This is exactly why Guest is presently being asked to post selections, there is no reason to believe in VDW as it is presented by Guest. I also would be quite happy if Guest submited selections privately to Gummy. Furthermore I would be prepared to do so myself in order to ascertain whether or not Guest's procedure has the advantage over my own. Call it arrogance if you like, we are discussing ideas about horse racing and these ideas are broader than the writings of VDW.

I'm affraid your wrong on that point,The methods as put forward by vdw are at question,not horse racing in general,Or how one percieves form and class,The way vdw interpreted it.

Primarily under question is Guest as holder of the knowledge re. VDW. If Guest genuinely understands VDW then it doesnt seem to be a sufficiently valuable commodity to justify all the secrecy. If he doesnt understand it then let's forget about hanging on his every sentence and find out how to apply it. If he understands it and it is worthwhile but he refuses to explain it, I for one would like to see some kind of demonstration of it's value.

With respect, this board may be about horse racing in it's broader sense but this particular thread is about the methods of VDW.

Personally, I can't understand this fascination for people wanting tips or selections posting prior to the event. All it proves to me is that they have a profitable selection method. It proves nothing at all about VDW's methods.

I repeat, the only benchmark of if a method corresponds with VDW's is if that method can be proven to work with the examples the man himself gave. Backing runners on the flat that were placed in the last 4 days and are first or second in the betting forecast is a profitable method but nobody would argue it was VDW's!

Cheers

I understand what you're saying. However I dont believe that Guest understands VDW, I'm not interested in tips I want a demonstration that somebody can understand VDW as it is claimed to be otherwise the pedagoguic attitudes of those claiming to be in the know are meaningless. If nobody understand let's make an effort among ourselves to do so without all this personality crap.

I for one am quiet happy to find uot for myself,I'll never know the full workings of his methods,Without the books as a base,Nobody ever will,Johnd has thrown a spanner in the works,And appears to be trying to belittle guest,Who has put plenty of selections on this thread,And some decent winners ta boot,Now it's johnd's turn,He put up 10 from 12 i can do that but i'll name them,Will he?

This fighting about who knows VDW best is what I mean by "personality crap". Basically who cares about these claims if they aren't explained? That includes, Guest, Johnd, Barney and you.

Epi,

Even if Guest were to post 100 selections before the race and all 100 won, then it would still prove nothing with regards to VDW's methods. It would only prove that Guest's methods were succesful!

Guest is the only contributor to this thread who has tried to demonstrate how his thinking ties in to the historical examples that VDW gave.

If somebody else can post that their methods will find all 150+ selections that VDW gave then I will afford them the same credibility that I do Guest.

Cheers

Surely if one is interested in "another way" then the way that is being used at present is not upto scratch.

If anyone has a way of selecting horses which is proving profitable to their own pocket then what does it matter if someone else is using a different way.

In short we cant say that anybody can realisticaly claim to understand VDW. Yet Guest makes that claim (though not 100%), as his results dont match those VDW says are possible then Guest is falsly representing himself and the entire subject.

It matters as a question of intellectual enquiry. There are plenty of other threads on Gummy that show a profit, that doesn't mean I'm interested in employing those methods myself but I am interested in the mechanics.

Epi,

I have to disagree. Guest is stating that his understanding of the methods correspond with the selections that VDW gave.

If racing (god forbid) ever changed so drastically that those same methods only produced a 1% strike rate today then it still wouldn't prove that it wasn't the method VDW set out at the time.

Cheers

I understand your position. I have some disagreements with it but they'll have to wait till tomorrow. Thanks for expressing your views.

Why should Guest explain VDW's methods to people who dont want to take the time and trouble to even get the books and look at the examples.

He has done MORE than enough to get people started on the way to understanding VDW.

VDW looked at things in a particular way and in my opinion you cant explain to people how to look at things in that way, you have to look for your self and come up with all the amazing discoveries and hope it drops together

A simple but poor analagy, but its the only one I can think of is that when one looks at an abstract piece of art.

Now there will be some art lovers who think its lovely and representative of something tangible.

To others it will look like something the cat dragged in.

Its art because its there in the gallery and we all pay to see it but whether it fits one's own personal view of what art should be is the problem.

To all roushayders power to your elbow, but some are happy to think there is more and GUEST has tried to point out things to those people and point out numerous other pitfalls along the way.

the first example shows "beacon light well out of it on both methods" now at forcast evens on the day he would have been topspeed, postmark, selection box most popular and probably a few naps as well.

So to me well out of means the ratings were not any of those.

last race class of the three probables was

pk.......6
bl.......39
Mr k.....14.


so it wasnt with last race class he was well out of either.

So ratings and last race class are not the whole picture.

that says it all then.

Get the books and find out.


dont expect anyone else to serve it up on a silver plate.


If your not prepared to do that you cant be that bothered and your intelectual enquiries will remain unsatisfied.

and you will always wonder.

Fulham,
Excellent post but to be fair to Johnd he did offer to put up his selections, so I guess we'll all have to wait and see what happens on this one, your second point however is well made. Its amazing how some people with no knowledge or interest in vdw feel compelled to comment on its merit (or in their cases lack of). As opposed to wanting to uncover the truth of the matter it seems merely an excercise in self agrandisement. It reminds me of those tory MPs in the eighties who would ring up the press to be quoted decrying some supposedly risque new film's immorality when a quick investigation reveals they heard about it in the newspapers and hadn't actually viewed the film in question.
Surprisingly enough I exclude epiglotis from that assessment. What his motives are I couldn't say but continuing the political metaphor, if sometimes this thread heads off in a "new labour" direction its refreshing to have a Tony Benn around to ask some searching questions. Unfortunately, he does trail a few minnows in his wake....
regards,

The past examples that VDW gave have to be the benchmark for those wishing to get to grips with the methods, surely? To that end there has not been a single person, as far as I can recall, that has convincingly opposed Guest on his analysis of past examples from those that VDW gave. A few have put there thoughts forward but not in the same, in-depth, manner that Guest has. Unless there is a good knowledge of the past examples in a persons argument then what they are saying must have come from somewhere else.

Some posts of late really show, in my mind, that most of what VDW shared has been completely misunderstood. Misunderstood is probably the wrong word because like Fulham has mentioned a few on here that claim too know a thing or two about VDW probably haven’t even got the form books that cover the periods concerned.

Anyone that has looked at the Roushayd example will know, as JohnD pointed out, that the ability rating was never mentioned. I suggest that those that haven’t already done so should go back and include this rating, for ALL horses concerned, and they may, just may, be able to see a point of view that will take them a lot further forward.

Guest, or anyone else, has nothing to prove to on this thread, it is up to those that want to know more to prove it to themselves. But then again I doubt they can be bothered.

There is surely only one person who has all the answers,
Bill , my newsagent.
He knows f**king everything about horse racing

SIB.
For those of us who haven't a clue what you are on about.
Please, shut the fu*k up.