Epiglotis

I agree with you. Should someone post, pre-"off" - a set of successful VDW-approach selections (a contingency I fully accept you regard as unlikely for at least two different reasons), do you think the situation would be so very different?

Hang on a bit,

hasnt that allready been done

guest posted them over months
Andrew has posted whole lists of winners at all prices
last week determined and mtoto gave an 8/1

just what is needed?

Pre-off selections have been posted and fell palpably short of the 80% "benchmark", consequently I am no longer interested in the pre-off selection arguement. I suggest that the posters have demonstrated that they fall too short methodology wise to have anything to lose by maintaining their secrets, further I suggest they show the VDW cards for criticism and improvement by the likes of myself. Should posters feel, however, that their secrets are too precious for such publication I will again say, unless you can demonstrate an 80% strike rate you are in your own terms failing and can not justify the secrecy.

I have suggested that your choice of race is damaging your results. As an exercise I would like you to indulge me as follows: from your records select 9 races, 3 in which your analysis picked the first 3 home in order, 3 in which the results were spread and 3 in which the analysis failed, if you prefer use selections posted by Guest but with which you agree, put up the dates and times for these 9 races and I will see what I can come up with. No harm in this is there?

Epiglotis

Your categories assume more than I and, I suspect, most VDWers do.

The aim of a VDW analysis is to identify a strong enough selection to back, and considerable time and effort is taken to "bottom out" any such selection. No one I knows cares what comes second or third, though sometimes, as I've pointed out, the second and third c/fs also make the frame. But blindly noting the finishing positions of the 2nd and 3rd c/fs has no more significance than blindly noting the finishing positions of the c/fs, the majority of which, as Guest has pointed out, lose.

What makes sense, though only at the personal level (because there are differences between VDWers, NONE of whom claim infallibly to know what horses VDW would have backed in contemporary races) is to compare confident selections which win with those that don't. Any self-respecting VDWer does that, in a sense, by post morteming losing selections.

If it would be of any interest I'll gladly list some confident VDW bets I've placed over the last few months.

As regards winning bets, there are for example those mentioned already on the thread: Spirit Leader twice (8/2/03 and 13/3/03); Youlneverwalkalone, 11/3/03; and Bonus on Saturday.

Similarly confident bets (re-checked afterwards to ensure no palpable error had been made) that failed to win (though some placed), have included Fondmort, 18/1/03; Mystic Man, 30/4/03; Norton, 5/5/03 and most recently Talbot Avenue, 8/5/03.

Okay, I'll have a look at those. What I particularly had in mind is the situations of indecision when several horses have been backed in the same race, Guest has posted several of these and I assume you have records to hand.

If you have the times of the above races handy could you please post those.

I`ll post one without any evaluation time whatsoever,

The Tatling.

There you go, Epiglotis go & fill your boots.

Is that the race with Pomfret Lad in it? (York 1:30) I noticed Tatling in one of the races I looked at but I certainly won't be backing it, in fact I won't be backing anything today.

80% STRIKE RATE,

Why do the sceptics place so much emphasis on this ?

A choice,

80% winners and I make £5k profit in 12 months OR

45% winners and I make £10k profit in 12 months.

I`ll take the latter.

Surely its each to their own. The discussion on % strike rate is irrelevant.

How one understand`s and operates the method`s is what we should concern ourselves with.

In short, the % is old hat and quite frankly boring.

Lets move on,

80% strike rate is the "benchmark" of success with the methods as defined by Guest. Why not forget everything else Guest said and "let's move on"?

Epi

The benchmark, as defined by VDW, is 85%-90% winners Flat and jumps year in year out.

He later stated that if this was not achieved then evaluate your reading of form.

VDW, it is stated, made racing pay twice. Thus when he gave his views to sporting chronical he had in excess of 30yrs practical experience and research.

I myself am wholy confident that in less than twenty five years I will attain that strike rate.

Also is it not noteworthy that A lot of people who become interested in VDW do not "MOVE ON" they stick with it.

Thanks for lending me your official status to properly slap Determined's wrist.

Ouch !

Fulham
MYSTIC MAN

A big jump from 8/7 to 9/3 and also 8lb in o/r some may say weight doesn't matter,I can fully understand the consideration you gave this horse but that weight would have most certainly put me off.

NORTON

Did you consider this horse a roushayd,If you did you failed to note an important factor.

Epiglotis

The eight races concerned, in order, were:

2.25 Kempton, 18/1 - Fondmort;
3.05 Newbury, 8/2 - Spirit Leader;
4.00 Cheltenham, 11/3 - Youlneverwalkalone;
5.45 Cheltenham, 13/3 - Spirit Leader;
3.15 Ascot, 30/4 - Mystic Man;
3.15 Kempton, 5/5 - Norton;
1.30 Chester, 8/5 - Talbot Avenue;
3.45 Lingfield, 10/5 - Bonus.


Investor

With any race it is is possible to identify potential negatives, be they with my selections, yours, Guest's or even VDW's. The trick is balancing the factors and being right often enough. Only a small profit with Mystic Man and Norton, but your comments about the former were even more true of Spirit Leader on 13 March, where the result was better and the profit much larger.

I don't think in categories like "consistency method" or "Roushayd method", but merely of identifying the class/form horses and backing one (usually but not always the c/f) if sufficiently clear, and "solid" in terms of capability (the issues Johnd regularly, and rightly, highlights).


Determined

Good luck with The Tatling, the c/f and probable winner. But not a bet for me because it is insufficiently clear. Border Subject just one ability point below and arguably the 2nd c/f: Royal Millenium also closely matched.


Barney

The Lyons Godolphin horse failed to win last time. You may be interested to know that he's given Mamool as certain to place, and probably to win, today in the 2.30 York. If this loses, he'll have to produce eight consecutive winners to make good his declared expectation of eight from ten!

Fulham,

I agree the 3 you mention are very closely matched and I suspect for that reason VDW would have come to the same decision as you and left the race alone.

For what it`s worth, Border Subject on this speed track will attempt to lead all the way. He will be collared close home by The Tatling.
Royal Millenium will be slightly outpaced and doing all his best work at the end.


FULHAM,

Your comments or rather Lyons comments on Mamool are interesting. He`ll have to find several lenghts with Bollin Eric on Leger running. No doubt the horse is open to significant improvement but so is BE.

Anyone wanting to back Mamool should not be put by Godolphin`s poor form. The fact is the horses they have run to date have not been good enough, ( Hi Dubai aside ).


ALL,

I`d be very interested in the class/form horses for the 2.00 York ( after the race if necessary ).

***** a very interesting race to watch. Could be a KEY race come the end of the season *****

Good luck,

Fulham
Again i can fully understand you selecting Spirit Leader on both occasions(at the time i couldn't but a lot as been gleaned since then) but judging by your'e reply you backed Norton and mystic man e.w therefore they weren't losing bets as you described.

Determined

The 2.00 is indeed an interesting race, which in my view offers a decent betting opportunity.


Investor

Just because I back EW doesn't disguise the fact that a clear "Fulham" VDW selection failed to win, which is what it is expected to do. I doubt VDW included placed horses where a small profit was made in his 80% figure, though one never knows.

I included in the list the only two I've backed this year in handicaps (except the odd one or two where palpable errors were made) which were unplaced. Saying that is very much tempting fate for today, though!