Thanks for explaining your position.

anybody else get titun empris c/f

Mtoto - No horse in the August nursery won by Soaf had won in that class beforehand. Rosette had the highest winning class rating, but looking beyond the obvious face value of things, it had beaten nothing of note relative to the Newmarket contenders. Note it had to be dropped in class to collect after failing previously in even lower class. This was not consistent form and that has nothing to do with consistency figures used in the initial platform. I have said before that at no time did VDW state or even hint that the consistent horses were the form horses. This is a basic error in understanding that most, if not all, VDW followers make at some stage.

The race was a 2yo race so unadjusted speed figures were used as a further measure of talent. Soaf had won lower class races very easily, but further inspection showed them to be above average standard. Soaf had not been seen since May when a beaten odds on fav, making headway in the closing stages without getting into the thick of it. Have you ever wondered just why horses who apparently put in a bad one seem to be given a lengthy rest afterwards?

Another Signcentre in the same race had a similiar profile to Rosette in that the win was next to useless and in addition AS was 25/1 last time. How many times does an unconsidered horse win a race, only to get beaten next time when favourite ?

The method is not changed from race to race. It is a complex approach though requiring a lot of double checking and crossing of tees and dotting of eyes. Form may appear to fluctuate, but it is often clear as to if a horse has run up to it's best and simply not been good enough or has run way below it's ability for some reason, sinister or not.

Epiglotis - I could take a lengthy amount of time and explain all I know regards VDW, but would you accept the points made? I agree with Fulham that for a man of your intelligence, discovering the full method may prove less of an ordeal than for most, but then again whoever said VDW was rocket science. As VDW said, there is a certain knack or know how as to how to employ his way of thinking on racing. The selections or possibles put up on the altenative thread (better to call it "nothing to do with VDW whatsoever thread" I think), have little basis in VDWs ideas.

Your rejection of Fulhams very kind and genuine offer show to me that you really can't be bothered, for want of a better phrase, to read VDWs ideas and your constant hopping from one area of investigation to another on a daily basis shows a lack of the persistance required to unravel the clues.

VDW later explained that he thought it best to reveal his method piece by piece and a factor at a time, in the hope that a blinkered readership would eventually see the light and understand how it all worked. This was done over a long period and it has also come to light that Tony Peach of the RFU put a halt to his letters at some stage.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guest:
The selections or possibles put up on the altenative thread (better to call it "nothing to do with VDW whatsoever thread" I think), have little basis in VDWs ideas.

QUOTE]

Guest

As one who has posted analysis and selections ( no, ONE selction - Cita Verda) on the alternative thread, I take great exception to your comment that they have little basis in VDWs ideas. They are indeed based on VDWs ideas, maybe my interpretation of his ideas but following my reading of VDWs books then I feel I am somewhere near to his ideas.

My discussions with MuchofMuchness in the preceding couple of pages indicate how it is difficult to sum up VDWs ideas in a sentence or a paragraph. However, my selections are based on spotting horses that are consistent, in form and expected to win in the class they are competing in. If that isn't the basis of VDW then I and many others must be wasting our studying time.

Yours with a degree of indignation

Rob

I may be wrong but i think that was a personal address to epi.

Barney

Possibly, put that particular sentence seems aimed at all contributors to the 'Alternative' thread.

Rob

you must admit it is a bit of a waste of time trying to analise races when its obvious that the fundamentals are lacking, in some cases, and even then they wont be told.

True!


Rob

That's a coincidence Barney, those words in your last post are virtually identical to the words I would have used when discussing VDW fanatics who won't listen to people who have sound knowledge and experience in the game,
Cheers
Swish

swish

you say that your way is VDW, just how many of his examples have you checked out using the roushayd method?

Commendable tact:

Vanman posted January 15, 2003 11:02 AM  
rob
you must admit it is a bit of a waste of time trying to analise races when its obvious that the fundamentals are lacking, in some cases, and even then they wont be told.

Directly addressed to the thread's most active analyst. If you really meant "analise" I think you've switched the names of the threads.

less is more.

I am not prepared to piss about when people have not read the books


ps.

go and get jimmy to help you with VDW, he is good speller as well. it will get you far with vdw good spelling.

If I had read the books surely I wouldn't need to ask you to "piss about"? As John in Brasil has pointed out on a different thread my spelling is fairly deficiant, I was amused by the coincidences attributable to the conceptions created by your recent eccentric spelling of 'analyse', what is often called a Freudian slip, rather than in any way attempting to take you to task over the mere orthography.

I like bird watching as well, there are two tits in my garden today.

and there pops a great tit, they love those scraps.

The only thing capable of ruffling a Great Tits feathers is a Cuckoo.

perhaps another thread on the off topic is more suitable?

Do you remember one time we discussed a race involving Larouse? Your opinion was that it had a good chance of winning, I named six horses that I thought would come in before Larouse five of them did. Why do you think reading the books is so important if I can do that without reading them?

Hi Guest.

Seem to be going round in circles, expect it's my fault. So to try and sort this out for once and for all. do you except VDW used many methods to narrow the field and/or make his final selection? I can only assume the answer is yes, and all are based on logic, and involve class and form. So my next question is, why do you think the Soaf example is based on the c/form method?

If it is then why is the highest on ability that has won a race of higher value last time out not the c/form horse? Much has been made of relativity, surely the relativity only involves the horses in the race? I really struggle to see how a horse that wins a 26 rated race last time out is out of form. When a horse that has won two races, one a19 and the other a 16, and then beaten last time out when odds on favourite in a 9 rated race is in form. Add to this a reason for Rosette not being good enough was because he had to be dropped in class to win. From a 32 race down to a 26. Isn't the real reason Rosette was eliminated because if you follow the previous example he wasn't in the first 3 for consistency? Also your remark about Soaf putting in a bad one seems to confirm you didn't think he was in form for his last run. So was the Soaf race analysed using the c/form method or one of the other methods?

I appreciate you post trying to help, and it really isn't my intention to find fault. As I said to Barney how do you learn if you don't ask questions?

Re consistent form. I don't assume that because a horse is consistent that it has the form to win the race. I am however puzzled why so many of your c/form selections are not consistent. Isn't consistent form more important than class and form, without consistency. I would have thought we should be looking for consistent c/form horses the others being rejected unless it's the Roushayd method that is in use.

Be Lucky