• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

VDW Van Der Speil

Hi Nellsman Nellsman - Ekbalco was trained by Roger Fisher in Cumbria and from memory his run at Doncaster, prior to winning the Imperial Cup, generated a lot of column inches in the press.

The discussion was in relation to Ekbalco being trained on the race course for the Imperial Cup and was felt to be a blatant non-trier in the Doncaster race.

Hope this helps?
 
Nellsman Nellsman
Unfortunately nobody is teasing you.

Ahoy beaten 28 lengths last time out and last of 4 horses, I am guessing this was another that never made the grade for you?.

I quote:
" First run in a listed race class 100 at Newmarket on April 14th over 1mile 1 furlong, 6th of 11, went ok for 7furlongs. Little interest in the market. Next run raised to Group3 241 Chester Vase over 1m4f, 4th of 6 to Unfuwain. Out of his depth here and lost touch four out. All the time you are trying to follow what the trainer is up to and some of them make crafty moves but always look at things in their true light. Ahoy's next run was at Salisbury on May 24th and the warning lights start flashing as he is dropped well in class (18) in a maiden. When the race is evaluated you find Ahoy coming out of class 241 with the best opposition only coming out of class 41 and placed 4th having been dropped from class 77. It is time to strike and take the money eliminatin Ahoy from your list. Ahoy won starting at 9/2 third favourite"

We have often been told many times on this forum in fact, that the trainer handicaps their own horses, it is no lie and there are good and bad trainers in regard to placing their horses in this aspect.

Continuity of form, it is not necessarily in the selection and there is more to it than being just a winning favourite or a last time out winner.

Good luck
 
Hi @Pitmatic,
thanks for that, yes I remember the discussions we had on the old forum was along those lines. I think most people
thought that he was a non trier in that race.

Thanks and regards
nellsman.
 
Hi @Bobajobber,
Ahoy was put in a race where he had no chance "out of his depth" VDW said. Ekbalco was a non trier. Neither of these scenarios are similar
in any way to MOE.

thanks and regards
nellsman
 
Nellsman Nellsman
So MOE's run is nothing like Ekbalco's run? if not how do YOU see Ekbalco's run, not somone elses's opinion yours?

VDW said EKBALCO was a 'Good Thing', he never mentioned non-trier?.

Ok, VDW said that AHOY was out of his depth in the LTO race, but why then did he use the class of race 241 to measure against the rest of the field, surely you would side step the complete race?

I will leave it with you.
 
In the Ascot Race Bijou D'Inde reversed the form with MOE from their previous encounter. MOE ran many many LBS below form

Ahoy is a totally different proposition when you look at the last three runs as suggested
 
Last edited:
Hi @Bobajobber,
I'll need to get out the old form books to check Ekbalco out. I will have a look and get back to you. I have looked at it (Ekbalco) but it was a long
time ago and I wouldn't trust my memory. Besides it'll probably do me some good to look at the race again.

thanks and regards
nellsman.
 
Hi @Bobajobber,
well I've looked at it Boba, although I have not worked through all of the runners calculating AR's because this week I don't have the time to give that it deserves. Another problem is that Raceform does not give the distances beaten by, beyond 6th place so in race 2199 I don't know how far Newgate or Ekbalco were beaten. However Ekbalco was carrying 11-13 top weight and giving almost 2 stone to the winner. He was also giving lumps of weight to at least 6 horses with decent recent form including Vascar (btn 4 length by Birds Nest LTO) who he beat home. Was it a form run the VDW way? I'm not sure is my honest answer. Was it a forgivable run? It may well have been, considering that Ekbalco in it's 2nd LTO in a very good race run ran a SF of 80 which up until that race was the best he had achieved. From my personal point of view I don't think it was a bad run given the weight Ekbalco was set to give away and obviously connections would not want a hard race before the Imperial Cup.

regards
nellsman
 
@Bobajobber,
Hi Boba, I just got back from a camping trip to Resipole and was very eager to read your comments on Ekbalco. Can I ask you was it a form run the VDW way or was it a run to ignore the VDW way? I think the latter.

Thanks in advance and regards.
nellsman
 
Yes that must be it, thanks for clearing it up.

It would be nice after all these years and the passing of VDW if there was a definitive resolution to what became known as the VDW Methodolgy, and put an end to all the cloak and dagger stuff.
 
Nellsman said:
@Bobajobber,
Hi Boba, I just got back from a camping trip to Resipole and was very eager to read your comments on Ekbalco. Can I ask you was it a form run the VDW way or was it a run to ignore the VDW way? I think the latter.

Thanks in advance and regards.
nellsman
Click to expand...


Nellsman Nellsman apologies for my no show , I have been away too and only popped my head in the door now and then to see what the fuss was all about, but not armed with any info to give the conversation justice.
From my own perspective, I believe that both horses, no matter how you want to paint it up, were never at the races, if MOE had been beaten a few lengths, you could at least believe that he was beaten fair and square, but the run was too bad to be true, as Chesham Chesham mentioned, was beaten many pounds below his form, would you expect a horse of that calibre to run like that and just assume it has lost its form, personally I do not believe so, because I have seen it on many occasions, I mentioned Workforce's run before his win in the Arc.
I think the positive was the fact that Bijou D'Inde won the race after finishing behind MOE, it gave Goldophin the measure of Ashkalani when later meeting in the Queen Elizabeth II Stakes, thats my opinion.
When we read Ekbalco's race info from the Haig books, it reads 'Always behind, disappointing'

Good luck

upload_2017-8-22_22-37-38.png
 
Hi Bobajobber Bobajobber,
I've taken time to reply because I was retrieving my old Handicap Books from the loft so that I could read the actual letters that discussed this race on the Sports Forum Page. Let me say right away that I agree with what you say, I don't think either horse was put into the race proper. Anyway getting back to the letters, G.R. of Lincolnshire does not explain in any way how any of the horses that he mentioned were selected. This letter caused quite a stir, it appeared in the Handicap Book on 28th September 1996. On 12th October 1996 Barry Pocock put a message on the Sports Forum Page asking would G.R. of Lincs please phone me at the office urgently as your recent letter has caused a lot of interest and there are some things I want to discuss with you about it. In the October 19th issue D.J. Taylor of Lincs has a letter in Sports Forum asking would G.R. give a little more explanation as there some selections from the examples he (G.R) gave that are giving him some concern, namely Select Few, Hagwah and Crowded Avenue (he does not mention MOE so presumably he concurred with the selection). In the November 19th issue there was a letter from M.G. Kent (I think this was Guest) discussing the previous letter and selections of G.R. Lincs. In this letter M.G. Kent says that he also backed MOE in the celebration Mile but does not go into the selection process in any detail whatever. In the January 18th 1997 issue there is another letter from M.G. Kent where he does give some explanation regarding previous selections. In the case of MOE he wrote - Group races are generally straightforward, but some need a bit more thought, as was the case with MOE. Whilst his last run (Ascot June) was disappointing, you need to look at his previous form to determine his chance in this lesser class race. His game win in the 2000 Guineas was way above anything shown by the others in this race (Celebration Mile) and his poor Ascot run was due to the prevailing conditions (firm) and a training setback. His shrewd stable have given him a rest and brought him back in the ideal race. Everything still needs double checking but it soon becomes apparent that this horse represented a very good bet.
So there you have it, M.G. Kent (I think this was Guest) came, more or less to the same conclusion as you did with regard to MOE. in the Celebration Mile. I think that the conclusion is that MOE was not beaten on merit at Ascot, that something was obviously amiss and that the race could be safely ignored in terms of form. My old copies of the Handicap Book are pretty dusty and musty, I think I deserve a few beers now to help clear my throat. It's been good discussing these races with you, hopefully we'll discuss other races in future.

thanks and regards
Nellsman
 
Hello Nellsman
I had many problems in coming to a conclusion on what VDW meant by the class form horse. I think we can come wrapped up in the first element of consistency and thereby missing the wider implications of the class of the form in which it was achieved. Ekbalco was a very good example of a horse that had form in a high class but it was not recent form and it tended to be overlooked.
Coming back to the present consider recent results. Firejet today was an outsider not considered. Pettochide again an outsider not considered. Both had form in a class higher than most contenders.
All I am suggesting is that you look at form in a different light and do not get too wrapped up with the last three placings of a horse. That is not the entirety of form.
 
Hi M MALBIC,
let me first of all apologise for the lateness of this reply, I had a very busy week with family commitments. I have had a look at both the horses that you mention and I understand what you are getting at. Personally, I could not have backed either horse, for me both of their LTO runs were downturns that did not have any logical reason for forgiving. When betting, I prefer the horse to have a good 3 race profile or as near to one as possible. I do take account of the class that horses have performed well in because it is an integral part of VDW methodology. I do realise that some VDW selections were pretty obscure such as Travado and Rivage Bleu but I like to keep things as simple as possible, I'm afraid I'm not that clever to get to the bottom of why these types were selections. Thanks for the pointers, they are appreciated and hopefully we'll be able to discuss some future examples.

Thanks and Regards
Nellsman.
 
Hello Nellsman
Thanks for your reply. Like you I fell in to the trap of viewing the last time out form as being the most important. Whilst I do not dispute that the form is noteworthy it is often misleading and when looking at consistency a horse that is over faced often comes out subsequently in a poor light.
Now I look for a horse with recent winning form mainly within the last three races and particularly in the same or higher class . That's what I like to think is what VDW meant by a winner in a race.
Good luck for the future.
 
Hi all, just back from burying my father who was 83 years young, he was the real reason why I had an interest in Horse racing, his motto was "bet low win high" and the many who knew him, would tell you he did very well for himself, he would follow certain trainers that he knew would fire in big priced horses and some how trap them in doubles and trebles, he was very astute at following the quieter smaller trainers and jumping on them when they were favourable, it was a tool for survival , not to be super rich, I am told it was something he picked up from his dad.

I did mention VDW to my Dad and he would occasionally ask how I was getting on, although I would not go into great details with him, because it can bore the hell out of some people, the thought of his eyes glazing over was enough for me to hold back, although I asked him to read the books and tell me what his thoughts were on it,later he said, it sounds too good to be true, but he did say that the person writing certainly had a good understanding of racing, which was a good confirmation, with a wry smile , he said good luck.

Back in the virtual world......

It funny when you spend some time away from the forum life, you still see the same old rubbish about VDW being spouted about.

'Weight' is a fundamental integral part of racing, I can imagine Admiral Rous laughing his head off at those who think otherwise, so why would you not believe it has no place in VDW's method, which is based around 'FORM' & 'CLASS', to believe that weight has no bearing on the form of a racehorse is ludicrous, but you know, I have spent too much time worrying about what these plonkers are saying and more fool those who adhere to what is being conveyed.
You could understand if there was little or no reference to weight in the VDW books, but there is dozens of references to weight and more?, so I suggest if you believe it is not important, good luck with that.

For those who are interested, the two methods of rating as mentioned in 'Narrow The Field To Gain The Winning Strip' they are not the 2 sets of rating in the letters 'SPEED IS NO USE WITHOUT FORM' or 'VDW SPELLS IT ALL OUT' ,VDW tells us this when he mentions there are rating and ratings, two different things, VDW then proceeds to give us the first method of rating it does not take a brain surgeon to work out the other, but you need to read and understand how to use them.

Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top