Hi Max,

you obviously read my post before I quickly deleted it - so, to be fair, better give the gist of it:

I voiced concern that Floreeda has only raced RH once before - the Deauville race, where she hung left.

I didn't see the race and I visualised her "hanging left" as she raced round the course. But researching further, apparently she didn't hang left until in the home straight 1.5 f out. That's why I deleted it.

(Just eager to contribute something in return for all the learning I'm doing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gummy:
Hello max,
I think everyone who posted on this VDW forum have jumped ship and gone to the RSUK forum including JIB.
That's what I admire loyalty to someone who starts a VDW forum and after 613 pages nearly everyone bugger's off.
Even Gary of Raceman ( who has vanished) infamy is posting on there and still having a swipe at me.
Thank goodness there are still many members who support this forum and at least with it being members only and with the troublemakers gone everyone can be assured of sensible discussion.

Gummy

---

Chin up Gummy-I know you & 111 were pretty tight as far as internet buddies go & I'll miss him and the others who have left but there is so much else on this forum that the dudez will miss out on, I can se your point as far as VDW goes and if the dudez really think about it so will they.Regardless whether they think VDW is any good or not I feel you had to make the decision to monitor postings as a vital thread on your forum was being redered useless.I could see where the dudez were coming from in certain instances-maybe it was taken too far.Any way I am currently working on the big races at Ascot today with the only computer program ever devisedf on VDW's thinkings and will update before I go for about 15 PINTS later on.
The program has identified many good priced winners this season-too many to mention- but the highlight for me was the massively top rated Alamshar in the King George

Hi Biotech,

Would that software be "Bet Better" by any chance?

I use Raceform Interactive at present. Whilst it has a wealth of data and tools, it is not very "VDW friendly" in my opinion.

My software was pretty good LOL

But having a rethink due to themRacin g Post changes from htm to pdf.

Gummy this is the best board bar none and I have seen a few.

I emailed Racing Post to complain about the new PDF format, and they were good enough to reply.


Reply from Post to my complaint -


The idea is that you print the pdf reports out and that you use html pages to view on screen. Superform produce some excellent content, but they are not many people's touchstone when it comes to design, but each to their own.

Ian





Original e.mail to Racing Post


24/09/2003 22:56


To:
cc:
Subject: PDF



PDF -

What an idle ; inefficient way of presenting "Data" --

it is "Unreadable"

if you intend to "Charge" for this Service - as I fully expect -

Then I suggest that you look at the "Superform" - Presentation for an example of "How to do it"


tc

( it looks from this - that they intend to have html and PDF running side by side on the site, - I looked again at the site and realized that I had missed the obvious - ie that both formats are on the page !!!

On the race card, if you click the "form" button you get the PDF version , but if you click the "race time" the the old html format appears.

Similarly on the Right hand side - Topspeed PostMark etc now apears TWICE !! - once under PDF printouts and next - under Analysis which is the html version.

Am I Daft or What !!!

Egg all over my face !!!!



tc

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trojan:
Hi Biotech,

Would that software be "Bet Better" by any chance?

I use Raceform Interactive at present. Whilst it has a wealth of data and tools, it is not very "VDW friendly" in my opinion.

---

No Trojan-its pro-punter.The early version as the later versions are designed to run with staking plans for shorter priced favs.
As it went I did not win on sat-Im glad I didnt post up my selections-I had no time as I had just finished my typing when my lift came.
My selections were
Rule of law-3rd
Necklace- non runner
Russian Rhthym(I thought was a certainty-so did the software-2nd

Hi

My name is Beaky. I'm new to this Forum and have joined because of my growing interest in VDW. I know I have a lot to learn so please be gentle with me.

GUMMY
It should now have become obvious that the ' Abuse-free' approach is not working. It should also be apparent that those who gave this as their reason for not posting on here, now have no excuse not to post, yet still do it privately.
The plain truth is that they are just a selfish bunch of hypocrites who wish to keep their thoughts on VDW to themselves, yet still retain their access to the thoughts of others still loyal to this thread.
This thread is too good to die in this way. Not only is it bigger than them, it is better than them.
Let those that wish to have their private thread do so; but, if this thread is to flourish again, which it will, you must first rid it of these parasites.
Surely now is the time to draw a line in the sand!
Johnd.

Johnd

In the past fortnight, you have contributed just one post to this board (yes, board, not this thread).

I have just done a quick count of posts by myself, and seven others I know also to be members of the VDW board. Over the last fortnight, the total number of posts is just 99 (not including this one), ie nearly one a day per member. Admittedly the range is wide - from 2 to over 30 - but each has exceeded your contribution.

Even on this thread, some of us have been more active than you.

FULHAM
So, God is in his heaven; this thread goes from strenghth to strength; and you are a fine, upstanding person, who only has the interests of this thread at heart?
ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS!

As VDW said, read what was there.


"... selfish bunch of hypocrites ... "

"parasites"

"ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS"


So, the abuse still lurks beneath the surface. But actually not for the last fortnight while you were away. And not elsewhere ...

Sweet dreams.

Give us a Post - which -

Realy points us towards - the "Missing Link" -

The " Holy Grail" that we all seek !!



tc

TC

See photo album

tc

First, the "missing link" as I understand it (how VDW assessed "in-formness") is not the Holy Grail. It is but one of four terms in VDW's equation: a necessary (and, I think, a difficult to deduce) condition, but not a sufficient one.

Two recent examples where (to avoid Johnd getting jealous) I made no money whatsoever (indeed made a slight loss):

* on Sunday, those who really understand these things had Jagger as the clear c/f in the 4.20 Ascot, but I think none of us backed him, and indeed elsewhere I posted very convincingly (at least to myself!) explaining why he was not a good bet. Indeed, I even had a small bet on the second c/f (at over 100.0 on Betfair);

* yesterday, there was equal consensus that No Refuge was the c/f in the 3.45 at Hamilton. This time some took the view that he was a good thing and backed him. Others (myself included) took the view that, although the probable winner, he was vulnerable.

So, finding the c/f is one thing. Sorting out - correctly - which c/fs should be backed is another, and here the two later terms of VDW's equation clearly come into play: Capability and Probability. (Most of us, I guess, feel we are reasonably clear about C, even if we don't always appraise it correctly. Personally, I know no one who is CERTAIN that they know precisely what VDW meant by P, although there are two or three possibilities in his writings.)

However, despite not being the Holy Grail, IF I'm right in equating "the missing link" with how VDW assessed "in-formness", it's something anyone wanting to understand his approach needs to find. I'm (virtually) certain I've set out before on this thread the only way, methodologically speaking, I can see to find it. But to save me the trouble of searching through old posts to give you the reference, here goes.

VDW named well over 150 horses and referred by race to at least two dozen more. While we may assume that many of the horses he named (and virtually all those he made clear were bets) were "form" horses, he only used that term explicitly about a minority.

Methodologically speaking, therefore, the way to find the "missing link" is to study this relatively small number of horses (there are 17 from handicap races, and approx. the same number from non-handicaps), working on the basis that VDW has supplied the "answers" and the task is to deduce the method.

Sticking just with handicaps, where I happen to have specific numbers, once one has an hypothesis from the 17 (and the 27 horses he explicitly named as not form horses), one can test and develop it at two levels:

* there are another nine horses we can be virtually certain were form horses, and six that were not form horses (virtually certain, because VDW gave us parameters, eg his "14 form horses from 18 races on Boxing Day 1986 article);

* there are then, on my count, a further 46 named horses which VDW did not specifically state were form horses but which it is reasonable to assume were.

So, once an hypothesis is generated from the "certain" examples, we can test and develop it first on the "almost certain" and then on the "probables". If it holds for all 105 examples, then either one has found the "missing link" (or, how VDW assessed in-formness, because I can't be absolutely certain I'm right in equating that and VDW's phrase "the missing link"), or one has found another approach which, by coincidence, produces the same solution. (Personally, I should think the chances of finding two solutions which resolve each and every one of the 105 examples must be very long odds against.)

To pursue this methodology - and I honestly can't see any alternative - one needs the relevant Form Books, time, determination and, frankly, a fair degree of intelligence. And that is why, I suspect, very few people have got there and those who have are uninclined to divulge the results of their labours.

You did ask.

Thanks Fulham ( acker AlanB )



May I suggest - that - "You ask the Trainer" - and read the "sign - on the Front of the Bus"



Actualy -

and - I'm not taking - the piss - I think that you are conviced that you are "on the Right Track"

but --


I think you are "- Wrong" - and that you should read again VDW,s comments re Trainers habits !!

OK - so thats my contribution - for this week.

tc

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on October 01, 2003 at 12:04 AM.]

I take it that you refer to "VDW Fashion" !!!



tc

Fulham

Of the 34 horses VDW named in his or related books did all of these selections win?
As you know i dont have the books,But i do have this years raceform from the start of the flat season,
So im asking if you could post up some horses that ran this year that met all the requirements of the missing link,
If your able to do this myself and others might begin to understand what VDW is all about,
I think the flat to be harder than the jumps to get winners so we could start at the deep end,
Good luck,Rab

tc

There is a range of views as to what constitutes the essence of VDW's approach.


Rab

By the 34, am I right in assuming that you mean the 17 horses from handicaps explicitly named as form horses and the approx. similar number from non-handicaps? If so, the answer is no, they didn't all win - VDW named them to illustrate an aspect of his approach and, for example, helpfully named three form horses and one non-form horse from one race.

As regards current examples of form horses, there are the two I mentioned in my earlier post, and I've posted quite a few others on this thread over the course of the year (you might care to start with those at the Cheltenham Festival and Royal Ascot). In addition Guest, whose form horses/c/fs and mine often (though not always) coincide, has posted dozens, if not hundreds, here since about March 2002.

Then lets widen the discussion to embrace all of that range of views, - rather than sticking rigidly to one area of his writings !!

I believe that this rigidity is what pulled this thread appart, last time !

tc

tc

In an early response to one of VDW's letters, a Mr Chambers remarked that "the normal procedure when passing the hat round for a collection is that you throw in some silver yourself ... just to encourage others and get a good return".

Some of us who have thrown a fair bit of "silver" into the hat over the last 18 months (my reply to you of last night being but the latest of many substantive contributions from the likes of Guest, Lee, Chaz, Statajack, Mtoto and several others, including myself) may well feel inclined to contribute further if there was any evidence of serious contributions from others. Why not help the "collection" to continue to mount up by thowing in some substantive "silver" yourself?