Fulham

I appologise for the word Bullshit if it offends you

Would you like to explain why I am Naive in the way that you meant it

Guest,

you are one clever guy!

looking forward a bit to the jumps and the overall picture, if i selected the top 30 horses for the full monty and then built on that picture as good horses come along how many bets do you think i would get in the coming season?

the wait is over for this one, there are not many left on my list for the flat - al mohallab. I wish that I had the experince to know if this race was the one or being prepped for bigger things in a couple of weeks.


just had a quick look and judging by the entries they dont think as much of him as i do!


he has got to put in a very good performance or be totally switched off to have a chance of the other races.trying and failing will tell me next to nothing.

[This message was edited by Barney on August 30, 2002 at 07:11 AM.]

Guest,
"To my mind, VDW was spelling out the vital factor that was there to see and not covered up, but also leaving us with still more to think about and discover for ourselves. I have said before that he gave us the tools, but didn't explain the exact ways to use them."
I totally agree with the above and I agree with your comments regarding the 5.10 yesterday, a very good example.
However, Why in 1985 did he say we would all neccessarily get the same horses as him? People's form reading skills will differ no matter how diligently (or otherwise) the trainer places his charges for them to see. Why refer to a missing link in 1985? Sometimes as Fulham says, his tongue appeared to be firmly in his cheek.

"A variety of excuses has been used to mask failure with my methods-"the key," the "last piece of the jigsaw", the "missing link" all come down to the same thing. Many create the initial numerical picture and say they are stuck and dont know how to select from the 3 probables."
A very telling paragraph but also a very disingenious one which can be taken in more than one context.
regards,

Boozer

I took no offence at the word "bullshit": I was merely remarking on what seems to me to be the absurdity of at one and the same time telling someone that what they had said was "bullshit" and asserting that it wasn't meant to be derogatory.

As to your naivity, I'll gladly spell out what I mean.

VDW asserted that he had developed an approach which produced "the goods" year in year out, and was not reticient in referring to the tangible fruits of all his hard work (eg from "The Myth of the Missing Link", "I continue to enjoy my trips around the world, but I had to work to earn the privilege ... A couple of days after my return, I evaluated the Ascot card (Sept 30), which resulted in the acquisition of funds to finance my previously-arranged 1990 Caribbean tour").

Now, I've never seen tangible proof of VDW's success, anymore than I suspect any other poster here has, and he may have been nothing more than a fantasy merchant, who never did better from horse racing than to be able to afford a day out in Margate.

But some clearly believe that he was a highly successful selector of winners. Those who do (and I'm one of them), and wish to understand how he achieved this, find out quite early in their endeavours that its not just a straightforward matter of applying, mechanically, one or other of the "procedures" he showed us. Indeed, VDW told us as much, writing (rather tongue-in-cheek in my view) that "a little was left for you to complete".

So what is the way forward? One can hope that someone is going to show you exactly how its done or, in the absence of that, one can work at it, as its clear that some who post here have done/are doing. This means, among other things, studying VDW's texts; exploring his examples (which in itself necessitates the acquisition of a couple of dozen or more old Form Books); and working through numerous races as one tests out what appear to be insights but sometimes prove to be blind alleys.

I can only imagine the time Guest must have put in, to be able to discuss in an informed way all manner of VDW's past examples. We know of the time Statajack has put in, because he's told us. Likewise Crock, with his over one hundred hours studying one race. And I know what time and effort I've put in.

Your naivity lies in thinking that there is the faintest chance that anyone who has made those kind of efforts is going to spell out in detail on a board of this kind all the firm conclusions they've reached.

What one can hope for is to find material in the various comments posters make to help with one's own thinking. I've certainly found such material and, who knows, might even have provided some that has helped someone else. I would suggest to you that that is why those who take VDW seriously (albeit that they are at different stages in their understanding of his work) contribute to the board, and that to benefit from such posts one needs to be actively engaged in serious study of VDW's work.

Barney - In the 3.50 at Sandown I calculate the class/form horse as Judge Davidson who also figures top on the merit/speed rating. All Mohallab is 2nd on class/form and 3rd on speed. Studying the form it can be seen that JD won last time out when dropped in race class slightly with less weight but actually against better opposition. All Mohallab ran in a conditions race where the 1st and 2nd had run in some class but not shown much class as horses.

JD looks the most likely winner, but I wouldn't put money on it.

At Chester in the 3.35 there is a fair bit of conflict with Lunar Leo the class/form horse and a study of the form showing Inchdura as having a major shout also. If the prices allow I'll make a book on the pair but I'd want better than evs the book.

thats twice now you have repeated this quote.once more and even i will sit up and take notice.
posted by you yesterday-

First of all let me repeat what I said in March 1981, when giving this method in full.... to confirm what the figures say(numerical picture) it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of THE CLASS IN WHICH THEY RAN..etc,etc"


come on guys-its even highlighted for you.

goodluck today guest if you play.

Interesting that your VDW approach agrees with BB2K's ratings on Lunar Leo but not on Inchdura. It's not a betting race for me but for the sake of controversy, my own approach suggests Damalis as the likely winner.

Guest.

I too am surprised, you feel you have given enough clues for some to make the break through. I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but the apparent lack of consistency in the selections is the biggest draw back for me. I thought it was just me, but some on the board aren't as thick as me, and they also seem to be failing to understand what is going on.

I'm not going to argue, but now is Lunar Leo a vdw selection today? I can see how he is the c/form horse, but doesn't he fail badly on consistency? Everything I have read says the horse should be in the top 3/4 for consistency. In the Erin example you eliminated many because they were no consistent. I make Inchdura the c/form horse, but for me no bet. It fails on MY filters, and is no value from that draw. Although Fallon has managed to get one of my selections home from a draw as bad as this, without my money on.

I wonder if you, or anyone else can help me. I gave my copy of Systematic Betting to a friend. Is the explanation of the 2/3 year old method EXACTLY the same as the one in the To-Agori-Mou example? Even if it is could any of you give me your interpretation of it. If it's not what is missing or added on?

Best of luck today.

Good One Guest
and a nice price to boot
forecast as well
Impressive

who's the daddy............well you actually

Very impressive and certainly put me in my place.

thanks Guest,

I will look at the form for my horse.

Mtoto

forget Systematic Betting and get Racing in my System there is a far better illustration of Roushayd in that booklet.

Boozer/Epiglotis/Max - Thanks for pats on the back. Always appreciated. My slight fear that Inchdura would be around the 9/4 or 5/2 mark proved wide of the mark and a nice profit was made.

JD was probably beaten for the same reason as at Newmarket and comparisons can again be drawn with Canny Danny. Class/form is never enough on it's own.

Mtoto - Consistency as it was used within the first method VDW gave has little to do with some of his other methods such as the Roushayd approach or the 3yo list. All of VDWs methods had differences in their approach or basic platform but two things were dominant throughout namely class and form. Lunar Leo on the face of it didn't look consistent, but he had been competing in some pretty tough handicaps and running very well in one of them at Royal Ascot. In the context of todays race class he was very much a form horse, in fact the class/form horse. Using the consistency approach showed Inchdura up as a probable and study of the form confirmed he also had a very live chance. And it is here that all of VDWs methods meet ie within the study of form and class, that is why he said the object of the Roushayd exercise, which was actually to show how he equated form and class in an ongoing fashion, was lost. Yes, he showed a very useful method for identifying horses peaking and ready to win, but at the same time gave us an insight into the sort of thing he was looking for in all his approaches ie the class/form horse with factors in it's favour.

The To Agori Mou example was for any 2yo that had recorded a sf of 70+ over 7f+ at the grade 1 courses he listed Ascot,Doncaster,Goodwood,Newmarket,Sandown,York. The other 3yo method was for horses who as 2yos had run not more than three times without winning and recorded a sf of 40+ over 7f+ at the same courses. VDW went through all the qualifiers starting with A and from 5 horses found only 2 bets which both won namely Alwuhush and Ahoy. He went through their races and hinted at the real reasons they were selected when they won. It is the same process I believe he used on all races to establish the levels of class and form.

Having studied and believed in VDW's methods for some years I thought I could hold my own with most of his acolytes; It has become obvious since
discovering this forum that there are quite a few people who have spent even more time than I have on the subject and consequently have a more in
depth understanding of his teachings. To them
(Guest, Mtoto, et al) I would like to pose the following question, while I dont expect a
comprehensive answer, some indication, even if only a Yes or No, would be greatly appreciated.
On Monday I posted a horse, Castleshane as apossible bet, as it seemed to have many points in its favour, including the recent improvement over
the jumps it had shown since being allowed to front run.
As the form says ( I didn't see the race) it was
held up, and stayed on in the later stages; Today
it came out in a very similar race, (slightly
lower class), led all the way, and turned the form completely around from 4 days ago.
The question is.... Was there any way of predicting when this ( or any other horse for that
matter)

WAS REALLY OUT TO WIN ?.

Cheers
JohnD

re-castleshane
i like yourself thought the horse was a good bet to beat its stablemate on monday.
i appreciate you did not watch the race but take it from me instead of cursing for backing a loser(allthough broke even e/w)i quickly noted it down as a future winner.
the method i use in arriving at selections is contary to popular opinion vdw based and on paper it did look good but no ammount of form study or class/ability rating would have given you the confidence of a good show today in comparison to actually seeing with your own eyes the horse in action last monday.
suffice to say a knocking good bet today and a healthy profit to boot.

have a look at the thread under notebook horses entitled"keep em peeled for these"which gives some good examples of what i am talking about.

Guest

I could see your luna Leo as clear as crystal today albeit from a slightly different approach. Athough I play at a much lower level that would probably frighten you as much as the level you play at frightens me
But as VDW said there are other ways of coming to the same conclusion or more than one way to skin a cat
The Roushayd method is the only approach I like and after using a similar approach for the last 30 years and a few years before VDW wrote a word I can say it would appear to be the best and most logical way to approach any sport never mind Horse racing after all Its all about class levels and opposition

To be honest I couldn’t have backed LL I was frightened of the horse Epiglotis put up and I can see where he is coming from as well with that, and also your other Inchdura
Then there was the draw that Mtoto rightly highlighted plus, He seems a bit quirky (not Mtoto ) I noticed also he had been Tongue tied on a few runs was he today?
However in the end class prevailed as it should


I think if you had seen the recording of Leo’s last race that I viewed this afternoon you would have been more confident in him
This is sometimes where the formbook can give you the wrong impression Raceform comment read something like weakened 1f out (todays distance) when in actual fact He was let down when it was obvious he couldn’t go with the other horses and I would say as an estimate the 5+lenghs would have been 3 if he had been persevered with.

One other point regarding the other race you mentioned
Arent you frightend of unexposed lightly raced Horses, I mean if a horse like say Dadeland wins a bum race by 4 lenghs that’s all he can do, fair enough a horse with superior looking form should prevail
But how do you judge how good a horse is with so little history, it cant be done in my mind and is a risk, if I remember correctly Teenoso started off winning a £1300 maiden.

Sorry about the bullshit word the other night but I think you knew what I meant

Guest,

I would like to congratulate you on your winner today, as I said I could see how he was the c/form horse.

I would also like to clear up a miss understanding. When I mentioned consistency in the first paragraph my earlier post I wasn't talking about form, I was talking about the methods you use. Today wasn't a consistency method horse, it also wasn't Roushayd, or the 2/3 year old method. It appears to be a different method again.

Boozer,

Glad you don't think I'm quirky, but have to say the wife thinks that is very much the case. In fact that is one of the more polite words she uses.

Be Lucky

johnd
I see you are a 56 year old junior member


My way not VDW’s
Its only a quick scan so mistakes are a probability

The only horses worth looking at in the race
Castleshane
Kylkenny
Lord eurolink
Red lion

Lord Euro
Coming from the best race class wise (his second last) and performed with credit a bit high on the OR even so hes perfomed well with his rating
Last win rating 10lbs higher???

Kylkenny
Was 1lenght in front of Castleshane in 2nd last run but improvement expected from Castleshane as hes been off since april and should turn the tables as he was staying on and I have the race recorded and can confirm Chuck him out

Red lion
Won by 5 lenghs Lto
How good is the performance
Comes out well classwise compared with the other 3

Castle has the best draw
Red Lion has the worst
Lord euro ,class could overcome the draw

Dutch on Castle and Red lion lord Euro if the prices allow

It can be all so easy after the race but even so this one isnt
And as soon you see the whites of your bookies eyes things could look different

Guest

Ignore the weights
Imagine that this race is a £12000 C grade Hcp
And give your analysis the vdw way

Epiglotis/Boozer

Re Damalis, in judging his chance today it would perhaps be worth considering this six year old's win record, distance-wise.