Lee,
How many placings are we to take into consideration when deciding how much of a test a finish was?.Or have we to take any amount of horses who finish within a certain distance of the winner to gauge the quality of finish/race?.

Another question please,

Did vdw use the same two methods of rating to establish Roushayd as `on` in the Old Newton Cup, that exposed Beacon Light as an empty box in the Erin?.

The VDW method is based on the same principles for each and every example including Prominent King and Roushayd. The two methods of rating have Beacon Light well out of it in the Erin in the same way that Burrough Hill Lad is out of it, for instance, although not classified as such, in the King George. Neither are form horses. They are also used to rate ALL horses/selections that appear in Systematic Betting.

The final part of the race is where one should be focussing their attention in order to be able to compare one performance against another. VDW gave more away in Systematic Betting in order that the reader could go on evaluate horses that have competed above their class level.

Form is where the answer lies, this has been stated before, and normally only the last 3 runs are required to establish if there is a winner in the race. When there is a winner in the race the conditions that the horse is going to face are normally irrelevant. These horses are such that the trainer has already taken care of it’s placing.

The class (ability) part of the equation also requires thought; just because the latter stages of a race are fought out by relatively high class horses means very little. Many of VDW’s examples came up against comparatively low class horses in their recent runs, and so this should tell you that class on it’s own is not the answer.

At all times it is necessary to remember that it is the winner in the race we are looking for, and so just because one horse appears to have certain attributes over its competitors doesn’t necessarily mean that EVERYTHING lines up.

Lee,

I'm in complete agreement with parts of your post. I agree that the methods have the same basic principals. I also agree that the two methods of rating have been used in both methods. I also agree that VDW having BL well out of it stops him being a form horse, or it maybe better to say he was a horse in form, the form just wasn't good enough.

Again you say it's what happens at the end of a race that matters. How do we know what happened at the sharp end of PK's last race? Are you saying the fact that he finished 2nd in its self is good enough? That has to bring us back to Roushayd, what the hell did he do in the last 2f, how is that run an improvement on the Epsom run? Take out the s/f, and then explain how it was an improvement, I can't.

You say the conditions of the race are at times irrelevant, because the trainer will have thought it out before hand. I can see this for some of the smaller races, but others are only run on certain tracks. If the trainer is targeting these races he has no choice, and just has to go in on a wing and a prayer at times. You mention Burrough Hill Lad, and suggest he wasn't a form horse for the same reason as BL (well out of it on the ratings) I don't think that was the reason he wasn't a form horse, I think the sharp track was the reason for that. Yes, he won the race the year before, a 4/5 horse race. Scrambling home from a horse he would have hammered on a different track.

While I except recent form is to be preferred, it isn't always the answer. Which of PK's last 3 runs is the key race? As I said the race against Drumgora while being a fair run didn't make him a winner in the race. Which of Baronet's last three runs does the trick for you?

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Even if I were prepared to explain the ins and outs of assessing a race, both for horses coming from lower class, or horses coming from higher class, there would still be disagreement in what I have to say.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First and foremost the response from onlookers would still be one that is made without practised judgment. By this I mean that certain details of the method didn’t appear, at least they didn’t for me, until I’d employed lesser versions of it. And unless I’d been at the particular point where I was the next crucial discoveries wouldn’t have been made, as their significance would have had no reason to register in my mind.

Secondly, there would still be those who are unable to exercise temperament. Subconsciously, or not, it would be of their opinion that they were now in possession of some sort of infallible system. This would come about because to explain the two methods of rating, which are highlighted in VDW’s equation, would actually take a post no more than a couple of paragraphs.

But in truth it isn’t a system, and only when combined with experience, which bears the necessary temperament, can it be employed successfully and consistently.

In my view this should start with the desire to understand what it was that VDW was trying to impart. This will lead to the necessary study of his letters and examples, which WILL, in time give the answers.

In order to achieve this however, one must have faith in EVERYTHING he wrote, starting from his quote ‘I have never written anything just for the sake of it.’ Of course, some of what he wrote requires deciphering, sometimes more than once, but unless one is truthful to oneself how can they expect to progress. If their opinion is that parts of the method are rubbish or even out-dated, then they will not succeed.

The method CAN be employed with nothing more than what appears in the RP, and can be employed without recourse, whatsoever, to commercial ratings, be it speed or collateral. That isn’t to say that Ratings weren’t employed by VDW, we know that he used speed figures to assist in certain circumstances, however, he gave us his view on ratings many times, and gave definite examples of how much they can differ, and that they weren’t the be all and end all.

With regards to Burrough Hill Lad, I respectfully suggest that Door Latch was the reason he wasn’t a form horse for the King George, and both Prominent King’s and Baronet’s Last Runs, when assessed against the opposition, were the best in their respective fields.

Lee,

VDW did say everything he wrote was for a reason. I wonder why he wrote this.........


[THE successful punter is ever aware of the continual changes which affect racing and his means of finding winners. Some are dramatic, others subtle and easily overlooked, but all should be noted and evaluated. The fundamental basics of
successful punting remain, but how they are put into operation must be tempered by the relentless progress (or otherwise, dependent on viewpoint) which takes place].

I can only say once again, I have never said any rating is the be all, speed or any other. I'm using it to gauge ability. It is obvious the ability rating VDW later introduced wasn't taken at face value, it couldn't be as many of his selections were way down the list. So why do you seem to think I take my rating at face value? Going back to VDW's writings do you think it is coincidence the first time he mentions ability, the method he uses to gauge it is.......

[The important thing is to establish proven ability and here a previous speed figure of 80 plus, should give a reasonable base. Now check the running in the present race and judge prospects for the future.]

For me it begs the question why didn't he suggest his other quick and simple method? The one people say he used to solve the Erin, etc.


Be Lucky

MTOTO,

Your first quote could be taken to mean racing in general, on the other hand relate to the trainer and horse.

To substantiate this aspect consider the "continual changes" sic. Form. which should be "noted and evaluated" and the "relentless progress(or otherwise, dependant on viewpoint) which takes place"

PKBOY

Mtoto,

You have conveniently failed to give the full gist of what VDW was imparting in your post above.

VDW was outlining, for the first time, in response to Methodmaker’s advice column, that the idea of compiling lists of horses to follow has a great deal to commend it.

He goes on to say that if a horse runs in to a place, preferably 2nd, first time out, having finished the previous season with a place and a win in either order, we should check their previous best performance. ANY reliable method will do although many will find Split Seconds’ figures more convenient.

This ties in with what VDW again wrote in 1981 when referring once again to listing older horses, and used a Split Second base of 80.

It is interesting that VDW never listed NH horses with the aid of speed ratings, even given his keenness to do so with flat horses. I hear some say that he must have changed his mind in the 7 years or so between the letter he penned suggesting that the use of time during the NH was not so reliable, and his use of Desert Orchid to give an example of what he showed with Roushayd i.e. ‘card marking’ in higher class. These are two different uses of the speed rating. The latter is a ‘viable method of evaluating EXPOSED form, but remember it doesn’t stop there.’ is what he said.

The fact that VDW had been using speed figures to compile lists of horses on the flat for at least 15 years before he wrote 'the use of time during the NH was not so reliable', suggests to me that it wasn’t just an off the cuff remark, but more an informed opinion.

All the above begs the question: As VDW stated that the method he used performed equally well over both codes of racing, where does that leave speed as a means of evaluation in the VDW method?

Lee,

I have to wonder if it is you that has taken some of this out of context. Although I must admit I had to read it a few times for it to make sense. VDW starts the article by pointing out the problems of trying to use speed, he then says..........

[What the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation.]

he then says......

[There are good grounds for taking the view that when using time as a means of evaluation, attention should be restricted to the five and six furlong sprints, or at least, to a maximum of one mile. These same grounds hold good for thinking the use of time during the National Hunt is not so reliable as other means because of the minimum of two miles.]

If VDW believed these statements were correct why then in a later article say horses could be added to the list when they had recorded a s/f of 80 + over a MINIMUM of 8f. Why use speed when going into more detail about Roushayd, all of those races were longer than 8f. I don't think VDW believed the statements, he was just pointing out there was another way of looking at speed. If he didn't think s/f were of use for the NH why go to the trouble of even mentioning Roushayd worked over the sticks? In fact why keep talking about them at all. When he was discussing one method he said all that was needed could be found in the Sporting Chronicle, why not the Sporting Life?

So non of your last post does anything to make me wonder what part speed plays in the methods. It does answer the question why can there be a long time between bets in the NH season. There are not so many horses capable of recording a good s/f.

Be Lucky

a) "The VDW method is based on the same principles for each and every example including Prominent King and Roushayd."

b) "Form is where the answer lies, this has been stated before, and normally only the last 3 runs are required to establish if there is a winner in the race. When there is a winner in the race the conditions that the horse is going to face are normally irrelevant. These horses are such that the trainer has already taken care of it’s placing."

c) "The method CAN be employed with nothing more than what appears in the RP"

d) "just because the latter stages of a race are fought out by relatively high class horses means very little."

e) "there is only one way to judge the performance in closing stages of a race, by the opposition that are also competing at this stage of the race."

f) "It is the latter stages of the race that are important, and what a horse does or doesn't do at this stage will give the answers."

g) "VDW's method of gauging one performance against another, from the distance, is the key."

Lee,

a) implies that sfs are red herrings

b) implies that trainers use this method on a regular basis.

c) leaves your 'key' with few options now especially if d) is taken into acct!

e) has left even fewer options now that d) has been revealed and c) restricts the variety of info considerably.

f) tells us that there are now two factors involved, the horses actions and what the opposition are doing as found in the RP!

g) Thats it!

Lee
Thanks for explaining some of the reasoning behind your understanding of the method, it makes fascinating reading, and gives an insight on angles that are rarely discussed on here.
A couple of queries if I may:

You imply that the last 3 runs from the RP are all that are needed to gauge a horses form, yet you also suggest, (I think?), that one must be conversant with the form of the opposition in those races, which is not normally available in the RP. Any chance you could elaborate on this aspect?

From some of your comments, it would appear that you are also a student of the mind, another fascinating subject.
Is this a direct result of your involvement with VDW?

Many thanks for your recent input.
Johnd

Mtoto,

The purpose of Roushayd and co was to advance his methods, in his words, only slightly. Prior to this he had been dealing with consistent horses that had fought out the finish in their respective races.

Systematic Betting showed the unaware punter how to judge improvement in higher class, where the horse had finished down the field.

VDW never compiled a list using speed figures for any distances above 8f on the flat, and never over NH rules. However, he did place faith in them per se, and suggested that they were the best type of commercial rating available. Remember though that he warned about their shortcomings.

Once again, VDW is about looking for a winner in the race, and his different starting points required a basis on which to work. In the same way that Desert Hero required the most selections in the ‘selection box’, plus had to feature on a speed basis, and like the Chase Method required the selection to be in the first two of the betting, Roushayd and co. required an improved speed figure.

Racing a horse in higher class is just one way to bring them to the boil, but how can we be sure that the performance in a race where the horse finished down the field was good enough? VDW decided on an extra measure, and that was an improved speed figure, but that is nowhere close to the real reason he drafted his evaluation.

JohnD,

The last 3 runs of the horse in question are normally all that is needed, however, it’s often necessary to go back further in to the form of those runs.

My interest in the ‘mind’ did start from VDW, and I actually have his work to thank for where I am today, in relation to where I was when I started, not just from a punting point of view.

Mtoto
I think that with the Baronet example (as with all of vdw's examples) it is important to collerate the ablity ratings of all the horses in the race.And then to do a Pegwell bay evaluation.I personally find this very enlightening when it's down in paper in front of you.What you also have to remember is that petronisi had been dropped from class 73 (which he won) to class 28 and only won on a disqualification,Do you really see this has showing improvement.on the other hand Baronet was again taking on higher class horses carrying top weight and only going down by .75 lgs.And then of course he was put into the cambridge carrying a stone less.

Investor,

But petronisi had been down to run elsewhere and was a late entry. Remember that "improvisation can often confuse what might have been"

Jib
Petronisi won by default,A race that he should have won comfortably.I don't know if youv'e read the booklets but he gives an example in Canny Danny.This horse was top weight and was giving quite a bit of weight to the next in the handicap.This was also Evient with Baronet,Which was also an inferior animal so to speak.

Mtoto
Further to my last post.Beacon light was beaten by an inferior animal in lower class.Baronet was beaten by a superior animal in higher class.But what must be assertained is,In higher and lower class than what.

Investor,

I can find no trace Evient, who was the trainer?

I have assertained that VDW never backed a mare, but after collerating all the info on petronisi I cant be sure if he was a he or in fact a she, can you help me?

Jib
Fair enough if your going to be like that.

JIB -

Interesting !

as far as I can see -

Colin Davey - never backs anything other than - Colts , geldings , and Horses !!!

Did someone say that "females" are an unpredictable bunch ????

A - "Filter" Perhaps ???

Lee,

Are you saying that as the lists were never printed they never existed, and VDW just suggested compiling them and never really practised the idea himself? As you pointed out he went into some detail about how the NH list should be compiled. At the bottom of page 2 in Whiel of Fortune he quite clearly states........


[Additions can be made to this small list from older horses with a best speed figure of 80-plus over a minimum of 8f at the same course(s) as above. A check will reveal that winners started to flow right from the "off at Doncaster.]

Are we meant to believe these lists didn't happen because they were never printed?

Investor,

When you say about the class of these horses, what criteria are you using to judge the class? An a/rating the hadn't been mentioned at the time? The same a/rating that had PK rated joint 7th at best, and Baronet 6th in? You suggest I look at the race from the Pegwell Bay perspective, the method that would have eliminated PK at the first procedure. I did set out the runners in the way you suggested. I still can't see how Baronet could be the selection over Petronisi based on the last 3 runs. Ok B did have a stone less in weight, but P had 12lbs less. On further checking I can't t find a logical reason (apart from the one I use) why B should be excepted to beat P. Both had their best form on stiff tracks, with plenty of runners and plenty of pace.
Based on this run P had improved or B had gone backwards as he had been weighted to get closer or beat P. Based on their last run if it was a down turn in form for P it was also a downturn for B. The prize money for the last race may have been less, but having B in both races the class of opposition was the same. I'm also sure VDW would have noted P was a distance winner for the Cambridgeshire whereas B wasn't. I can still only see one logical way B was the selection, and that is the same way as PK. If you would like to go into a little more detail I would be more than happy to read, and think about it.

Be Lucky