A colleague of mine who has reached essentially the same interpretation of VDW's methods as me has nonetheless raised an eyebrow about the fact that I spent more of my last blog entry discussing the apparent (and in the event, actual) no hoper, Jack Dawkins than the three probables with form.
The three probables with form were easily dismissed from the perspective of their being potential bets and thus there was not a lot to say about them. But that does not explain why I did not stop the post there and instead went on to discuss Jack Dawson.
The reason for that was that I have become increasingly convinced that a central point of Lee's posts on VDW is spot on, a point brought out in the following extracts from some of his posts from the old Gummy forum:
"It is the trainer that will give you the answers, which are there in the formbook. It is how VDW judged that the trainer/horse were really out to win that is, in my opinion, the crux of the matter." (07/07/04).
"Just because a trainer has set out to win a certain race doesn't necessarily mean that the horse is good enough to win it, and likewise, just because a horse appears good enough to win a certain race doesn't necessarily mean that it has been targeted.
This is, in my view, is where the VDW method scores every time. The amount of coverage he actually gave to the subject of the ˜trainer' is, in comparison to other elements, quite small, but that doesn't detract from the impact he was attempting to make.
Where punters are concerned it is the ability to second guess what the trainer is doing and how individuals work that provides the biggest winning edge, not matter what method of selecting the horse one uses." (01/12/04).
"The theory of VDW's method was wholly devised around identifying horses that are ready to WIN, and watching then how they are placed.
Being a form horse with the highest ability rating doesn't mean firstly, the horse is placed to win, and secondly, the form is strong enough to win." (16/11/07).
In short, not only do we need the numerics, through which VDW first identified the class/form horse and then assessed its probability of winning, we also need reasons (to be found within the Form Book and largely also numeric) for supposing that the horse concerned is really there to win.
What I have been doing this season more than in the last couple is trying to identify in advance situations where one has objective reasons for believing that the trainer is out to win a given race, and that means, much of the time, patiently watching a series of placements until that situation obtains.
Jack Dawkins interested (and still interests) me for just that reason. As noted in the discussion of the Ripon race on Tuesday, here was a horse with proven winning ability, placed with a trainer well known for his ability to find winning opportunities for his horses, yet seemingly not showing a thing in his races this season. As was made clear in the post, I never for one moment thought Jack Dawkins a potential bet on Tuesday, but I was interested to see if he showed any sign of returning to form - something that would make him of possible betting interest next time out.
One can of course wait until one has identified a really strong-looking class/form horse just from the basic numerics and then look in detail at its history to see if one can see signs that, as far as the trainer is concerned, today is the day, and that is what I normally do. But as an adjunct to that is taking a more pro-active stance to identifying future winners, and that is what my interest in Jack Dawkins is about.
With so many trainers it is impossible to focus on many when, as with me, race analysis is an interest rather than one's occupation, and in his article "From Start To Finish" reprinted in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune", VDW offered the following advice:
"Following trainers would soon acquaint you with the less obvious form.
If the idea of following trainers appeals, probably the wisest action is to select three or four yards and study each string. Draw up a list of the best from each yard and really get to know those particular horses.
Watch how they are placed and you will be surprised how much can be gleaned for future profit."
Dandy Nicholl's is one of the yards I selected at the start of the year and although it would clearly be wrong to describe Jack Dawkins as one of "the best" from the yard, given my preference for analysing better handicaps he is being followed because on his career to date he seems a horse with whom a reasonable handicap might be won. While as yet I haven't seen anything in his runs this year to suggest he is close to that win, I'll keep watching him when he runs.
The other three yards that I follow are those of TD Barron, TD Easterby and Mrs Ruth Carr.
