This Art OF War guy implies that the fly guys (It tak`s a lang spin tae sup wi a Fifer) will always look to keep something in reserve.
I would like to ask if i may, if a trainer can keep something in reserve with any charge whilst allowing it to be consistent what does this tell us about the horse in question?.Take into account Jib`s recent comments about the handicap system which you have to agree with btw.I think this is where vdw & others made & make the killing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: walter pigeon,

investor -

never mind "Aftertiming" - I gave you 10 days advance warning of a 33/1 winner - and still you keep on Banging the old "Consistency" Drum - telling me that I don't know what to look for !!

Its not the be all and end all , and if you made your mind a little more receptive to New ideas then you might begin to understand the game a little better !

Sure the "Little Owls" come along from time to time - but there are many more opportunities there to be taken using alternative approaches !

I have the full VDW series, and keep reading them - but I don't restrict my reading - to half a dozen small pamphlets !

I have a Bible - but I also read the - Qur'an. - and the - Buddhist scriptures. - I formulute my views on "Life and Morality" from these and many other sources - (including The Art of War) - Karl Marx - and Aesops Fables !

http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/aesop/aesop1.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

TC,

I'm more than happy to discuss form, but I can't understand for one moment you would except Lee, Barney, and Investor to agree with me. We don't even agree on a simple thing like consistency. If the methods were that straight forward the thinking would be public knowledge.

VDW said form is what they did and class/ability is were they did it. the point of the exercise is to balance the form and class. That is how I try to work.

Right, or wrong for me the important thing is there was no mention of the a/rating until much later. I have thought for a long time the other 'ratings' were his original a/rating. These are expressed as figures and that's how I work. I'm not looking at this horses finished 1st, 4th (or any other position) I'm looking at a figure and the opposition it was gained against. When it comes to the race in question these figures are used as a yardstick, if the horse is running in a higher class race no matter how good the s/f is that horse is not considered. Working this way I do miss some winners fair enough, and it may not be pure VDW. (He did work on, if it was the best in the race that was good enough.) Then any horse that doesn't have a c/rating of 12 or under is also eliminated. After this all the remaining horses are examined, to try to find the profile. Then I work down from the best figure, this is not always the highest s/f and make a decision, is this the right course is one of the main worries? In most cases I'm happy to go with the trainer thoughts on going distance, (weight doesn't come into it for me) I do worry about a lot of trainer decisions when it comes to track, and much prefer my own ideas about the tracks. Have to admit my ideas seem to be very different to a lot of trainers and other peoples for that matter. There is never an automatic bet, even when everything lines up and I think the price is right I some times say something doesn't look right and leave it. This can work in reverse I think the price will be to short and say no bet, then if the price is better than expected, later bet. In fact this did happen today.

Is any of this the correct way to work? I don't know I just know it works for me. It may only be one example but there is a case of VDW not worrying about a 7lb swing in the weights reversing a neck defeat. Some have explained this away by saying the defeated horse was a non form horse next time, but the winner was a form horse. I'm only a country boy and have a lot of trouble getting my head round this. Who knows they may be correct, just like the folk that don't think consistent horses win races. Or if they do the prices are to short to make money, but that is just another fallacy.

No, I don't drive a Ferrari, I had my licence taken away for health reasons. I also have no intention of just giving my car away because there may be someone on this board who feels property should just be shared without any effort on the other parties behalf. Some may think that's mean and selfish, oh well!

We all have our own opinions, expect there will be more than a few saying the above is nonsense.



Boozer,

Flattered you think I am logical, but can't understand why you think I changed the way I work would not also be logical. The reason was purely because I analysed my bets and found by sticking to the consistent horses (and improvers) I increased my profits dramatically. As you know I never used to take it (consistency) into account.

Be Lucky

quote:

---

Originally posted by john in brasil:
BCDo you use these columns to form a rating?

---

Hi JIB

No. I use it to form an opinion of the race and the contenders. I then go through the recent form of the runners to see whether it backs up the picture.

BlackCat

Must be talkin to myself on here.
Anyone any thoughts on my earlier post?.

Walter that is why I only believe in winning form. Winning form shows the horses ideal conditions.

As ectoo points out a consistent horse is generally badly handicapped as a result.

A winning consistant horse MUST eventually lose. (and at a short price too.)

For those who think that "Ratings" are a load of "Bollocks" -

Just check out the results of the "Massey" ratings today - I assure you that these are not exceptional !!

If You put on a "Place Bet" on Betfair - on the "Top Massey Rated" - Here are the results and the "SPs" - of the placed horses.

Work out the "Returns" for yourself !


2.00 - 2nd 13/2
2.35 - L
3.10 - 4th 8/1
3.45 - 2nd 11/10
4.15 - 3rd 10/3
4.50 - L
5.20 - 2nd 11/2
1.55 - 1st 7/2
2.25 - 3rd 7/2
3.00 - L
3.35 - 2nd 5/1
4.05 - 1st 7/2
4.40 - L
5.10 - 2nd 10/1
1.50 - L
2.20 - L
2.50 - 3rd 8/1
3.25 - L
4.00 - L
4.35 - 2nd 7/4
5.05 - 2nd 10/1
2.10 - 1st 4/6
2.40 - 1st 9/2
3.15 - 2nd 9/2
3.50 - L
4.25 - 3rd 10/1
4.55 - 1st 4/1

at an average of 1/4 odds - what profit would you have made ???



if you had appied a "simple" Dawson staking plan - where would you have been ??

VDW presented alternative staking plans - would they have produced even better results ???

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

DEVISE is a classic example of which there are many

22/5/04 :WON class D handicap rated 76 by 3/4 len from a horse that hasn't won since and neither has the 3rd.

This horse went up to 81 after that win and is now running off 88. 81 was harsh for beating not a lot?? off 88 it is probably still going to be getting beat whilst looking "consistent"

Rather than studying the consistency of horses it would be wiser to study whether the trainer has any intention of winning with a horse whilst it's rating is so high.

If he runs Devise in a soft race it could end up winning off 88 when it's true mark in a competetive race is 84..if he lets it win the soft race it may take him months to get it down to it's correct level where it can win a decent prize for it's class. So a drop in class would mean a signal of it not trying imho..others may think they want a win under those circumstances but in reality it would be a disaster to the earning potential of the horse. He would then be rated in the 90's.

It's not easy second guessing a trainer but it's not hard to see how consistent horses end up in the twilight zone between handicap and Listed class where they are too high to win a handicap and not good enough to win a listed..all due to "consistency"

We must never stop looking at things from different perspectives

JIB,

Ok, this is one of the few recent statements you have made that I can agree with. Let's take it a bit further.

Why is winning form the only good form? I except the general idea is for the horses to win, but as you like to point out are they not always trying to win? A trainer steps a horse up in class, it scores a PB but is well beaten, why isn't this form worth looking at?

EC made a statement about consistent horses being badly handicapped. He believes weight is a major factor in racing, I don't and reading a few of your earlier post you seemed to have a few doubts. Change of mind?

Consistent horses, winning or other wise will eventually lose. Agreed, but the reason isn't because they are consistent. It is usually because they are stepped up in class, some times by choice, often because the handicapper forces the rise. This rise makes life harder because the competition is stronger.

Be Lucky

The Massey top-rated results are very interesting, Tuppenycat.

My initial thought was that, if the price of TR is 5/1 + , do a place bet. Forget the rest.

However, I'd like to see the prices of the losers first; if these were all under 5/1, then the little scheme might hold up.

It would be nice to know, as it's so easy.

nice - ectoo -

I don't as yet - have my head around the "Handicaps" -

But for sure - I agree with both you and JIB - that the "Last Thing" that a Trainer wants - is a series of Consistent Results !!

There are of course exceptions - when the trainer is running the horse - "Ahead of the Handicaper" - eg - "Prescott " - but in the main - like Nichols and Cumani - they are trying to conceal the "Potential" of the horse - untill the " BIG DAY" arrives and they collect - "Serious" money !

Seanrua -

at the moment I am operating with a Betfair "cutoff" of around 1.6 to 1.8 and exercising a little "judgement" - seems to be working tho !!



at the moment I am simply following the (bloody silly) - method of doubling my stakes - I had better stop as it is sure to end in disaster !!!

Vdw once said that certain trainers bring their horses along gradually.Are they trainers who wait for ideal conditions or are they aware they have a right tool at their disposal and can do what the f*** they like gradually of course.

WP -

VDW also said - Judge a horse by what it has done in Public !!

A Horse will perform - when it is once again - given its - "Ideal" conditions !

A Top trainer will know what they are !!

Study the way that the Trainer places his Horses --

Most of them are "Creatures of Habit" !!!

-

Select one or two Trainers initialy and watch their every move with care !!

There is no "Short Cut" - and I doubt that it can be found in "The Form Book" -

But just a couple of Trainers can give - "Serious profits"

Some more very interesting posts tonight from Walter Pigeon, JIB, Ectoo and Mtoto, about

"consistency", handicapping, weight, long term intention of trainers, and "the only good form is winning form".

I'm none too clever with weight myself - haven't got a clue what weight was carried by Funfair Wane or by Spuradich this afternoon - but I can say that trainers are obsessed with handicap marks.
They're always moaning about them! Now, maybe this is just a bit of bullshit to cover up their bad training, or perhaps it really does make a difference.

Personally, I don't know, but I have noticed that when, say, A. Berry and F. Norton are right down the bottom, then they often win. This also seems to apply to Evans/Badger.

Next, we look at an even harder problem - form.
Strictly speaking, JIB is right to say that the only good form is winning form, I suppose.
However, did you see that triple photo-finish at Newbury today?
Performance-wise, Channon's first two moreorless equalled that of the winner, I thought. Close, wasn't it?

Other times, the lengths- beaten idea becomes meaningless; did you see young Daly throw that race away, the day before?

Finally, I liked what Mtoto said about "no automatic bets". I've found that I save a lot of wasted money by rejecting "good things" just because something doesn't feel right to me.
Sounds daft, but perhaps the whole thing is as much supposition as hard, factual evidence.

After all, "evidence" is all in the past, and what we are trying to do is predict the future.

I suppose we have to go on experience as much as anything, but I don't know.

OK, over to the experts.

ps. TC may have hit on a nice little earner with those ratings.

As we seem to have commandeered the VDW thread to talk about what we think is important, can I just say that Tony Cobra's "Succession plan" may be useful with those Massey ratings.

Quite a few "winning clusters" in today's results. ( Place bet winning, that is).

quote:

---

As we seem to have commandeered the VDW thread to talk about what we think is important

---

about "Bloody Time" too !

You guys are unreal!
You want to predict the result of a horse race so the first thing to look for is horses that are unpredictable. Way to go!
Then you look for a trainer (D Nicholls?), who is equally unpredictable!
You may get winners, maybe even make a profit, but the only certainty is that you're in for one hell of a ride.

Public form is all good & well but only i as the trainer would know what any horse was capable of.

Older horses in stables are kept for good reason but not ALWAYS for what they achieve on the racecourse.

johnd -
the whole conversation has been about "Handicaps" -

Even JIB has admited that where "Stud Value" horse are involved ,then "Place Figures" are - V _ important !

There are many approches - some of them -Work - "Some of the Time " - But _ "None of them" - "Work"- "All of the Time" !!

Lets work together to sort out - "The Wheat from the Chaff " !!

john ! -

give me another way to -"sort out" - the result of that race???

My approach "Worked" !! - like it or not !!

I still think that ( in Handicaps) - then - "Trainers Intentions " are - the Biggest Factor !!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,