Mtoto,JohnD,

I've just seen the results.Well done to both of you.

Well done gents & keep posting johnd i took the 13/2 about leitrim lakes, read the write up about it in the post after your tip & everything was very positive a real progressive type, thanks

Hello all
It often surprises me how many times the initial numerical picture throws us off the scent,Two horses spring to mind today,Namely Sackville and Spendid,I didn't actually have a bet today far to many in with chances,But it doesn't detract from the fact that these two,Were consistent in the context of the races yhey took part in,Also Nickel sun had done no wrong.

John D,
you obviously know nothing of the proper VDW system/method.
Guest,
don't use the booklets for toilet paper,but a word of advice,don't pick your nose,you may find another hairy orifice.
Q.

What you really mean is I know nothing of your idea of the method. Two different things, I think.

John D,
what I mean is,Guru Guest gets 4 from 4 losers,the classic being a 3rd placed odds on fav in a 4 horse race and you get a 1 from 1 6/1 winner.
I assume even you can now take it that I'm taking the piss.
Q.

You were a bit slow there Johnd

Sorry about that, must be this thread that makes me defensive!

GUEST

I am honestly sorry things have turned out for you the way they have, nobody deserves a week like you have had.
I apologise for the recent hatchet job, though those who have you as a guru must also carry some responsibilty. You have helped many in the past, including myself, and I sincerely hope that you will put this week behind, and continue to contribute to this thread.
I will email you shortly, hopefully to rebuild some bridges before I depart.

I agree with you that too Many have hung on Guest's every word,There has also been criticism aswell,Even from those trying to learn the methods as laid out,But there is one undisputable fact,Guest Knows this subject back to front,By that i mean the way he can come back on any horse vdw put across as a good thing,I now believe that something is also alluding Guest,The present situation cannot be put down to human error,But again his knowledge on the subject is immense,By the way,I hope your not going to bugger off before youv'e put your 5 bets up,You haven't proved anything to me yet.

Then Perhaps he will give us a " VDW Quote" regarding "Loosing Runs"


I can`t find one !!




TC

Investor (and others),

You say that you think something is eluding Guest. Can I just ask why you and some others think Guest is missing something when he posts losers.

It seems to me that there is some kind of blind faith in VDW methods. Therefore if the selections are losers, they cannot possibly come from the VDW methods. Is it not possible that they could be VDW selections and still losers?

Just curious

Cheers

Hi Guest,

As promised an attempt to answer your questions. However I will have to start by asking a question. Why are we looking for the c/form horse as a starting point when using the first method? I will call it the consistency method so we all know what we are talking about. As you said Castle Warden was rejected because he wasn't consistent, so that shows me it isn't part of the method. A lot of the doubt (in my mind anyway) is the matter of being in form or not. This only arises from trying to find the c/form horse. You said the horses in the Spells It Out examples show the selection is the horse that is top on ability and in form. This may be true, but it is also the horse that is top rated in one of the other rating, usually both. That is plain and simple, unlike trying to work out if the horse is in form. As our friend ED pointed out there are many reasons why a horse is or is not in form. He put up a fair list, but I can think of a few he missed. So is it possible the c/form horse is just another x check, an important one but a x check nevertheless.

Good Shiul

I must be doing something wrong, I make Horus's ability rating higher than GS (your way). So when I read you had Horus c/form horse I wasn't surprised, although I don't agree with your thinking on weight. I have a lot of trouble with the Racing Post site, I have tried 3 times to check the ratings. If your ratings are correct then I would have to make GS the c/form horse. Although he would have never got that far, he would have fallen at the first obstacle so to speak (metaphorically)

Barney.

Sorry I made the c/form horse in the 2:45 Don Hurricane Lamp not the same as Guest. Re your question I don't always disagree with Guest, the C form isn't strong enough, and the C form wasn't the form I used.

Be Lucky

I'm not sticking the knife in,Only when Guest posts up horses that lose,As i said his knowledge on the subject is unrivalled,It just seems to me that every now and again he throws caution to the wind,Last weekend i was on the same horses as guest,So was in full agreement basically,Today (in my opinion)There were too many Threats i.e sackville,If you look further than the initial picture,Farmer jack had shown form in better class and was dropping in distance,What did vdw say about them types,It's constructive criticism And by no means intended to rub salt into the wounds.

Mtoto

Prior to yesterday's race, Horus's ability rating was 94, Good Shuil's 99.


Crock/Investor

I think I agree with both of you. These days, thanks to Guest's helpful posts on methodological issues, I almost invariably find the same c/fs as he does, and I'm quite convinced that the approach followed to identify these c/fs is the way VDW worked. (At least, using it generates ALL the c/fs VDW specified, without exception, and correctly designates all the horses VDW explicitly named as in or out of form.) But, as Guest and others have often pointed out, being the VDW c/f does not automatically make a horse a bet.

Guest has been getting some of the judgements about which c/fs merit backing wrong lately, and this is unsurprising:

a) with the best will in the world, some will always lose - after all, the downside of VDW's 80-90% strike rate is that 10-20% of the bets he made lost;

b) Guest isn't VDW, and has made clear that his overall strike rate - in the 60%s - currently falls well short of VDW's in the 80%s. So of course 30-40% of his bets lose.

Even with a strike rate in the 60%s, significant losing runs seem to be a statistical fact of life - how much more convenient if losers came neatly spaced between winners! But with a proven method, and the judgement to achieve a strike rate of that level in the long term, short term losses are merely blips on an upward trend line.

[This message was edited by Fulham on December 14, 2002 at 10:52 PM.]

Investor,

I'm not commenting on today specifically, as it happens with another early kick off at Old Trafford, I didn't study todays racing and therefore can't comment on the selections that Guest put up.

It just seems a strange phenomenon to me that whenever losers are posted it seems to mean the person involved can't understand VDW.

Guest, in my opinion, knows more about the examples that VDW gave than anybody else on the thread and so I think it fair to assume that he's spent a considerable amount of time studying the methods. Under normal circumstances if people found little of value in the selections then I would expect them to rubbish the methods. This doesn't seem the case here, it is automatically assumed that if some losers are posted then the operator rather than the methods are held responsible.

I'm not really commenting either way other than to suggest I find this phenomenon strange.

Cheers

First off, a well done must go to JohnD and Mtoto for their winners today. I can't say that I agreed with Mtotos pair before the events, though one of my reasons for not selecting In Contrast was that Eternal Spring had been very close at Cheltenham and was then fav in the race that Classified won at Aintree. Funnily enough on the day I posted 2 from 2 at Aintree with Florida Pearl and Classified, but no such good fortune today. At the end of the day though they won , so job done.

I can't really explain this week, except to note that there has been an extraordinary amount of complete outsiders winning recently. True, this has mainly been in the lower races, but nevertheless some results are proving more puzzling than usual. If it carries on I may have to cancel Christmas in my house

Mtoto - I'm not sure your point re Castle Warden. It wasn't a selection partly due to non consistency, just as with Buckbe, a point VDW made before evaluating the Jan 85 Card at Sandown involving Wing & A Prayer etc.

JohnD - The hatchet has been buried along with my wallet in the garden
I will email you shortly.

There is a simple way to check if a selection is a VDW selection, and he pointed it out many times. I can say, for much the same reasons as Investor has highlighted, that few, if any, of Guests selections this week, could be seen as VDW selections. This does not detract from his knowledge of VDW, just either his understanding of the method, or his application of it.

Johnd,

well done with your winner that had probability.

Mtoto,

I cant understand how you see that a horse that gives weight, and loses narrowly, to a selection you consider capable of winning a class b is not good enough to win a class c. Still well done with your winners. The first of many evaluations I hope.

Tuppenycat,

VDW described losing runs as "inevitable" and gave a staking plan for such situations. I am also sure that there is not anyone on this board who has not had a number of them.

Guest,

well done for giving in to the clamour for selections,perhaps all the doubters will now be satisfied and leave the interested in peace to get on with it.

This looks a good thing at naven when considering the subsequent success of rhinestone cowboy and iris's gift. 4/6 looks a bargain.

Kicking king is interesting and he may provide a guide to the ability of our vic who ran for pipe last week, A half brother but with a much better dam sire, I would like to see him get close.