guest,

the concept of consistent form and VDW's application of it and the numerical picture -

it does not seem to apply in this case with pegwell bay, as his penultimate performance looks poor in two respects - secondly a 3 runner afair 30lgths last of 2 finishers, making a nonsense of the numerical picture

also in smart tar's last race would VDW have considered smart tar a good thing?

Was it Dennis Healey who said of Geoffrey Howe "Being attaked by him is rather like being savaged by a dead sheep"

Guest being taken to task by Investor!

Barney,

Mystic Man, one of the runners with a run this season was a consistent horse via the numerical picture and within the fist 6 in the f/c. 2 factors in his favour.

Now once we start balancing the class and form then yes we have a form horse and on the improve and carrying 14 lbs less today but surely he fails big time on the class aspect in comparison to the 2 I put namely Zonergem and Passing Moment.

Winning a class/value £6968, O - 85 ( 80 ) albeit comfortably would not have me rushing to back him in a far more competitve class/value £23200.

I was clearly wrong and to repeat my earlier comments Mystic Man has marked his card and his future placing will be of interest.

Any comments would be appreciated,

Cheers,

III

Careful - remember how the dead sheep came alive in his resignation speech and "bit" Mrs T.

determined,

I am not trying to be clever, I was wrong as well, as no doubt were a lot of punters at newbury.

VDW was specific though, in the early part of the season recent form is more reliable.

also I would think that the prize was plenty big enough for him to be trying, not sure about some others though.

No matter where he goes next time, he will probably be unbackable.

Barney,

I wasn`t suggesting you were been clever.

Mystic Man, I agree may not be value next time but depending on his placement we may not want him.

Barney - The run you refer to you was covered to a certain extent by VDWs comments that "had the ground been heavy". Also PB was giving away a lot of weight and it was his final run of the season. He was also a short priced fav.

The race won just prior to the Mackeson was a good performance given a full evaluation. I would be surprised if VDW would have bet in it though. That's not to say he wouldn't have gained from evaluating it, far from it in fact.

As a further note to Pegwell Bay notice his best form was all at Newbury yet VDW backed him at Cheltenham. John D probably wouldn't have that though, given his course comments.

You probably remember a couple of months ago I went through the thread noting down your bets and subsequently published your strike rate (I think it was in the 30s) and stated that a profit would have been made backing all your named selections. On many occasions after your selections have performed poorly you have posted remarks like 'a good profit was made anyway', this thread is about the method of VDW, whether or not you personally make a profit is of no interest to anyone outside your family and is irrelevent to the discussion. This attitude is typical of your tendency to treat this thread in terms of personalities, you have done exactly the same thing with your recent question to me as to which one of the 'contributors' is closest to VDW. If you want to compete about profits there is a tipping challenge thread that can accomodate you, the rest of the nonsense of various conflicting claims to be nearest the truth is of very limited interest and certainly doesn't advance exploration of the history or potential of the methods.

Guest,

thanks.

Fulham,

I will. I do.

Epiglotis

As often (though not always) I disagree with you.

Yes, in principle, the profit Guest or anyone else makes is of concern only to the individual, but you and others make it of more general interest by the implicit or explicit comments about Guest's selection performance every time he identifies losers. The bottom line, of course, is that unless a poster puts up all his bets, the staking method he follows and the stakes used we haven't the faintest idea what that individual's profitability (or lack of it) is, and no one is likely to do that.

I disagree even more with your second point, and remember getting myself into hot water before in suggesting what seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the following view.

To the best of my knowledge, no one who currently posts, or used to post (I refer to the likes of Bensam and Marchwood, not just Johnd), on this thread claims fully to understand VDW's approach, and this despite some of us having tried over twenty years. For those who persist in trying to get a full understanding, threads like this provide a learning opportunity - and of the various such threads this is the most enduring and lively I've come across.

But to advance understanding (as distinct from pursuing an equally valid though different objective - creating new approaches which may or may not be as effective at finding winners) it surely follows that the focus must be on approaches which are consistent with the evidence, ie VDW's writings and examples.

What we have seen on the thread over the last few months is a number of interpretations of VDW: putting it very crudely Guest's, Statajack's, Johnd's and Mtoto's (with apologies to anyone else I've missed with a distinctive interpretation).

Leaving aside all consideration of which of these four is the most effective at identifying winners (certainly not an unimportant matter), from the perspective of those wanting to advance their understanding of VDW's approach, discussion of the "match" between these approaches and the evidence (VDW's writings and examples) is, appropriately, a central issue.

Morning all,

Very quickly as the London marathon awaits.

Mystic Man in yesterdays Spring Cup.

Did anybody consider this a VDW selection or if a book was the order of the day was this one included ?

Cheers,

determined,

minimum inclusion

fulham,

what about him, reference point?

I seem to recall he had some pertinant views.

Cracking name as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Determined:
Morning all,

Very quickly as the London marathon awaits.

Cheers,

---

Whats your number D, I'll keep an eye open for you!



Blimey B, I see you done over 3000 posts!
Thats some kind of marathon!

Epiglotis - I don't see your point as being relevant really. I suggested yesterday that an unbiased onlooker would surely see that I have highlighted quite a few areas of VDWs methods that others have not seen, or if they have they are keeping quite about it.

The proof of the pudding is that several members of this thread have now also seen these factors and more importantly understand their uses.

What I object to is your totally unfounded believe that I am just confusing people or somehow hindering their progress. At least in the past when I have withdrawn from the board it has been after a period of some explanation. John has naffed off because a few don't believe he has the answers. And let's be clear on this, it is a fact that not so long ago John himself admitted he was packing up betting until he found some answers. Then lo and behold within a matter of days he has suddenly seen all that is there to see in VDWs writings. Anyone who has uncovered the majority of the true picture will find this very hard to believe, no matter how intelligent the researcher.

The whole thing is then compounded by an unwillingness to put ones findings alongside VDWs and see if there is common ground.

So, your idea that profit making is of no consequence on this thread and only the exploration of VDW is of importance, is one I only part agree with. But you defeat your own argument by siding with someone who makes a profit via an approach only part connected to VDW. I lay odds my approach has much more in common with VDWs selections than certain others'.

Barney,

Thanks

After all the abuse he's taken of Johnd,And guest is still trying to help him,For anybody who isn't quite sure it would be good to look at pegwell bay and try and understand why vdw wouldn't have wagered on him had the ground been heavy.

Iconoclasm

No matter how those involved wish to colour recent events, certain uncomfortable truths have managed to poke their way through the once massed ranks of dogma.

For sometime there have been acknowledged differences as to the true merit of the "ability" and the "consistancy" rating, but the interested parties probably in silent consent that they were not worth fighting about, decided to continue in harness.

Now however the fundamental concept of "informness" has caused a huge and apparently unbridgeable divide to open between and irreconcilably separate the proponents of VDW. Over this abyss the two sides seem content to hurl their missiles of abuse, scorn and insult.

Drawn up on the occidental bank we have the somewhat lonely and battered quartet of Guest, Fulham, Barney and Investor. On the oriental bank we have the more numerous band led by Mtoto and Johnd but which includes some of the more dubious elements such as weathervane crappyjack whose last minute scramble to the winning side has amused the spectators.

The rout and recent wounds suffered by Guest have left his band very near defeat and they will need to urgently change tactics to turn the situation around. The current spectacle of Fulham desperately fanning his prostrate champion, or the insults of his masseur Investor aimed at his tormentors will do little to re-establish credability.

In such cicumstances I can only encourage them to use what they claim to do best, finding winning horses, and prove that the horse racing maxim of "class" also applies to themselves

Investor, Never mind Guest, what about poor old Johnd? I bet he won`t be having mutton with his roast spuds today, more like beef I should think.