oh but you can, it`s called a brain transplant, in your case, with a monkey.

A sensible monkey wouldn't want it!

lll/johnd
V

Fulham,
You never answered my question regarding consistency. Just why were VDW's bets all in the top 3 for consistency ratings? The answer is simple and has nothing to do with ability or class/form horses or any other aspect of VDW style form reading.
Guest,
Quite frankly you can crack on and ignore what myself and others are saying but please no more patronising replies to us implying we dont know what we are doing. Its not some kind of pact between me, JohnD and Mtoto to do you down. I am however beginning to wonder if you are the one who doesnt know what he's doing a lot of the time.

Statajack
I don't want to argue with you,Like iv'e said in the past it was you who put me on my way.but going back to the consistency figures.Say for example we had a horse with figures 218 the 8th place came when whacked up in class which theoretically put the horse say 5th in the consistency rating,But it was in the top 4 for ability and had shown good consistent form in better class than the remainder,And was now being dropped in class was proven at the distance,weight ,track would you let it run.

Statajack

You wrote: "Just why were VDW's bets all in the top 3 for consistency ratings?"

The answer is, whether you mean the top 3 in the first five/six in the betting forecast, or the whole field, they weren't all:

Some examples not in the three best on consistency in the field: Inside Quarter, Son of Love, Ascenia, Crown Matrimonial, Parkhouse, Gaye Chance, Ekbalco, Righthand Man, Castle Warden, Bonny Gold, Park Express;

Some examples not in the three best in the first five/six in the betting: Love from Verona, Son of Love, Righthand Man, Desert Hero.

It is, of course, likely that a horse with what VDW termed "consistent form" would have a low consistency aggregate, one of the lowest in the field. But that, like the fact that many VDW selections had achieved good sfs, is a consequence of the fact that they were good horses, NOT a necessary condition for their selection.

Fulham
Given the research you've done was WEST TIP found using another method,Or was that also consistent.

Fulham
forget that one,Iv'e misread it.

Johnd

I think you will need to be cleverer than that to get Guest to mark your card. Incidently, you quote VDW as not making one single reference to weight in the SIAO article. What do you suppose 'handicap ratings' are based on then? - Scotch mist.

Fulham

In the Kenlis example VDW chose to single out 'Turk' for special mention in order to demonstate his un-orthodox technique of judging in/out of form. But as you rightly point out he could just as easily have put up 'Greenway' with the same effect.

Mr Ed

Well said. Guest has surely gone much further than anyone else in a public/semi public forum (or in any publication of which I know) to help those with the determination to research and understand VDW's approach. Why he should have done this - with the continual sniping by people who sometimes haven't even read VDW's work or, if they have, don't get the basics right, not to mention the downright rudeness of a few - is beyond me. But Guest knows full well that there are several contributors who are as grateful to him as to VDW.

This has all the ingredients of becoming (at last) an excellent thread. I only wish I knew one end of a nag from the other so that I may contribute.

The new ingredient.........Personality

I have as much need of Guest marking my card as I have of your asinine comments. You have obviously not progressed.

Fulham
Aye, there's the rub. Guest has spent a long time studying VDW, and by drip-feeding such as yourself with his mistaken ideas, has convinced quite a few that he has the answer. HE IS WRONG, of that I have no doubt, and if he takes up my challenge I will prove it.
I do not doubt that some have learned from Guest, it would be a poor show if anyone could not learn from a lengthy study of VDW, but the evidence that he doesn't fully understand the method is there for all to see, in his strike rate, the number of bets made, his application, and the general confusion amongst his students.
He recently stated that four of the more independent minds on this thread " Could not think for themselves". Frankly, I pissed myself!
It is not they who cannot see, but those who follow Guest blindly, often refusing to consider that there may be another way, while turning a blind eye to the obvious shortcomings in their interpretation of the method.
Many have gone from this thread, frustrated at their progress being retarded by the droll incantations of his disciples, and their relentless attempts to cover their inadequacies in a mist of obfuscation.
Fortunately, there are still some who, in the almost full knowledge of his approach, still think he is wrong, and remain here to learn from others.
The alternative is, of course, for these independent minds to leave, which would reduce this thread to the self congratulatory, self-deluding 'cognescenti?', who would then fill the void with rounds of applause for a 6/4 winner, or managing to get the winner with a 4 horse dutch; or even, god forbid, those who write to the national sporting press when they do, occasionally, stumble on a decent priced winner.
That is not my idea of VDW, nor should it be any thinking persons'.

Fulham,

Hope you do not mind but I have just e mailed you.

OK Fulham, How many of VDW's bets were either not in the 3 most consistent of the 1st 5/6 in the betting forecast or if not in the 1st 5/6 of the betting, the 3 most consistent of the field?
You should know this because you answered this self same question not so long ago.
regards,

P.S.to Mr ED.
In SIAO, he also mentions goal, perhaps you think he's writing about football?

Nothing like a straight left followed by a right hook

Statajack

Scientifically speaking, it takes just one instance to disprove an hypothesis, and I offer Righthand Man.

Of course the overwhelming majority of VDW's selections rated high (or, more accurately) low on the consistency rating. And of course the overwhelming majority were in the first five/six of the forecast. My sole point (apart from drawing your attention to the fact that "consistency" isn't synonymous with "consistent form") is that neither characteristic is a NECESSARY one for a VDW selection.

My studies so far - which I freely admit are incomplete, and I've even found a few more examples to examine courtesy of the kindness of a thread contributor who copied me VDW's reply to Mr Spiers in "The Silver Lining" - show that the only NECESSARY condition for a VDW selection is that the horse have consistent form.

Johnd (I think) said recently that VDW was about a lot more than endless short priced favourites and two, three and four horse books. Quite right, as both VDW's examples, and some of Guest's pre "off" posts (Birjand and Smirk come immediately to mind) show. But horses like Love from Verona, Son of Love and Desert Hero - although both consistent relative to others in their races - won't be found by the simple application of the "Spells it all out" approach. Only by a (reasonably) full understanding of "consistent form".

To give a relatively recent example, in my view one of the most dramatic VDW selections last year - which I was only shown after the event but could readily see then, and will be able to find similar ones in the future - was Dumaran on 26 October. He was nowhere near the first six in the Post's forecast for this 18 runner handicap, and had a consistency rating of 20. (There were numerous horses in the field with lower ratings.) Yet when one has a real sense of what VDW meant by "consistent form" (and takes seriously the sentence in the "Spells it all out" article to which Johnd regularly refers), he was a cracking bet, fully on a par with the more obvious Spirit Leader on his last two runs.

Fulham,

Once again I find my self in total agreement with your understanding of the problem, but it does seem to disagree with Guest opening paragraph. He is defiantly saying consistency figures has NOTHING to do with consistent form. That is not what VDW is saying. In short VDW is saying look for the BEST form of the consistent horses.

On looking at the Kenlis example, it strikes me there are 2 questions re Greenways (a consistent horse) Is he in form, if he is, is the form good enough to win this? This is were I think a lot of people are going wrong, they are looking for reasons to make him out of form. In doing this they make false assumptions about how VDW read form. I think he is in form, the form just isn't GOOD ENOUGH. This example again bring into question the ability rating, it has all the horses as close on ability. His other rating show Kenlis clear on both columns. I ask again, do you or Guest think this is a coincidence as it is the case in all the other example were he shows HIS other ratings. He also said Prominent King was joint top in one and top on the other.

I think you have said it is not surprising the higher rated horse (on ability) have a good s/f. I think it is the other way round. It's not surprising the good s/f horses also have a good ability rating.

I don't understand why it is wrong to debate with Guest about his working of VDW. I thought that was the idea. It now appears if anyone disagrees with Guest on any point, they are rude and/or ungrateful. I try to be neither of these, I ask questions when statements are made that don't quite fit in with what has been said in the books. If I am asked a question I try to answer it to the best of my ability, Guest seems to be ignoring my questions. I'm not trying to say he is wrong, I'm just saying there are other ways to operate the methods. I don't think VDW ever said this is the only way. I have said I think Guest has spent many hours on this, and has been a big help in understanding it. VDW said if the track or going is wrong, no matter how good the class and form it will hamper the horse. I think Guest spends so much time working out the c/form method, he forgets these words. Even if Guest is using a staking plan, surely cutting out losers is as important as finding winners. Maybe we could learn from each other?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Nothing I have said is (or at least was intended to be) at variance with Guest's point. The consistency aggregate has nothing whatsoever to do with "consistent form", though there is a two-way correlation (a fair number of horses which have "consistent form" also have low consistency aggregates, and vice versa). But correlation is not cause and effect.

It seems to me to be palpable (I've given the word a rest but I'll give it an airing for Epiglotis's psyche) that Guest is more than happy to discuss points. He regularly responds to questions and comments, not least frequently from your good self. But I think it is equally palpable that over the year plus that he has been a contributor he has faced sniping from some almost totally ignorant of VDW's work and considerable rudeness from others, some of whom do have some grasp and should know better. In a situation where in my view Guest is 100% a giver (as no one on this thread has anything to teach him about VDW), and has enabled several people (including myself) to transform their previously limited understanding of VDW's approach and begin making serious money by backing horses that they would not have found in a month of Sundays without his help, this seems extraordinary to me.

Fulham,
In reply to your last post, scientifically speaking, 3 of Guest's last 4 bets have proved my point that Guest does not use VDW's methods to best advantage.
You earlier mentioned that VDW backed the occasional loser (citing Broadsword specifically) and the famous "29 from 32" sequence before saying Guest was only human. Can we now expect that after his latest 3 losers, Guests next 29 bets will be successful?