OK


If there is going to be a positive response, -

Then I will blow the dust off my VDW collection and have a go !

tc

I warn you tho -

Some of my thinking is a bit "Lateral"

Having just read Fulhams well detailed post of how he believes those interested should set about finding the answers to VDW, I then noted the response from TC.

TC says he thinks Fulham is wrong. Wrong about what exactly? All Fulham is saying, and rightly in my opinion, is that it is no use trying to figure VDWs method out without using the very examples that VDW gave us. What possible reason is there to use a modern day example that was not presented by VDW?

We always come back to this and the fact is that without the form books detailing the whole careers for the selections VDW gave there is no possible chance of fully understanding his method. Fulham, myself and others may not have found all the answers, but there is no question we are using the right source material.

Ignoring VDWs own selections is like a detective trying to solve a crime by using the evidence from a completely unrelated crime. Surely anyone with half an ounce of intelligence can see that?

I look forward to your posts, as what Johnd aptly calls the "dinosaur" approach has conspicuously failed to produce a worthwhile selection method.

Still as Modest as ever I see

I don’t think your reference to other people’s intelligence is necessary
In fact it could draw abuse
Then you will wonder why

Guest

I think you should re read TC’s post
Even an unintelligent person can see exactly what he means

Boozer

It is my view that, even with all the relevant Form Books and any amount of time and determination, one needs a reasonably high measure of "grey matter" to bring the material together in a way that generates a credible answer. Like a good many other human activities, trying to "solve" VDW is not an endeavour that all have the capability to tackle successfully.

I made no comment about any other members' intelligence (and certainly not about tc's).

Hi Fulham/Guest,

I am serious in learning about the VDW methodology. I note that to do this to an acceptable degree, I need the Form books for the career of the horses that VDW used in his examples. Are these available to purchase on the open market?
(I have two post-graduate qualifications, so hope to have the necessary grey-matter)

Trojan

Yes, but one can't always get the ones one wants immediately. It took me over three months to get together the set, though I know some have been luckier and able to complete more quickly.

I have found the best sources to be two small, Newmarket-based book dealers - Janet Carter (01638 717691) and Greg Way (01638 507217). Also worth checking are Browzers (0161 773 2327, also a website; www.browzers.co.uk) and John Pickering (01439 770931).

Happy hunting.

Thanks Fulham,

much appreciated

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trojan:
(I have two post-graduate qualifications, so hope to have the necessary grey-matter)

---

In my 'umble job, he said touching his 4lox, I work with a lot a graduates.

When you see them putting the parcel tape in the dispenser the wrong way round and wondering why it don't stick.... I have to question the validity of Trojan's statement!



cheers IMP

IMP - I said " HOPE to have......"

Must admit I'm useless at wrapping Christmas presents - and that time is rapidily approaching again

My Mum, God Bless her, put it down to me being left-handed

TC,

I'm pleased to see someone is going to make an effort to bring the thread back to life. I must admit I was a little disapointed Johnd didn't seize the chance.

Lateral thinking may well be the way forward, but as it has already been said for it to make any real sense these thoughts MUST comply with the examples given by VDW. The examples are the only thing we have to judge how VDW worked. It has been said in the past we should not be looking at the big handicaps, and races with many runners. How can this be, VDW's examples show some of the biggest handicap races in the calendar? Lincoln's, Cambridgeshire's, Grand Nationals and Derby's. If these races are not considered and thinking changed to bypass these races is it VDW?

Yes, I agree trainer's thinking does come into it, but the trainer is limited to the horses he trains. He may have a plot going on. but how many other trainers are trying to win the same race? Surely the idea must be to find the horse with the right credentials first, and then watch what the trainer does. How can you or he know how the plot is likely to work out until he knows the competition? It's all very well looking to see were the bus is going, you first must know were you want to go.

Anyway I wish you luck. If you come up with some suggestions I think you must understand just because some may not agree. It's not because they are being awkward, but there are already examples to use as a guide. You may suggest distance winners only, the examples show this is not a set requirement, the same as course winners, winners proven on the going, etc.

Be Lucky

It makes you wonder about trainers when a bloke like Nichols has 12 in the same race and still doesnt hit the winners enclosure.

There again VDW said "note there is a difference between a carpenter and a cabinet maker"

It would seem to be more useful if you new when their horses were not going to win rather than win

Horses credentials
First division & Greenhills Joy`s last races that season from the Roushayd example and indeed his explanation of Shimshek`s last race "although high class" are worth looking into.

Walter

Agreed. I would also suggest The Irish Rhine (26/12/84) and Asa Spades (exactly two years later) for close attention.

There is an eternal myth in racing that almost every winner is known beforehand by the trainer. We often see post race interviews with winning trainers or connections and like winning punters they give you all the reasons the horse was a cert. If they were to interview the beaten trainers also, I'm sure we would hear similiar views to the punters who backed those same beaten horses IE Excuses, etc,etc. Yet, had any of those horses won...well, that should be obvious really.

Isn't it strange how since Falbrav won a lesser race at Ascot on Saturday, that he has become even more unluckier not to win at Leopardstown? Even top trainers like Luca Cumani can't see beyond their own "children" and that is why the trainers intentions are only part of it as far as us punters are concerned. If the class and form isn't there, the trainers high opinion and intenetions for a horse won't count much out in the battlefield.

By the way, some punters will argue that it is easier to find good things in lower class races. I totally disagree, as did VDW, because in the higher class races the gulf between the best and the rest can be insurmountable most of the time.

For instance on Saturday, only Falbrav and Russian Rhythm could possibly have been considered likely winners and given what each had actually done on the track to date, there was only one horse at the races. Yes, they were all trying to grab the big pot, but only 2 horses seriously had a chance on a form basis. Surely better odds than a close knit handicap at Brighton?

Congratulations on two of the most meaningless posts this board has displayed in several months, VDWC is back on track.

You're missing the point about trainers.

Some things don't change.

Walter posts on this thread for the first time in nearly two months, and no sooner has he done so but he comes in for abuse from the resident "mouth", who is so ignorant of matters VDW that he has no capacity to understand what W is seeking to bring to attention.

Enlighten me, what was it that Walter so ineffectively tried to draw to the reader's attention? Where do you get the arrogance to assume that what you find significant in the horses' runs mentioned by Walter is what he actually had in mind?

Could somebody kindly say what his abilty rating was in the Old Newton Cup and what was the Highest Value race he had won up to that point