Not necessarily. The weights aspect might still have meant that trainers didn't fancy the race for their 4yo fillies and the few who did usually failed to win. I think even today some regard wfa as generous, so more than wfa due to the race conditions possibly a distinct negative.
re Guest, my take is that he may have been the first who worked out VDW's method of rating "form" status but compared to Lee hadn't made as much progress with the final VDW issue, sorting the <20% class/form horses to be backed from the >80% that should be left. Judging by their posts, both very knowledgeable and helpful, and from a previous forum from which someone kindly copied me some posts, Guest put up a lot of basic material about the eary VDW examples to help those without access to some of the data.
Given your interest in the last six,
T
Tufnel, you might be particularly interested in this example:
"
26/04/01 – Meth Group
After looking back through the messages posted in the group, I was pleased to see the absence of the unconstructive mud slinging that has occurred elsewhere regarding VDW’s methods. However I do hold the view that any assumptions made about the writings of VDW can only be looked upon as useful if they are logical, researched and can be definitely linked to VDW’s original articles. Of course deciphering his words of wisdom isn't easy, but I believe his intention was to create group discussions such as this one. Shame the internet came too late for the man himself.
It's almost a full time job researching the various VDW methods , and let's be clear he used many methods , as he often stated , and you have to maintain a realistic outlook on the game.
Sometimes it often looked as if VDW was finding the winner of every race he considered, but as with many things in racing, this was just an illusion. His high strike rate was down to his root thinking on the game and how to balance the real odds. This meant only putting the money down when everything lined up. This balance happens frequently, often a few times a day, but not everyday. Also, something to bear in mind when researching his methods, is the fact that he did select the odd loser here and there and the few that he mentioned are worth looking at closely. I just mention these points because when you are unsure about the workings of any his methods, it's easy to get sidetracked when a selection doesn't win and you start pulling the method to pieces rightly or wrongly. Anyway I don't wish to be appear too vague and I think the best place for anyone to start is right at the beginning. So here are a few pointers that might help others and sorry if I'm repeating obvious points.
The very first example given by VDW was the winner of the 1978 Irish Champion Hurdle namely Prominent King. Here VDW put forward just the basics of one of his methods. He stated that adding the last three placings of horses in the first 5 (non hcps) or the first 6 (hcps) of the betting created a numerical evaluation that provided a shortlist of many winners. Now anyone who has this article in "The Golden Years" may or may not realise that the figures given are wrong. The three lowest totals (most consistent) do concern the horses mentioned but don't add up properly. Here is a copy of my recreated evaluation used in my own research.
18/2/78 LEOPARDSTOWN Yielding
2m Irish Champion Hurdle Class 90 16 run
Last 3 Runs Horse Weight Cons
0 1 0 P MASTER MONDAY 8-12-0 21
3 1 3L DECENT FELLOW 5-11-11 7(14)
1 1 0 MELADON 5-11-11 12
1 1 2 BEACON LIGHT 7-11-8 4*
3 3 6 MONKSFIELD 6-11-8 12
- 8 9 0 BALLYMOUNTAIN GIRL 9-11-4 27
4 1 1 BANSWARA 6-11-4 6
5 1 0 - COOCH BEHAR 6-11-4 16
3 1 2 DRUMGORA 6-11-4 6
1 5 – 0 MULTIPLE 8-11-4 16
4 – 2 2 PROMINENT KING 6-11-4 8*
1 5 7L TROYSWOOD 6-11-4 16
1 1 MR KILDARE 5-11-1 3*
1 3 F 5 SILVINE 5-11-1 9
1 1 2 BEPARAEJOJO 4-10-0 4
3 2 2 BUGLE BEADS 4-10-0 7
Actual Betting Evs B.Light, 5 D.Fellow, Mr.Kildare, 6 P.King, 10 Meladon, 11 Monksfield, 20 Bar
Fcst given by VDW B Light, D Fellow, M Kildare, P King and Monksfield
MR. KILDARE
28/1 1st 14 8 10-10 2m NAAS Sft Cond Hd 8/11f 11-0 3/1
27/12 1st 6 2.5 10-9 2m LEOP Yld Mdn Hd 2/5f 10-9 10/1
BEACON LIGHT
4/2 2nd 39 1 12-2 2m SAND Hvy CondHd 6/4f 11-12 2/1
2/1 1st 43 2 12-1 2m WIND Gd CondHd 4/5f 11-9 7/2
26/12 1st 85 2 11-10 2m KEMP Yld CondHd 5/2 11-7 6/4f
DRUMGORA (for ref)
28/1 2nd 17 1.5 10-9 2m3f NAAS Sft HcpHd 9/4f 9-7 5/2
14/1 1st 6 5 11-2 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 6/4f 12-7 9/4
27/12 3rd 116 2.5 10-1 2m LEOP Yld HcpHd 33/1 11-4 4/1f
PROMINENT KING
14/1 2nd 6 5 12-7 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 9/4 11-2 6/4f
31/12 2nd 14 4 11-4 2m4f PUNC Sft CondHd 8/1 11-4 12/1
17/2 4th 88 11 11-11 2m LEOP Hvy CondHd 10/1 12-0 20/1
DECENT FELLOW
28/1 3rdL 22 25 11-12 2m DONC Sft CondHd 9/4 11-12 13/8jf
27/12 1st 116 1.5 11-4 2m LEOP Yld HcpHd 4/1f 10-4 14/1
17/12 3rd 28 12 11-8 2m ASCO Gd CondHd 4/7f 11-8 13/2
Result
Prominent King WON 6/1
As you can see , taking the placings literally , the 3 most consistent from the first 5 in the betting forecast at the time would have been Decent Fellow (7) , Beacon Light (4 not 3 as printed) and Mr Kildare (3). Prominent King was given as 5 but this must be a printing error because his total was in fact 8. However, applying intelligent judgment and recording any Last Placings as 10, Decent Fellow became 14 as his last place 3rd was well out with the washing. That then gives the 3 most consistent as indicated above. Also note that in later articles VDW said that he would consider the 3 most consistent from the entire field and form would show those not in the betting forecast method as live contenders or not.
In his first article VDW did not mention ability ratings, but everything else he stated held many clues as to the factors you should consider. For info, of the three runners his method showed up as probables, Beacon Light had an ability rating of 47 , Prominent King 17 and Mr Kildare 10.
Before going on to later VDW articles I'll just leave the group with some other points regarding VDW’s first and probably most important evaluation.
Prominent King could also have been found with the Travado / Rivage Bleu/etc method.
Prominent King ran in the lowest class of the 3 probables last time out.
All 3 horses were going up in class.
Beacon Light was dropped in class last time for the second time and was beaten although giving 4lb to Sea Pigeon.
Note the Sps of the horses last 3 runs.
Note the Sps of the horses they beat or were beaten by (Wgt and Sp of those horses on the far right of my evaluation after each run)
And I'll just leave this last point to consider. At no point did VDW state that the consistent horses were the form horses, so why do so many think that they are?"
As you'll see, the issue of the Erin numbers had not occurred to Guest at that stage, and I am not aware that he ever set out his view on the Travado etc examples but this post suggests he had one.
