Ectoo

What is your EVIDENCE for the proposition that there was no such person as VDW? Or is that another of your assertions based on nothing except hot air?

Fulham no offence intented but whether it is hot air on Ectoo`s part or not, at least he has tried to give something back to the thread in the form of his own ideas on the class part of the equation. Which for that matter i had not seen before and make good enough sense.

lol Fulham/Alan B

you should know all about hot air, you have enough for a dozen people.

Can you prove he existed? are you him? lol

Listen, you got sucked in by a trick Alan, get to grips with it.

Anyway, I can't be doing with talking to people who have not the balls to post actual selections, you are a bore Alan and one with no meat on the bone to boot. I have read god knows how many posts by you and all I see is waffle dressed up as self important claptrap. You really do need to wise up young man before you waste any more years chasing a newspaper hoax.



Thanks Walter.

cheers
ec

EC,

Glad to see you caught my posting. Can I ask why you spend so much time on the other forum, I don't think you are appreciated there?

I have to agree 100% with your thoughts on the class issue.

Weight, why do AP McCoy and other jockeys do the low weights? it is simply because if they put up over weight the handicapper would rise the mark of the horses that won or ran well. This would force the horses to run in higher class races in subsequent races. Add to this the lower the weight of a jockey the more rides (opportunities) he stands to get Do you really think weight can bring any 2 horses together, if you gave a top class horse 14st do you really think a seller could ever beat it? It is class not weight that sorts the horses out.

Your two mythical horses. If the course suited both horses I would have to chose the won that carried the most weight last time out. He would be the best horse, and most likely to be able to repeat the performance. Of course age and the amount of improvement would have to be taken into account, but the highest OR (all things being equal) would have the edge. For me none of this would be judged on the weights carried.

VDW. Whether or not he existed, I don't know or care. It is the basics of the methods that is important. As I said before apart from the method of judging class, (and it must be remembered that prize money won would have been the easiest way back then) what else do you disagree with?

In the main I understand your example. Would you expect this horse to hold it's own in a 100 + handicap? Given this example in such a race I would put a line through it, no matter how low a weight it carried. Consistent, yes, even if it was in the forecast, I would expect it to be outclassed.

The examples were given after the races had been run, but how do you explain how Fulham and others can find a common thread that runs through them all? Using this thread it is possible to narrow the race down to one horse. My only problem is I'm using a different a/rating, and still coming up with the same answer. I have to admit VDW uses phrases like certainty, I don't think it is a word that can be used in horse racing. Plus he backed some horses that only the threat of physical violence would have made me back them, and even then I'm not sure it would be enough.

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto

All the VDW examples given in the handicap book were backfitted the same as many people do with systems or as S Mainwaring would say he fired the arrow and then drew the target around it.

This one aspect alone proves it was a wind up, carefully selecting past examples to prove a method is not acceptable now, possibly it was then.

There isn't a lot more to it is there really..the consistent class horse was what it was built on..well yes they do win but not everytime as they did in his examples. They don't win often enough to make a profit either as every forum has a VDW thread packed with losing consistent/class horses tends to prove.

His ideas regarding form figures are also flawed, he stated a horse with 111 form figures win 33% of the time. Since 1986 on the flat the actual strike rate is 25% and it is pretty consistent but for a few troughs and peaks. Over the sticks it is 26%. So even these basic pieces of information are inaccurate so what chance of believing someone who openly uses backfitted examples when he can't be truthfull about simple stats.

I seriously am amazed at how many people have been convinced this stuff is genuine..I really am. It's up to people to use common sense, does anyone really think backfitted methods are of any use?

You haven't convinced me on weight, good answer re McCoy though. I don't really think trainers believe that weight doesn't matter though and are not always thinking about class barriers but more about beaten lengths the extra weight will cost them.

If you look at Amateur races where they carry 11 stone plus you will see that overall times are influenced greatly by weight. I don't believe the theory that because they are amateurs they don't go racing pace either. Weight will slow horses down and there are lots of examples each week on the clock particularly on the AW where you can compare same disatnce races, one amateur race and one pro race. Every time the amateur race will be slower due to carrying extra burden. The law of physics applies to racing same as anything else, if it didn't would we not think it odd?

cheers
ec

Ectoo

So, as suspected, no evidence and, judging by your other posts, no understanding of VDW's approach either.

Still, in an historical sense you are in good company. Over the last couple of years we've seen a whole series of ill-informed "critics", from Pazuzu through such luminaries as Epiglotis, Jimmy and JIB. You are merely the latest: I'm sure there will be others.

here we go

Only you understands a method a 5 year old could grasp, the same 5 year old would dismiss it after a week.

You keep hiding behind this "VDW is brain surgery and only I am clever enough to understand it" crap, it doesn't wash with me.

Your defence of VDW borders on the obsessional..are you making money from it in some way..leaflets, a service based on it?

There is something very strange about someone who wants to keep extending the "mystery" of this silliness, Have you an ulterior motive?

If you really did believe in it you would demonstrate it, you can't so you are giving strong indications that you are making money from it in some other way.

Do you make money from VDW in a subscription type of way?

If you are just a believer then lets see you prove it, if you can't I say you are a bullshitter and cannot make profit from it.

EC,

The only problem with the back fitting idea is the time the articles were written over. How when VDW wrote the first article did he know the procedure would consistently hold good over many years. I'm not just talking about the basics, but the whole thing.

As I understand back fitting it involves working to find the best set of factors and changing them to suit as you go along. VDW didn't do this, the way PK was found was explained in the FIRST example. It holds good until the last.

You say a five year old would/could understand it and then reject it. Can I ask if you have even bothered to look at this horse Fulham (and VDW) says is not a form horse even after winning it's last three races? It rather sounds to me that you are going along with the crowd, I can't make it work so it doesn't/can't work. It is far more involved than just counting up form figures and ability ratings. That's why so many can't make it work.

Fulham is more than capable of speaking for himself. I would just like to say he has often helped others along the way, and pointed out more than one big priced selection or danger (before the race) He also has said before the race he doesn't consider a horse is a form horse thus helping people to save their money if they want to take the hint. I can often work out which horse he makes the c/form horse because he usually works to a set pattern. I can't always work out if he is going to back the horse, because it becomes a personal thing then.

You must have formulas, and ideas that you wouldn't post on a MB. That's not to say you don't help people on a one to one bases.

This idea VDW had the % for the form figures wrong. You must again remember he didn't have the luxury of RSB. So perhaps he based his figures on the races HE analysed. You say you can't believe people can take VDW seriously, I find it hard to believe that when someone like Fulham says there is a continuous thread through ALL the examples a 160 +. That you and others don't think there may be something to this. It is different, doesn't always go with the crowd and works. What other possible reason could Fulham have, why would he want to prove how clever he is? As far as I can see he only gets involved with doubters when they try and take the p***.

Be Lucky

FULHAM,
I commend your resillience,you are a man of integrity,and deserve better than this.

I can't make it work so it doesn't/can't work

The thing is Mtoto, no one else can make it work in real time and each MB has a VDW thread with many trying. Of course people can get winners and say horses can't win..I can do that with a pin and be right so many times.

Pipedreamer, Fulham is constantly talking on the other board about how only he appears to know the secret of this method but cannot just put up selections regularly before they run. I don't want to know his "secrets" I just get fed up with people who cannot back up what they say.

A horse that wins it's last 3 races of course might not be a form horse in the traditional sense of the word. It might have won 3 sellers and be racing in a lot higher class. I asked Fulham on the other board to explain, without reference to class how a horse could not be "in form" when it has won it's last 3 races. I wasn't asking how it was discarded by other means.

If this is such a complex method let's have Fulham tell us about that race and how he analysed it. Then post 30 selections over the coming weeks before they race, he doesn't have to give away his secrets, just make a profit with 30 selections. He might get respect for waffling on but he would get a lot more if he could show a profit in real time.

Pipedreamer

Thanks. It is interesting how those who clearly haven't other than a superficial knowledge of VDW's work (and indeed are often happy to admit that) feel the need to denigrate it, and those who know at least a little more. It is also interesting how quickly they get angry when their assertions are challenged.

Mrs Klein published her most accessible (and to my mind convincing) account of this particular facet of human behaviour in 1957, so I've had plenty of time to understand it. When I encounter it these days it's water off a duck's back.

Now that's just a fine example of the sort of pompous waffle I expect from you Alan.

Aftertimers are ten a penny and you are certainly one of the finest exponents of the art.

No point continuing a conversation with you, I really don't know why you bother posting apart from promoting your supposed superiority over everyone else. You certainly can kid some of the people some of the time.

Ectoo
Fulham has made it quite clear in the past that he won't put up selections and that is his perogative,Every now and again he let's his hair down and on saturday pulled turbo out of the bag which duly obliged at 25/1.it was included in a book but no doubt he made a tidy sum of money.

I have put my own interpretations forward on a purely vdw forum,No doubt others on that forum disagree with my approach,Which bothers me not because i do make decent money from it and will continue to do so.Vdw did say that there was enough put forward for lot's of methods to be made,and he was spot on.But to say vdw is not profitable is way of the mark.

On another board, one of that board's most regular long-term contributors today posted the following in response to another member:

"you are correct, MB's [message boards] are about sharing, problem is by default sharing implies a 2 way process, sadly this isn't how it works in reality I'm afraid... seems all too often one person "SHARES" and loads just take, with no intention of giving anything back (maybe coz they have nothing to offer)... if this is the case then how can anyone expect others to "share" when they cannot offer anything in return..."

Not my comment, as Ectoo among others knows, but one with which I broadly agree. The point the poster made has consequences.

A pertinent quote there from Fulham. Recently when Boozer and Tuppenycat have tried to promote discussion on this thread they have been met with angry posts from Fulham asking them to go into detail, something Fulham has never done, as clear a case of message board parasitism as you could ask for.

Ok

Re 2 sets of ratings - compiled on different lines.

Imp has outlined the basis of the Massey ratings -


Pure Time is clearly another possibility, tho I have suggested that this could be used on its own - to indicate a progressive horse.

What about another basis for another set of Ratings ?

How about Trainer/ Jockey strike rates at a course or in certian types of Race ? - could that be called a Rating ??- or is that too outrageous.

Lets have some suggestions from those out there - I am sick of seeing this thread going round in circles !!

Come on Fulham - tell us which Ratings - You use !- and why !

tc

tc

I use just three forms of "rating":

1) VDW's ability rating: I work from highest to lowest in assessing in-formness, and from the "form" sub-set of a race give weight to those with higher ability ratings. (VDW did, remember, regard the class/form horse - the "form" horse with the highest ability rating - as the most likely winner);

2) VDW's way of rating race class: I use this in assessing in-formness (it is clear that VDWE did);

3) Official Ratings - I am currently experimenting to see whether these offer an effective cross-check when assessing the "form" horses to decide which, if any, to back.

Fulham-

You worry me !

This appears to be a form of "Double Counting" --

VDW gives us his "Form" ratings - then his "Class" ratings, - but then says that he backs them up with two "Additional" sets of "Ratings " compiled on two separate basis's

You say - You are "experimenting" with Official Ratings !

Does that mean that up to press you have not used any Ratings that might equate to the two "Additional" sets of Ratings that VDW alludes to ??

tc

tc

The short answer is yes, I've not used such "additional" ratings.

I would point out that VDW never offered what you refer to as "form" ratings. The consistency aggregate, to which I assume you refer, is a quite different matter. It was only after I had understood the significance of Guest's comment that VDW had not said that "form" and "consistency" were synonymous that I was able to make serious progress.

ok - No,- they certainly are not, - synominous !!

I agree - a starting point - but even so - 111 - may or not be reliable !!

I have pointed out on other threads - that in Handicaps - 111 - can be a route to disaster !!

By the time that a horse has won 3 in a row -then the Handicapper has a "Handle" on him - and VDW's % - goes "out of the Window".

Similarly to compare "Race Value" - betwen "Stakes" and "Handicap" races , is as ecco points out - "A Nonsence".

Trying to apply "VDW" to "Handicaps" is something that elludes me !!

Show me that I am "Wrong"

tc


I think we need to apply additional thinking.!

and "Here" - is a chance to do so - "Come on Guys" (and Gals - Wher's Rossie ?)

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on November 10, 2003 at 07:40 PM.]