I must appologise for that last post as now that I re-read it looks unhelpful.

What I meant to say, though did not put it very well, is that you have to see the approach fit together through VDW's examples. If any point is just told then its hard to understand it's real worth, if however you get a sniff then get going down the right track then there is much more to be had.

There is more than enough on here,in my view, to set people off on the right path.

As always I am sure people will be more than willing to help with specific points on VDW's examples

Boozer

As far as I am concerned, the class of a horse is best judged by its VDW ability rating (except, of course, with 2yos and early season 3yos, where VDW offered a sf-based alternative) though, as VDW made clear, this has to be taken in conjunction with a number of other issues to form the full picture.

Within VDW's examples there are numerous instances where the horse with the highest ability rating was out of form for the race he was considering - as, for example, with Burrough Hill Lad in the 1985 King George VI where he was absolutely explicit on the point. And the one thing I believe VDW never did was to select a horse that was not a form horse by his (revolutionary) way of thinking.


JIB

It would be more accurate to say "prove to you", or "prove publicly", though I would argue that, if one took Guest's pre "off" selections on this thread as a whole, he has shown the approach works. Try calculating the returns, even at sp, to a level stake.

What is VDW's revolutionary way of thinking about form? In everything I've read he talks about form in the most conventional of manners.

Mtoto
I would be interested in your view on this as you have often questioned the student's understanding of a horse's merits and suggested that this has lead the student into creating false concepts of form.

Guest's results are complete and utter rubbish, why do you insist on this illusion about him? I seriously doubt that he has ever placed a bet in his life. He's a nutcase, forget him.

Hi all,
I don't think it does any good to call people for writing in. Some of the members on this forum try hard to illustrate to the novices (like me) how to approach the VDW method and so help them to go forward.
Some of the names mentioned, Guest, Fulham and Mtoto to name just a few have obviously put a lot of effort into getting to the stage they are now and seem to make the method work quite satisfactorily for themselves. If the readers don't understand then I'm sure if they asked help would be given.
Its like reading the books really and as has already been said in twenty years people still struggle. Maybe the fault does lie with us and not the method. As for myself I think I'm getting there albeit ever so slowly but having read VDW spells it all out for the millionth time I did find something that I had been missing and wonder whether I did READ WHAT WAS THERE before.
I think I have a better understanding now but time will tell.
So lets have a helpful page and a good debate if we don't agree with someone and stop the name calling.
See you soon, Mike.

The page that you have just outlined your hopes for has been the intended page of many members for a long time. If you stay on here for a while you will hopefully begin to understand the bullshit nature of most of this thread's content. It is because of this that we now have an alternative thread.

Epi,

Why, if you are so sceptical about the methods, do you still ask questions of people that clearly take the opposite view to yourself?

Epiglotis

We are all aware that you like to comment on VDW's ideas without having read most of his work.

Now it seems that you are happy to comment on the pre-"off" selections Guest has posted over some ten months. I take it that we may presume that you have taken the trouble to calculate the profit to level stakes? If so, to save JIB and possibly others the trouble, perhaps you'd like to share the figure with us? After all, as you've said to Grundy, you are happy to try to answer questions.

Lee
Because I'm open to anything that I find persuasive.

Fulham
Give me few days.

Epiglotis

Any reasonable person would surely deduce from your two recent posts that you don't know what profit (or, indeed, loss) would have been made by backing Guest's pre "off" selections since he started in, I think, early March last year. You therefore condemned him not on the basis of knowledge but, in keeping with your general approach to matters VDW, from ignorance. Enough said.


Grundy

I am sure you will be familiar with the old saying "beware of Greeks bearing gifts". In the light of the above, you would do well to consider the reality in Epiglotis's offer to you earlier. He has NOTHING to teach anyone on the VDW front.

JIB

Glad to see that you know your Virgil.

It is not Epiglotis's own selections that are the problem - it is his seemingly generous offer to answer questions about VDW. (I don't doubt that E has many talents and virtues, but understanding of VDW, and being logical, are clearly not among them.)

Epi,

When I first read VDW, I did think his way of working was a little unconventional. However since I have been told I'm wrong and don't understand it, I'm not so sure. I would like to think I am not just being bloody minded, but I can't except the ability rating as now used is a true, or actuate guide to ability.

I'm not going into the c/form thing again, I have said my piece. I just worry that it gives a false impression of how VDW really looked at form.

I will say if you look at 2:55 at Doncaster my way of working narrowed the field down to 2 horses. The winner and one other. There were factors against both, one had a long lay of, the other I wasn't sure about the going. The rest for me stood no realistic chance, being out classed if either of the other 2 could run to form. This year I had decided to back both if I could narrow the race down to 2 (prices permitting). I am not worried about saying I had the winner after the event because I have explained how I work to enough people on this board. They can confirm the findings if required.

Fulham,

I don't understand why you think VDW would ignore an important part of his armoury for this method. You are happy it works for the other methods.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Thanks for the reply. I'm still not sure if you feel that according to your interpretation of VDW, (which incidentally appears to be the most successful on the board,) his evaluations of form were more revolutionary than conventional.

Fulham
I dont understand how you could possibly have imagined that I would know the results of Guest's pre-off selections, did you think that I note them down in some kind of Guest-log? I dont even read his posts. I've been through the first 100 pages, Guest gave 21 clear selections, 6 won that's a strike rate of 28%, to level stakes a small loss 0.875pts. I'll do the rest later.

Mtoto

Sorry, you've rather lost me. Presumably you are referring to sfs. If so, it seems to me that class and form as VDW defined them (sfs being very relevant to class with 2yos and early season 3yos) were his central "weapons", and others, including sfs, were deployed where he thought they made sense. And I've suggested in a previous post the two situations where, from my reading of VDW's work, he deployed sfs, apart from in relation to the class of 2yos and early season 3yos.


Epiglotis

As one who, if he offers a view, does so on the basis of having considered the available evidence, I naturally assumed that anyone writing off Guest's performance in the way you did would do so on the basis of consideration of the evidence.

But given your general stance on this thread, ie venturing views without any significant knowledge of VDW's work, and now your comment that "I dont even read his [Guest's] posts", I can see that I was being unduly generous, even naive.

[This message was edited by Fulham on January 24, 2003 at 05:21 PM.]

If you consider this thread full of Bullshit,Then why on earth do you keep coming back you started a thread of your own,The alternative one why not stick to that.It appears that as soon as somebody says something you don't agree with.They are either a nutter or they should go and die,I believe that's what you told one contributor.There are people on here who have put hundreds of hours into this subject,Spent probably as many hundreds on form books.Why don't you go right back to the beginning of this thread.And start again,I don't agree with a few things that have been put across,And i'll never understand the full workings.But iv'e definately learnt something,I remember doing a similar thing to you once I said that Guest had lost his credibility,I was wrong it was my lack of understanding.I read vdw on gummy's and thought i knew it all it wasn't until i purchased the books And started comparing situations etc.That i realised i was wrong.You must start by getting rid of this anger that's inside you,And clear your head then maybe you'll get somewhere.

It's not necessary to keep track of Guest's results to know that they're crap. Of course I dont read his posts, I used to and today looking through those 100 pages it's amazing that someone could say nothing in the same way at such length so many times for so long, it's also amazing that you dont seem to have noticed, I know you have a thing about authority but employ a little discretion, your embarassing yourself by defending him.

Epiglotis

There you go again:

"It's not necessary to keep track of Guest's results to know that they're crap."

How else? You really are a very foolish fellow.

he might seem to be saying nothing to you, but to many others he's telling what to do and how to do it.

also with the cracking success of mtoto can you point us to those selections, pre race, at best i can only think of five, although I could be wrong.