I don't know if you possess any of the literature that vdw wrote,I can remember some time ago you mentioned systematic betting,But have you ever clapped eyes on the other stuff that he wrote.If you have then why not give us your interpretation of what is involved to make the methods work,You along with plenty of others seem to think this is one big joke,Think again john


for a number of years now iv'e been a system backer,And fortunately for me have had quite a lot of success.Iv'e also said in the past that i'm not purely vdw,More to the point i couldn't be because i don't have all the form books,But i often look back on the bets i used to strike and the amount i at times put on them,And i was very lucky to say the least.But during the time i've been reading the posts from the likes of Guest ,Fulham,Statajack,Barney,Reference point,Mtoto,Lee and numerous others,I have a much better understanding of form,Even if i don't fully understand vdw just from the point of form evaluation this thread is a gem,But two other things have materialised out of my better judgement on how horses tick,My strike rate has gone up,But most importantly so has my betting bank,There is a lot to be learned from this thread,A majority of posters on here are intelligent people (yourself included) they've not just walked out of some loony bin,Give people a bit of credit instead of continually dismissing everything as rubbish.

Hello everyone,

Some very interesting points have been made recently. Mr Ed,for instance, does indeed have a point here (if I’ve understood him correctly).

If we don't truly understand V.D.W’s first examples how can we hope to go on to later ones. Does anybody know why guest mentioned Banswaras for instance ? I have to confess that I have never considered this horse before . Why did he make mention of those last time out winners? Again, I don't know.But I’m sure as Hell going to try and find out.

When someone said Guest had lost credibility,in the early part of the flat season, did anybody realise what the third horse that Guest backed was? How about Guests selection of Adiemus in the Lincoln, a horse I seem to remember that raised a few eyebrows, but in my limited experience was entirely consistent with VDW’s view of things. I seem to remember those eyebrows only being raised after it lost though.

Just in case anybody thinks that G.Hall could have come up with all the answers from the prominent King example. Does anybody think that he could have picked Roushayd from the clues contained within?

These and many, many, more questions have cropped up in my own mind over the last 12 months, but that has only come about through the generosity of some people on this thread.

If I look back over the last 12 months at my level of understanding then , compared to now,then there is no question that it has increased considerably .However, the more nudges in the right direction that people have given, then the more I realise how much I‘ve missed and how much there is still to learn.

I’ve wished all board members merry xmas on another thread, but I’d like to wish all those contributors on my favourite thread all the very best and hope to meet you all again next year. .

I would like to say a big welcome to this thread,A bit belated maybe,Judging by your most recent posts you have a lot to offer,We've lost a few good posters along the way Reference Point,Lee,Bensam.As you have probably noticed there are plenty of others who no absolutely nothing at all about vdw,Who will frequently pop up and slag off a subject they don't understand,Don't let them grind you down my friend,Scroll past them if you have to,Some of them aren't worth wearing your fingers out on


To everybody on this thread,Have a very merry chrimbo,And a happy and profitable new year.

P.S speak to ya boxing day,And remember Temperement bedevils the punter.

JIB

A horse with the hypothetical Classic record you outline would in all probability feature in the first five in the betting (as you have it running in a non-handicap). But if it didn't, it would still be considered, as any competent follower of VDW's approach would give some attention to each and every runner.

Think of the consistency rating as part of a prioritisation process, a bit like triage in a hospital accident and emergency department. By contrast, considerations of class, form and conditions (including weight) are the core of the subsequent "clinical" work.

**** off and die, shit brained smegma stain on the memory.

What would you know about Temperament.
Why don't you stick to words of one syllable? And, I see you still can't differentiate between a full stop and a comma.

It's nice to have SOMETHING;,.'[that cconnstanlie corrects yor spilleing mistks thangyou.;,./;ll;'

have you been sucking too hard on that bong again

Greg
Here are six races to choose from on boxing day that near enough fit your guidelines they are all handicaps with limited runners, just pick one your happiest with & if you could post your findings on here that would be fine, once again thanks for taking the trouble & good luck.
2.55 kemp
3.30 kemp
2.00 ayr
1.35 weth
2.10 weth
2.40 winc

have a nice christmas everyone hope 2003 proves rewarding for you & finds you all in good health.

Why the upset with Mr Ed?

Have I missed something?
Swish

I enjoy very much reading and having a laugh on this thread. It gives me great enjoyment, although the enjoyment would be greatly improved if a few more of you could impress me with some winners.
Regrettably I have to leave you now because I have to get on with the serious business of finding winners and making money.
Cheers
Swish

You recently posted that you could't confidently rule out Royal auclair,When running against poliantas and co.Was one of the main contributory factors,The result of the recent race including Impek and Vol Solitaire,Just curious.

It has been said ability never fades how then should the trainer place his charges in relation to future opposition & how would he know if his horse was well in concerning any given race from his best ever performance?.

Is Florida Pearl first on class/form given that he has the highest ability rating or do we take the view that his seasonal debut where he ran many pounds below his best makes him out of form.

It is clear he ran well below his best and on all known form he should have beaten See More Business or ran that one very close at the least.

Interesting to note that FP wasn`t even favourite that day. That point leads me to believe he wasn`t expected and in my opinion the run should be ignored.

FP is therefore the class/form horse with Best Mate second.

Does the race have conflict or is there a bet to be had.

FP loves the track but has come here in the last 2 years having had 2 runs. Just the one mediocre effort this time around which I guess is down to the stables indifferent form. He beat Best Mate fair and square here last year but BM has clearly improved since.

FP at 5/1 has to be the e/w steal of the race but in my opinion he will not beat BM.

BM is consistent in the highest class, course, going (not very soft ), jockey, etc all OK and I expect the experts to make him a strong bet at evens or better.

I will not be placing a bet as I`m still very uncomfortable placing monies on such short priced horses.

Opposition - in order of ability,

F.Uberalles is unproven at the distance in this class.

N.Upmanship - same as FU.

Lord Noelie - not in form

Bacchanal - 3rd last year yes and possible further improvement likely but can he make up the 6 length beating; no

Shooting Light - not in form and doesn`t have the class to trouble BM and FP.

Marlborough - not good enough on all known form

Douze Douze - 10 lbs worse off with BM and nothing to suggest a reversal.

Cheers,

By my calculations, Best Mate is the class/form horse in the KG and Florida Pearl is not a form horse for the race. Yes, he didn't need to win on his reappearance, but he should have run a lot better than he did. FP had a very good season last time, but the odds are against him proving as consistent at the top level this season and already he has started on the wrong foot.

Best Mate has already shown his well being and clearly improved after last years KG when he was running at the trip for the first time against the class/form winner.

Earlier on the card, Le Sauvignon is class/form in the Feltham and whilst he didn't beat much first time over fences, neither have the other form horses so far.

In the Christmas Hurdle, Hors La Loi III is class/form despite falling last time. He was making good headway though when taking a tumble 2 out and whilst he may not have won, the benefit of any doubt is given due to the strength of his previous form. Interesting to note his running in this event last year against comparably better horses.

I'll be making a post of how I see Boxing Days racing in the morning.

Best mate is a good thing tomorrow.

Thanks for the early comments on tomorrows racing Guest and Walter.

Guest,

I totally and independantly have come to the same conclusion as you with regards the Christmas Hurdle.

Hors La Loi 111 whilst class/form and a horse I really want to back tomorrow is causing me a few problems, ie - will he start OK and where will the pace in the race come from ( he`ll pull if no pace ).

2 x factors that concern me but the potential 3/1 makes him a value bet even allowing for my concerns.


With regards Le Sauvignon. I`ll be honest, ie - his ability rating is primarily due to his top class French form and I wasn`t sure how to equate that in comparison.


Cheers,

I`d still be grateful for the ability ratings to the 1978 Erin should anybody out there want to help me out.

Thanks,