Epiglotis,

If you are saying the Derby and National are no go areas then is that the same for the

Lincoln, Cambridgeshire, Csarewitch, Oaks, etc

That's right (if these are also races for which the runners have no relevant form).

The last 2/3 pages consist of mainly arguments
why not discuss something worthwhile like
the Zamndra/Stray Shot example
Or is it being swept under the carpet so the self ordained Guru's can remain indispensable.

Epiglotis

Yes. I certainly assume from all I know of him that Guest is no gambler. Ccars come unstuck sometimes, as with, for Guest, Alamshar yesterday.


Gilly

I agree with you that sharing thoughts about races prior to the off can be beneficial, and it does happen elsewhere. (The Aldora bet I referred to earlier, again, I stress, not mine, was emailed to at least two contributors to the thread well before the race, and in various forums I would say there is some pre-race discussion at least every other day.) What, to my mind, precludes it here are the factors referred to in my response to Gummy.


Boozer

Excellent idea. Why not start the ball rolling with your analyses of the races in question? I'm quite sure others will respond.

Boozer,

I am on with the 6 x boxing day races at present. Very early days though.

There`s already plenty of discussion on these races earlier in the thread if you use the search facility.

Cheers,

In line with the point I'm trying to make about the suitability or otherwise of races themselves how about posting some details of the six boxing day races without naming the horses in them and see if the two backable selections can be decided by that approach?

Please confirm that you are saying that betting on horses in the Grand National conforms to the principle of excluding any element of a gamble and is classifiable as "ccar".

Epiglotis

It depends on who is doing the betting. In England, the world and his wife have a bet on the National and, like the National Lottery, for them it is a gamble. When I have a bet in the National (and the same, I'm quite sure, applies to Guest) its a case of ccar.

It is perhaps worth noting that recently Mtoto posted that he didn't have "fun" bets, but backed solely for income purposes. That differentiation may be directly comparable to that between gambling and taking ccars.

Of the 6 horses given on that boxing day only Zamandra and Stray Shot were

Fav Lto the other 4 weren’t

They were also the only 2 that were the shortest price of the Lto Betting Market in there respective Lto races.

Take your pick


Before you dismiss the Idea think, about it long and hard as to the Logic of it

I do not use VDW methodology to back horses but I can see this as clear as a bell ,it is not some magic filter that will revolutionise your betting but when used in the way it is supposed to be, in conjunction with the rest of the formula plus the fact that you are looking for a winner in the race and not the winner of the race then……………

It could also be said to be a way of judging in formness by Previous Market position

The above is based on the 6 horses on that one day and was strictly correct on that day
But once the Logic of it is understood I can see no reason why it has to be restricted to Lto (just My opinion)

Am I wrong??

So in this year's Grand National Guest put up a Dutch of three as a ccar, were you happy that on that ocassion, as yesterday, Guest also made the best decision and correctly implemented the method?

A separate issue but as you can see, in line with your suggestion, Boozer has set the ball rolling, perhaps you will turn a hand and maintain it's momentum.

Nessie
The staking plan i was referring too was the one that vdw himself gave in Systematic betting,There are 2 s/plans on the board that are excellent,Those being Cyberdetective's and Max's Plan, both can be used for dutching and are very effective.

Fulham and Mtoto,

Re Roushayd.I have to confess until Ad Hoc was put up as a Roushayd type horse on the methodology group, about 2 years ago now, that I had always assumed it was confined to flat horses.

I think we would agree that Roushayd had the class and form to win the Old Newton cup. However at the start of his analysis VDW says that Roushayd was a good horse capable of winning good class races. I’ve always assumed the good part came from his assessment of the horses whole career rather than from a single race and that it was an important part of the method.Would you agree with that and do you think VDW would have gone back to the start with Desert Orchid as well?

Incidentally ,it was nice to see the racing Post ( hard copy)giving the horses form for the last 6 runs in the Derby yesterday,which for the majority of the field was their entire career.

Epi,

I think any race is a bettors race if you can identify a horse with enough of an advantage over its rivals.I think Fulham has put it correctly.Occasionally there are races where the probability of an unknown quantity being good enough to beat your selection are small enough as to present few problems over the long term and they can be taken on.However, Determined mentioned Luca Cumani recently and.I well remember this situation, because I fell foul of his lightly raced 3 yo in handicaps on a few occasions.Sometimes they had won a maiden first time out,others had run in 3 maidens without winning and were now running over a different distance. Obviously he had an idea how good they were but I found them very hard to assess.Eventually the handicapper showed him little mercy with his lightly raced horses but until then I was very wary of backing my fancy whilst opposing one of his lightly raced handicappers.

Guest,

Good point about Nashwan,I hadn’t thought about it that way.I must admit I had Refuse to Bend down as a possible. I can almost hear Big Mac saying something like only 1 Guineas winner in the last 13 years has gone on to win the Derby…When you look at it like that the stats aren’t very good. It does seem a tantalizing proposition though.If the horse has the speed to beat milers and the stamina to get a mile and a half then it would seem to have the world at its feet.As you point out very few seem able to do it though at that level.

I seem to remember there were stamina doubts about Dancing Brave which is why he was ridden the way he was and it cost him victory in the end.Stamina doubts were expressed too about Erhaab even after he’d won the Dante. That horses little legs seemed to be going ten to the dozen at York to keep pace with the longer striding horses but he still managed to find extra speed at the end of his race. He certainly wasn’t all out to win.

Are there any circumstances in which you would consider a Guineas winner for the Derby?

Re your point that racereaders comments are not facts. I have to agree with you and they don’t seem to fit VDW’s examples either.They are accurate enough often enough to be of some use though .Honest.

All the best.

I agree that all races are bettor's races if a clear selection can be made. There appears to exist an idea that "form" and "ability" are entities with independent existences, this is not the case. No matter how impressive a horse is in 5 furlong sprints it has no form relevent to a 3 mile chase. The case of the Derby may be less extreme but the same principle applies, if none of the horses have raced over the distance then they have no form. There is therefore no point considering such a race if you take your betting seriously.

Boozer,

I have only come in half way through this discussion so I hope I'm not going to make myself look a right prawn.

I'll take your word for it that Stray Shot and Zamaadra compile and are the 2 lowest prices last time out. Could the reason they were selected not just as easily be they are running in the 2 highest class races?

Using the best position in the forecast (last time out) to judge informess, doesn't that hit a stumbling block when the horse is beaten? Is an odds on beaten favourite really a candidate as a form horse?

How does this theory hold up with the Erin? Think you will find Mr Kildare would have been the selection there.

That's not to say it doesn't have some baring as ONE of the factors, but not by it's self.

Be Lucky

Epiglotis

I have no reason to doubt that Guest's Grand National selections were serious bets made after proper consideration of the evidence from a VDW perspective.

I'll quite possibly contribute to the discussion of Stray Shot and Zamandra in due course.


JIB

Down my way, it's referred to as having a Jimmy, or for the more solid activity, a JIBy.


Bream

I am sure you are right.

Epiglotis - VDW once commented some time after giving the basics of his method that "perhaps he was guilty of asssuming more were conversant with form than appears to be the case." In this regard and with all due respect to yourself, I am surprised at 2 of the 3 conditions you believe exist where the Derby is concerned. The 1st condition is correct, but the other 2 are not.

You asked my strike rate in the Derby using VDWs methods. Whilst I have been interested in VDWs approach for some 7 or 8 years now, it is only the last 3-4 that have consistently proved profitable. As stated before, there is always more to learn and many pitfalls to avoid. The last 4 Derbys have given me 3 winners and 3rd, though comparisons of all 4 evaluations show that High Chaparral had less opposition than both Galileo and Alamshar along with Sinndar/Sakhee. A feature of the last 3 races is the favouritism attributed to Guinneas performers. Golan was tricky to weigh up in 2001 as he had run just once as a 2yo before winning the 2000 fto at 3yo. Also significant was his price when stepped up in trip and class in the Derby compared to Newmarket. By contrast Galileo had much more the hallmarks of a quality middle distance horse and the form to back it up.

In 2002 I gave a detailed explanation of why I was sure there were only 2 horses at the races and one clearly had a lot more going for it than the other. Had HC not been there, Hawk Wing would have won a minute. But of course HC was there and went on to establish himself as a top 12f horse.

This year as a 3yo Alamshar had confirmed his promise at 2 though not quite as convincingly as HC or Galileo did. He competed against middle distance horses of good quality relative to the form of others in the Derby. Kris Kin, whilst clearly improving had won at a big price in a field of 4 against Big Bad Bob, a useful horse at 2 , but not in the same league as Alamshar or Brian Boru or The Great Gatsby. On this ocassion Kris Kin bucked the odds and found even more improvement and proved a worthy winner.

If you look at Refuse To Bends form, especially his runs this year, what did he beat? And when I say 'what' I mean in the context of a horses overall make up.

I only bet a VDW selection, mistakes aside, if it has sufficient in hand according to VDWs approach. It just so happens the last 4 Derbys have shown this type of horse to be there. In 2000 a book was needed with Sinndar and Sakhee. The Oaks is often trickier and I didn't bet last year. I did bet Yesterday though who I thought was genuinely unlucky not to collect.

Bream - The past markets are very useful, largely because so many punters behave like butterflies. They lump on a supposed good thing, it doesn't win and next time they abandon it for another favourite usually. Often the one they backed last time spoils their new favourite and so it goes on. This is just one point VDW was referring to when he said that most punters haven't a clue what's going on.

As to the Boxing Day examples, it is disappointing that few seem able to see what does stick out in the 2 bets made. The betting market plays it's part, but it is not the factor/factors I refer to. Think about the whole process from top to bottom. It is lengthy and time consuming and posting extracts from the form of the examples will not shed too much light. You need the full form of all concerned.

In relation to that point, has anyone ever pondered why VDW chose certain examples to use for his lessons? Was he not trying to give us the best possible clues without spelling it all out, by selecting races that anyone (at the time) could dig out their Lifes or Chronicles for and see what was swinging the scales in favour of his selection?

Bream,

I will get back to you on the Roushady horses. I'm still working on it.

Derby

I'm a little puzzled Guest takes notice of statistics when it suits him, but ignores when they say what he doesn't want to hear.

Refuse To Bend's main target was always the Derby. If he had been beaten in the Guineas (but run well) everyone would have said it was a good trail for the Derby. To be fair Guest didn't ever say he thought stamina was a doubt about RTB. There again he backed horses that were only proven as milers in the last 2 Oaks.

I thought RTB was a fair bet to win the Derby. I thought so yesterday, and after going thought the race again I still think it was a reasonable bet. The fact that Guineas winners don't win to me means they are confirmed milers being aimed at their main target. If we go back to Nasswan, he won a weak Derby then a weak Eclipse. He was a miler that got lucky. I thought RTB was a middle distance horse that got lucky for his Guineas. Funny you should mention Erhaab. That was the Derby that put me off the Dosage method. The first four home were the 4 the method said were least likely to stay the distance. I don't think Dancing Brave was ridden like that because of worries about the distance. He just didn't handle Epsom, he came down the hill, and round the corner doing a very good impression of a pregnant crab.

Be Lucky

You say Guest is not a gambler and you believe that he is proficient in the application of the methods of VDW, naturally you also believe that these methods are worthwhile and you have recently said that you believe a strike rate of 80+% is attainable. If Guest has a strike rate in the high 60%s yet when he posts on here his strike rate is under 40% one has to wonder where the difference between his successful unposted bets and his unsuccessful posted bets lies. If you have a theory that explains the facts better than my view that he is betting in inappropriate races when he posts here I would be interested in hearing it.