VDW Van Der Speil
- Thread starter Bobajobber
- Start date
Pitmatic
Colt
Hi
ArkRoyal ,
The race that Giolla Padraig fell in was a Class 47 2m4f chase at Cheltenham on 19th October 1988.
Giolla Padraig's previous races (prior to the one above) were a class 31 2m4f chase at Cheltenham on October 5th 1988; and a class 20 2m4f chase at Sedgefield on 20th September 1988 (both of which tally up with the figures provided).
So the class 47 outlined in VDW's race lay out is the one that Giolla Padraig fell in.
ArkRoyal ,The race that Giolla Padraig fell in was a Class 47 2m4f chase at Cheltenham on 19th October 1988.
Giolla Padraig's previous races (prior to the one above) were a class 31 2m4f chase at Cheltenham on October 5th 1988; and a class 20 2m4f chase at Sedgefield on 20th September 1988 (both of which tally up with the figures provided).
So the class 47 outlined in VDW's race lay out is the one that Giolla Padraig fell in.
Pitmatic
Colt
For anyone who might be interested, here is the Sporting Life card; form; and ratings for the 1988 Mackeson Gold Cup- and also the Daily Mail card for the race.
Some of the Sporting Life form is hard to read, but this is how it is in the archive.
Some of the Sporting Life form is hard to read, but this is how it is in the archive.
Attachments
ArkRoyal
Administrator
Many Thanks for taking the time to look up the info
PitmaticI thought that would probably be the answer but its nice to have it confirmed
As far as I am aware they are no VDW examples where a P, F, U etc are NOT ignored even though he implies that the context of the P,F,U should be first checked before doing so. I cannot believe that there was not one occasion when a horse fell or was PU half way round whilst never in contention and therefore that performance should not be ignored and score a 10 as CR
mtoto
Gelding
First I hope having a say here isn't going to upset anyone. However as the Pegwell Bay example is being looked at I would like to ask a few questions. I say this because it is one of the examples I used to come to the conclusions I have and as they seem to bring me into dispute with some I will ask them again in the hope that this time I get some answers I can work with.
It is often quoted VDW said read and understand what he has said/shown us
I read the Pegwell Bay example and it says to me there is more than the suggested method of finding consistent horses. I say this because in the example he clearly says From the first three most consistent rating the first numerical picture and when he shows these horse he has clearly missed out Warner for Leisure who has a CR of 6, why? On asking this question before I was told it was because WFL wasn't in the forecast, but no real answer when I pointed out neither was Bishops Yarn My understanding say/suggest it is because the probables idea has kicked in. Probables = second picture as I can't see the point of having a first picture and then using something completely different as a second. To me a second picture is used to go into/ highlight the first one if you are using something different for a second one why bother with the first? WFL fails in that formula but it has nothing to do with form etc it is based purely on very basic stats, The wording suggest that Giolla Padraig with his CR of 4 has been eliminated because of the AR not conforming and being high enough, What other logic reason can people come up with for not including Warner for Leisure when he clearly says the first numerical picture and has said/shown how to arrive at it using only form figures and the forecast.
I have no problem with Pegwell Bay being the selection but fail to see how he arrives at at CR's of 7 being in the short list. Looking at the my final short list I would also have cut WFL out of the equation based on his last couple of runs on stiff courses on firm going in the class. What I do find a little confusing is why use the value of the last race to judge his class if he could see he was out classed in it, but it does show individual performances were looked at in isolation and I think those were the races used when a performance was good/strong.
This example also showed me VDW only used the actual form figure shown and not demoting horses form figures because of a supposedly bad run. If he did it was after the figures had been formulated and he was reading form. I have seen Decent Fellow cut to a 10 because he finished last but he still had Pegwell bay with a 2 after finishing 20 lengths last of two runners.
Be Lucky
Have to say I read these threads with great interest always in the hope someone will go in some detail explaining their take on the problem. I get very disappointed when all they do is post passages from the literature, the very same passages we have read many many times and the only explanation given is we has misunderstood that is being shown.
Be Lucky
It is often quoted VDW said read and understand what he has said/shown us
I read the Pegwell Bay example and it says to me there is more than the suggested method of finding consistent horses. I say this because in the example he clearly says From the first three most consistent rating the first numerical picture and when he shows these horse he has clearly missed out Warner for Leisure who has a CR of 6, why? On asking this question before I was told it was because WFL wasn't in the forecast, but no real answer when I pointed out neither was Bishops Yarn My understanding say/suggest it is because the probables idea has kicked in. Probables = second picture as I can't see the point of having a first picture and then using something completely different as a second. To me a second picture is used to go into/ highlight the first one if you are using something different for a second one why bother with the first? WFL fails in that formula but it has nothing to do with form etc it is based purely on very basic stats, The wording suggest that Giolla Padraig with his CR of 4 has been eliminated because of the AR not conforming and being high enough, What other logic reason can people come up with for not including Warner for Leisure when he clearly says the first numerical picture and has said/shown how to arrive at it using only form figures and the forecast.
I have no problem with Pegwell Bay being the selection but fail to see how he arrives at at CR's of 7 being in the short list. Looking at the my final short list I would also have cut WFL out of the equation based on his last couple of runs on stiff courses on firm going in the class. What I do find a little confusing is why use the value of the last race to judge his class if he could see he was out classed in it, but it does show individual performances were looked at in isolation and I think those were the races used when a performance was good/strong.
This example also showed me VDW only used the actual form figure shown and not demoting horses form figures because of a supposedly bad run. If he did it was after the figures had been formulated and he was reading form. I have seen Decent Fellow cut to a 10 because he finished last but he still had Pegwell bay with a 2 after finishing 20 lengths last of two runners.
Be Lucky
Have to say I read these threads with great interest always in the hope someone will go in some detail explaining their take on the problem. I get very disappointed when all they do is post passages from the literature, the very same passages we have read many many times and the only explanation given is we has misunderstood that is being shown.
Be Lucky
Chesham
Sire
Many Thanks for taking the time to look up the info
I thought that would probably be the answer but its nice to have it confirmed
As far as I am aware they are no VDW examples where a P, F, U etc are NOT ignored even though he implies that the context of the P,F,U should be first checked before doing so. I cannot believe that there was not one occasion when a horse fell or was PU half way round whilst never in contention and therefore that performance should not be ignored and score a 10 as CR
Hi Ark
He set out Dec 29th Newbury Race and had Ulther Pendragon as having a consistency Rating of 7 (Won 11/2)
The Form Figs for UP were P4P12-F
ArkRoyal
Administrator
I don't see why not, remember the F,U,P could occur anytime in the last 3 runs.
Chesham
Sire
Hi
mtoto
I took it that WFL was not in the Ability Ratings Ranking (VDW Stated when weighing up the Form/Class WFA Not much Ability) and used the Consistency Figures for those who were in the Ability Rankings
He Then Brings WFL back into the Mix when looking at the LTO Race Class as it was a 147 Class
Personally I think the Three different methods i.e. Consistency - Ability- LTO Race Class was just to demonstrate that PB was the only Horse to appear in all three lists
Then he goes onto looking at the Form similar to the way that
mlmrob does when analysing a Race
Roushayd would not have appeared in the List for the 3 best Consistency Ratings
But if the Top 4 Ability is applied
Roushayd 231 (Form Fig 346)
Vouchsafe 59 ( 571)
Clifton Chapel 94 (1,1,12)
I think it is like VDW seems to ignore Fell when totalling up consistency ratings which indicates to me that some discretion in needed when weighing up the entire picture(s)
Like all things VDW there will always be different interpretations (Guesses ) None of us will ever know for sure
mtotoI took it that WFL was not in the Ability Ratings Ranking (VDW Stated when weighing up the Form/Class WFA Not much Ability) and used the Consistency Figures for those who were in the Ability Rankings
He Then Brings WFL back into the Mix when looking at the LTO Race Class as it was a 147 Class
Personally I think the Three different methods i.e. Consistency - Ability- LTO Race Class was just to demonstrate that PB was the only Horse to appear in all three lists
Then he goes onto looking at the Form similar to the way that
mlmrob does when analysing a RaceRoushayd would not have appeared in the List for the 3 best Consistency Ratings
But if the Top 4 Ability is applied
Roushayd 231 (Form Fig 346)
Vouchsafe 59 ( 571)
Clifton Chapel 94 (1,1,12)
I think it is like VDW seems to ignore Fell when totalling up consistency ratings which indicates to me that some discretion in needed when weighing up the entire picture(s)
Like all things VDW there will always be different interpretations (Guesses ) None of us will ever know for sure
Last edited:
ArkRoyal
Administrator
Yes he ALWAYS ignored any non-finishes as far as I an aware.
dicko14
Dam
mtotoAs the least learned amongst the other members posting on here I tend to think VDW sometimes gets lost in his own methodology. I think he sets out to teach his method to the uninitiated but somehow drops into auto pilot and moves through the gears without realising it. His teachings are most probably correct in essence but get lost in translation. The individual can work with whatever method they want as long as it is within the confines of his teachings. As you are doing with more than some success. Others are more tradionalists and want to follow an exact path with no deviation. Both are right if the results confirm it. As per the Welsh National a couple of years ago when a few of us tried to fathom the race before the event.
Last edited:
Celticshadow
Yearling
Hi All
If one looks at Mafia Kings form line in the booklet for the example in question one can see that the text completly leaves out the fall at Nottingham 11/12/78 (ceased being a dual course in 96), from which I concluded at the time that some of the text at least, had misprints and/or errors.
Kind Regards
Paul
If one looks at Mafia Kings form line in the booklet for the example in question one can see that the text completly leaves out the fall at Nottingham 11/12/78 (ceased being a dual course in 96), from which I concluded at the time that some of the text at least, had misprints and/or errors.
Kind Regards
Paul
mtoto
Gelding
Is not possible that two pictures taken from different perspectives give more information against when the second picture only looks at things in the first picture?
ArkRoyal I have no serious problem with that logic, but would just say if there a lesson to be learnt from putting a picture under more scrutiny by studying it in more detail it makes sense to use a second perspective. I have read the whole thing as the second picture is needed to get a true meaning of what the first one shows us. If this second picture is something completely different what does anyone think it can be? What else needs a numerical picture that hasn't already been allocated some figures and can benefit from a different perspective? The only thing I can come up with is form as I can't see how an individual perform is measured using the only other thing that hints at form in the formula, ability.
I took it that WFL was not in the Ability Ratings Ranking (VDW Stated when weighing up the Form/Class WFA Not much Ability) and used the Consistency Figures for those who were in the Ability Rankings,
Chesham
I could go along with that but for me the problem has been folk continually saying VDW didn't say anything just for the sake of it and here he clearly says .......From the three most consistent ratings (first numerical picture), the three highest ability ratings are: If he wanted something different why word it like he did? I look at the example and even if WFL did register in the first short list as worded, and while he also heads the next list headed class ratings he had to fail because he lacked true class, and the race conditions were against him. This is where read and understand comes into the equation for me , VDW was trying to show us something.
Roushayd would not have appeared in the List for the 3 best Consistency Ratings
Here we at least agree on the above as consistency and CR are never mentioned in these examples. As said before I think consistency was just the way into the races, and improvement is another being shown here. If one is looking for improvement it seems to me to look at all races competed in is a must. Roushayd was the selection because he had shown improvement and was dropping in class note here there is no mention of the full blown AR just the value of the last race. May I also suggest VDW said Prominent King didn't have a winning class rating was because he didn't win when he achieved his figures, I would add Roushayd to that list as well
Bobajobber can I ask do you have a copy of the Mails listing of race Mafia King ran in? I ask because looking at the literature all the L's in the form line suggest it was the Mail being used. I also have a slight problem when he seems to suggest Uther Pendragon was a selection but using the Life's forecast he was joint fourth favourite at 11/2 and won at that price.
Be Lucky
ArkRoyal I have no serious problem with that logic, but would just say if there a lesson to be learnt from putting a picture under more scrutiny by studying it in more detail it makes sense to use a second perspective. I have read the whole thing as the second picture is needed to get a true meaning of what the first one shows us. If this second picture is something completely different what does anyone think it can be? What else needs a numerical picture that hasn't already been allocated some figures and can benefit from a different perspective? The only thing I can come up with is form as I can't see how an individual perform is measured using the only other thing that hints at form in the formula, ability.I took it that WFL was not in the Ability Ratings Ranking (VDW Stated when weighing up the Form/Class WFA Not much Ability) and used the Consistency Figures for those who were in the Ability Rankings,
Chesham I could go along with that but for me the problem has been folk continually saying VDW didn't say anything just for the sake of it and here he clearly says .......From the three most consistent ratings (first numerical picture), the three highest ability ratings are: If he wanted something different why word it like he did? I look at the example and even if WFL did register in the first short list as worded, and while he also heads the next list headed class ratings he had to fail because he lacked true class, and the race conditions were against him. This is where read and understand comes into the equation for me , VDW was trying to show us something.
Roushayd would not have appeared in the List for the 3 best Consistency Ratings
Here we at least agree on the above as consistency and CR are never mentioned in these examples. As said before I think consistency was just the way into the races, and improvement is another being shown here. If one is looking for improvement it seems to me to look at all races competed in is a must. Roushayd was the selection because he had shown improvement and was dropping in class note here there is no mention of the full blown AR just the value of the last race. May I also suggest VDW said Prominent King didn't have a winning class rating was because he didn't win when he achieved his figures, I would add Roushayd to that list as well
Bobajobber can I ask do you have a copy of the Mails listing of race Mafia King ran in? I ask because looking at the literature all the L's in the form line suggest it was the Mail being used. I also have a slight problem when he seems to suggest Uther Pendragon was a selection but using the Life's forecast he was joint fourth favourite at 11/2 and won at that price.Be Lucky
Bobajobber
Mare
Bobajobber
Mare
Pingman Apologies for the delay.
Every letter is important, but it is understanding that importance, that helps to progress, please always keep in mind that it was given peice by piece , many still appear to forget this.
'Speed Is No Use Without Form Says 'Dutchman' ,interesting how VDW veers away from speed figures, although what he does mention is important further down the line, this is though a continuation of the consistent form and another consistency method is offered up.
We are told "The combination of the two usually isolates the probables", although I do believe that many will not understand this, because it refers to something that happens much later.