Swish - To start off with, I speak for myself and myself alone. I don't personally know anyone on this thread apart from some email correspondance with a few people, one or two of which have shown a much better understanding of VDW than most. I only say it as I see it.

JohnD says he has found something that brings it all together, but this has only been in operation for a month. This is some transformation though given that I could pinpoint many occassions when his supposed VDW selections were beaten mainly through not being genuine VDW type horses. In fact I often said as much before the races. As usual this sort of factual evidence available to everyone on this thread who can read is ignored by some. JohnD could well have found a part of VDW that he hadn't before, I hope he has. However, his suggestion that my own interpretation is contrived or suchlike is based on very little knowledge of how I operate. My approach is both simple and logical but it's all relative. It appears simple and logical to me but only after lots of research and practice, but to some it may appear difficult or complicated. I've seen an amazing amount of ways some punters operate and they range from the ridiculous to the over complicated. To those who just work from their daily newspaper my approach would appear complicated. To a mathmatecian it would be childs play no doubt.

My main point about JohnD is that I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but despite a more informative couple of emails than I would post on the thread, he just came back with ambiguity and meaningless quotes of far greater puzzlement than anything I have ever posted on this thread. The amount of bets he has found in a month is also totally unreflective of VDWs methods for this time of year. As I have said, I do not profess to have all the answers, but I'm not blowing my own trumpet to say I have realised more than most about the deeper workings of VDWs methods.

Just where did VDW say never go beyond the first 5 in the betting? He advised to generally stay with the first 5 or 6 for one method, though also said to consider consistent horses from outside this area. It is the study of form and class that will show if a horse has been overlooked by the odds compiler or not. It's a guideline Swish, not a system.

VDW did make multiple horse books as he demonstrated, so why I have been taken to task for posting winners in this sphere is beyond me. This idea that 10/1 winners are there for the taking everyday is well wide of the mark. The majority of selections are in the shorter end of the market, but some bigger ones are always about.

Finally, thanks for the kind offer Swish, but I am a former computer programmer and I coded my own formbook for the pc which greatly reduces analysis time for a days racing. VDW did suggest we kept records, though I'm not sure the majority either read that or understood exactly what he was implying.

Crock - A very logical post you have just made. I would say that a newcomer would do well to read only VDWs thoughts and his alone. This thread would prove a costly diversion, in the main.

Crock

Some very sound points there. The thread seems to have become a bit negative in the last few days, but we must remember there are so many valuable posts in the 310 pages. I've worked my way through the pages and saved the best posts so I have them all together. Weeding out the negative and the irrelevant still gives a document which stretches towards 200 pages of A4, almost enough to write a text book on the subject of VDW.

We all have something to offer this thread, even those who don't use VDW as their method of analysis. Keep the good stuff coming.

Rob

epi,

I never said it would win, only that I thought it would and there is a difference. VDW did get it right, no bet, but evenso by using his analysis it was able to pinpoint all of the first three home, even though not in the order that I thought.

andrew,

tikram is out of form. all though if some generosity is allowed and his last run ignored then its a different picture.

VDW said to be ruthless in handicaps and he should have done better in that race.

Epiglotis - Sorry I momentarily overlooked your posting. As I said to Swish, please don't attach other peoples opinions to mine. I only stand by the horses that I make as VDW type bets, so judge me on those and those alone if you must.

The strike rate that has appeared on this thread from myself may not be to your appetite, but from what you yourself have demonstrated in the long run, I would have thought any sort of meal would have done.

Yes I have posted "some" horses that have "in fact" won their races. How do you equate the term "some"? A few ?

All horse racing methods have shortcomings, it's in the nature of the game. But VDWs has far fewer than any I have ever seen and it will continue to do more than fine for me.

Where have I misunderstood the constant practice of most punters putting the odds against themselves? Are you one of these punters who thinks all favs deserve to win for the punters and the bookmaker is the enemy?

Perhaps I can put the above in lay mens terms. The vast majority of punters lose over any significant period - Fact and totally undisputable.

Thanks for the reply. Where your misunderstanding is most conspicuous is in your insistance on choosing races by prize money. When you put up four horses for one race in an attempt to neutralise a self imposed handicap you demonstrate an overall protracted method of decreasing your chances of winning. This is not a difficult concept, if there are two horses in the race all things being equal it is easier to find the winner than if there are twenty horses.

Barney

Your post on Tikram pinpoints what I find most difficult, operationally, in applying VDW's approach.

On a simple reading of the results, Tikram is, as you say, out of form. On the other hand, if one "excused" his last run, again as you say, a different picture would emerge.

Alas the number of examples where VDW "excused" a run is small, and from them I find it difficult to be confident about knowing when to do so.

There is no doubt at all that the ground Tikram last run on was very heavy, though Rob Leach sprinted through it in the closing stages. Similarly, there is no doubt that Tikram's better performances have been on good, or good/soft. The going at Fontwell today should therefore suit. But whether that would have been enough for VDW to have "excused" that last run, I'm far from clear.

At least the bottom line is clear. If one doesn't know, don't bet: my position as regards this race. I hope those with more experience, or confidence, get it right.

from my perspective,

the race represents conflict between tikram, cesaria and another last run forgiver non so.

Whats the point trying to sort it out appart from practice?


To add I think experience plays a big part in these descisions, as you say from VDW's examples he doesnt give many. In the explicit examples "gay chance" being the nearest to "forgiving" he says no bet.

If however you have sorted the races out in this way for a couple of years then it should be easy to spot if they will prevail "more often than not".

[This message was edited by Barney on December 10, 2002 at 12:19 PM.]

Hello all
I'll be very interested today,To see how PICCLED runs at southwell.The initial numerical picture doesn't (in my opinion ) tell the whole story,The point i'm trying to make is when everything comes together for these types,They often go on to win.It's been well placed today and should run a good race.

well called!!!

Once again I will try to cut through the blether and obfuscation that you delight in using as a barrier, so that others cannot gauge your true knowledge of VDW's basic method.
VDW himself set an 80% strike rate as the minimum, no matter how you dress it up, you are some way away from that. No exact figure, but Maggsie recently said it was 30%.
Using other criteria set down by VDW, in comparison with my own simple and logical understanding of his method, these are my results for the past month, and bear in mind these from a relative novice who is still getting to grips with its application.
12 selections, 10 winners, strike rate 84%, which I am confident that I can improve upon in time. Much closer than you, I think!
An average of about 3 selections per week, much in line with "29 out of 32 since the beginning of the flat", and so very different from that which your postings suggest.
The SP's of my selections are also similar to those that VDW led us to expect, and do not involve dutching 3 or 4 horses to achieve an average SP of around 6/4.
I will concede that none of these were posted before the race, but I think I made it clear that I am willing to post my selections against yours (Before the race, of course), any time you like.
If you really want to continue to parade your expertise, then an answer to the above points may be a good place to start.
It is unfortunate that things have reached this stage, particularly when you have been so helpful to me, and others, in the past, but you and others have become so obsessed with studying every nuance of every word that VDW wrote, continually scratching through the ashes of races long gone, and arriving at convoluted, and often convenient, solutions, that you are dragging others over the cliff with you.
I am certain that it was never VDW's intention to make his message as complicated as you would have it, and we can all quote phrases to support this view.
For myself, and speaking as one who has spent thousands of hours on VDW also, I can now clearly see that this was the wrong approach, and if I can save just one person from going down this route, then it will have been a worthwhile exercise.
For your own sake, please open up your mind a little, and consider that there are other possibilities.

Guest/Johnd

I can see were you both are coming from.

Johnd,

I have to agree with Guest, and Fulham. The ONLY way to find out if you are on the right track is to use the old examples as a yard stick. I also agree with Guest that BL would have been top or very near top in the other/commercial ratings. That doesn't hold with him being well out of it, does it? Guest says about the statement 'rating and ratings' I have spent a lot of time trying to work that one out, I can't. I wonder what he makes of the statement 'more people find A solution' not THE solution?

Guest.

Do you think the 'consistency' method, and the c/form formula are part of the same method? I ask because I can't quite see the point of finding the c/form horse only to reject it when it doesn't pass the filter. I also have a lot of trouble excepting a horse with an ability rating of 19? is considered good enough to win a 90 + race.

I think the tone of John's posting was harsh, but as I have said before. I also find the inconsistencies in some of your explanations frustrating. I except it is a method, and not a system, but to find the same horse as VDU there has to be some consistency. You say BL was out of form because he had been dropped in class and failed when expected, why doesn't this hold good for ALL horses that fit that scenario? It does look as if excuses/reasons have been made when VDW puts up a horse that meets that scenario. I am really not sure that is one of HIS criteria, it looks as if it has been used to make the examples work! You think I am on the wrong path, but I will say I don't have to juggle with the formula I use. If a horse fails to meet it, that's it. I am operating a method because there are NO automatic bets, it is then subject to my judgement about other factors being suitable. I didn't find a bet on Saturday, although I was tempted by Spirit Leader. If I used the ability rating you advocate, it wouldn't have crossed my mind. I must have miss understood you somewhere along the line for SL to be in form, failed 3 times when expected and then raised in 'class' I to heard the trainers comments, and the usual jockey's views. He gave me more confidence than her, but VDW said it's what is done on the course that counts.

In saying all this please both of you keep the postings coming. I may not agree with either of you, but it does give everyone food for thought.

Be Lucky

With all due respect,Guest has put up selections in the past,That can't be denied.But you me or anybody can put up 10 out of 12,I'm not disputing you haven't achieved this,But why do you feel you have to go head to head with guest,You can prove your point without the 'I'm better than you attitude' that you seem to put across,You said to Guest recently,Put up or shut up,He has put up in the past,Now maybe it's your turn if your not prepared to do this,Then maybe it is you who should shut up.

Mtoto

There are certainly some VDW selections which, in their last races, seemed on the face of things to perform less well than on their penultimate runs: Celtic Pleasure being a case in point. But, thus far, I have always been able to find what strikes me as a logical explanation for VDW's selections in such cases.

Have you specific examples in mind that we could perhaps discuss on the thread?

I tried to explain to you about a second numerical picture,If you had understood what i was trying to say,You would have found horses to be backed on saturday.

John,

The problem many will have with your 'new found' solution is that you seem very reluctant to subject your thoughts to the old VDW examples.

If you have found a method that gives 10 out 12 at decent prices then all power to your elbow, particularly if you can maintain that strike rate.

It may well be that you have found a very profitable method but how can you be so sure that it's VDW's method, unless it corresponds with the selections he gave.

You say that you have spent 1000s of hours previously on the minutae of past examples. If this is the case then surely you have the notes/information to pretty quickly check back and see if it fits.

It is this blind reluctance to see how it corresponds with VDW's selections that many, myself included, find puzzling. Surely that is the only benchmark to discover if your method is VDW's method or a different (albeit profitable) one that you have discovered for yourself.

Is this reluctance based on:

a) You don't have access to the necessary information to check.

b) You don't regard the selections he gave as being an accurate reflection of his methods.

c) You might not like what you find and in reality discover you have uncovered a different method.

Cheers

Johnd

Investor is surely right when he says Guest has nothing to prove. Guest must have posted, before the races in question, several dozen selections and the record is there for all to see and evaluate.

By contrast you have proofed few if any. If you want your claims to be taken seriously, you'll need to show some proof, and here is what I hope you will find a sensible proposal to enable you to do so, without disclosing your ideas.

If he will agree, proof your next couple of dozen selections to our respected proprietor, Gummy: before the races, of course, on the basis that the names of the horses are for Gummy only. After your 24th selection, Gummy could then just post a summary on this thread: no dates, no horse names, no times of races etc: just a list of 24 in W2/1, L3/1 form. (And, if with all his other pressures Gummy felt unable to take this on, then I am sure we could find another respected individual, not party to the VDW discussions, who would be prepared to do so. After all, apart from storing your emails until the 24th has arrived, and noting the results, preparing the summary wouldn't take ten minutes.)


On a different matter, some seem to find posts by Guest, and possibly by others, obscure or in some way difficult to understand, and that has led to some purple prose. I would suggest that, at the root of the difficulty lies an unwonted degree of arrogance - not on Guest's part, but on those who have criticised him in this respect.

The fact is that in any sphere where knowledge, rather than mere opinion, is involved, to participate in a conversation a degree of knowledge is necessary.

In a recent post Guest mentioned that he was formerly a computer programmer. I know where my computer's on/off switch is, but not much more about how it works, hardware, software, etc. Unless Guest was offering a course for complete beginners, he and I could not have a useful conversation about computer programming, and it would be arrogant of me to assume that we could, and even more arrogant to blame Guest because I could not understand what he was saying.

Several people who post regularly on this thread, from time to time criticising Guest for his (to them) obscurity have, by their own admission, not even read all VDW's writings. Epiglotis, Swish and Mtoto come immediately to mind, apologies if I'm mistaken - I am sure there are others. Is it any wonder that they suffer from misuderstandings, and find comments from someone like Guest, who is deeply versed in VDW's writings and examples, impossible to understand properly? Frankly it is arrogant to expect to be able to do so.

However, there are other contributors who have either themselves made a serious study of VDW's work over the years (Crock and myself, for example), or have come fresh to it but have clearly put in a great deal of time and effort over a relatively short period to get to grips with it (Barney and Investor, for example). Because in this sphere, if no other, we are more knowledgeable, we are much better able to understand, and learn from, Guest's comments. And I think it is noteworthy that we are all happy to acknowledge our gratitude to Guest for his help.

In short, while folk are, of course, free to indulge their literary skills in commenting about what to them is obscure, their position would command more respect if they were proceeding from a basis of reasonable knowledge about the subject.

Hi Fulham,

I'm not sure what John e-mailing his selections to Gummy would achieve.

I, for one, am certainly not disputing John's claims that he has found a profitable method to date. The burning question is 'is it VDW's method'.

I can honestly see no other way of ascertaining if the method is VDW's than subjecting it to the selections that VDW himself said came from those methods.

Cheers

Crock

It would show whether Johnd has indeed found something that works by his understanding of VDW's approach. And if not then at least that disposes of that and hopefully he'll retire into what would then be well-merited obscurity. It may also be of financial benefit to Johnd in that the discipline of proofing is different from saying to oneself yes, that was a bet, and if he does show a profit after 24 he may not come to too much harm backing his selections.

I agree with you that such a proofing would not answer the issue of whether Johnd's approach is VDW's, but Johnd has already made clear that he isn't interested in putting himself to the trouble of testing that out.