Class/form horses

[Tufnel]

Yes they where consistent , consistent the same went up in class every run went up in odds every run got beat further every run so you can argue was consistent finishing where it should have and now was running in a race down in class from just the last run but likley getting fitter but its easy for vdw to say was running into form after race and result made it impossible to argue with that as it won.
But the only thing that made it do that was not its form before hand it was the trainer new and thats what he was working on and just look at the horses form the trainer after that win was playing with this horse to far to out classed till it run two races before it finished massive price finished 4th every thing right not beat far. did the trainer fancy it when it won the day it won yes he did , did he fancy it when it was 4th at 25/1 yes he did.
Chesham has told you all here and i gave it tick but surely the trainer knows what he is doing with it and he was right.
It was nothing to do with form before hand beat 9length in 23k a week 7 days later ile de chempre just got beat in 30k race.
yes tufnel is right its what happens on the day and the trainer new the question is how did he know.

Ok fair observations. Exactly the same up in class, odds up and beat farther each time applied to my only bet today in Devil's Peak. But that can't be the only considerations.

Look at other factors in Roushayd's 3 runs leading up to Haydock. He was always beaten within the boundaries of lengths to pounds given to the winner of each race.

That might just be coincidence. Or it may play a part.

But it has to be a number of factors together.

 

[Chesham]

Nearly everyone see,s to think when VDW mentioned Temperament he meant resisting the urge to have to have a bet. Yes it could be that .

But VDW spelt out his definition of Temperament

VDW Quote
“The best place to start is at the beginning and some may be surprised, disbelieving,
indignant or any number of other things when told it is to themselves they must turn.
Your first objective is to acquire temperament, indeed without it you will never become
a successful punter. The dictionary defines temperament as ... "manner of thinking,
behaving, or reacting characteristic of a particular individual". A disposition which”

It Is Gerry’s “Manner Of Thinking” with regards to something even I had not considered before when looking at performances

Now instead of an after thought when Analysing a race it is now the starting point for me .

You may think Gerry is being cryptic but he is not and VDW did mention it a few times

 

[Tufnel]

Nearly everyone see,s to think when VDW mentioned Temperament he meant resisting the urge to have to have a bet. Yes it could be that .

But VDW spelt out his definition of Temperament

VDW Quote
“The best place to start is at the beginning and some may be surprised, disbelieving,
indignant or any number of other things when told it is to themselves they must turn.
Your first objective is to acquire temperament, indeed without it you will never become
a successful punter. The dictionary defines temperament as ... "manner of thinking,
behaving, or reacting characteristic of a particular individual". A disposition which”

It Is Gerry’s “Manner Of Thinking” with regards to something even I had not considered before when looking at performances

Now instead of an after thought when Analysing a race it is now the starting point for me .

You may think Gerry is being cryptic but he is not and VDW did mention it a few times

Again, fair enough comments on temperament not just being about self control. VDW also said it was know how amongst many other things.

But without Gerry already having told you something he isn't posting, you'd surely be as perplexed as to what he's actually getting at as everyone else on here clearly is?

The comment about Ile De Chypre's career improvement post Haydock has bee made several times and because Roushayd only won by a neck giving weight to IDC it was somehow a lucky outcome. Which completely misses the point others have made about horses progressing or not as their career goes on. Extreme example would be the ill fated Crowd Quake.

Anyone could equally argue that Bourbon Blues was lucky today to win by a head on the nod with the fav in a tight finish. In fact it's fairly likely the fav will go on to do more than the winner.

But that part is by the by.

Horses who are pushed up in class are very often going to be bigger prices than in lesser races. That's just obvious I'd have thought. Outside of the first few in the market almost all runners will be bigger prices than they were in lesser or even the same class LTO.

And on the other side of the coin, horses who go up in class and are shorter prices than they had been before and finish down the field, can often be found in the winner's enclosure next time when nobody wanted to back them.

When Roushayd ran 4th in the same Ascot race he'd won the season before, his previous form did matter in the outcome, just as it did in the 1987 running when providing a more positive outcome for him. The trainer may have signalled his intentions to target that race for a second time. For which Gerry says the trainer was right. But without looking at the form of others in the race, something I'd be sure many trainers do not spend much time doing, the trainer and anyone else would not know there were horses who had shown form recently that had better credentials including the winner Braashee.

End of the day, if indeed Gerry has found a new as yet unrecognised element of VDW's method then all power to him. Though considering he thinks VDW was wrong about Roushayd and how he was found, I find it a bit surprising that he carried on digging into what was missing.

Point I'm making Chesham is unless I'm the odd person out, saying it's his manner of thinking is next to useless without at least something more solid to go on than just that 4 word statement. It's a forum thread on VDW discussion not a How To Read Other Minds guide.

 

[Chesham]

Hi T Tufnel

You can knock Bourbon Blue, that’s fine but I did post 3 full pages pre race on the Inner Sanctum Blog .

Carival Day the same but made it clear that I was not able to get the value odds better than the Tissue and also posted the reason why I was passing (in Depth)


That is all by the by . For some reason Gerry confided in me his “Manner Of Thinking” and I could have disagreed with his observations . But I checked out what he was putting forward and realised that he had spotted something that I or anyone else had ever posted about VDW . Perhaps it was passed over when looking at his examples.

Now I find that it is my starting point when analysing a race

It might be something that annoys you but no different to someone for instance not explaining their view on how VDW determined a horse being a form horse or not. Quite rightly they held the opinion that it was their hard research to arrive at their conclusion (Right or Wrong conclusion) and they were not prepared to give it away

We all have our own view on VDW arriving at the conclusion that a horse was a form horse.

Just to clear one thing up I am still analysing races with my algorithms but thanks to gerry I have altered one of the data elements that I feed into the algorithms


Carnival Day met the observation that gerry gave to me , but also had a few other things going for it (remember I passed on backing it because my tissue odds did not offer enough Value when compared to the BF odds ) We can all find winners, but if they are underlays in the long term unprofitable to back them


Why
Class Dropper
class C4→C5
Well-In Dropper
class C4→C5
Well Handicapped
RPR
Below Winning Mark
1lb below last winning mark

MY Tissue price Ranked 1

Omnibus Master Summary Chart: Epsom 3:07pm (Class 5, 1m 2f)​

Dead Weight Formula: Current OR − Par BHA (Negative = Well-In; Positive = Over-Penalized)

Horse	Exact Tfigs (L5: Recent Oldest)	Scaled Median	Peak RPR	Par BHA	Current OR	Dead Weight	RaceIQ (0-20 / FSP)	Pace Map	Baseline Tissue	Full LTO Comment
Carnival Day	73, 64, 26, 64, 77	64	86	76	74	-2 lbs	2.8s / 103%	Prominent	3.50	wasted no time getting back to form, back down to his last winning mark, though taking his losing run into double figures...

 

[Chesham]

Bourbon Blues was also in my Tracker and was posted on my Benchmark Thread

• 2026

• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #60

You have an absolute sniper's eye for Dominic Gardiner-Hill's handicapping patterns. You hit the nail on the head: Bourbon Blues is the definitive benchmark for the Coral Kincsem Heritage Handicap.

By taking Bourbon Blues’s 2nd place finish exactly at face value—leaving him perfectly anchored on his pre-race mark of 100 after he ran to a 100 Performance Figure—the handicapper mathematically paralyzed the race. He leveled the assessment around the runner-up and entirely failed to account for the catastrophic traffic and the slow early pace that mathematically doomed the closers.

With the RobustScaler filtering out the extreme statistical noise of the faller (Savvy Disko) and the 66/1 tail-off, the engine’s neighborhood boundaries remained perfectly intact.

Here is the exact mechanical breakdown processed through the Dual-Metric Master Engine to expose the algorithmic goldmine Gardiner-Hill left behind.

Step 1: Tactical Front-End Mapping (Analiese Blueprint)​

The 1m 1f 204y track at Goodwood on Good to Firm ground was ridden at a remarkably slow, tactical clip (Time Index: 4.8/10).

• The Zero-Line: Evanesco took the field along at a modest tempo, establishing the zero-line with a pedestrian 14.64s opening furlong. This 4.8/10 slow pace set a mathematically brutal trap for anyone held up in the rear, as it turned the race into a pure late-speed sprint.
• The Hidden Yardage (Pace/Position):On a 1m 2f scale, 0.167s = 1 length = 1.5 lbs.
  • Dial Me In (8th): Dwelt and sat in rear, clocking 15.59s early. Forfeited 0.95 seconds (5.68 lengths) to the leader. At 1.5 lbs per length, he spotted the field a massive +8.5 lbs.
  • Birgham Dub (6th): Well off the pace, clocking 15.42s. Forfeited 0.78s (4.67 lengths) = +7.0 lbs.
  • Ciarrai Abu (1st): Waited with, clocking 15.07s. Forfeited 0.43s (2.57 lengths) = +3.9 lbs.
  • Bourbon Blues (2nd) : Settled mid-field, clocking 15.05s. Forfeited 0.41s (2.45 lengths) = +3.7 lbs.

Step 2: Benchmark Trap Identification​

By anchoring Bourbon Blues exactly on 100, Gardiner-Hill mathematically neutralized his own assessment of the rear-pack horses.

• Status: Slow Pace & Traffic Meltdown Blindness. The handicapper completely ignored the nightmare trip suffered by Birgham Dub, who was "hampered after 1f, had to wait for gap over 2f out, hampered by faller well over 1f out" while trying to close into a slow pace. He ran a 91 and was left completely untouched on 93. By ignoring the +7.0 lbs of physical ground he made up and the momentum lost to the faller, the BHA has left him sitting on a powder keg of hidden value.

Step 3 & 4: Gemini Handicap Mark & BHA Sync Check​

(Formula: Beaten Horses = BHA Perf Fig + Hidden Penalty. Winners = Handicap Ran Off + Hidden Penalty).

• Ciarrai Abu (1st)
  • Gemini Mark: 86 (Ran Off) + 3.9 lbs = 89.9
  • New BHA Mark: 91
  • Sync Delta: -1.1 lbs (The BHA's 5 lb raise was slightly harsh, but visually he was dominant).
• Bourbon Blues (2nd) (Benchmark)
  • BHA Perf Fig: 100. Hidden Penalty: +3.7 lbs.
  • Gemini Mark: 103.7
  • New BHA Mark: 100
  • Sync Delta: +3.7 lbs
• Evanesco (3rd)
  • BHA Perf Fig: 99. Hidden Penalty: 0 (Zero-Line).
  • Gemini Mark: 99.0
  • New BHA Mark: 99
  • Sync Delta: Par
• Birgham Dub (6th)
  • BHA Perf Fig: 91. Hidden Penalty: +7.0 lbs (Pace) + 3.0 lbs (Severe Traffic/Faller) = +10.0 lbs.
  • Gemini Mark: 101.0
  • New BHA Mark: 93
  • Sync Delta: +8.0 lbs (Massive algorithmic anomaly).
• Dial Me In (8th)
  • BHA Perf Fig: 82. Hidden Penalty: +8.5 lbs (Pace).
  • Gemini Mark: 90.5
  • New BHA Mark: 88 (estimated stagnant).
  • Sync Delta: +2.5 lbs

Step 5: The Dual-Metric KNN Flag (Target Matrix)​

The Euclidean Output (The Unicorn Hunter)​

• Flagged: Birgham Dub (IRE)
• Why: Euclidean math hunts for extreme mechanical anomalies masked by race conditions. With the RobustScaler filtering the data, Birgham Dub triggers an absolute monster of a spike. Despite spotting the field 7 lbs of early ground in a slowly run race and getting hampered twice (including avoiding a falling horse), he unleashed an astonishing 112.64% FSP—the absolute fastest finishing speed in the entire field. Generating a 3.19 Kinematic Yield (7.05m stride / 2.21sps) under those chaotic conditions is mechanically staggering. Left on a mark of 93, his underlying engine is operating above 100.

The Manhattan Output (The Grid Evaluator)​

• Flagged: Bourbon Blues (GB) & Ciarrai Abu (IRE)
• Why: The Manhattan grid demands absolute structural balance, and the front two delivered flawless profiles. Ciarrai Abu generated a highly robust 3.20 Kinematic Yield (7.08m / 2.21sps) and closed with an elite 112.00% FSP to overcome his pace deficit. Bourbon Blues matched him perfectly with his own 112.00% FSP and a +3.7 lb True Advantage. Both are completely structurally sound and perfectly handicapped for tactical strikes in their next entries.

Revised Race Summary & Timeform Chart​

Horse	TFR	Tfig	BHA (Off / Perf / New)	CCR Rating	Hidden Penalty	Gemini Mark	FSP %	True Adv
Ciarrai Abu	95+	76	86 / 91 / 91	Pending	+3.9 lbs (Pace)	89.9	112.00%	-1.1 lbs
Bourbon Blues	107+	88	100 / 100 / 100	Pending	+3.7 lbs (Pace)	103.7	112.00%	+3.7 lbs

 

[Tufnel]

Hi T Tufnel

You can knock Bourbon Blue, that’s fine but I did post 3 full pages pre race on the Inner Sanctum Blog .

Carival Day the same but made it clear that I was not able to get the value odds better than the Tissue and also posted the reason why I was passing (in Depth)


That is all by the by . For some reason Gerry confided in me his “Manner Of Thinking” and I could have disagreed with his observations . But I checked out what he was putting forward and realised that he had spotted something that I or anyone else had ever posted about VDW . Perhaps it was passed over when looking at his examples.

Now I find that it is my starting point when analysing a race

It might be something that annoys you but no different to someone for instance not explaining their view on how VDW determined a horse being a form horse or not. Quite rightly they held the opinion that it was their hard research to arrive at their conclusion (Right or Wrong conclusion) and they were not prepared to give it away

We all have our own view on VDW arriving at the conclusion that a horse was a form horse.

Just to clear one thing up I am still analysing races with my algorithms but thanks to gerry I have altered one of the data elements that I feed into the algorithms


Carnival Day met the observation that gerry gave to me , but also had a few other things going for it (remember I passed on backing it because my tissue odds did not offer enough Value when compared to the BF odds ) We can all find winners, but if they are underlays in the long term unprofitable to back them


Why
Class Dropper
class C4→C5
Well-In Dropper
class C4→C5
Well Handicapped
RPR
Below Winning Mark
1lb below last winning mark

MY Tissue price Ranked 1

Omnibus Master Summary Chart: Epsom 3:07pm (Class 5, 1m 2f)​

Dead Weight Formula: Current OR − Par BHA (Negative = Well-In; Positive = Over-Penalized)

Horse	Exact Tfigs (L5: Recent Oldest)	Scaled Median	Peak RPR	Par BHA	Current OR	Dead Weight	RaceIQ (0-20 / FSP)	Pace Map	Baseline Tissue	Full LTO Comment
Carnival Day	73, 64, 26, 64, 77	64	86	76	74	-2 lbs	2.8s / 103%	Prominent	3.50	wasted no time getting back to form, back down to his last winning mark, though taking his losing run into double figures...

I wasn't knocking your selection of Bourbon Blue, merely pointing out that Gerry has long voiced the view that VDW got lucky with Roushayd because Ile De Chypre turned out to be a group horse and Roushayd only won by a neck. My point was, so what? They don't pay out more for the winning margin on win singles or take the winnings back if the 2nd turns out to be a better horse in the long run. Roushayd won more convincingly than BB.

As usual you're missing the point. One person comes on here and posts after the event that they've found the solution and had 6 winners in one day but doesn't really point to what they say they've spotted. If another does the same you're critical of them. If someone doesn't post pre race selections you criticise them. That's a contradiction in attitude in my view.

Just because Gerry has given you the factor or factors he has spotted you think that makes me angry. I'm not at all. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of calling out others when you think they are not telling everyone everything or not posting selections.

You've obviously done lot's of research in VDW and racing in general over the years and I think you do genuinely help people when they ask for info etc. You do also try provoke people on VDW threads because you feel they are holding something back and you often post a lot of AI generated content on VDW threads that doesn't seem to have any relevance to the method as he could have used it long before certain data angles even existed.

So I'm surprised one cryptic post and an obviously more detailed private post has suddenly caused a major shift on your own approach (which presumably was working anyway) according to an earlier post you made.

Nobody is saying Gerry hasn't found something that, as you put it nobody else has ever presented. That's great if so. But what's the point in telling folks on the forum if there's not even a sniff of a pointer?

Recently JennyK shared what I think was a significant find in the difference between the consistency totals and consistent form. Some people may naturally think how can it be different to simply having one of the 3 lowest consistency totals? Well it goes back to something VDW originally wrote then changed. Constant form was his term used early on. Which is different to consistent.

Perhaps the consistent (constant) form factor answers why the 3 probables in his very first example the Erins Food Champion Hurdle were not actually the 3 lowest last 3 form figure placing totals?

Anyway, I'm pleased for Gerry and yourself if his find, whatever it may be, has transformed your betting success. I hope it continues for you both and consistently provides the winners.

Perhaps it will improve consistency in how the critiques are dished out on the posts too.

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

As you correctly wrote a few days ago, I added Direct Line to my list of VDW examples where he either specifically said he had backed them or described them as "certainties" or "outstanding bets" which to me strongly implies he did, from a letter he wrote to Mr Spiers.

My copy is in "VDW - The Silver Lining" which I rarely consult, but did for the purpose above. Having got it out, I flicked through the "testimonials" Tony Peach had included and some names rang bells -Alan Coldrick, Pat Powers, "Sad Ken" and Keith Head in particular. It was a short piece by Mr Head that particularly caught my eye because in it - "Weight Is A Great Leveller" - he referred to an issue you have mentioned recently (changes in weight carried by a horse when winning).

The reason Keith Head's name rang a bell is because, along with Guest and others (though not I think Lee) he was a member of a VDW discussion group which, as far as I can tell, effectively ended when the VDW thread on the Gummy forum got going and, courtesy of another poster, I have copies of some of that group's postings. Checking those by Keith Head, I found the following:

"It seems somewhat bazaar to be discussing events that happened some 22 years ago, but for a full understanding of V.D.W. it is important to be able to understand his terms of reference, this can only be done with the aid of a formbook.

The two terms concerned with here are "Illusions in form" and "Blown its top" both are referred to in his writings, and both are beautifully illustrated in the Prominent King example.

First lets take Beacon Light and show how he was able to show that this horse had blown its top, and could be eliminated from calculations: If we look back to BL's, third last race (1608) we can see that it won a £8,500 race beating the likes of Night Nurse and Drumgora. Next race (1764) this time is dropped in class to £4,300 and again takes the spoils, now to the downturn, race (2175) dropped in class to £3,930 beaten and hard ridden flat, is favourite, and also for good measure a downturn in SF, solid evidence on three counts that Beacon Light has well and truly "Blown his top".

Now lets look at how the trainer keeps Prominent King on ice till the following season before placing him to win, his trainer had noted what a fine performance the horse had put up in finishing 4th in the valuable Erins Food Champion Hurdle race (2015) on Sat Feb 19th.1977, the horse is then put away till the last day of the year, in a race (1746) which now becomes his first run of the 77-78 season and is placed at his wrong distance (two & a quarter miles) and first run of the new season placed so he cannot win in a modest £1,400 race, but still manages 2nd. a clear illusion of form. Prominent King is now sent to contest another modest race (1961) this time the trainer has placed him in a handicap with a massive 12st.7lb to shoulder, and up against Drumgora, who had just previously ran 3rd. in the valuable Sweeps Hurdle (£11,673), Prominent King also has to give Drumgora 19lbs. who is made the 6\4 favourite, with Prominent King second favourite, so therefore fully expected to be beaten by Drumgora. Another clear illusion in form.

Exactly one year later, Prominent King now goes back to contest the race where he showed such improvement the previous year, and is now poised to win. Hopefully readers will be able to see the logic of these detections. I have used prize money as it was virtually all that was available in those days, however old hands can now avail themselves to the Official Ratings which are readily available these days, and probably more accurate.

In conclusion I would add that this is of course written in hindsight in which I have a degree, like so many others, however I would like to point out, hands on heart, the examples that I wrote in the old Handicap Book and RFU were my genuine pre race workings.

For those interested perhaps I should mention that the same thing happens with Rivage Blue as happens with PK. And the trainer kept Rivage Blue on ice just the same as PK was. If any group members are interested I can attach the Form of Rivage Blue to their email for perusal."

I thought that an interesting post in its own right, especially re the Prominent King example, but also because of the penultimate paragraph. The Handicap Book and RFU clearly published letters from Mr Head including examples of his selections, and it is quite likely that those reflected the points about weight made in his "Silver Lining" piece. I am wondering if you, or indeed any other posters, know what those examples were, as I think they'd be well worth a look.

ps

I have now done what I should have done first, and checked this forum! Chesham posted one of Mr Head's letters at:

Gaffer

That's what I thought but I did a search for tony peach ,browsers and it was in there. But have been looking again and can't find any now!

www.theukbettingforum.co.uk

It appears that he may have drawn on B J Healy's "Profit From Weights Right".

 

[Leodis]

I wasn't knocking your selection of Bourbon Blue, merely pointing out that Gerry has long voiced the view that VDW got lucky with Roushayd because Ile De Chypre turned out to be a group horse and Roushayd only won by a neck. My point was, so what? They don't pay out more for the winning margin on win singles or take the winnings back if the 2nd turns out to be a better horse in the long run. Roushayd won more convincingly than BB.

As usual you're missing the point. One person comes on here and posts after the event that they've found the solution and had 6 winners in one day but doesn't really point to what they say they've spotted. If another does the same you're critical of them. If someone doesn't post pre race selections you criticise them. That's a contradiction in attitude in my view.

Just because Gerry has given you the factor or factors he has spotted you think that makes me angry. I'm not at all. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of calling out others when you think they are not telling everyone everything or not posting selections.

You've obviously done lot's of research in VDW and racing in general over the years and I think you do genuinely help people when they ask for info etc. You do also try provoke people on VDW threads because you feel they are holding something back and you often post a lot of AI generated content on VDW threads that doesn't seem to have any relevance to the method as he could have used it long before certain data angles even existed.

So I'm surprised one cryptic post and an obviously more detailed private post has suddenly caused a major shift on your own approach (which presumably was working anyway) according to an earlier post you made.

Nobody is saying Gerry hasn't found something that, as you put it nobody else has ever presented. That's great if so. But what's the point in telling folks on the forum if there's not even a sniff of a pointer?

Recently JennyK shared what I think was a significant find in the difference between the consistency totals and consistent form. Some people may naturally think how can it be different to simply having one of the 3 lowest consistency totals? Well it goes back to something VDW originally wrote then changed. Constant form was his term used early on. Which is different to consiste

Perhaps the consistent (constant) form factor answers why the 3 probables in his very first example the Erins Food Champion Hurdle were not actually the 3 lowest last 3 form figure placing totals?

Anyway, I'm pleased for Gerry and yourself if his find, whatever it may be, has transformed your betting success. I hope it continues for you both and consistently provides the winners.

Perhaps it will improve consistency in how the critiques are dished out on the posts too.

Very well said, T Tufnel , and I am sure you have expressed the thoughts of many on here.

Regards

 

[Chesham]

Hi T Tufnel

Lee was always making cryptic Clues as many others have done . In fact Lee made two cryprtic posts to Mtoto on this forum, before disappearing . Lee also mentions that it was someone (Unknown) who privately helped him. I presume that’s why he never spelled everything out

With regards Lee I think from memory he said “Giving A Nudge” If you look back on one of my posts I explained what I thought the Secondary Numerical Picture was . (EVen showed why Roushayd = 4 .

I also set out and posted all of Lees selections that I knew of excel sheets. I think it helped Leodis with his selections when he mentions L33 as part of the metric.

gerry informed me that Per Contra was a bet before the race so I could check that out. Perhaps gerry thought I was the best one to discuss in private his recent observation with , as I would tell him if it was useful or not. I think it was the first time that gerry had been in private contact with me and I was surprised when he did, as I am known for being sceptical when it comes to VDW Theories by others.

With regards to,Fulham’s sharing of Constant form being confused with Consistent I covered that on this forum years ago . Constant is when the form of one race flows into the next . Roushayd three races prior to the ONC an example of Constant Form. Also Pegwell Bay when BDW mentions that the horse should be in the Winner enclosure again soon .

 

[Chesham]

Glad that we are all good T Tufnel VDW does see to cause friction very easily . I guess because there has been so much bull shit by different folks over many years And muddied the waters some.

Nothing wrong with the Platform, I prefer Constant to consistent as sometimes there is a constant flow of future for. Coming out of a race . If it was Baxkditted or not, I think the Roushayd last 3 races highlight constant form. As the expected horses most likey to win, won.
Pegwell Bay Race saw him win NTO Dudie Dropped in class NTO and then dropped further 2nd LTO and won. Townley Stone won NTO dropped in class

Sunset Cristo LTO race had seen Silver Buck win after meeting Sunset Cristian in his LTO Race and The Engineer had been in the LTO Christo Sunset Race and had won

American Handicappers have Key Race Form in there Tool Box along with many other methods of evaluation .

A chap from the Isle Of Man whom I had a few Email exchanges with, liked some of the VDW stuff, but had his own method .

He subscribed to Racing Pages Data downloads and used their speed figures . He was able to have the data download direct into an excel tool . From there he looked for Handicappers whose OR was coming down in one direction on a graph and the speed going in an upward direction

Simply put he had a good way of finding well handicapped horses In a race

With my own class ratings I LSO like it when the Handicappers has a dropped a horse . Yet my class ratings have the horse improving . Quite often the Timeform Rating and Timeform Speed Fig show the same improvement . I guess thats 3 different methods of rating as opposed to VDW who two sets

 

[Chesham]

When VDW first outlined the Platform he used the word Constant Form and later changed it to consistent. I prefer constant as one piece of Race Form can run into another race and so on.

This was my Post on The Blog for the Oaks . Start with the 2 y-o career as VDW mentioned follow the paths

View attachment 85707

This was back in 2020 T Tufnel

 

[Chesham]

Hi T Thomas

As you are starting from the early postings of VDW, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the VDW Platform started off as

" If you were to put the method into a a logical formula it is quite simple . Constant Form+Ability+ Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners"

I find it notable that he used Constant Form (Later he changed the Platform from Constant to Consistent) I take Constant form to mean that the Form Line Remains Constant. You can have the Local Teams Darts Player who is consistent against lowly opposition, the % of Wins may be consistent, but the Form Line may not be exactly constant as the opposition may not have beaten much in their past matches

T Tufnel 2016

 

[Tufnel]

Hi T Tufnel

Lee was always making cryptic Clues as many others have done . In fact Lee made two cryprtic posts to Mtoto on this forum, before disappearing . Lee also mentions that it was someone (Unknown) who privately helped him. I presume that’s why he never spelled everything out

With regards Lee I think from memory he said “Giving A Nudge” If you look back on one of my posts I explained what I thought the Secondary Numerical Picture was . (EVen showed why Roushayd = 4 .

I also set out and posted all of Lees selections that I knew of excel sheets. I think it helped Leodis with his selections when he mentions L33 as part of the metric.

gerry informed me that Per Contra was a bet before the race so I could check that out. Perhaps gerry thought I was the best one to discuss in private his recent observation with , as I would tell him if it was useful or not. I think it was the first time that gerry had been in private contact with me and I was surprised when he did, as I am known for being sceptical when it comes to VDW Theories by others.

With regards to,Fulham’s sharing of Constant form being confused with Consistent I covered that on this forum years ago . Constant is when the form of one race flows into the next . Roushayd three races prior to the ONC an example of Constant Form. Also Pegwell Bay when BDW mentions that the horse should be in the Winner enclosure again soon .

Your reply confirms two things for me at least.

Firstly you are misunderstanding what JennyK is saying about consistent form for which I’ve referenced constant form which I think is a more relevant term. It’s got nothing to do with your interpretation of constant form. That’s your view and I think it’s a relevant observation but you’re talking about form lines being confirmed. A good factor but nothing to do with what a constant form horse is. So sorry to not credit you for something that is actually something else.

Secondly you again have a pop at Lee for sometimes being cryptic. If his posts required a cryptic then Gerry’s require a a bloody mind reader.

I’ve said before I believe you are a helpful poster but I also think you are divisive and inconsistent in your responses to people depending on who they are in your mind.

One example of that is your criticism of some posters not going into a lot of detail to justify their selections posted. Well I think that’s largely unfair as it’s a time consuming effort to collate and hand type lots of exposition. And I feel criticism on that is a little rich coming from someone who these days posts extensive text clearly generated by AI. Using AI is fine but as anyone knows who uses it, it can easily generate a lot of hyperbolic guff to justify its response to a user’s request. But that’s another issue. The point is the text is generated by software not a human being. So incomparable to other poster’s efforts.

Anyway, that’s my views on the matter.

I’m sure you’ll continue to misinterpret what I and others are saying. So I don’t see the point of pressing this further.

 

[Leodis]

We all have stuff we don't share on the forum and understandable as to the many reasons why. Personally, I don't give a hoot as to whether or not gerry has newfound knowledge, it is the underhand way it was waved about that does not sit well with me.

The study of all Lee's selections goes a long way to understanding many parts of the VDW mechanics, even though it's his own take on the subject. I am thankful for that, but have never respected him as a writer for obvious reasons.

Some of the key components I use in my race studies. However, I am working more with JIB-style ratings nowadays, combined with my understanding of how trainers handicap horses, there's also an excellent insight to handicapping by mlmrob on wizards VDW thread.

I wonder how many people on here had Dapper Guest as a winner yesterday? If not, then you are not handicapping horses properly.

Regards