Investor

I did not analyse any races today - they all looked junk to me on a quick glance (much as all week so far).


Barney

There were five new examples given in the reply to Mr Spiers, though one of the races was cancelled (it is nevertheless interesting to have VDW's comment on it).

The five were:

10/12/84 (race 1155 in Chaseform) - Blue Reef - a "sound wager";

13/12/84 (1190) - Kumbi - as above;

14/12/84 (1208) - Direct Line - "carried my money";

14/12/84 (1210) - Zamandra - a "candidate ... but if you care to observe all the factors you will understand why [it did not] carry my money";

15/12/84 (no specific number) - Townley Stone - "on the other hand [he had just referred to Canny Danny on the same day, in respect of a race where VDW said he was backed, mentioned in the article where Canny Danny was named as the c/f in another race but was giving too much weight away] Townley Stone at Doncaster (which was called off) was a hefty 7lb out on handicap and although his class could and probably would enable him to score it wasn't a wager I would want to take".

I should perhaps have prefaced these remarks by saying that these horses were initially identified by narrowing the day's cards down to four horses - the first and second favourites in (a) the handicap chase and (b) the non handicap chase with the highest penalty values. But, thereafter, I am presuming - though have yet to check - that the horses were backed or left following VDW's usual c/f-based race analysis.

Fulham,

thanks very much, most kind.

Investor,

you get sick of going round and round, Guest has given more than enough for anyone who wants to find out for themselves.

Investor

I'm sure one or two in this room would be willing to help
regarding past form records, if you had a valid email address.

That you have only learned anything from Guest says much more about your limitations, than it does about others' contributions.
Had you been listening you would not have so easily disregarded this weeks' racing.
From todays' best race QUITO 5/2, and from Tuesdays' TOUGH LOVE 8/1.
I will make no comment, other than to say that these fit EXACTLY with the lesson in SIAO.

For those with a more open mind, i would suggest that you marry the previous form of the above, with that magic sentence in SIAO, and then take note of PRECISELY how they were placed. Do not assume that this is the Roushayd method alone, there is more to it than that.

Johnd

And you had the nerve to complain about me mentioning horses after the races!

MR ED,ALL, could anyone help me with any form records covering van der wheils examples, thanks
email...grundy_007@yahoo.com

Fulham

Thank you much for collating those previous examples sent to Mr. Spiers which I had not seen before, anyone failing to spot the links after those 3 glaring examples should burn everything, as they will never succeed.

fulham,

they are a right laugh them !!!

ps. direct line was not c/f.

The difference is I didn't claim to have backed them, or write to the papers about them!.

could i just re-post my email..grundy_007@yahoo.co.uk.thanks

Johnd

I still have the Tote account statement - remember the offer?

Well, Ive yet to see any satisfactory answers (in fact from Guest there have been no answers at all) so I will make one last attempt to explain things simply. Whether any notice is taken will no longer be my problem as I intend to waste no more time on going over the same points constantly.
Spells It All Out is a much quoted piece but hopefully these parts which have hitherto been ignored will shed some light for some people who arent too blinkered.

"To illustrate the whole procedure I will demonstrate using the weekend cards for Saturday, March 7, 1981."
VDW then shows the numerical picture for Little Owl's race. He goes on:-

"Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and the three most consistent from the forecast." - OK, no problems with this. He continues:-

"At this stage do not make any automatic assumptions. The required data has been put together and it is now necessary to establish if any of the three probables have good claims for support. Always start appraisal by looking at the horse with the highest ability rating and check how it balances with the other data."
-I'll repeat that last bit again. "check how it(the ability rating) balances with THE OTHER DATA." Got that? THE OTHER DATA. As in the numerical picture, not race values or class of other horses or class/form or anything else of that nature. The analysis has yet to reach that stage. With me so far? Lets continue:-

"In this race everything is straightforward . Little Owl has the highest ability rating and there is nothing in THE OTHER ELEMENTS to suggest any upset, indeed All EVIDENCE SHOWS IT OUGHT TO BE A GOOD THING." -The other elements being those in the numerical picture. All the evidence of the numerical picture shows it ought to be a good thing. How do we know we are still dealing with the numerical picture? BECAUSE VDW TELLS US SO IN THE VERY NEXT PASSAGE!

"TO CONFIRM WHAT THE FIGURES SAY it is necessary to study the form of all concerned (NOW AND ONLY NOW DO WE COME TO THE FORM/CLASS STAGE), taking particular note of class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and most important how they performed in the later stages of each race."

If anyone is still in doubt they may recall that on a couple of saturdays I had the time (and inclination) to post a list of horses that came through the numerical pictures of their respective races. They may also recall that even WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FORM the success rate of these horses was in excess of anything Guest has managed to achieve.
Try it and see. No dutching either.
regards,

statajack,

that is only your view, most people cannot grasp what constitutes " good claims for support" or the "other data".

the numerical picture only narrows the field of vision it is not THE OTHER DATA.

THE OTHER DATA IS as THAT WHICH SHOWS beacon light "well out of it", ON TWO COUNTS but yet leaves pk and mrk.

the elements that VDW refers to are "HIS CALCULATIONS"

In that example wayward lad would be considered WELL OUT OF IT.

that is why there is a chance of a very fine bet. Only a chance mind.

ps. You posted all those after the event. Not as Guest does, before.

[This message was edited by Barney on April 11, 2003 at 12:17 AM.]

You are pissing in the wind. Most of these couldn't pick a winner in a walk-over. They only post to bolster tneir egoes, which achieves nothing except to reveal their inadequacies; which they then salve by standing in a circle to pat each other on the back. ( With apologies to Mtoto and a few others).
Let them show some REAL EVIDENCE by posting their selections before the race, how many are prepared to stand up and be counted, and who, exactly, do you think will shirk this challenge?
Those same sad bastards that want us all to know how clever they are!

johnd,

have you had a look at fulhams latest selections, or have you not got the form books?

Statajack - With all due respect, I understand your point re the other data, but you and others such as JohnD are falling into the trap of seemingly ignoring VDW further explainations in later articles.

He clearly said that everything had been shown provided we read the smallprint and that elements were there to set up a SECOND NUMERICAL PICTURE. Is this not part of the data?

Furthermore, and more obviously, VDW said the 2 sets of ratings were a guide to help confirm findings. Why only a guide? Because clearly, as he demonstrated once again, there can be an alarming degree of disparity between the press ratings available.

He didn't mention weight, but he certainly did in follow on articles. A point I made yesterday though apparently not seen in print by JohnD, who incidentally has a bit of a nerve give that he hasn't explained anything apart from quoting the same paragraph again and again. Yes, it is an important passage, but VDW wrote reams of important passages, but John doesn't think there is anything in them. Perhaps he thinks it is just coincidence that my approach solves VDWs bets via FACTUAL evidence. You may not agree with VDWs ratings, but as they are on a numerate basis based on facts in the form book, they are what they are and cannot be manipulated. JohnDs approach seems to have more in common with Nick Mordin than VDW and we all know what a low strike rate that author has.

John also says that he doesn't agree with my view on why Turk was highlighted. I am dumbfounded by this because, like Smart Tar, it practically gives you the answers of how to appraise past races and establish real form.

The problem with his challenge is that I am fairly sure of what he will present as his evidence. Equally, I'm sure my full explaination would raise a few eyebrows and reveal more than I want to. I'd love to know how Arthurs Minstrel fits in with the earlier method though, especially when VDW said it was found quite differently.

Here's a challenge for anyone then to find a VDW quote that disproves my view on VDW. Bear in mind that I have studied the subject backwards. I don't say this to blow my own trumpet, as some think, but to qualify that I have pursued umpteen avenues of thought on VDW before finally everything made sense and more importantly made sense when put alongside his articles with no contradictions.

Investor - Sorry, but I didn't look today or earlier in the week. I don't bet everyday or even look everyday anymore.

Guest,

The problem with your challenge is no one can be sure exactly what your view is. Do you think like Fulham most, if not all the examples are worked on the c/form basis? What method was used to find the likes of Lord Protector? You do appear to contradict VDW about what is consistent form, when he has gone to the trouble to explain it. You use the c/form method in different ways on different days. With PK you carried on working through the horses until you found a form horse, with Majed you stopped when you decided there was something wrong with his form, why? I could supply an answer, but it wouldn't please you. As I said last night you ignore the questions that are accompanied by a quote. You make statements like the one in your last post...

{Why only a guide? Because clearly, as he demonstrated once again, there can be an alarming degree of disparity between the press ratings available.}

You, and I know he didn't use ratings that could be found in the press, he formulated his own. These rating he wasn't prepared to explain, why? You will say they are unimportant, and any rating would do. Again we know that isn't a fact, when he did use other ratings they weren't as accurate as his.

I'm not asking you to explain the methods in detail. Just which ones are you using. and in which article did VDW mention them?

Be lucky

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.

Johnd
You seem to be getting a little frustrated,I don't undestand if your'e happy with things as you see them,Then carry on regardless.Others on here have a different view and therefore a different understanding.

Statajack

You quote the sentence from the "Spells it all out" article - "Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast". This sentence comes a few lines below the six element "step by step" agenda, which makes it clear that:

a) the four highest ability ratings are from the field as a whole;

b) the three most consistent come from the first five/six in the betting forecast (and VDW's examples show that he meant the three lowest consistency rates, with sometimes more than one horse with the same rate, not just the three horses with the lowest consistency aggregates).

Agreed so far?

If so, the subset of the field that VDW then supposedly focused upon were those horses that scored on both factors - ie they were characterised by being in BOTH the list of horses with the four highest ability ratings in the field AND the list of horses with one of the three lowest consistency aggregates in the first five/six in the betting forecast.

If this approach is indeed how VDW "narrowed the field" (and let us write into the approach at this stage the conventions that a horse finishing last should be allocated a 10 for the purpose of the consistency aggregate (which is the only way Prominent King qualified as a consistent horse) and that, when appropriate, Ps, Fs and Us should be disregarded), it is a matter of record that it "caught" a great many of his selections.

But it is also a matter of record that some of VDW's selections would not have been "caught" by this field-narrowing process, eg from the examples given prior to the "Spells it all out" article:

Love from Verona and Son of Love did not feature in the list of the three with lowest consistency aggregates from the first five/six in the betting forecast;

Prominent King, Love from Verona and Son of Love did not feature in the list of the four with the highest ability ratings in their races.

And the same applies to examples given later, eg:

Righthand Man and Desert Hero did not feature in the list of the three with the lowest consistency aggregates in the first five/six of the betting forecast;

Desert Hero did not feature in the list of the four with the highest ability ratings in the race.

This surely demonstrates beyond all doubt that the "step by step" agenda set out in the "Spells it all out" article was not, for VDW, the be-all and end-all.

So what status does the "step by step" agenda have? We can, of course, only speculate, but it seems to me to have the same character as the even simpler approach set out in VDW's first substantive article "Narrow the Field to Gain Winning Strip" - ie it was a rule-based guide to get people started, which should keep them out of trouble and hopefully would be the basis from which they would go on to discover what might be termed the full approach (by which I mean the approach which DOES allow the likes of Prominent King, Love from Verona, Son of Love, Desert Hero and Righthand Man to emerge as clear selections).

On this view of matters, in my opinion that fuller approach is the class/form approach about which VDW was more specific in articles he wrote later than the "Spells it all out" one. The reason I hold this opinion is that, having studied all but five of the first eighty examples VDW gave us up to and including those in his article of 13/4/85 ("The Missing Link?"), and a good few after, following what I understand as the c/f approach resolves all of them, which following the "step by step" agenda (as I've demonstrated) certainly doesn't. (The five from the first eighty I have not yet studied are those from VDW's letter to Mr Spiers I listed in a reply to Barney yesterday, which await a visit to the Newspaper Library for data collection.)

On this way of viewing things - which may, of course, be wrong but has, I suggest, the merit of being logical and consistent with the facts - selections such as Dumaran and Lord Protector have the character of being imaginative applications of the c/f approach. They may appear highly speculative - but they are the sort of selections that can be made by people like Guest who are sufficiently comfortable and experienced in the c/f approach. The rest of us are probably safer sticking with the more obvious, such as Spirit Leader.

Nice to see some better quality racing today.