In the 215S today a guote from their write up

quote:

---

AIR MAIL was just over 3l behind FLYING TREATY in a handicap over this course and distance , but he has 20lb pull here.

---

Result FT beat AM again!!!


cheers IMP

from a vdw point of view weight is fundamental, in my opinion.

Re your reply to Epiglotis, once again you prove your arrogance, and are dismissive of anyone who holds a different point of view to yourself.
WILL YOU EVER OPEN UP YOUR MIND?????????
For someone with you background in psychology, it really is distressing to see you continually playing the same tune, without even considering anyone else, ( Guest and his disciples apart), has anything worthwile to contribute.
It is this attitude that is directly responsible for a seperate thread being started.
I have been in occasional contact with Guest via email, though to be fair to him, he has given more than he has received, so far.
I may eventually be able to show him a different path than the one he has chosen, but first I would need to be convinced that he is receptive. Given the amount of time that he has put into doing things his way, this may be difficult, but not insurmountable. In you case, you have proved, and continue to prove, a hopeless case.

I have long been of the opinion that weight is unimportant, except in extremes. Without assuming too much, I would think it fair to say that Mtoto subscribes to a similar school of thought. You have made it clear that this is not your point of view.
Perhaps you could enlighten us by giving us some hard evidence to support your standpoint, and put it such a way that we may easily understand it, ( i.e. no cryptic remarks, or obscure references to passages from the booklets).
This is not an attempt to catch you out, but a genuine request to see something that I cannot see at present.
Regards
Johnd.

my references to passages in booklets are not obscure, they are very specific.

In many peoples eyes my view of vdw's work is tainted because I have approached this subject and taken the clues and hints very generously given by Guest.

However there are certain patterns that flow through all vdws examples (that i have so far looked at).

in my view FORM has two faces, without this aspect being understood no one is going anywhere with VDW.

1) is the horse in form
2) is the horse in form relative to the conditions of todays race.

also weight, the west tip examples clearly show the important factors when trying to balance weight and class.

it may seem clever to some to try and work it all out for themselves, but vdw's examples and illustrations draw on all his experience, and he tells you how to do it and what to do in certain circumstances.

I will try to help anybody me, whether peolple think thats any use or not is up to them, but some people are not helping themselves, by refusing to take on board the underlying message in what vdw was saying.


I dont know how Guest put up with it for so long
it must be like bangging your head against a wall.

Johnd

I am concerned to be thought to have a background in psychology (almost as concerned as it was thought I was a sociologist!). What on earth gives you that idea?

A historian ?



2.45 Lingfield

I have been reading the comments of several posters on the other VDW thread. I`m pretty sure this race will be evaluated by your good self. May I request your thoughts on this race AFTER the event please.

I have just had a look at above race wish i had looked before the race, It looks to me as though flying treaty was the only true miler in the race all the others were either 6f 7f or 9f and above so if you have a horse that can carry weight over its best distance and still improving while others would be slowing down or not got into top gear it would win. I'm sure that must be something VDW would have noticed and probably jumped on thats my view anyway, I'm
still not sure about the VDW way of cross checking every thing as there seem to be so many different ways to choose from going by all the posts but i think if you look hard enough you will get it in the end.
Sorry if i went on a bit.

Be lucky

Quote from your posting on Dec 11th;

" Further, on the basis of my knowledge of psycho-analytic writings, and 14 years clinical experience" ??????????

Johnd

You drew what I accept is a reasonable, though in fact erroneous, conclusion. I, alongside others with substantial experience of psycho-analysis (whether on the couch or at its head) shudder at the thought of being confused with psychologists (and, in fairness, many psychologists regard psycho-analysis as a pseudo-science and of little or no therapeutic value). Determined is right - my background and indeed current profession is as an historian, though I still have extensive involvement in the psycho-analytic world.


Determined

Commenting before the "off" on the 2.45 poses me no difficulty, because it is not a race in which I will be betting.

I can't fully analyse the race, because I take the Form Book for the turf and NH seasons, and don't therefore get the weekly "flat" supplements during the AW. Thus I cannot assess the field for ability in the way I think VDW would, as I prefer the Form Book sfs to Topspeed's.

For me, the race insofar as I've studied it, is fraught with difficulty. I have great respect for Butler as a trainer, and Compton Emperor may be anything and quite probably will win this race comfortably. But for me his form is not all that exciting, we don't know how he'll take to the AW, and at around 3/1 I do not regard him as value.

Satelcom is, of course, proven on the Lingfield surface and, like CE, clearly has a good chance. He may beat Hoh Investor this time, with the aid of the claimer's 7lb, but he may not. (Agilis will have to improve on his last run to beat HI again at today's weights.)

And in addition to CE, Satelcom and HI, there are other form horses in the race.

So, a definite no bet for me, though if on course and having a social bet, at the prices I'd probably put a couple of pounds EW on Hoh Investor.

Good luck if you decide to bet.

Thanks for your comments.

Cheers,

Fulham,
I would bet that with your psycho-analytic background, you must have come to some interesting conclusions about the mental states of some of this forum's members!
regards,

Statajack

I don't suppose my conclusions are any different from yours! However, it is safer to confine ourselves to the horses.

Barney,

I had decided to ignore your last posting to me. However it is so far wide of the mark I have decided to answer it.

Questions, If you don't ask them how do you learn? Do you just except everything you are told, or read? If someone makes a statement I think one has the right to query it.
Clues, are meant to help provide a solution. When they are full of holes they are worthless.
All I ever give, I have always tried to answer any straight question, without being cryptic. If anyone has ask for help I have given it to the best of my ability. In some cases I have tried without being asked. If I make a statement, I will explain if asked.
I don't believe, Believe what? I believe the VDW methods work. I don't believe the methods that are being used, and explained on this thread are the correct way to the solution. Of course they work because they have been worked after the result is known.
Not capable of proving it, Again I don't know what you mean. I am working through the examples using the method I think is correct. I have found many that work my way. To me the proof is getting the results in the present, that I am doing. I am also coming up with nearly the same c/form horses as people that are using the conventional method. The difference is anyone using my method would always arrive at the same horse as me. No juggling, no having to work out is this horse in form. I think the only mistake I have made is calling it the c/form horse, it is the most likely winner in the race.
Give up, Why the hell should I? I'M WINNING. May be not 80% of the time, that's because I won't back these short priced horses. As I have said before, the average price of my selections is around 5/1.

Be Lucky (or have some original thoughts) Just because someone says something doesn't make it a fact.

An interesting question to pose at this point in the thread. Fulham has just mentioned psychiatry and the disregard within which it is held by many psychologists, I would go further and say that the entire premise of psychiatry is an illusion that Freud's preconceptions were incapable of penetrating, thus psychiatrist/patient relations can be seen as collaborative maintenance of an illusion. Take your pick as to which one, if either, best describes the believer.

I take the view that up to a certain distance on a certain going a horse will be able to carry up to a certain amount of weight without feeling any ill effects. However once the horse's limits for any of these variables is exceeded the horse will be liable to tire. (The idea of limits has been expressed previously by both Guest and Greg). So in a sense weight is irrelevant for a horse when operating within it's margins of scope but going beyond those it becomes problematic. Personally I dont trust a horse's capability to win if it is carrying more than 5lb above it's previous top winning weight. Naturally I see exceptions to this rule but I find it worth adopting. For younger developing horses the limits will be changing, rather than involve myself in the business of attempting to predict these changes I prefer to stay in the 4 year old+ range. I guess, if my theory is of practical importance, it would be best to stick with fully physically mature horses ie 5+, which would mean mainly chases. I wonder if someone with the literature would like to break down VDW's selections into age-range defined proportions.

Epiglotis

I actually referred to psycho-analysis, not psychiatry. Although there are some psycho-analytically trained or oriented psychiatrists, they are in the minority, and the majority are probably as sceptical about psycho-analysis as are psychologists.

Presuming your comments are about psycho-analysis, may I assume that, like your comments about VDW's approach to racing, they are made from a basis of no serious study of the subject or practical experience?

There was nothing personal intended in my post, please dont get upset. I was refering to psychiatry, the theoretical foundation of most schools of psychotherapy and certainly that of psychoanalysis. As I come from a family of psychologists I have plenty of conventional background relevent to the field. I will ask you if you think VDW had faith in his ability to deal with the task he had set himself? A person needs to be aware of the degree to which they are able to succeed in any endeavour that they undertake and to utilise this knowledge to set themselves appropriate goals. I am at least as capable of understanding horse racing as VDW was, on top of which I have the support of the Gummy membership, the modern imformation network, etc, therefore I see no reason to confine myself within the boundaries of VDW's achievements.