Thanks for confirming Boozer's observation. This is very important as it again clearly demonstrates the shortcomings of the self-appointed pedagogues. In my opinion the "disruption" of this thread began with Guest talking about hidden factors, being wise after the event and generally suggesting a greater depth of knowledge than other members. Before this the ideas were examined with the aim of extracting the worthwhile elements and contributing something worthwhile to the general student's selection tools. The point of the 80% challenge was primarily to definitely establish that those pretending to knowledge have no foundation for such claims, in that it succeeded and in this latest example it becomes clear that even their basic point about the kind of race to examine has no foundation in the literature. In short, after nearly two years of meaningless nonsense I think it's fairly obvious how the fantasist attitude works and I suggest that those who still think that there are ideas in the VDW writings that are of potential interest for the theory of selection ignore the posts that simply say "you are wrong" without ever saying what is right and begin to discuss matters again.

Bumper
Thanks for the confimation

Dr Fulham,

I could have sworn I read recently (2 days) that you had made a mistake re-engaging with johnd and that your time posting here could be better spent elsewhere. I didn`t think for a minute it would be so long before you showed up again, welcome back !

Dr Fulham,

I`m sorry if that sounded facetious, it`s just that I`m not sure whether you`re coming or going. If it`s any clearer to you, perhaps you could let me know.

Epiglotis

I do feel you over generalise when you makes sweeping comments about this thread. The say there has been 2 years of meaningless nonsense simply isn't true. Yes, there has been a lot of nonsense, but there have also been some pretty good contributions.

I thought the 80% thread was just a side-show. It may be possible to get 80% winners, but I doubt it, particularly these days, and I don't think at those percentages decent odds would be returned. Returns are pretty much linked to prices, particularly as there is so much information available to the punter and layer.

I think I have managed to achieve a useful grounding by reading VDW and from some of the postings on this thread. Read my posting of August 3 on page 598. It summarises the basic points that I have picked up and benefitted from, but seems to have been generally ignored in amongst the bickering. Some may say that the same or similar lessons could have been learnt elsewhere, and though I'll probably be declared a heretic, I believe that's true.

Unfortunately this thread has polarised into the 'VDW is all powerful' and 'VDW is crap' and I don't see that much in between. Perhaps those who occupy the middle ground, I reckon I'm tending on the VDW side of that(!), must be a bit fed up with the way things have gone.

There should be criticism, but much of it has been destructive, with little to offer in the way of an alternative. By the same token those who can't accept constructive criticism of the ideas are blinkered.

The class/form horse is in the eye of the beholder! My belief is that with sound judgement it will be in my eye often enough to make a profit!

Rob

You're right, I was exaggerating. I had in mind certain posters and apologise for including everyone in my statement. I think VDW is certainly worth thinking about but definitely not sensible to follow to the letter and in particular the examples should be treated just as illustrative not as any key to understanding "missing links" or such. I'll refresh myself regarding the post you mention.

I don't know how to start this posting. I don't know what title to address it to.

Three legs.

This is an apology, I can't find the post were I thought you said you would kick my arse. I can't find an edited post in the thread I thought the offending post was, I can't find a post near the area were you threatened to kick anyone's arse.

So I am sorry I said you threatened my with violence.

However you did make statements that if they had been made face to face would have caused more than a little trouble. So can I ask you about them and the reasons why they were made.

Wearing knickers, I am happy that could/would have been laughed of with a quip back at you.

No balls my reaction to that would be to slap them in your hand to prove you wrong. I don't know how you would react to that, you may have enjoyed it.

Coward, bottled courage, hiding under tables, etc. I am afraid I would have reacted, and I think many (not all) would. Especially if the remarks were made in public, which they were. This brings up 2 questions 1) Face to face, if you would, that to me is a challenge. 2) If the answer is no, why make them in the first place?

Child Abuser, now that is something very different. I have no doubt you will deny it, but that's how it came across to me. It was in the middle or just after your rant about someone else being a child molester and a pervert. That episode in it's self was a disgrace. When you include me in that vane, and go on to talk about sexual deviants, I'm not amused. Now I do realise your mouth can get into gear before your brain, but ignorance is no excuse.

With all the talk about falling on swords, army, fighting, etc. Can you not see why I thought you were some sort of gladiator. How was I to know you wouldn't say boo to a goose? To a simple soul like me yours was fighting talk, or bollocks. You tell me which it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mtoto:
I don't know how to start this posting. I don't know what title to address it to.

Three legs.

This is an apology, I can't find the post were I thought you said you would kick my arse. I can't find an edited post in the thread I thought the offending post was, I can't find a post near the area were you threatened to kick anyone's arse.

So I am sorry I said you threatened my with violence.

---

Apology accepted.

Hear,Hear JIMMY
The 80 % thread was put up to qualify VDW'ers and I believe there were only a couple who were in profit(myself included, ahem)
But I was shouted down for putting up a selection that I was retrospectively incorrect & which did lose-by both Fulham & Guest & whom Fulham said:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fulham:

BT

Perhaps I could refer you to the final sentence of paragraph 9 of VDW's article of 13/3/80. Prior to the publication of that article, VDW had given 37 examples, of which 21 were of handicaps (57%). Intermittently over the next seventeen years he gave another 87 examples, of which 51 were handicaps (59%).

After some other discussions I was informed by Professor Fulham, something I laugh about when he says he has never abused anyone

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fulham:

If you attend to accuracy and method, you won't make a prat of yourself as with Dumaran.

Unbelievable hypocrisy.

I am very unhappy that this excellent thread has been overtaken by troublemakers or shit stirrers and in general I am a thick skinned happy go lucky type of person which may or may not be a failing as far as this thread is concerned but I have decided reluctantly that if certain members post a message on this thread they will be deleted no matter what they have to say so please all you VDW'ers stay with me as I will try my best to support you and your belief in VDW.

Pete

I have been a believer in VDW for a very long time, though not the VDW portrayed by some of your membership.
I will not, however, be party to what has become effectively a filter for a private club.
Goodbye!
Johnd

To quote myself from a previous post,
"And, if they ever became powerful enough, they tried to control any dissenting voices by isolating and then silencing the critics. This is exactly what the VDW proponents on here would have liked to have done."
Well it seems like they have achieved their goal. When the situation is that I can read, but not criticise something, then it is time to stop reading.
Thanks for the enjoyment you have given me over the last few years Gummy, both on the old board and the present one. I sincerly hope you get the type of members you want in the future.
Goodbye and Good Skill
Jimmy

I dont see any real problem. This thread becomes the "private club", so what? As it's impossible to discuss matters with the clubs members there's precious little point posting anyway and for sensible discussion of matters touched on by VDW other threads can be opened.

III

All I was saying was that (timewise) priorities needed re-aligning. I've never been of the "now I'm taking my bat and ball home" disposition, and should anyone raise any VDW issues to which I can contribute I will, as I have been doing, in parallel with contributing elsewhere, during the entire duration of my membership of this board. But I think you'll agree that, although this thread has been more active in the last few days, the activity has had little/nothing to do with understanding or applying VDW's methodology.

Even in the absence of discussion of matters VDW, as I commented recently there are other discussions here that interest me and to which I may be able to contribute.


BT

Sadly only "Dr". Unlikely now ever to make "Professor".

Yes, I used the word "prat" in your regard, rather out of character for me on this board. A four-letter word, but arguably not a serious contender among such in the "abuse" stakes. But consider the nature of your own posts to which it was a response. If, having done that you still feel mine was either inappropriate or abusive, then I'm sorry.

Gummy

As a response to your post, perhaps I could take up Rob North's comment as regards the value of the class/form horse.

At the moment, my personal interest is almost exclusively on top grade handicaps - class B and above - of which there are about 300 a year (Flat and NH). They interest me for three main reasons:

1) almost all the runners (except, obviously, in nurseries) have a deal of form, and VDW is nothing if it's not about the evaluation of form;

2) with the prize money at stake it is my belief (and I admit only a belief, as I can't see how to prove it, but maybe Ed Chorlton has a method that could) that far less "strokes" are pulled in such races than in, say, grade E races and below on minor tracks;

3) the prices of horses almost invariably permit EW betting, which covers those situations (common for me) when one doesn't quite hit the bull, but is thereabouts.

If we take the 2.20 Doncaster yesterday as the most recent example of such a race, the first four in the VDW ability rating ranking were:

Distant Prospect 241
Shabernak 115
Bourgeois 110
Midas Way 103

On my interpretation of how VDW assessed in-formness, all four were form horses (which is quite unusual, normally one needs to go much further down the ability rating ranking to identify four horses, and it is not uncommon not to find four in the field). So, from a VDW perspective it was not unreasonable to expect the winner to come from among these four.

Where, if indeed anywhere, one goes from there is very much down to the individual's capacity to sort the "probables" out within the framework of the other two terms of VDW's famous equation: "Capability" and "Probability".

My point is not to say that VDW methodology invariably puts the winner on a plate for us (or, before Johnd fumes, to suggest that I backed yesterday's - because I didn't). Rather, it is to show how VDW's approach regularly (though of course not infallibly) allows us to narrow the field to a small group including the winner. Then it is down to "Hard Work" (the fifth and perhaps most neglected term in VDW's equation) and the quality of the individual's judgement.

Two of the four occupied 1st and 3rd places. The other two placings went to horses lower down the list of class/form horses.

[This message was edited by Fulham on September 13, 2003 at 07:46 AM.]

This is a test post to find out if I`m considered a troublemaker or shit stirrer

So was Fulham's.

That`s a cracker, it`s the way you tell`em

Fulham

In Reply to your passage edited below:

If, having done that you still feel mine was either inappropriate or abusive, then I'm sorry.

Apology accepted-No hard feelings

Bio