There is no question of payment.
The question is simple. Should you be allowed to continue to promote a rival medium on this board, or, privately, to its members, when you, by your own admission, have acted against the interests of this board, and to its detriment.
An honorable person would resign.

Johnd

You wrote: "when you, by your own admission, have acted against the interests of this board".

I have made no such "admission". In fact, I take precisely the contrary view, and hope that, in the longer term, this thread will benefit. But that wil, I suspect, depend primarly on the future conduct of JIB, Epiglotis, Jimmy and, to an extent, you.

On the question of this thread coming back to life; how about some discussion on the function and importance of the ability and consistency ratings?

JohnD - A rival? Does that mean you see the members on this board as exclusive?

Tell me, John, can you honestly say you never take a gander at other forums, especially racing forums?

Do you always drink in the same pub?

The term "rival' that you use shows exactly what is wrong with most forums on the net.

I mean, when you are in your pub, John, do you go round checking that everyone is having the right conversation? If they are not do you intervene? Look at from other peoples point of view. If I was having a conversation with several people in a pub and someone became abusive towards that conversation, then I, like most would probably walk out eventually.

On the subject of advertising, Gummy has mentioned that he gets approached from perspective advertisers. Personally, I think he should accept them. Afterall, I don't see adverts as a threat, they are only a threat to people who fall for them. We live in a world constantly surrounded by advertising and sponsorship, so I don't think a few more on the net will make much difference. But that is just my personal opinion and Gummy obviously has his own.

Specifically, how much influence did the ratings play in the choice of Dazzling Bay in the 2:15 at Newmarket on the 8th of July?

Epi

The way i work, i place a greater emphasis on the abilty rating over the consistency rating.

I calculate abilty ratings for the entire field, this doesn't take long and even though
i am not balancing class and form at this stage, some things do start to stick out.

Starting with the highest rating and with an eye also on the market i check for in form horses as i see them

I don't add placings up to receive a rating, as in my opinion a horse could have form figures of 111 or 171541 and could be entitled to a rating of 3 on both occasions

Thanks for that. As Dazzling Bay was the selection of Determined, Guest and Johnd for the race in question I assume it was a definite and strong VDW selection, I also assume it had a high ability rating yet I notice that you didn't select it. Normally I wouldn't have looked at the race on account of the size of field for the distance but on that day it was Rockavon's choice so I did, I dont understand why Dazzling Bay would have been considered better than several other horses unless the ratings themselves were playing a decisive part in the process. There are a couple of other races that I'd like to discuss the relation of but a friend has just arrived so I'll have to leave that till tomorrow.

And, no doubt, following your logic, the more members you entice away, the more this thread will benefit. Pull the other one!

Johnd

You attribute to me influence I don't have, and which if I did have I wouldn't use.

My hope is that, as this thread continues in a quiet period, and it is known that there is an alternative, reflection on various folks' part might result in an outbreak of moderation, a necessary condition for a revival, in my opinion.

As always, it's a question of reading the words as written.

Anybody who complains about this thread is abnagating resposibility, we are the thread, you make it what it is.

Fulham, in your post to johnd you point out.

“in the longer term, this thread will benefit. But that wil, I suspect, depend primarly on the future conduct of JIB, Epiglotis, Jimmy and, to an extent, you.”

Why is this? If you look back at my posts on this thread you will find that the most of them are in response to others. For example a recent post by investor,

“Hello all
The good thing about all this,Is the fact that Guest Is well in profit and that's all that matters,He's had a rough time of late,But the good thing is he follows a staking plan or a variation which guarantees 1 point profit And i'm sure is tank could have withstood the losing runs and with Mordon Boy today he would be supping a few of what ever takes his fancy,Which is more than can be said for Johnd who once quoted a figure of 8/12 then went public with his interpretation and had a losing run of 18 that is what i call balls,This man couldn't pick his nose.”

Just look at the rubbish, I’m sure even Guest cringed when he read it. Is it any wonder that if people post such drivel others will come in to knock it? Get your own house in order and stop giving the detractors the opportunity and you will find that you are left in peace.

Very difficult to argue against that one.

As it goes I'm equal second on strike rate, even though well short of 80%, and one of only three who are in profit on the 80% thread, as such, bearing in mind that the aim of that thread is to find those authoritive in VDW matters I feel that only Pipedreamer has the qualifications to throw my arguements out of court. I want to consider two races, Newmarket 3:35 on the 27th of June and Sandown 3:15 on 4th of July, in the first of these Guest put up Shuhood as an 80% selection, 80% means anything better than 1-4 is value. The race was won by Courageous Duke, on the 4th July Guest put up Courageous Duke with a similar degree of confidence, why? this was a quite different race, was this selection biased by the intervening change in ratings? Am I the only one who feels that these ratings miss the boat? You need to find the winner before it runs so rating by results is too late.

In the 2 examples above note the position of the Fav In the selections previous race
And note Guests selection Nuit Sombre
I wonder if Faithful warrior comes next?


In the welsh National that Righthand man won
Righthand man
Planetman
Kumbi

were all form horses but Lucky Vane wasnt
You dont need to look back years with formbooks as some would have you believe to see why

To quote a similar phrase

go back to the beginning and you will find it all tied up with temperament and odds.

[This message was edited by boozer on July 15, 2003 at 08:41 PM.]

Guest,

In VDW's letter published 1 june 1978, he states that since the opening of the flat he had placed 32 bets of which 29 won.

Assuming he penned that letter near publication date, this equates to roughly 4 bets a week.

So why have you been posting bets on the 80% thread at roughly 3 times that rate?

Intelligent questions are/should be always welcome.

Imp,

I’m sure Guest will answer this in his own way but, I hope you don’t mind me making a few observations.
First of all what makes you think VDW was being 100% truthful? Like a large number of his present day followers he was only prepared to name selections in hindsight and there is not one shred of evidence that his claims were truthful.
Second, although Guest has posted a large number of selections I doubt that he has bet on all of them, having looked at a few of them and noted the very poor value I would be surprised if he had. I’m fairly confident that Guest’s record over the last few weeks is not nearly as bad as it looks. What Epiglotis has put up is a very difficult challenge for anyone, Guest has been putting the selections up hours before racing with no real idea what the market is going to do nearer race time. Having said that, I’m still surprised he hasn’t done better, but give him time. At least he has the balls to try it.

Epiglotis,
Shouln't that be "abdjucating" responsibility? I tend to be abnagating responsibility when I've been on a session for a few hours...

"abnegate".