playing games! I deleted my last question because after re-reading your post I see you'd actually answered it.

In short Guest's posting of a loser yesterday was in your opininion a case of "ccar", perhaps you feel the same way about his posting of three losers in the Grand National. The persistent refusal to contemplate the possibility that it is the choice of race that causes these failings in the method brings to mind Guest's quote of McCrirrick.

Fulham,

I don’t want to get in to VDW but my opinion is that the thread and the posters on here would gain enormously if they were to give regular pre-race judgments. Even if it were just the one race a day agreed by those trying to understand the subject, it would help people learn and move forward in no other way possible. Yes, post race analysis can help, but not in the same way as pre-race judgement can. It is the only way to expose the warts.

It’s a bit like being down the local betting shop. People are always willing to tell you how they picked the winner of the last race, but funnily enough they’re not quite as quick at coming forward and telling you about the losers they had previously.