Statajack

Guest has never claimed to be VDW! If memory serves, Guest has posted that his strike rate is in the 60%s which, although better than 99.9% of punters, still leaves him scope for improvement.

Fulham,

I'm sorry, it may not be possible to teach Guest anything about VDW, but I fear he has a lot to learn about backing horses. How many of his selections would you have backed at Aintree? I don't really expect you to answer that as it would most probably offend him.

He doesn't answer my questions when they are accompanied by a quote. Much the same as you haven't, now you appear to have changed your stance. How does your thinking marry up with that VDW quote? Do you think that VDW not only spent hours going through the figures and putting % against them, he at the same time checked the going, etc. and only used the figures when they suited? He judged consistency on the last 3 runs on any going, etc. I think it was you that said he only forgave a bad run, if the horse was out classed, and then not enough to put money on it. If a horse is only consistent on a certain going or distance it can't be classified as consistent in the VDW sense. If I'm wrong could you please show me a VDW example of this?

I don't doubt for one moment you have the intelligence, and nous to make money at horse racing. I don't think your way of working will be any nearer to VDW than mine.

Be Lucky

Hi everyone,

Plenty of food for thought over the last couple of weeks and the old brains been at full stretch trying to take all the different ideas in.Thanks to all of you for putting your thoughts up.

I did back Rooster Booster at Aintree and given the same circumstances I probably would again. Was a 4 and a half length beating last year, that bad a performance considering the horses it was beaten by ? In my opinion the horse had improved since then and was facing an easier task in the race this year.Saying that, JohnD ,for instance, has made some very interesting points and I’ll still keep an open mind on the situation.

The point has been made about VDW’s bets on horses that had never run at the distance before but if you look at VDW’s overall formula the probability of a good run has to have been there,surely Nothing works in isolation the man said.

Barney,Statajack,

Sadly your pointer was wasted on me .I have thought about it but I don’t get it I’m afraid.Wasn’t Sacundai like Mr Kildare in some respects ? An odds on winner LTO , not against much opposition.

Fulham,

You are certainly right that Guest is an amazingly generous person and his posts have definitely helped me as have yours and many others on the board and I’m very grateful to you all for that.I couldn’t teach Guest about VDW certainly, but there are people on this thread who have logical ideas that they have developed from VDW’s writings. Can you really be sure that there is nothing at all that Guest could learn off them? You would have to assume that Guest has taken every pointer VDW made on board, interpreted it correctly and is using it correctly to assume that.You may well be right it just seems a big assumption.

All the best everyone..

Fulham,
I know. I was being slightly facetious but the point of that post was this:
If Guest's take on VDW is correct (and as I say, I believe he is right in the way he interprets class/form/ability), how come his strike rate does not come close to mirroring that of VDW himself. Guest's strike rate is about 40% judging from his posts on this board, which falls some way short. Given this gap between expectation and reality one could reasonably infer that something is missing.
In fact one could quite possibly be thought of as somewhat silly if one continued to state that in spite of this gap there was nothing more to be learned and that anyone who suggested there might be didnt know what they were saying.
regards,

JohnD - Have you actually read all the VDW articles and, just as importantly, in the order they were written?

I ask, because you seem to base all your thinking on one article. You say weight wasn't mentioned, but it certainly was in VDWs first article on his method and also later to demonstrate a dodgy class/form horse in Canny Danny. However, you choose to ignore this. You also appear to ignore VDWs highlighting of the horses beaten in a race such as Sea Pigeon, Silver Buck, Another Captain and Lesley Ann. Also when our attention is drawn to say the horses that beat Aherlow the previous season, when VDW made him the most likely winner but not a solid class/form selection.

The point is, if you choose to discard this info, then why should people believe your claims that you spotted it all in one article? You, like others, have not checked out certain in built factors from VDWs method, because either A - it would be too time consuming or B - you haven't even thought to fully explore the class ratings VDW gave us. If you did it you might be surprised at the findings.

As to your offer to explain the 6 best bet/next best selections VDW gave via his consistency method, well feel free to go ahead. I'd be interested to see how they fit in considering he was explicit in his warning that they were found in a manner "quite differently from anything shown to date".

I could go on for hours pointing out points you appear to have ignored. The real relevance of Turk being mentioned as with Lesley Ann. The meaning of Greenhills Joy's race at Haydock being less of a test than First Divisions. The subtle way in which Smart Tar spelled it all out in effect. VDW clearly said he put things across in a way that many would think some things of unimportance when in fact they were. he said this in print, so why do you not take heed?

Try answering some of the above points. If for instance you come back and say that Turk was mentioned to demonstrate how a last placing should be totalled as 10, then I will need no further confirmation that you simply haven't read between the lines just as VDW clearly wanted us to.

Mtoto - I have fired several points back at you recently because for whatever reason you just seem to misunderstand the point I am making. When I say I study every horse in a race, I am not referring to the entire field. It could be just a few horses actually in the race. But I could end up studying 4 or 5 times the amount of runners in the race about to be run.

Anyone who has grasped some vital points I have been trying to make over the last year, will no doubt see the real relevance of the above points. The thing is, having had the penny drop they know how unwise it would be to detail these points further.

By the way, JohnD. You say you don't need to crosscheck your approach with VDWs selections. Why? Because you believe you have the answers then it must be so regardless of if they actually fit VDWs examples of which there were well over a hundred?

I have checked my approach out with VDWs bets and it fits them. Why? Because it was the study of his bets coupled with his articles that led me to my conclusions.

Guest,

Yes, you have made a few points, all of which I have responded to. I don't think I have misunderstood them, I have tried to answer in a way that shows I have understood. At the same time I have tried to show they can be taken in other ways. I understand what you are saying about Turk. The Greenhills Joy race can be taken two ways, I just happen to believe he meant it in the context he was talking about at the time. I understood what you meant about checking all horses connected with a race. I've tried to respect the importance you place on some of these things by not going into too much detail. You say to JohnD why doesn't he read and understand what has been written. I have to ask you why do you appear to ignore and/or change things that have been explained? I know you will say that's rich coming from me, I don't think I have changed anything that VDW said was paramount in it's importance.
He said the ability rating was ONE he found to easy and accurate, not that it was the only way. I have asked before what do you do with the ability rating, I can't do with mine (if I wanted to)? He also said racing is changing all the time, and we must adapt with it. You say, you understand all the examples and how they work. The question must be why doesn't it work more often for you in real time? I fully understand the pressures of finding the winners on a day to day basis. I don't see how you can work the way you appear to, and find the time to do it properly. Fulham has mentioned how time consuming it can be using the c/form method, and you appear to be using even more complicated methods. VDW has shown us how to narrow the field, and which horses to concentrate on, if it is done that way it gives plenty of time to go into fine detail on the likely winners. When I started I used the Roushayd method (my version, that you told me was wrong). Since I have been using this board I have started using the consistency method and using non handicaps. I didn't use them before because I mistakenly thought the prices would be to short.

Be Lucky

Bream

I can't, of course, be sure. But Guest did say as much in a post some weeks ago, and (with due respect) he is just about the only poster I, as a much less proficient follower of VDW's approach, am conscious of having learnt from.


Mtoto

I had just two bets at Aintree - Native Upmanship and Emotional Moment (I also had numerous unsuccessful arbs on the National, but none of my money was at stake).

There are two reasons why I didn't back the other horses Guest mentioned. First, as I've said, from my conservative position I worry about the "nuisance" factor, and thus rarely back anything under about 9/4. That was the reason I didn't back Rooster Booster which, price apart, seemed a clear and solid c/f. Second, I'm not yet confident that I'm properly sorting out the class/form balance with younger NH horses. With Iris's Gift, for example, there were others with higher ability ratings and decent form, though not as good as IG's: how, precisely does one balance class and form in these circumstances?. I'm not comfortable that I get this right yet in this sort of race (that also applied to Coolnagorna, Impek and It Takes Time).

Much as I predicted, a fudge, a few obscure references, a refusal to take up a perfectly reasonable challenge; the only thing missing was the couple of winners from last year!
Of course I have read the books, but, unlike you,not with a pre-determined slant received from others, which gave me the substantial adavantage of an open mind.
You, yourself, have explained to me how YOU use class ratings, why YOU think he mentioned Turk, and it is fairly straightforward to see why YOU think he mentioned Lesley Anne, none of which I would totally agree with.
In all of this, you have chosen to ignore many points that VDW made, points that have been highlighted by myself and others on this thread, because they do not sit comfortably with YOUR understanding of his method.
There is more to VDW than you can see, but you will not accept that because of your fragile ego, thus limiting yourself to the position you are in now, which is there for all to see, a position which has remained static during the full length of this the thread. Your intransigence does you little favour, and, ultimately, only serves to retard progress with the method.

BREAM
Thanks for that! It is encouraging to see the odd chink of daylight amongst all the turgid repetition on this thread.

Fulham
You mention Dumaran as being a cracking bet on th 26th oct, Would you put Got one too in the same category.when winning at 10/1 at ascot.

Just a little follow on from both Johnd and Mtoto's recent posts: I take it everyone else is aware that Roushayd was also found using the consistency method detailed in SIAO and elsewhere in "Golden Years"?
They are? Oh good!

Investor

On reflection, I perhaps over-stated Dumaran in my post last night. While I see it as a good bet, it plainly wasn't as strong a bet as Spirit Leader on either of its last two winning runs.

As regards Got One Too, I take it you are referring to the win on 12/1/02. From memory, for that race GOT was selected as a clear bet by Mtoto, and by me as part of a dutch with Benbyas, and in both cases posted pre the "off" on another board. That is a Yahoo group and currently the archive is "temporarily unavailable", so I can't check to make certain. But even if my memory is right, I've learnt so much over the last 15 months that I would certainly analyse the race very differently these days, and would not necessarily reach the same conclusion.


ps

The archive was indeed only temporarily unavailable. I have now been able to check and my memory was correct.

Fulham
I can see where your coming from r.e Spirit Leader,There seemed to be a few similarities but thanks for the reply.I can also agree with you in terms of the learning process,I have also come a long way towards a better understanding of the methods,but i need form books and they are very hard to come by.

Fulham
Sorry to be a nuiscance,The info i'm about to ask for as been given,But a long time ago now,Which year form books are needed,and if they can't all be gathered at once,Which ones would i benefit from to be going on with.

Investor

The books are not, perhaps, so hard to come by as you may think. Another member of the board approached me only a few days ago for the telephone numbers of suppliers and subsequently told me that he had already had some success.

To cover everything, one needs the Flat books from about 1975 to 1990 (the latest Flat example I've noted being Quest for Fame, 6/6/90); and NH 1975/6 to 1995/6 (the latest NH example being Killeshin, 17/2/96). But the later ones are less important as the Racing Post website has the info. from 1988. And if one has access to copies of the Sporting Life (eg in the British Library Newspaper Library in Colindale, north London, and possibly elsewhere) one can dispense with the very earliest ones, as one can almost instantly calculate ability ratings from the Life, which is the primary reason why one otherwise needs the first couple of Form Books in each series.

Unless you are very fortunate (as Barney was) and get in touch with a bookseller who has just bought a run, it is a question of pulling the collection together piecemeal - it took me about 3 months. Obviously, the luck of what is available determines which examples one can tackle.

Personally I found the following four booksellers the most fruitful:

Greg Way - 01638 507217;

Janet Carter - 01638 717619;

John Pickering - 01439 770931;

Browzers - 0161 773 2327.

Happy hunting.

Guest/fulham
I think the only race that looked ON today 3.15 lud was one to let runnWould you both be in agreement with that yes/no.

fulham
Cheers mate.

Fulham,

you mention a reply to mr spiers and extra horses, what were there names?

investor,

it was tricky that race because they were all ine same boat, and there was some evidence from the flat race, but i did.

Barney
Cheers for the reply,Youv'e been very quite lately just been getting on with it eh,Probably the best bet.