Johnd

Assuming that you do indeed mean Iris Royal, I agree with you insofar as I certainly wouldn't want to oppose it.

John D - When VDW stated that the so called missing link was something not covered up although not deliberately pointed out and when we find it we will wonder how on earth we could miss it, it was some years after his initial letters regarding his methods. He was making this statement on the assumption that those reading had been putting in the research hours and hopefully come a fair way down the road, but without spotting the factors not clearly spelt out. So this is not something blindingly obvious to anyone suddenly deciding to have a look at VDWs ideas. However, having gone down the hard work and research route myself, I can say that when anyone does eventually realise how the two key elements actually work out they will, like myself, be kicking themselves for not figuring it out much earlier.

The high percentage of winners comes from the class/form element + all the factors not just the class/form horse. There is a class/form horse of sorts in all races, but isolating it will not give 80%+ winners.

The key elements are simple and logical but only viewed in a particular vein. Please keep in mind relativity. It is vital where class and form are concerned.

Barney - Bonny Gold had a similiar fault to my own figures for Cyfor Malta and Chicuelo namely that all wins were not accounted for. VDWs figures for Bonny Gold were taken from the Life, but on the day they were misprinted and he had won more than 2 races. He was in fact the 2nd on class/form to Turi, but it didn't matter because the crosscheck,missing link, call it what you will picked up on this fact and others that were not in it's favour as per Saturday.

Guest,

While I wasn't happy with Johnd's posting, I thought I would wait and see if you answered. I can see what he is saying, and I think you add fuel to his fire. How can we ever come to the same conclusions about a race when it is so complicated? On occasions when the c/form horse doesn't come up to standard, you pass the race up. On others, you take the second or third choice.

I don't understand why the horse is the c/form horse if it fails in some department. I can see a form horse failing because it hasn't the proven class, but to have both and fail? One stumbling block for me is this relativity element, either the horse has proven it has the class/form or not. If we just select a horse because it is the best of the bunch aren't we bringing the gamble into it? I do except there is a difference between a horse that has tried and failed, to a horse that is being raised in class for the first time. The question must be why gamble, why not wait until it has been proved?

In the 2:30 at Kempton today the horse most would have called the c/form horse (Dorans Gold) was an illusion. As such should it be called the c/form horse, as it failed on real class? This is were I disagree with Johnd, if you are going to win you MUST examine every detail. Even if I had been happy with the class of the horse there were several clues that should have stopped you backing it.

I wish you had posted re Bonny Gold a little sooner. The example has been driving me mad, and a friend confirmed (just before you) that the amount of wins wasn't correct. I'm still having trouble with Castle Warden being the c/form horse though.

Be Lucky

Johnd

The main point Guest has made is that which I tried to draw to your attention in my post of 6.58am 11 November.

I guess when we start looking at the VDW examples seriously we all find that some seem straightforward, others less so, and some commonalities become clear. Thus, for example, nearly all the early examples came from the first five/six in the betting, were among the three most consistent, etc.

But as we have all no doubt found, that only gets one part of the way. Used on their own, the factors he made explicit in the "Spells it all out" article, coupled with reasonable ability to assess form (conventionally), can enable one to stay well in the black.

But VDW never explicitly revealed one central aspect - the so-called "missing link". When gets an inkling of what that is, one can go back over the old examples, and most of the "awkward" bits fall into place. I say MOST because some still puzzle me - eg VDW's evaluation of Pearlstone. But that is merely to say that having an inkling is still to be short of complete understanding.

Do take Guest seriously. Unlike anyone else on this thread, he has put his knowledge and judgement on the line with a series of pre-race posts over nearly nine months which have included several winners at long odds, plenty at shorter prices and, overall, a profit (much magnified by using a staking plan).

If you continue to believe that it is all much more straightforward than Guest suggests, at least exercise some prudence and monitor your selections for a decent period before putting down the cash. It could save you a lot of grief.

Bit of a quantum leap,isn't it, assuming that I don't check everything?

Guest,
With respect, the only part of your first paragraph that I can agree with is that the answer is not blindingly obvious. There is a very good reason for this, and it is unlikely that anyone will fathom it out with conventional thinking. Unless 'Spells It All Out' is approached in the right way, no amount of research will lead you to the answer. Research will, and no doubt has done, lead many people into a much greater understanding of VDW, but by its very nature, that research will lead each individual down slightly different paths, and they will in turn come up with their own interpretations, which is evidenced daily on this thread.
VDW did in fact, spell it all out, as long as you read and understand what was there, the question now is, whose understanding is correct?
I will concede that your overall knowledge of the subject is far greater than mine, but, your application of the method, as shown on this thread, does not lead one to believe that you have the final answer.
It is not my intention to denigrate, to be truthful, I have learned a lot from this forum, and you have been a great help to me in this respect, for which I thank you sincerely, but I also understand enough about the human mind to know how difficult it is for anyone to discard a long-standing belief. Little purpose is served by members rubbishing other members contributions, so I will concede that what I have, may not be the total solution (Though the signs are that it will be plenty enough for me), in the hope that you will open up your mind a little, and allow the possibility that you may have missed something.
Regards to all.

Apologies - didn't see you post until after I had posted the above. I accept your counselling in the spirit that it was intended, and I will try to follow your advice, thank you.
The real answer, ( On whether I am right or wrong), will no doubt manifest in the next few weeks, and, hopefully will benefit more than myself.

Johnd
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I can't see what other meaning your words below can have.

Epi
Your recent posts give the impression that you are beginning to analyse the minutiae, trust me,the path to the ultimate goal is not in this direction.

Be Lucky

Johnd

The best of luck. We will all be interested in how things work out.

One thing which I ought to explain, in view of the foregoing; It may appear that which I have found is something superficial, a gimmick, or a shortcut. This I can understand, as I have stressed that it is logical and simple, but I may have misled.
What I now have is so profound that it binds the whole lot together,consistency, class, form, and everything else, right from the very beginning, and also answers so many of the questions that I have been asking myself for years. This should explain why I feel it necessary to approach the problem from a different angle, and also why I feel that a lot of the detective work done leads one away from what I consider to be the real solution. Simple and logical it may be, straightforward it certainly is not!

JohnD - I'd like to think I do have an open mind on most things, in fact if I didn't I would never have undertaken the solving of VDWs methods. What I found took years to uncover and yes, I fully agree that you have to approach it with a certain way of thinking. But like yourself, the parts I conclude to be, what is commonly regarded as the common link, I keep to myself just as VDW did because I realise the possible danger of over exposure. To be fair, in the past year I have come to conclude that exposure of these factors would probably not result in that many punters spoiling the broth. This is mainly due to temperament, but also that not many want to or are able to spend the time required to carry out the necessary evaluations.

I obviously do enjoy discussion on VDW and racing in general and that is just one reason why I continue to post on the forum. We are all still learning the game, you never stop, but with all due respect to members,I cannot honestly say that anyones views on winner finding from this forum has altered in any way the selections I make with VDWs methods. My shortfall in percentage terms is due to mistakes on my part and also the odd lapse in temperament. The latter is vital in achieving the 80%+ target VDW stated was there.

The problem is, you nor I will post our findings that we believe or know to be the answer to VDWs methods. This leads to disagreement and confusion for others.

Mtoto - What are your doubts about Castle Warden being the class/form horse or even a form horse?
He was a form horse and had the best ability rating of the form horses (17). second on ability of the form horses was Good As Ever (14). One reason he wasn't selected as a bet with the method was his lack of consistency.

do your conclusions fall into the "gaye chance" scenario?

Six months ago I tipped TYNDARIUS on Gummy's board when it won at 25-1.
It runs again tomorrow 3.0 MR
It could well win again.
IT IS DROPPED TO COLLECT!
Swish

JIB

A nice illustration of the situation.

[This message was edited by Fulham on November 21, 2002 at 07:35 AM.]

tyndarius has changed stables since then, the new trainer may have a different M.O.

I went for Castle Prince in the 2.20 at Wincanton. It ran a poor race, trailing in last. I backed it on the basis of some semi-decent runs in a much better class, but in retrospect I ignored the fact the the Ability ratings showed Castle Prince had something to find. Ivanoph the winner had a class rating of 74 against Castle Prince's 38. At the very best there was doubt about Castle Prince, particularly as his recent form had no wins.

I've been dropping a few clangers like this recently. Throwing money away where slightly more judicious selction would have saved a stake, or selected the winner.

Any comments on the 2.20?

Rob

I had race between CASTLE PRINCE and IVANOPH.
I thought about dutching, but I don't often and therefore went for what I thought was Value.
Which was CASTLE PRINCE.
Of course some will lose but 3 winners out of 10 at 6-1 gives over 100% profit in long term, even 2 out of 10 gives 40% profit.
There's nowt wrong with that,
All the best
Swish

Guest

Re Castle Warden.

My main problem is he in form? Is this 3rd beaten 6 lengths good enough? When you look at his price he wasn't expected, and you have said many big priced winners don't repeat the success. He didn't win, so why would his run not be a one off? He didn't get into the race, so was it really a good run? Or running on through beaten horses?

I can see that by adding up the figures I can make it work, but is it a decision I would have been happy to make before the race? Was Castle Warden in form? To be the c/form horse there has to be no doubt, if there was Good As Ever would have been the selection.

When looking at the examples I think the only ones that should be taken seriously are the ones he said he backed.

Be Lucky

3.10 Ascot

Redemption forecast 9/2, won this race last year
at 7/4 fav carrying more actual weight than tomorrow

has won 1st time out before also

have another look at lucky vane.race 1301 22/12/84.

He was considered out of form and castle prince looks pretty similar to me compared to RHM.

the section under the race analysis also covers the point identified in your dilema.

he was a ruthless bugger that VDW, I was all for forgiving lucky vane his last run.

[This message was edited by Barney on November 22, 2002 at 12:17 AM.]