Barney
With regard to adiemus(irrespective of the revised weights)The form that parasol had shown prior to the winter derby,There were good grounds to make a book,As there was with paco venture/Old feathers.

Mtoto - As you think Roushayd and Prominent King are so similiar, I'd be interested as to how you measured PKs improvement in form.

You are missing the point, even missing the point of my post earlier. The object of the Roushayd exercise went beyond showing another useful approach to isolating horses to back. It was to show the whole basis of VDWs view of class and form in action.

Investor - I see what you are getting at with Paco Venture/Old Feathers but if you refer back to the post earlier and the quotes from VDW you should be reminded that some runners lack class as horses, but often run well in class races. I'd sooner take a horse dropping in class to win as a reliable medium over one dropping in class to lose yet again, especially when the latter is outpointed by an out of form low class animal.

I disagree with your view that JohnD and I are on similiar lines. For my part I have definitely revealed more of my hand than most on this thread, but some won't even check their own cards never mind show them.

Barney - The seasonal debut horses were gauged also on past achievments and with a view on the spoils involved on the day in question.

Guest,

I feel it is you who is missing the point. He has shown in both examples (Prominent King and Roushayd) that by following the criteria as explained (no hidden bits) you will/can find the winner. All you have to do is apply the different filter, in one you are looking for consistent form, in the other it's improving form. As you say the Roushayd example was to show the class and form in action, but not c/form.

In no way is that a system, and most 10 year olds would have trouble when it comes to the difficult bit. That is deciding does the horse fit the other factors he explained. Will it act on the course, going, etc.? Most important is it capable of confirming the figures to win?

Be Lucky

FULHAM
Will enlarge when mmy compuuter is fixed, back on hand-held at the moment.


GUEST
Your prevarications do you little credit. Either answer the points put to you, or say you can't. Recycling the same pap will not do.

JOHND
Fulham has stated absolutely clearly that he will never name a horse beforehand. Also he hasn't drunk alcohol for 30 yrs. Probably doesn't take drugs either.
Just ask yourself what use is he?
Every one on this board has had a go at picking a winner, except him. He isn't playing fair.
There are only 2 possibilities.
Either he wants everything for himself OR he can't do it.
Either way he has no interest in sharing, with anyone.
As for Guest he tries his best BUT ALWAYS avoids leading questions.
They might be both the same person for all I know,
Cheers
Swish

FULHAM
What I have said is exactly true. Either you want to keep all your winners for yourself OR you aren't getting them. Either way you are not playing fair. I mean what is your opinion of everyone on Gummy's board who try their best to provide winners?
What is it?:
Wankers? Idiots who don't worship VDW?
Let us all know
Chers
Swish

The point about Fulham not getting drunk for 30 years is that this is his reaction to his wife telling him off. This is as extreme an example of respect for authority as one could imagine and goes a long way to explaining why he feels that he needs someone (VDW) to tell him how to select horses. In a later post Fulham remarked along the lines that he is beginning to think there could be a relationship between weight and distance but VDW doesn't mention any such relationship, this was the post that convinced me that he needs someone to tell him how to think about racing as he is incapable of thinking effectively for himself.

EPIGLOTIS
BRILLIANT!
Cheers
Swish

EPIGLOTIS
If FULHAM dared to suggest a winner, would his wife tell him off?
Cheers
Swish

Swish

"What I have said is absolutely true".

But it (I'm tempted to say palpably) isn't. Epiglotis, in the first sentence of his later post, was more correct, though personally I wouldn't use the word "authority" about a husband/wife relationship. (But, there again, thankfully I don't live in Japan.)

Swish - Your perception of what this board should be about seems to be some sort of punters utopia whereby everyone is telling each other the horses to back. In short some sort of collective tipping service. Why would anyone in their right mind put hard cash on a horse just because you or anyone else on this board,myself include, say so without fully understanding the process of selection for that horse?

For a long time now I have tried to put across points concerning factors in VDWs approach. These are factors that I know virtually for certain are missed by the overwhelming majority who try to tackle his methods. I also know for a fact that there are a tiny minority who have understood a lot of the approach and having received emails from some members on this board, one or two are included in that bunch.

Fulham is one of them and as far as I can tell he is a thoroughly respectable person. To suggest that his lack of drinking or drug taking prowess is some sort of negative sign is both childish and ignorant.

Yourself, Epiglotis and to a much lesser degree JohnD and Mtoto who both generally keep their manners are the ones incapable of thinking for themselves IF they really believe VDW gave a word by word, step by step account of how his method actually operated in action. Sorry to mention JohnD & Mtoto in the same group, but the hostility in this group sometimes deserves addressing.

So, Swish unless your circumstances have changed dramatically in the last year, and let's be honest if you are as good as you think you are they bloody well ought to have done, you have little place in attacking Fulham or others. You seem to only pop up now and again to attack others, just because they don't engage in your world of pointless challenges to tip horses. The only thing that counts in the selection of horses is if they win you more money than you put on. It's that pure and simple.

JohnD - If you pin point your exact questions I will try to answer them, but only if you start coming clean yourself. The same goes for Mtoto. I am pretty fed up with being accused of being vague or non descript when others have said very little of how they think the methods work other than point out the bleedin' obvious.

Swish - Oh, and having just posted that last post at exactly the same time as Fulham, will you take that as gospel that we are not one and the same. Not everyone is interested in childish games you know.

Guest
I quite agree that you have shown a lot more than others on this thread,The point i was trying to make about the 2 horses i mentioned was the fact they were jt c/f and it is quite understandable how differing conclusions were drawn.The thing i can't understand is the fact that you both differ so much on other conclusions johnd put up Rooster Booster which tells me he isn't a million miles away.

One other question if i may,In an earlier post regarding the same 2 horses you said the margins were too tight to make a book,But did you not feel that a book was by far the safer option with adiemus/Parasol hindsightis i know,But nevertheless the danger was apparent long before going to post.

Guest,

I've tried to not to come across as hostile, but when you disagree with someone that is very hard. Some may come across as hostile, OTHERS come across as patronising. I except you take flack form the doubts, but with Johnd and myself the doubt is aimed at your interpretation, not the methods. I can't, and don't want to speak for John, so I will answer you from my stand point.

You say you will answer questions when they are pin pointed. I will say in the last week I have asked you questions. You haven't given a straight answer to them. It raises the question have you read the posts? I ask because you say I haven't explained my thoughts on how VDW works. To say that, you either haven't read the posts, or don't understand them.

At no time have I ever said I haven't learnt from you, or the exchanges have been a waste of time. I except I haven't been as impress as Fulham with your views, but I have taken note of EVERYTHING you have mentioned. VDW said don't take my word for it, prove it to yourself. I think I have thought for myself. and I see a different message than you. In all your post I've seen nothing that proves me wrong. If VDW said it is ok not to just except his word, I am certainly not going to just except yours. This isn't written in a hostile manner, I just don't know how to make the words smile, or come across as non hostile, or challenging manner. I always try to put a smiley to show the posting is not meant to be hostile.

To close, I have given VDW far more thought than you think. I also give EVERY horse the same the same attention.

Be Lucky

aah well, it must be that time of the month again for certain posters.
All I can say is that if your measure of a person is how much he drinks or how many recreational drugs he takes, then you are very sad individuals indeed.

Has it ever occured to you Swish that some people don't have the remotest interest in your, or anybody elses tips! There is a thread in existence for those who wish to demonstrate their tipping prowess, who knows they may even appear on the board at a later date to ask members to send them money for their undoubted racing expertise. When discussing people 'not playing fair', Swish, then the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind!

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that certain posters come on here to exchange views and debate issues of the methodology? That they have absolutely no interest in converting others to their viewpoint and thus don't feel the need to provide tips to demonstrate their prowess.

No doubt the usual retorts will appear, if you want us to take you seriously, then give us some winners. Frankly, there are several posters here who couldn't give the proverbial monkeys whether others take our points of view seriously or not.

I, and others, are in disagreement with Mtoto and John D with regards to operational application of the methods but I would defend their absolute right to those views and their freedom to disagree with others. Constructive debate, in a polite and respectful manner, without recourse to personal attacks, is the life blood of any board. There wouldn't be much point in airing our views at all, if we were all in agreement over every aspect.

Guest
posted January 01, 2002 12:37 PM  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epiglotis
Epiglotis - You obviously didn't read and understand my last post. I have never proclaimed to be an expert on VDW or racing for that matter.

This state of affairs presumably still exists unless Guest was hoodwinking his fans at the time or has subsequently learned his trade, as far as the latter suggestion goes he certainly doesn't appear to have appreciated or be acting on any of the advice or hints posted by me since Jan 2002.

investor,

i agree that were good grounds for a book, they were my initial thoughts. As usual i tried to be clever.

That scenario was not as clearcut as paco venture was.

Sad

I keep out of petty childish arguments but this attack on Fulham is not on. Both Guest and Fulham have come in for criticism both unfounded in my view what gives the likes of Swish and Epiglotis to right to slag anybody off with the crap they spout.

Swish, at least Fulham has never asked anybody for money for tips!! Epi, Fulham offered to help you regarding VDW's work and you threw it back in his face, what a couple of losers. Is it not time you both grew up.

Words on a screen mean nothing and I could not give a rats arse for the likes of the two above posters.

Both Fulham and Guest have given more away to an ungrateful audience than anybody on any board regarding VDW's methods and to be honest I dont know why they both bother.

I can truefully say Fulham CAN and DOES pick winners. Many have been discussed before hand either privately or on another private board where there is none of this crap. Believe me or dont I couldnt give a toss.

Say what you want to this post you wont offend me I've had a lot worse in my time than a bunch of idiots hiding behind a computer screen.

Fulham wont thank me for defending him and to be honest he can look after himself and wouldnt lower himself to your level even though I have.

M.o.M

Mtoto - I fully appreciate that posts can be misconstrued as to the manner in which they were intended. That is the downfall of discussion via the net.

As i said, I apologise for including you the group mentioned, but I myself have asked what I consider important questions that may help me to understand just why very few seem to be getting the points I am trying to make. No one has attempted to answer them so forgive me for not being too forthcoming in my responses.

Recently, Fulham made an informative post, but it ocurred to me as I was reading it that it may well appear confusing to those not knowing the greater extent of VDWs approach. It is very difficult to understand how things can be missed when one can see them for their self. No doubt JohnD thinks the same as he feels I am missing an important simple point in the SIAO article. However, where as I attempt to highlight the exact text I think people are not fully understanding, he neglects to.

You say you consider every horse. Every horse in the race you are looking for the winner in or every horse in the form? There is a big difference.

I'm sure you have said that you didn't consider PKs run against Drumgora good enough form. I see it as the run that lit the signposts.

I have to admit that your reply to Swish has puzzled me a bit, are you saying that your actions arise from love of and devotion to VDW?