Thanks Guest.

According to the VDW article on this race which I have just re-read BHL wasn`t considered in the 1st 3 on form.

Question is why ? That`s my next task.


Cheers,

chepstow


one way of getting that bit fitter( for fat B*******) is to run up a hill with lots of extra weight.

just thought that might be too cryptic for some

its exactly the same as bangalor

Max's post about the Ben Connerchie articles is very interesting. First the business of VDW giving 83 losing selections is new to me and I would like to hear more about that. "Backfitted ramblings of a disgruntled old cynic" seems to me to explain a lot about VDW'S work. There appear to be three corner stones to the writings, common sense, utilisation of number values and the "correct" reading of form. If the behaviour of adherrants to the methods is in line with the examples then the first of these is applied in ways that I consider contradictory. The second is often shown to be irrelevant and the third is treated with such obscurity that the most avid readers are still attempting to unravel the meaning. In short, the only meaningful content of the writings is to the effect that the selector needs to study and understand form in order to make winning selections. I think it's difficult to hold VDW up as a teacher but if study of his examples leads some people to an understanding that they can then successfully apply to contemporary races he could be considered a catalyst.
Aside from this, in answer to my question Barney said that he'd so far indentified 35+ hidden factors that need to be applied to every horse in each race. That there has been no critical comment on this response I take as tacit agreement by Guest, Statajack, Lee et al.

Epiglotis - With reference to Barneys comment that he has found 35+ factors to consider, I can only say that whilst I haven't counted all the factors I consider, I do consider all the factors.
Everything has it's place and relevance with quite a few being germane to all issues of form. However, as I stated yesterday to Determined, when considering if a horse is actually in form (a process that has to be completed before even considering who is likely to win the race under examination), the course factor doesn't come into it. Form is form no matter what the course. The question of how will the horse be suited to the current course (conditions) is another process entirely.

Obviously, if after all the form is established, one of these form horses has shown a particular preference for the course or a similiar type then it would be gaining quite a few plus points. But this is just a single cog in the machine.

Thanks for the reply.

Epiglotis,
People have spent countless years in the pursuit of apparently lost causes such as the philosphers stone or the holy grail, or the secret of turning base metal into gold (very vdw?). They may not have found what they were looking for but some useful discoveries were made on the way. If people want to try and unravel VDW whats the problem? At the worst they may learn a bit more about form and betting than they might have known before.I know I have. I cant see why so many people who regard it as rubbish manage to get so wound up about it. To put it another way, I think most people who play golf are a bunch of to**ers but I'm not going to waste my time driving down to the golf course just to tell them that.
regards,

Thanks for the reply. As you say, "They may not have found what they were looking for but some useful discoveries were made on the way", this is what I mean by the works being catalytic rather than instructional. On your further observations, the fact is I'm not wound up either way by VDW, I'm pretty much indifferent, however I get thoroughly tired by those whose posts serve nothing greater than mystification, I feel the attitude demonstrated to be unhelpful and anti-social. It isn't a great surprise as VDW himself seems to have been a past master of obfuscation and self-mythification, those with a high regard for VDW could have been expected to imitate his turgid style. Finally, it's not a big undertaking for me to post on this thread and at some point may result in frank discussion of the "hidden factors" or other pertinent matters, so, I think it's worth the effort involved.

Statajack.

Quite right but if you happen to have been at the golf course anyway and there`s a prat continually jumping up and down on the next but one green spouting forth, it`s a huge temptation to occasionally shout over "shut the F**k up" !

By the way, liked your story the other day.

111
.

Epiglotis

Its not wholly clear, but I don't think Max's post should be read as indicating that VDW gave 83 losing selections. I've a reasonable working knowledge of VDW's writings, and am only aware of one selection he named unambiguously as a bet which lost - Broadsword at the 1981 Cheltenham Festival. Its obviously possible that I've missed others but not, I think, another 80 odd! However, if/when I track down the Connerchie material I'll let you know.

Its a great pity that VDW didn't mention more of his losers, as they would have been as interesting to study as his winners.

There is no getting away from the fact that VDW is a hard study, and it is for individuals to judge whether the effort is likely to prove worthwhile. But although the details naturally vary (a prison sentence not being a required part of the course of study), Statajack's personal account on another thread of the time and effort necessary, and the potential benefit, resonates with my own experience and that of others I know who make the game pay by following VDW's approach.

And for those contemplating putting in the time and effort, there are two matters covered on this thread perhaps worth consideration:

* first, ignoring all reference to winners named after the relevant races no matter who posted them, in March and April Guest put up a series of selections pre the races concerned, which turned a reasonable profit. That is the best - indeed the only - evidence I know of on a publicly available forum that VDW's approach can be made to pay;

* second, in some of the posts, often but not exclusively by Guest, there are some extremely useful pointers to, arguably, the key element in VDW's work that he did not explicitly reveal and which, in his article of 13/4/85, he referred to as "the missing link". As someone who for over 20 years had failed to find that element from the articles and examples alone, I don't under-estimate the difficulty. But with the posts on this thread those who have the determination to find it have a very considerable asset to draw upon, alongside the articles and examples.

PROUD BOAST seems to be racking up a few plus points here.

Is the distance a problem? Remember what the great man said about horses moving up in distance with a penalty! Then again she won a good race at York over this trip and Newcastle is a stiff 5f.

Then again, CHOOKIE HEITON gets a few plus marks, does he have the class to trouble PROUD BOAST?

Thoughts anyone?, book with 2 even?

Cheers

In order to try and stimulate some discussion on this race, I'll post up the numerical picture.

1st 6 FORECAST
Chookie Heiton
Proud Boast
Flying Millie
Patsys Double
Peruvian Chief
Pomfret Lad
Spencers Wood

3 MOST CONSISTENT
Patsys Double - 6
Chookie Heiton - 6
Spencers Wood - 12
Proud Boast - 12

ABILITY RATINGS
Flying Millie - 129
Proud Boast - 107
Spencers Wood - 103
Patsys Double - 79
Chookie Heiton - 76
Peruvian Chief - 52
Pomfret Lad - 44
Donegal Shore - 28

LAST RACE CLASS
Pomfret Lad - 783 (14th of 15)
Chookie Heiton - 580 (3rd of 28)
Flying Millie - 580 (17th of 28)
Spencers Wood - 283 (13th of 14)
Proud Boast - 227 (1st of 17)
Donegal Shore - 174 (last of 6)
Patsys Double - 155 (2nd of 7)
Peruvian Chief - 127 (6th of 15)

My reason for posting this race up is I think it offers an interesting mix of a couple of a couple of good in-form handicappers against several dropping back down from Group and Listed race company

[This message was edited by Crock on July 04, 2002 at 04:32 PM.]

Proud Boast for me

Regards.......

BRICK

Barney,
Well done for your cryptic post this morning. I wouldnt have even looked at GBs race otherwise. Good price too.
regards,

statajack,

it goes to show that some things mean different things to different people.

glad you found a winner though i cant take credit for you finding it.

i will, however, take abuse for eastern trumpeter.

7.50 Newbury

Flying Millie – top on ability but she cannot be considered in form; not consistent and she should not beat Chookie Heaton on Ascot running.

Proud Boast – 2nd on ability, consistent, in form of life and has to be 1st on class/form.

Spencers Wood – well placed on bare ability but seasonal debut. Group winning form albeit abroad. Can win first time out but a tough ask against in form horses at the topof their game. Other factors against.

Patsy`s Double – consistent but will the 9 lbs more she has to carry tonight slow her down in comparison to others.

Chookie Heaton – very consistent, in form of life and is my 2nd class/form horse.

*** factors against the remainder of the field.

2 probables – Proud Boast and Chookie Heaton; both will have travelled along way to take the prize.

PB carries 7 lbs less this evening and is dropping in race value although the opposition is that bit better. In peak form and both RHR and SS lend support.
That said, she`s already run 7 races this season and her last race was a hard one. Will she bounce ?

CH in my opinion has the better form, carries 5 lbs less evening and is dropping in both value and opposition class. Will be fresher than PB ( ? ) and the jockey booking is very significant in more ways than one.

Summary – Chookie Heaton for me without doubt. Will the price be value ?



*** this message was prepared at 19.10 ***

hi guys,


Please forgive the interruption, just want your general opinion as its very much respected, personally only have a modicum of understanding as far as vdw`s methods are concerned not through lack of talent you understand, just lazyness really, already have a dutching method which pays you see, fascinated as already have a turnover of approx 40 pts profit on the year, have done this for a while now, but am still interested, as if im missing out on something you know!, the question is really, if were not prepared to put the work in like barney & determined e.t.c. & others on here of late, why should we even wonder what its all about?.
mac.

Sorry ,
The point is if were not prepared to put the work in like these people have done, then would`nt it be better if we just gave up & didnt slag them off for having the perseverance to carry on relentless, i have every admiration for these people as i know i wont be be cracking the methods through lazyness alone.
mac.

I've been following the posts regarding this with interest so I hope Fulham manages to find some references to this guy as Im sure it would be a good read, but one thing seems to cloud the issue a bit. Seeing as how vdw supposedly died in a parisien bedsit somewhen pre 1983, what was he doing communicating via letter with T. Peach of Raceform as late as 1995? Not only did he get over 80% winners he can also pass messages to the faithful from beyond the grave! Maybe we should contact the relevant authorities to get vdw registered as a bona fide religion?

Barney,
I assumed the hill you were refering to was at Pontefract. Have a look at Galleon Beach's form in the last at chepstow this afternoon. Coming in to today, the horse had 4 runs for Streater after being moved from John Hills where it had run in some top company a couple of years ago. Look how Streater has placed it after its first run at Pontefract for him.
regards,

well done on selecting the winner hope you lumped on!