Investor,

I'm not really sure what you mean by your last statement. Different terminology means different things to different people.

For me, capability is a seperate entity to form. I suppose it all comes down to the order you evaluate from. I'm happy to class a horse as a 'form horse' even though it may not be suited to today's conditions, eliminating the horse at the capability check. Others (that I correspond with) may take factors like track, distance, going, weight into account when deciding the form horses. As I say it all comes down to the order you evaluate. If a horse shows good form relative to today's field in a 2 mile race but is now running over 5f then, to me, he is still a form horse that fails on capability. For others, he wouldn't be a form horse at all.

That is the reason I used the term 'possible' form horses. They may not be after the capability aspect is considered.

The reason I prefer to work that way is because all possible form horses go into the creation of my oddsline or value prices for the race.

Each to their own though

Have you ever felt like you were
a fur ball being vomited by a cat?

Crock
It wasn't a criticism,I suppose i posed a question in a round about way,I have been trying to get a point across to mtoto for quite a long time and just recently put some horses up for evaluation in there respective races.On the day in question i actually backed bonus and my form horses were exactly the same as yours,I also include them all shall we say and i made this point to Chaz.There are only a certain amount of horses in any race that will win or have the credentials,I'm heartened that another poster can see the merits in 5 horses in one race,1 or 2 could be a fluke but not 5.

I don't think the comparisons to a mail shot tipster really stand up. The fact is, Jimmy that unless VDW can give you a quick and easy route to winners you, and others such as Epi, JIB are just not interested. One thing is for certain and it will always be so is that there is no quick set of rules or routes to consistently finding winners in racing or any other form of gambling for that matter.

Interesting though that you are not unfamiliar with receiving mail shots from con men. They get their names and addresses from other con men. These lists are known as "mug lists". It's tricky to get on them unless you have at some stage stooped to giving any of these con men money or encouragement.

Investor - Thanks, and as I said before I am pleased that you finally spotted the slightly hidden factors.

Mtoto - First Division was the class/form horse. Going up in race class, though not beyond what he had shown was possible, was only a negative when set aside a couple of other reasons he was left namely Roushayd and Vouchsafe. The fact that FD won was not lost on VDW though. The same procedure for Roushayds next 2 races also built a case for Roushayd at Haydock.

Braashee was the class/form horse and again VDW helpfully mentions a horse to help us with our enquiries.

JohnD - Not coming out to play? I'm only here for the weekend, the least you could do is take part. Still, probably best you start finding those form books and re-evaluating what you think VDW actually told us.

I dont read long posts. If you have an opinion..

One thing is for certain, you never sold sex around the Pacific.

Guest,
After reading your Linford Christie hypothesis earlier would it be fair to assume that the previous ability ratings of any horse should only be considered that are relative to the distance compared to todays? after all as you say Linford was olympic gold medal class over 100m but maybe only club class over 400m his ability rating wouldn`t count much for him over the longer distance no?.

Mtoto

First, most of my energies have been directed to researching how to sort out c/fs as (as fgar as I can judge) VDW did. I haven't yet given the same attention to researching why VDW backed some c/fs (or other form horses) but not others, though sometimes he tells us (as with Canny Danny on 5/1/85) and sometimes it's obvious enough. Sometimes, though, I feel I would have backed a c/f VDW explicitly leaves, most notably Gaye Chance on 7/3/81 where, to my mind, the risk was well covered by the price. The following comments thus relate solely to c/f-ness, not to why VDW did, or did not, back a horse.

First Division - c/f;

Desert Orchid (handicaps):

13/12/86 - c/f;
7/2/87 - 2nd c/f;
8/4/87 - c/f.

Braashee - c/f.


The Ad Hoc race was, of course post VDW's writings. As I see it:

Ad Hoc - 2nd c/f (What's Up Boys c/f).

Fulham
Don't take this the wrong way,Would you have backed Gaye Chance e.w or as a single bet.

Investor guess what? ive just taken the plunge and bought the vdw library although i`ll have to wait for racing in my systems as its at the printers they arrived sat morning he didnt agree with e/w bets ive read that much .

Its a bonus. look at the ln and fc lto. look at ability. 211=4 and improving. 7k 5k 12k.
shame about my ratings tho.102B lto = 78% which is in the top 3. but when sorted its way down the list.
But just look how bonus compares with the rivals. v.interesting.thanks guest. thanks investor for the staking.

if bonus is a very good VDW eample then time for a rethink.

  LINGFIELD, 10 May 2003, 3:45, Tote Scoop6 Sprint Showcase Handicap (Class B) (3yo,0-105),Winner £34,800.00,6f GOOD, 12 Runners Handicap

 Avening,,.......................................................Form 13-9-7  (26)  sp lto 28/1 ln 33* Av = 41.3k** , Ab = 7k  Score=2+2
 65%  86B 5f 7/4 9rs  GF San  12K    (15 days)     (Chk Dist lengths)    UP in class from 12K to 34.8k,  No improv
 55%  58A 6f 9/18 9rs  Sft Don  15K    (196 days)   (** DIST  lengths)
 439%  71B 6f 13/11 18rs  Fm Red  97K    (217 days)   (** DIST  lengths)
   .................................. (100%)
 The Bonus King,,.......................................................Form 3-5-11  (18)  sp lto 5/1 ln 14 Av = 28k, Ab = 13k  Score=1+2
 94%  82A 5f 11/6 14rs  GF Hay  18K    (21 days)     (Chk Dist Unpl)    UP in class from 18K to 34.8k, BUT chk figures
 236%  86A 6f 5/7 9rs  GF Goo  43K    (284 days)   (** DIST  Unpl)
 155%  106A 6f 3/1 10rs  GS Nmk  23K    (304 days)   (** DIST  placed ?)
   .................................. (86%)
 On The Brink,,.......................................................Form 12-4-6  (20)  sp lto 9/1 ln 16* Av = 27k, Ab = 7.5k  Score=1+0
 100%  87A 5f 6/4 14rs  GF Hay  18K    (21 days)     (Chk Dist Unpl)    UP in class from 18K to 34.8k,  No improv
 161%  87C 5f 4/4 14rs  GF Asc  29K    (42 days)      (Chk Dist Unpl)
 173%  80A 5f 12/8 19rs  GF Asc  34K    (325 days)      (Chk Dist Unpl)
   .................................. (77%)
 Ronnie From Donny,,.......................................................Form 3-9-5  (17)  sp lto 11/1 ln 12* Av = 16.7k, Ab = 5.5k  Score=2+2
 64%  84B 5f 5/1 9rs  GF San  12K    (15 days)     (Chk Dist lengths)    UP in class from 12K to 34.8k,  No improv
 39%  68C 6f 9/9 12rs**  GF Nmk  9K    (23 days)   (** DIST  lengths)
 159%  86C 5f 3/2 14rs  GF Asc  29K    (42 days)      (Chk Dist PLACED **)
   .................................. (46%)
 The Lord,,.......................................................Form 18-2-9  (21)  sp lto 25/1 ln 47 Av = 16.3k, Ab = 7k  Score=2+2
 9%  8A 6f 9/34 9rs  Gd Asc  18K    (10 days)(g)   (** DIST  lengths)    UP in class from 18K to 34.8k, BUT chk figures
 119%  104A 5f 2/hd 14rs  GF Hay  18K    (21 days)      (Chk Dist PLACED **)
 58%  71B 5f 18/13 20rs  Gd Don  13K    (51 days)(g)      (Chk Dist lengths)
   .................................. (33%)
 Bonus,,.......................................................Form 2-1-1  (4**)  sp lto 6/5F ln -8* Av = 8k, Ab = 8.5k  Score=3+10
 78%  102B 6f 1/5 11rs**  GS Sal  12K    (6 days)    ** DIST + WIN **    UP in class from 12K to 34.8k,  CHK for improv
 30%  94D 6f 1/5 10rs  GF Nmk  5K    (23 days)    ** DIST + WIN **
 35%  79D 6f 2/2 19rs  GF Wdr  7K    (33 days)   (** DIST  PLACED **)
   .................................. (25%)
 Move It,,.......................................................Form 1-1-1  (3**)  sp lto 4/5F ln -6 Av = 8k, Ab = 8k  Score=3+8
 68%  90B 5f 1/1 9rs  GF San  12K    (15 days)     (Chk Dist  + WIN **)    UP in class from 12K to 34.8k  IMPROVING ***
 45%  102D 6f 1/2 19rs  GF Wdr  7K    (33 days)    ** DIST + WIN **
 30%  97E 5f 1/3 6rs  Fm Bat  5K    (40 days)      (Chk Dist  + WIN **)
   .................................. (25%)
 Hit's Only Money,,.......................................................Form 1-1-1  (3**)  sp lto 11/8F ln -10 Av = 5.3k, Ab = 5.3k  Score=3+10
 58%  102C 6f 1/4 9rs  GF Rip  9K    (14 days)    ** DIST + WIN **    UP in class from 9K to 34.8k  IMPROVING ***
 28%  89D 6f 1/1 18rs  GF Kem  5K    (21 days)    ** DIST + WIN **
 10%  81G 5f 1/5 15rs  GF Lei  2K    (37 days)      (Chk Dist  + WIN **)
   .................................. (17%)
 Wages,,.......................................................Form 2-1-10  (13**)  sp lto 10/1 ln 4 Av = 6.7k, Ab = 4k  Score=5+5
 58%  76C 7f 10/4 14rs  St Lin  12K    (119 days)(c)     (Chk Dist Unpl)    UP in class from 12K to 34.8k  IMPROVING ***
 21%  83D 6f 1/½L 11rs**  St Lin  4K    (133 days)(c)    ** DIST + WIN **
 18%  72D 7f 2/¾L 11rs**  St Lin  4K    (150 days)(c)      (Chk Dist PLACED **)
   .................................. (17%)
 Awarding,,.......................................................Form 12-1-2  (13**)  sp lto 25/1 ln 11 Av = 6.7k, Ab = 3k  Score=3+4
 63%  83B 5f 2/1 9rs  GF San  12K    (15 days)     (Chk Dist PLACED **)    UP in class from 12K to 34.8k,  CHK for improv
 15%  80E 5f 1/1 10rs  St Lin  3K    (178 days)(c)      (Chk Dist  + WIN **)
 17%  54D 6f 12/11 15rs  GS Nby  5K    (197 days)   (** DIST  lengths)
   .................................. (16%)
 Vigorous,,.......................................................Form 4-1-1  (6**)  sp lto 2/7F ln -9* Av = 5k, Ab = 6k  Score=4+6
 45%  80C 5f 1/9 4rs  GF Ham  9K    (12 days)     (Chk Dist  + WIN **)    UP in class from 9K to 34.8k  IMPROVING ***
 13%  71F 6f 1/1 4rs  GF Fol  3K    (36 days)    ** DIST + WIN **
 11%  62D 5f 4/1 13rs**  GF Wdr  3K    (285 days)      (Chk Dist lengths)
   .................................. (12%)
 Mr Malarkey,,.......................................................Form 7-1-1  (9**)  sp lto 11/1 ln 5* Av = 4k, Ab = 3.5k  Score=3+9
 15%  83E 6f 1/2 19rs  GF Not  3K    (19 days)    ** DIST + WIN **    UP in class from 3K to 34.8k, BUT chk figures
 18%  72E 6f 1/1 17rs  Fm Thi  4K    (29 days)    ** DIST + WIN **
 16%  53D 6f 7/8 15rs  Gd Don  5K    (49 days)(g)   (** DIST  lengths)
   .................................. (8%)
 

[This message was edited by Nessie on June 08, 2003 at 09:54 PM.]

Investor

I usually back longer priced horses, and almost always EW. In the maximum profit/minimum losing runs trade off, I'm firmly with the latter.

Epi

The following post is not for you.

Nessie
It isn't time for a re think my friend,What you are doing is rating a race with a great deal of success.But that is all your doing vdw did say that class and form or more to the point what a horse has done in public are what we should concentrate on.

Walter
Your right vdw wasn't to keen on e.w betting,It's all to do with confidence Fulham likes E.W betting,I like dutching after all there are not that many horses in any one race that are in it to win it so to speak.

Now I’m beginning to understand where I’ve been going wrong. I’ve been crediting some members with more intelligence than is obviously the case.
Where do I equate VDW with tipsters other than in an analogous way? If you can’t see this it is no wonder it has taken years to fathom out VDW and why I realised back in the late seventies that it was not worth the effort. Maybe I should have started my last post “Jimmy spells it out”.
I must agree with the phoenix in one matter though. The majority of people look for a quick and easy route to winner finding and when they can’t find it they change to something else, (notice the number of times investor has chopped and changed), which is the very reason I maintain that if there was anything in it would be in the public domain. Human nature being what it is, someone would have explained it at some time in the past. Not that this would have made the slightest bit of difference, the amount of work involved in studying a days racing would put this same majority of people off, simply because, even if it was of value, it would take too long for them to be bothered.
I don’t mind spending hours of my time in analysing data and reading trends in an effort to find winners but, and here is the difference, if my hours of study came up with the level of success that is shown on here, I would ask myself if it was worth it. And before anyone comes back and says it is because they have made x numbers of profit, their statements are worthless unless it can be shown to be truthful and this means posting before the event, and we all know how many times the likes of investor has tried this and fallen flat. The phoenix is not much better.

Investor,

What’s up? Are you hoping to take over guest’s place if he finally tells the truth and leaves? Are you worried that someone with a more open mind than you might attract more attention? Nessie seems to be doing all right as far as I can see.

Nessie - None of the horses with higher ability ratings than Bonus were actually "form" horses for the race. Bonus was the "form" horse with the highest class, hence the term "class/form horse". VDW was brutal with the establishment of form especially in handicaps. The only times he gave the benefit of the doubt was with those who may have had a valid excuse, but only under the terms as he saw it.

Walter - Re Linford, I think you've answered the question for yourself. Nice to see someone is actually giving some logical thought on some of my highlighted points. That is in fact why I highlight them, not as some suggest in order to confuse.

By the way, Walter. If you haven't already read the books then you are in for a treat. There is a hell of a lot to take in though so be patient.

Epi - As to furballs the answer is no, not really. What's it like?

Jimmy - Obviously I understood it was an analogy, what I was saying is that I didn't think it was a very good one.

From what you say about your conclusion back in the 70s that VDW was not worth knowing, perhaps I can make a further analogy by comparing you to the boring old fart that frequents every bookies in the country, spending all day telling anyone who will listen that "it's all a mug's game" and "there's only one winner you know?". This is the same prophet of doom who has spent his whole life in the shops spouting his message of no hope in between blowing his Giro on losers.

Seriously though, if it was simple and exposed then yes it would be in the public domain. But the plain fact is, like it or not, VDW carefully presented just the bare bones leaving only those with some reasonable levels of grey matter and more importantly the inclination to discover for themselves the real depths of the method. He even said that he had not revealed all, despite what JohnD thinks. This is only partly true though, because he revealed enough to lead those who understood it to further revealations.

Why don't you just accept that this is not some system that can be listed as such. It is a methodical approach using various elements that combine to form a picture. To explain it in full would take a book of epic size. Granted, not perhaps as big as the book Psychologists could write on dear mad old Epiglotis, but a big one nonetheless.

Yeah investor i can see this is where the problem is going to be isolating the few that can possibly be considered for the race in question then staking proportionately.

Jimmy

If you discarded VDW in the 1970s, it might be worth your while reading the three articles he published in 1985 and 1986 (26/1/85, 13/4/85, 18/1/86), all re-printed in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune". I think these offer a most helpful clarification and development of the ideas he set out, piece by piece, in the earlier letters. (And for what it is worth, I had no consistent success simply following blindly the way VDW analysed the Little Owl, Sunset Cristo etc races. It was only when the penny dropped that VDW's term "consistent form" and his consistency aggregate (the sum of the three last placings) were not one and the same that I've been consistently in the black.)