I'm insulted
Believe me there would have been a time when I would have been proud to have been called a pommy bastard. Not now , not in Blairs Britain .
Anyway , I'd love to chat but i'm off to Sondat to strap myself to the underbelly of a lorry in the hope that I will return to good old blighty ladened with fags and booze with the option of a three bedroom council house, which I'm hoping to sell three months down the line.

Fulham,

With the Erin we are in full agreement, PK is the c/form horse and the selection. I also make him the class horse in form. Not the highest class horse in the race, but the highest in form. To come to this decision I don't need BL to be out of form. I make him not good enough to beat several horses in the race. Can I ask on what criteria do you make him out of form? As he has to be to stop him being the c/form horse. I also wonder if the c/form horse factor is part of the original method, could it not be a seperate/different method?

Re Inside Quarter.

I may be wrong but I have Dibbinsdale as the highest ability qualifier with 39. I don't know if you have him out of form? If you do, I must admit I would have great difficulty agreeing.

I agree working through the examples is a lot of hard work. I have thanked Guest in the past for his help, and thoughts, but in the end they are just that HIS thoughts. HE says BL is out of form, NOT VDW. I may be wrong on this but I think Guest said Stray Shot was the c/form horse because he couldn't be expected to win his last race. Is this a case of a Guest imposed criteria back firing on him? I think anyone starting to examine the examples MUST stick exactly to what is written by VDW and forget the explanations given by others.

Guest

I have said I made Sea Pigeon the class form horse in that race. I wouldn't have expected him to be beaten. He was considered good enough to take to America. Also BL had to be ridden differently to try and kill the finishing kick of SP. I can only think all those ones in front of BL and the fact SP had been off the track with an injury turned the punter's heads. BL couldn't beat SP on those terms as long as he had a hole in his a***. BL wasn't out of form, like VDW said he had a hard race. It could even be said he had run his best race EVER.

Be Lucky

Well Johnd, we certainly set the cat among the pigeons there,buddy!
What with playing computer games with my son, cooking our supper, computer disconnecting, etc it has taken me about 3 hours to read that lot.
Still i am glad it has livened things up!
I see Andrew suggested a nice 13-2 winner TIKRAM,and (sorry forgot who now, I aren't going back through it all) suggested PICCLED which went in at 4-1.
GOOD PICKS!
Swish

You never picked TYNDARIUS (NOTE CORRECT SPELLING) when it won at 25-1!
I did, and you know it!
Anyone who doesn't believe it can look at my posting earlier this year.
Swish

Ok - Mate .

But-

Just don`t get on the "Wrong Plane"-

We can always tell an Airplane from the UK.--

"Full of Pomm`s" -


When it Lands and they Switch "Off" the Engines-

The Bloody Plane - " Just keeps on "WHIN`ING !!"


TC !

Did you mean

"Anopheles"

or

"Aedes albopictus" -


Both are a " Damm Nuisance !!"

TC

If Guest's methods match up with the selections originally posted by VDW he should be getting 80%+. As he does not get this he could, in the words of Fulham, "retire into what would then be well-merited obscurity". There are alternatives, for example, as you suggest, the literal implimentation of VDW methodology may well have a strike rate considerable less than that claimed by VDW. There has been mention lately of the unproductive nature of unsubstantiated post race/strike rate claims, I agree that these are pretty much meaningless but they do have their precedent in the behaviour of VDW himself. One of the things that most surprises me about the entire arguement is the willingness to accept VDW's claims at face value, with no more reason than there was to accept Barney's claims of a few days ago. Walter Pigeon in a post shortly after that made an observation about one of the "winners" Jimmy put up in response to Barney's list, it is always possible after the event to find a reason why a horse won, unless this can be translated into finding the winner by the same reasoning before the race it is merely a form of sour grapes. You say that this forum is dedicated to the method specifically as employed by VDW, in fact it has the stated subject, "all things Van Der Wheil", it initially aimed at understanding how to use the method as described in the works and by use of the method discover a profitable selection procedure. These days theoretical posts are very thin on the ground, the thread has largely degenerated into a forum for discussion of selections for the day without any direct mention of the VDW component involved. The whole tendency to secrecy began with Guest and despite the fact that no justification for this secrecy has ever been demonstrated it has been taken up almost as a badge of membership by those claiming to understand VDW. In short this thread is very sick and if it's contributors dont realise that if they themselves being both cause and cure dont take it in hand it is likely to become even more meaningless. Recently the only theoretical discussions have been proposed by Mtoto, amongst the points he has raised is the inconsistency of VDW's procedure and also of Guest's. I have a suspicion that Guest doesn't employ VDW's examples as the basis of a method so much as a catalogue from which he chooses contemporary situations that resemble those in the historical examples. If that is the way that Guest thinks VDW is best used well and good but let's hear about it instead of having to guess at what other posters are up to, after all isn't it bad enough having to guess at what VDW was up to? You say that any thoery is only testable against the original examples, that is tantamount to saying nobody has ever managed to definitely isolate a VDW type selection since VDW himself, I ask you what is the aim of your efforts? Fulham has admitted to believing that some of the original examples were not pre-race selections, my own feeling is that VDW was at best an hysteric and quite possibly a fabrication, as such not very reliable. I see no reason why the student should expect to find a better approach than that of assimilating the basic advice and finding ways to apply it successfully to this week's racing. The historical examples are no more relevent to an understanding of the priciples expounded than are any other suitable races.
Barney, the reason Guest should help those without the books is exactly that.
Tuppenycat, I enjoyed the one about the whining, thanks.

Nice post, you articulate so well many of the sentiments that I have tried to put across.

Guest
The fact that you refuse to post your selections against those of a relative tyro speaks volumes, not only about your real grasp of the method, but also your integrity.

All
I have had enough of this, thinking about this forum is beginning to interfere with the real business of finding winners. I now know how the one-eyed man felt when he entered the kingdom of the blind.
Before I leave, I will post my next 5 selections on this forum to show what is possible when you open up your mind, without there being enough to make the method transparent. I will then leave you to stew in your own, self created juices.

Johnd

Mtoto


As regards Beacon Light, had he won his last race before the Erin, in my view he would have been a form horse and, having the highest ability rating, the c/f (though, of course, not necessarily a bet just by virtue of being the c/f.) But he didn't, instead showing what we may reasonably deduce from his general approach VDW regarded as a downturn in form.

Dibbindale Lad in the 1979 Northern Free Handicap did indeed have a markedly higher ability rating than Inside Quarter (though, interestingly, not on the sf cross check that VDW used for early season 3yos). Had Dibbindale Lad been a form horse he, rather than Inside Quarter, would have been the c/f, but in my view he was not a form horse, on precisely the same ground as Beacon Light.


Epiglotis

I do indeed suspect that VDW analysed some of the races after they had been run, and if I am right it would be unsurprising if he (without any conscious dishonesty) saw most clearly those elements that best fitted his thesis/approach. (The Beau Ranger race, with VDW's treatment of Carved Opal, may be a case in point, especially if one approaches it from the Sporting Life commentary on the race rather than the Form Book's, but as my discussion on this matter with Guest and Chaz showed, there are other, and arguably more probable, takes on the race.)

But even if I'm right on that point, it is still a very long way from suggesting that VDW is a fabrication. Whether the author of the VDW material was actually named C Van Der Wheil, with the "history" which Tony Peach refers to in the booklets he has edited, is a matter that could only, finally, be established by research, and not a matter on which I have any opinion. Whether the material was the honest work of one individual - whatever his or her name - is also, ultimately, a matter than can only finally be established by research. However, having studied the texts very closely; noted the continuities of style and thinking; and explored some of the possible ambiguities, it is my opinion that the work is both by one individual and a sustained effort to convey a fundamentally logical and coherent approach, without literally spelling it all out unambiguously.

Further, on the basis of my knowledge of psycho-analytic writings, and 14 years clinical experience, I see no evidence whatsoever to support the view that VDW (whoever he or she actually was) suffered from hysteria in any clinical sense. Indeed, to the extent that it is possible to make clinical judgements from individuals' written work, I read VDW's as the work of someone well in touch with reality, without any obvious psycho-pathology.

In my opinion there is no secrecy about VDW's methods on this thread, in fact just the opposit, its all here just not deliberatley pointed out.

Some people have double the problem's, as well as not knowing what to look for they dont believe where to find it.

and when you find it "it will be so simple you will wonder how you ever missed it"

Some people wouldn't recognise a good bet if it waved a flag and shouted "back me, back me".


Little owl,

VDW sets out the numerical picture "WITH RATINGS SUPPORT FOR INFORMATION"

AT THIS STAGE DO NOT MAKE ANY AUTOMATIC ASSUMPTIONS.

he cant be any clearer than that, highest on ability and most consistent with ratings support, BUT THIS IS STILL NOT ENOUGH.

he goes on

"it is now necessary to establish if any of the three probables has good claims for support"

Ask yourself this, when vdw had checked ability consistency and produced the ratings he still did not consider it a good thing. In fact he says specifically "there is nothing in the other elements to suggest any upset".

I am suggesting that these "other elements" are the two methods of rating, used in that very first example PK.

The last sentence, for me, is the most telling.

"The CHANCE of a very fine bet would be there"

[This message was edited by Barney on December 11, 2002 at 08:50 AM.]

I saw a horse yesterday that will be a pleasure to watch through its whole life.

I dont know how long you have been doing this so you may have seen it before.


"old california" was on my two yr old list of horses to follow.

Its only three now and there should be a few years of backing this to come.

Epiglotis,

I'm travelling all day today and as your post merits more than a one sentence answer, I'll endeavour to respond tomorrow.

Barney,

I agree about Old California, indeed I wanted him on my Tote 10 to follow list but alas he wasn't listed. It is interesting to note that he was one of the favourites (and was backed) for the Triumph Hurdle well before making his debut for Mr Pipe yesterday.

Cheers

Barney

With respect, in referring to the Little Owl example you've not mentioned a key step which, I suspect, for many is the root of their difficulties with VDW's approach.

In the Little Owl example, VDW furnished four sets of data - the ability and consistency ratings and two ratings the exact nature of which he did not disclose (though, like you, I have assumed that the two were those he referred to, but did not quote for figures for, in the Prominent King example).

When VDW wrote "Little Owl has the highest ability rating and there is nothing in the other elements to suggest any upset, indeed all the evidence shows it ought to be a good thing", I think it is clear that by "other elements" he meant the other three data sets - the consistency rating (where Little Owl's was the perfect 3) and the two undisclosed ratings.

But he then added an important section which I think some ignore, contenting themselves with what might be termed the first numerical picture. As you know, he wrote: "To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and most important, how they performed in the later stages of each race."

It was only in the knowledge of what this confirmatory work showed, ie in this particular case that nothing called into question Little Owl's chance of winning, that VDW reached his conclusion that the horse was a "racing certainty".

From one point of view, one could say that the task of understanding VDW's approach is really to understand how he undertook the confirmatory work including (to use the term he employed in a later article) how "to set up a second "numerical picture"".

I am taking exactly the opposit view, that the ratings were disclosed in the numerical picture.

And that fundamentally in VDW's eyes this wasn't enough.

He had to you use his "other methods" to decide whether a bet should be placed.

one of which is as you say "in formness" - as pk(a bit of a canny danny lto)

the other is where I said it is.

Barney

I'm a bit confused by your last post. The actual values of the two sets of ratings were given in the Little Owl example (LO's being 69 and 90), but not in the Prominent King example, surely?

NOT

Those ratings are there for those "who rely on a numerate basis from which to evaluate races".

They are not "his methods".

JohnD - Once again you plainly have not read my postings. Did I not say in my last one that I will CONTINUE to post my selections as I see them and it will be interesting to see how we differ? This obviously has some other meaning to you.

I think your recent attitude speaks volumes about your temperament to be honest. In the last month you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about how to use VDW methods, given up betting to regroup and miraculously found all the answers. Pretty impressive turn around and if so you deserve hearty congratulations.

Now you have gone down the route so threatened before by others including one person who pops up from time to time to remind us of a big priced winner he had some time ago.

Epiglotis - Just like yourself, I don't know the truth behind the whole VDW story, but I agree with Fulham that his writings were consistent and informative. Much more so than any other so called expert on the subject of winner finding. I always felt here was someone who knew what they were talking about so I took their advice and discovered for myself if it were really so. This involved troubling myself to seek out various VDW books and old form books, which I don't doubt would be enough to put most people off, but I always think one has to put ones self out to achieve something. Why you or others can't just write a cheque out to Browzers or suchlike and actually buy and read these books is beyond me. It demonstrates a real lack of what is required to continually unearth the answers that are there in the form book.

My approach fits all of VDW examples, that is how I came to understand it. JohnDs approach can only fit his own selections if he has not taken the time to check VDWs. I can't believe anyone could logically argue against those two sentences. I'm sure you will try though.

Mtoto - The crux of the problem lies in your assertion that Sea Pigeon was the class/form horse in the race at Sandown. According to VDWs calculations Beacon Light was the clear class/form horse in that race and had a fitness advantage in better class, but despite only giving 4lbs he didn't perform well. He wasn't unlucky in anyway either and it was a small field, so 2nd wasn't much of an achievement by any standards.

This is what I mean by viewing things VDWs way. You have to do it throughout and not just pick parts to use, as I think VDW clearly warned against.

The same process made Dibbinsdale Lad out of form RELATIVE to the Thirsk race.

My approach is consistent if you know every part of my thinking on it, but of course nobody does but I reserve the right to keep certain info to myself. Epiglotis feels I have some sort of obligation to tell all, especially to those who can't even be bothered to put their hands in their pockets for a few books.

I know its hard


look at WL and LO last races

WL was in form and from a higher class but he also brings with him two factors which went against BL and yet LO has the two factors but opposit to WL, which also PK and MK had the opposit over BL. The "informness" was only introduced in PK's race in comparison to MRK not BL who was "well out of it".

T.C.

Correct spelling of pommy. P.o.H.M.

Prisoners of His/Her Majesty


Regards Delboy

Barney

I'm sorry, and I don't know whether it is me being dense or you failing to convey what you mean in your writing, but I simply cannot understand the point you are endeavouring to make in your penultimate post before this one.