Hi Guest

Nice to have an opinion from you -

Nobody is going to hold you to it - and -

I will certainly "Take it - on Board" - when looking - at the Race !

If I differ - then I will say so - and give my reasons as to "Why" --

in the meantime -

I would love to know the "Reasoning" - behind - Your Selection.

regards

tc

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guest:
Bio - In my view Dumaran is probably being aimed at the Rated Stakes handicap at Newbury at the end of the month, the race he won last year (and landed me a nice bet to boot). He's got no chance for me in the Cambridgeshire.

The most likely winners look to be Zabagalione,Jazz Messenger or Tug Of Love. If I had to pick one it would be Zabaglione, but the prices should allow a book to be made. However, it's a race I won't be backing anything to win in.

---

After evaluting the race Jazz Meseenger is the one I will be having my £2 e/w on, but I will have to have a quid e/w on the tote on Dumaran, after all its 50/1 in the f/c racing post.
Its too good a horse to give up on

If the race is "a lottery" then it's not a "VDW race", unless it's possible to have a lottery with no element of a gamble.

BT

In my view, Dumaran is not a form horse in today's race, and it would therefore surprise me if he won. However, given the feather-weight he is carrying, it would not be a total shock. If he does win at 50/1, sadly I won't have backed him.

TC - All three probables are form horses for the race and JM is the class/form horse. He hasn't been seen for a while since a "bad one" in the summer at York in higher class. The other two are both on the upgrade and weighted to show their best today.

However, there isn't a clear cut selection in the race. That's not to say there are never good bets in this race. Past winners for me have included Halling, Pasternak, Cap Juluca and Penny Drops, though not always through VDWs ideas. But they all had a common trait some way ahead of the opposition on the day. Todays race doesn't show any such contender, though the 3 probables are closest.

boozer Sorry for the delay re- Roushayd, vdw must have thought he was in form as he made him the Class/Form but i have to agree with your observations that anyone looking at his public form in a conventional way would have trouble making him in form.Having only just purchased the vdw library a few months back myself im sure you are in a far better position to explain to the members what in fact his definition of form is, in fact i think you stated as much while referring to the boxing day card recently i like many others no doubt will be looking forward to any futher clarification you may like to convey on the matter.

Walter

I'm open to correction here, but I don't think VDW explicitly stated that Roushayd was the class/form horse. There are grounds for believing that he was, but one cannot have the same level of certainty as one can with the examples where VDW was explicit.

Guest,

in the past on this board you have made books of the likely winners in these big races, do you not do that anymore?

Best regards

PKBOY

The making of a "book" implies uncertainty, a situation in which one is best advised not to bet. Have a look at the 80% thread, only 3 of 18 "books" included the winner and Dutching the stake means returns are at best scant.

Epi,

VDW does quite clearly state that he made a book in certain races. In the 86 King George VI chase and in the 86 Old Newton Cup. Also in The VDW approach to multiple betting, reprinted in The ultimate Wheil of fortune, he gives examples of prices in four races where he took 3 against the field. He said in certain races the winner could sometimes only come from 2 or 3 horses and if prices allowed it made sense to back them all.

Thanks for that. My point is that the examples aren't specially relevent, they merely illustrate particular aspects of the implimentation, the more important thing is theoretical consistency. In this way I think Barney was spot on when he said all examples after Prominent King were red herrings.

Come on, tell me the winner was the class/form horse, or admit that you paleontologists dont know which races to look at.

PKBoy - No, because I have been trying to concentrate on two areas I am happy with now. The first is backing top class, usually group horses when they are the clear class/form horse running for good money.

The second area is my main profit provider now and it doesn't take a lot of form study, just some basic knowledge about class, form and the markets. I'm sure if VDW had been alive today he would have had a big angle on this area.

v clever man Prescott -

almost on par with Pipe with some of the "stunts" he pulls !!

Anyone claim to find "clues" in the form ??

I'm sure there will be some, but - Youl be "A better man than I am - Gungar Din !"


tc

Epi,

Thank you. Who am I to say you are wrong ?

I remember Barney saying something like that as well. Something like far from it and with good reason.I’m afraid I didn’t know what he meant then and I don’t understand what you mean now. If VDW only gave us one real example though it’s not much to go on is it? I can’t see how anyone could work out how VDW, or indeed anybody, was working from just one example though. Beacon Light being well out of it still causes disagreement now, but to work out why it was well out of it from just that text? Surely you would have to look at a few examples at least and look for some sort of consistency of approach ?

Guest,

I have spent over twelve months trying to understand the methods of VDW and the pointers you have given on this board.
I will have another look, but I cant recall you mentioning the second area before. Can you point/guide me too the relevant posts or examples.
I have just put "the second area" in the search engine and nothing has come up.

yours befuddled

PKBOY

It's been pointed out that attempts to marry the approach with the examples highlight inconsistencies.

Bream

It is obviously wrong, as the first example was a non-handicap, and there are differences in how VDW assessed handicaps and non-handicaps, as would be expected from the different bases of the two types of race.

VDW set out his strategy for making public his approach in a letter to Tony Peach, published in the latter's "Systems in My Racing". The first para:

"When I first began to write for Sports Forum it was clear that to splash the whole lot in front of your readers would be a pointless exercise and only by adding bits as time went by could it be hoped a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership would eventually see the light."

hardly suggests that he'd given the whole lot away in the "Prominent King" example.

Was this a race within which there was a winner?

I supose - that in one way - it stands out, -

you should be asking yourself - "Why is Prescott (a top Trainer) - putting this horse into a race like this, - when it hasn't run for a year.

and then looked at its previous winning form - 1113 - (it clearly has ability - tho , in what class ?) -

but I don't claim to have done either !!

Anyone else - with a theory ???


tc



Just noticed - It, was 2nd in the "Daily Mail" betting forcast !

Sombody on the "Mail" - Noticed !!



[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on October 04, 2003 at 07:55 PM.]

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on October 04, 2003 at 07:56 PM.]