Boozer

I wonder if you - or tc - would care to estimate the number of those who post regularly here who could, in practice, have the info. you request? Perhaps the two of you might even suggest a few names.

Dont bother telling us then Fulham

Mtoto
When I had more time on my hands to analyse races according to what I know, what i did to save all the hassle of working everything out then coming to the last FILTER and finding a no bet was to ring off the most important races in the RP then mark with felt tips the horses which had performances which would indicate qualifying for the "WHAT A HORSE DOES IN THE FINAL 2F" criteria.
Then I worked back the way.If everything else was in order then I would bet, it took a lot less time.
Racing has changed H'caps wise now from the 70's + 80's.Weight ratings are are now centralised and horses go up the weights a lot faster, and come down a lot slower than in VDW's day.According to an associate of mine who is a professional punter with the trimmings to match, he thinks that back then a 5/2 shot is more likely to be a 6/4 chance now.
As far as the consistency figs go,they are now probably the weakest link in VDW methodolgy.
Cheers
Bio

The consistency rating provides a contradiction to the aim for easier opposition as represented by a drop in class unless the selection has an age advantage.

Boozer

Given your post of 8.00pm on 18 July, it never occurred to me that you would want me to provide an answer. But personally I can think of only one other member - Guest - who definitely has ALL the resources needed, and given the abuse that has been piled upon him I was interested that you've the gall to ask.

As Guest himself so succinctly put it to others recently, "up yours".

You are indeed a pleasant chap

For anybody that is interested
Out of 1761 Hcp races that have been run so far this season

816 winners that had a run this season had the word headway or prog in at least 1 of their last 3 outings

Boozer,

And your point is?

How will you account for the other 945? Perhaps they were all course winners, perhaps they were all distance winners, perhaps they were all dropping in class.

My goodness.

Chaz

Same point as 111=33%

Boozer
Its not even 33%, its more like 25% over the years.I read somewhere lately that of 38 horses with 111 only 8 have actually won this season or last, so whats that-21%.I reiterate my assumption racings changed.
The stats you put up on headway/progress have much more credibility than consistency figures
Cheers Bio

Traytonic in the 4.10 at York yesterday (IMO) is am example of a "Roushayd" bet -

ie - a horse that has shown inprovement in Higher Class (as evidenced by speed figures, and form comments) and is now dropped into lower class - to "Collect"

A good example of "Placing" a horse !


The fact that the horse is owned by one "Colin Davey" - makes it all the more likley - "He has VDW coming out of his ears, with his systems !

(the serious money looks to have been on Danzig River tho!)

tc

Considering that only headway and prog were used and that first time out winners weren’t catered for then it’s not a bad result

Seems it’s the wrong time of the month for some our fellow enthusiasts

Boozer,

Interesting statistic, would it be possible to put up how many horses also had the headway and prog critique that didn't win?

As you know I wasn't a fan of the c/rating. I have since changed my mind. Not because I like adding up form figures, but because it dawned on me what do they prove? For me they prove even if circumstances are against them, they are still consistent. What use is speed, or anything else, if you never know when the horse is going to perform?

I think it would be interesting to know how many of the winners that had 'headway and prog' were also consistent. Matched of course with how many ran. If VDW thought class by it's self wasn't enough I don't think he would have agreed to excepting one x check as proof of much.

Bio,

As you can see I don't agree with you except to say I do think it's harder now to run up a sequence of wins in handicaps. I do think it is VERY important for horses to be consistent. The only time I don't look for it is when the horse has proven it is improving, and dropping in class.

Be Lucky

MTOTO
Pity you didn't finish off the quote from VDW. The very next sentence reads, " Once you find it EVERYTHING WILL BE SO CLEAR that you will wonder how on earth you could miss it, and you will have the same horses as myself.
I don't how many times that has to be repeated before it becomes apparent that the answer is simple, and in NO WAY involves years of research or fine tuning. That route is for those who attempt to justify their original misunderstanding!

Hi John !

Like the "INPUT" !!

but --

"Sorry" - but this Damm Dust from the books- is choking me !!

Can you give - "The source of the "Quote", and - Maybe - the full "Quote" !!




tc

Johnd

What was it via the simple route - one winner from about 30 if I recall.

Don't you love these recent posts by Fulham? I can feel the fear.

re your last post !

quote:

---

Bio,

As you can see I don't agree with you except to say I do think it's harder now to run up a sequence of wins in handicaps. I do think it is VERY important for horses to be consistent. The only time I don't look for it is when the horse has proven it is improving, and dropping in class.

---

I agree !!

esp - re sequence of wins !!

Have you you any thoughts - regarding my post on "Traytonic" ! - ie (Improving & Dropping in Class) ????
tc

Johnd/TC

Here is the quote. I'm posting it in full so people that don't have it can see I didn't leave anything out that would change the meaning. I think they will also be able to see VDW didn't say there was no missing link. He did say if you want to call it that, yes there is a factor that hasn't been deliberately pointed out. That can only mean it is possible there is a factor you may not be able to find. Just because WHEN you find it makes sense, doesn't mean it is simple or straight forward. He says VITAL FACTOR, but as you know not all of his explanations can only be taken one way. This is were the fine tuning comes in. Is this the vital factor, or just something that has been taken the wrong way?

Now I could be wrong, but VDW as quite explicit about the later stages of a race. So I don't think this is the factor in question. Do you?

John, I think you are splitting hairs, why I'm not sure. It does start to look as if you want to pick on something that looks as if it MAY have been missed. I don't think it has, but it is kept in proportion, and the method not based around it. If this is the simple factor can I ask why your strike rate isn't up in the 80's?

{The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element had been chosen to fit into the method. Calculating consistent horses, ability ratings and everything else, providing you READ WHAT WAS THERE. The
last in capitals because it was all there although a vital factor, call it the missing link if you like was not deliberately pointed out. It is there for you to see and it was not covered up, but until you approach the problem in the right way the odds are it will remain obscure. Once you find it everything will be so clear that you will wonder how on earth you could miss it and you will have the same horses as myself}.

Be Lucky

John d,
Why are you posting so aggressively ?
Why are you not posting anywhere else on this forum?
Is it your intention on this forum to try and get me to ban members as it is not working, either contribute in the spirit of this forum or move on it is entirely up to you the ball is in your court.
To learn how to contribute to this forum in a meaningful way I suggest that you look at the postings of Tannis, Fallachan, Sparky, Dr Cymru,Fulham, Epi, Guest, Mtoto,Stewards etc they are just some of the members of this forum that make it a success so read and learn or go.

Gummy

TC
The quote is from the Ultmate Wheil Of Fortune entitled 'The Missing Link?' The question mark is VDW's, not mine.

MTOTO
The point I am trying to get across is one of UNDERSTANDING rather than learning by rote, a point that has been signally missed by those who spend years studying previous examples.
To UNDERSTAND anything, it is advisable to reduce it to its simplest form, get to grips with the BASICS, and proceed from that point.
The alternative is to look at the whole package, try to establish a pattern, and cobble and manipulate until you have something which resembles your original idea of the package. Of course, if your original idea is wrong, you will be reluctant to discard your hard work, and continue to add whistles and bells for evermore.
Not only that, but one wrong turn or misconception along the way, and from that point you will be building in more errors.
Did Tiger Woods learn his golf swing in the library?
Whichever way you dress it up, the words "Once you find it, everything will be so clear, you'll wonder how on earth you could miss it", very strongly suggests an immediacy of comprehension which you and others continue to ignore. It may be time to ' Make a fresh start'.