I think novice chases are often quite reliable., novice hurdles are far more problematic.

Statajack

It is certainly the case that VDW gave no examples of bets in novice hurdles, and only one example of a c/f in such a race.

The view I take is that decent class novice hurdles like yesterday's are worth a look, and provided there is a clear and solid c/f at the right price, I'm happy to bet. Its not only in decent class novice hurdles that a rank outsider sometimes crops up: whether its a more frequent occurence in such races I don't have the NH version of RSB to establish.


Determined

You are right about Broadsword being a losing VDW selection, but is the Triumph a novice hurdle? I suppose it is.


Epiglotis

At last we agree on something!

If VDW is a method rather than a system what is the function of RSB?

Epiglotis

I'd simply be interested to know if outsiders won decent class novice hurdles more frequently than, say, novice chases or handicap hurdles.

go and play there then.

I dont need your help and judging by your posts you are in no position to help anyone on any matter of horse racing.

I may have overlooked it but I cant remember any post of yours that has shown a selection process either based on logic or system.

Your selection process, if there is one, is far more secretive than anyones on the board, how about sharing YOUR insight.

I suspect you hinted at your real reasons " and cabbie does all the work for the benefit of other members......".

A bit of a leech if you ask me......

Thanks for the reply. Regarding both the selection system and the giving of insights I refer you to our interchanges about the horse named Larousse. Otherwise, up to you. Strangely enough I got a clue from one of your recent posts by which I think I've solved all the problems that had been puzzling me regarding this thread. Yet again that gave me faith in your basic honesty. As for going and playing anywhere, your understanding of your interlocutors and their motives is too limited to enable you to offer meaningful advice but thanks anyway.

I was trying to suggest that the investigation of pregoing statistics without further consideration smacks of the basis of system construction rather than investigating the means of method.

Epiglotis

Another case of false assumption, I'm afraid. Statajack having made the point (even if the Triumph is a novice hurdle) that VDW didn't (often) select in novice hurdles, and having suggested why, I merely express interest as to whether the stats. support Statajack's conjecture.

When vdw agreed with methodmaker in letter 13 re-83 percent winners within the first 5 or 6 in the b/f/c then showed what his own figures achieved from the 3 lowest contained therin i.e. 3-3-3=99%, 3-3-4=98%,3-4-5=96%, e.t.c can i take him at his word & accept that these would continue to form the foundation of one of his methods year after year?.

Bust out,A potential winner in the race

Like a Butterfly A winner in the race.

i cannot see past limestone lad.like a butterfly will find him to hot and a bigger danger i think is stage affair.
not vdw but thats how i hope result will pan out.

Whose assumption of what was false and in what way?

I dont know if your reply is specific to my reply to your earlier post but if it is I will need something more clearly stated.

With the exclusion of Davenport Millenium,Like a buterfly looked all over the winner done absolutely nothing wrong,It was tight and maybe some would say there was conflict,But i thought She was well worthy of support under today's conditions.

It was a long time ago that Jimmy inaugurated a thread on the off topic forum, on that thread I said in reply to a contribution by Statajack that I would develop a theory further at a later date, it's my theory of 'general human perversity' and particularly applicable to the habituees of this thread. Between them Fulham and Guest have accused me of being intelligent on a total of at least three occasions, I dont know by what means they judge the term intelligence but for those who dont know I will say 'intelligence' is defined by psychologists as the ability to do well in IQ tests. Nobody who is familiar with the concept of intelligence will regard it in these playground terms. Further to that I must point out that both Fulham and Guest are short on the qualifications whereby they could reliably express judgement on my intelligence.

Epiglotis

Don't worry. The last week or so of your posts has made it quite clear that I misjudged your level of capability (see Jaques E and Cason K, "Human Capability", Falls Church, VA, 1994, Cason Hall & Co; and for a sense of my relationship with Jaques, the preface of Jaques E, "Free Enterprise, Fair Employment", London 1982, Heinemann) which, using everyday language, I'd referred to as intelligence. My apologies.

I'm glad that you understand the importance of recognising your own limits, in your case if everything is factually recorded and available you feel it's 'logical' to have the confidence to express an opinion, fortunately my capabilities exceed those and I'm also aware of the fact that generally my limits are beyond yours.

Just catching up, nice post.

I always called that shooting yourself in the foot

Was that a reply to my last post or the one before that?