111

I thought that was you.

Jimmy, LOL, Just wondering if I had any competition.

Glad you guys are beginning to realise that my knowledge of VDW is based on SIAO. That is exactly what VDW intended when he wrote it.
If you think that that limits my understanding, perhaps you could explain how I could solve the Rivage Blue examples, which Fulham still does not understand.
To further illustrate my ignorance, I should also point out that my interpretation also uses the same rationale for VDW's 2yo/3yo method, which is based on EXACTLY the same logic, although Guest appears to believe that his methods differed with the weather.
In these methods, he used track 'stiffness' as a part of his measure; No one would suggest that Goodwood and York are stiff by conformation.
He is telling us that the higher the class, the stiffer the test, a point which seems to have escaped you, though is fundamental to his method.
Incidentally, this also illustrates that Mtoto is nearer to the truth than you guys!
VDW makes this same point in SIAO, yet it is virtually ignored by the c/f method. Of course, you will both claim to have taken this on board, yet you still make selections like Rooster Booster and Impek at Liverpool, and Intersky Falcon at Cheltenham, horses that would not even have been considered by VDW.
It is a FACT, ( A real fact, not a Guest fact,) that there are certain races every day where it can be predicted precisely how the majority will perform under the prevailing circumstances, using only the tools provided in SIAO.
Does this not suggest to you that VDW must have virtually elilminated any guesswork, a necessity to achieve 29/32; yet you guys are still guessing after the race?
There is much more in SIAO than that particular sentence, but I would suggest that you guys need to understand that particular part of it before you can make any further progress. Apart from other considerations, look at the time you could have saved by looking at the situation LOGICALLY!

Johnd,

" the higher the class the stiffer the test "

How much of a test will the Newbury Spring Cup be today ?

It looks possibly its weakest field for many a year.

That said, there are several 4yo`s who could be open to improvement although they do not as yet have the form in the book.

Do we have that winner in the race ?

Distance factor rears its head again today,


3.05 Newbury Elusive City

Johnd

Nothing you've posted suggests you are in the same country as 29 winners out of 32, let alone anywhere near - indeed absolutely the reverse. Grow up, and try to contain the envy, which drips from almost every post you make.

And Guest with 2 from 9 is precisely where?

JohnD - The higher class the course, the higher class of competition? Wow, I hadn't thought of that. Well, not since very early research.

Come on, John that is something noted ages ago long before I spotted other factors. Is that really your great discovery. If so, no wonder you don't see the importance of the numerical pictures beyond the obvious.

The class of course is very important, but if the opposition isn't up to much and the horse has class and form it isn't a major issue. Just consider Uther pendragon winning at newbury after running at Worcester,Taunton & Newto Abbot. Love From Verona winning at kempton after Huntingdon,Lingfield & Fontwell. Sofronoof going to Kempton after two runs at Nottingham. Soaf at newmarket after Thirsk,Chester & Folkestone. And Kings Ride in the Lincoln having run at Teeside Park,Leicester and Wolverhampton.

Rivage Bleu is actually quite simple, but a fair amount of work is needed to spot the simple facts in the form book. The courses play their part just as they do in the handicap hurdle method, but they are not the magic answer.

An interesting day with some top class racing.

The numerical picture shows both Bollin Eric and Elusive City as having very good chances today but is either a bet.

I note Asian Heights is a reasonably short priced favourite today against Bollin Eric. Surely AH`s form when evaluating the opposition he`s faced in comparison to that faced by BE doesn`t compare ?

The available price on BE today is very inviting but non of my monies will be on. Many may suggest todays conditions will be against BE today. I do not. In my opinion he has the form to win today but surely given the prize on offer he`s unlikely to be tuned up.

Now the Yorkshire Cup in May, now there`s a different matter.

In short, BE is 1st on class/form followed by Asian heights 2nd.

I expect BE to run a good race but he will fall short today. A.Heights, a hard horse to train has an excellent record when fresh and will just about win today but at the price = no bet.


Elusive City has the best 2yo form over 6 furlongs and if settling in the race and staying the distance will win. Too many doubts for me = no bet.

Spring Cup,

Of the top 4 on ability I make Zonergem and Passing Glance form horses. VDW may not forgive `Z` his Cambridgeshire but I do.

There maybe one or two open to significant improvement but on all known form (in my opinion) the 2 named have the best form and I have taken the 12/1 and 14/1.

HEALTH WARNING - remember I am only a VDW novice.

Good luck,

Yesterday Rob North suggested that if I want to discuss Braddock I should open a Braddock thread. My first reaction to this was that there's no need for a Braddock thread as Braddock is easy to understand and even if there is something confusing one can ask a friend, that friend will likely explain. So again I have to wonder what's going on here on the VDW thread and it occured to me that I have let myself be fooled by Guest's hidden factors and the like just as much as Fulham has. VDW like any author wrote to be understood so just throwing out the bullshit let's try implementing the method. I've looked at the recommended races for today, reduced the fields by forecast and by consistency, I have then looked for horses supported by two ratings compiled along different lines. This has resulted in three possible bets, whether they are capable of winning their respective races and if they can be considered value at the price is a matter for individual investigation. I have assumed that Newbury is the principle meeting. The three candidate horses are Newbury 1:35 Warrsan, Newbury 3:05 Elusive City, Thirsk 2:55 Monsieur Bond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by epiglotis:
I have assumed that Newbury is the principle meeting. The three candidate horses are Newbury 1:35 Warrsan, Newbury 3:05 Elusive City, Thirsk 2:55 Monsieur Bond.

---

never assume anything, Mr Bond!

the Daily Mail has AYR as the PM.

Anybody like Rectangle in the 5-0 Thirsk?

Spring cup a bit rich for me but wouldnt be a surprised to see Faithful Warrior win it

Damn

Rectangle N.R

Thanks for pointing that out, I guess I'll consider it a palpable boob.

epi,

re: mr bond

surely salcombe is higher ability and more consistent from the forcast area?

I haven't considered the ability rating, Monsieur Bond qualified over Salcombe on the strength of independent ratings support, or to put it another way, top on Postmark and Topspeed. If you're saying Salcombe is the VDW choice for that race on account of the factors advanced I'm happy to listen to your imput, thanks. My aim was to find races in which there was a horse that appeared from the numbers as a clear choice not just as one among others.

Using the Roushayd approach, there looks to be an outstanding bet today in the Scottish Champion hurdle at Ayr. In my view, Westender is a false favourite and the race looks to be a great chance for In Contrast to get off the mark this year.

At Thirsk, again I feel there is a false fav in Mr Smarts horse and Salcombe has a lot in favour.

Just for info, I make Zonergem the class/form horse at Newbury in the Spring cup but I wouldn't bet in the race without a book being made.

Have a good day all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by epiglotis:
Thanks for pointing that out, I guess I'll consider it a palpable boob.

---

wrong newspaper, you'll find them on page 3 of the SUN, so I'm reliably informed.

This will be my last post on this thread, as I am no longer prepared to tolerate progress with the method being thwarted by pseudo-intellectuals, whose only real motive is self-agrandisement.
Had they the brains to come in out of the rain, they would have made the connection between the 2 methods pointed out, let them live with their smug self-delusion.
I was prepared to show, (Before the race, naturally), how VDW eliminated most of the field, and how this tied in with the other methods mentioned, and a part of the true path to racing certainties, but they think they know better, let them think so.
For those who will not have the tripe they peddle, I would say that there is enough in my last dozen or so posts, if understood, to solve the puzzle of the 3rd part of the equation. There is more to SIAO than that, indeed the solution to the whole equation is in there, but, once understood, that part should give you a much better return than that demonstrated by the c/f approach.
That the c/f approach is spurious, I have no doubt. My understanding of his method is based upon a LITERAL interpretation of SIAO ( "It was all there, and nothing was covered up"), theirs is NOTIONAL; mine is CONSTANT, ( "A consistent and methodical approach"), theirs is CHANGEABLE, even after the race; mine uses THE SAME BASIS for each method, theirs is 5 OR 6 DIFFERENT METHODS, and, most important of all, MINE WORKS!
VDW implored us to be POSITIVE, POSITIVE, POSITIVE, a good place to start would by believing WHAT HE SAID, rather than what they think. Each will make their own decisions, make them with an open mind.

I wish you well,
JOHND

epi,

if you have not considered the ability rating then it seems to me that you have ignored a fundamental aspect of vdw.

you will only end up with a few "nearly 5/4" selections.