It is only going to cost them £10 minimum and this thread is the biggest VDW thread that you will find anywhere.
It's a shame that they have gone elsewhere probably to a secret place of their own I would not be surprised if they now have a secret handshake and walk around with one trouser leg rolled up with a donkey in tow.

Gummy

WP/Gummy

I'm still here! It's just that every time I tried to put in a sensible post on the subject it was either ignored or the subject of insults.

Rob

Hi Rob,
Nice to see you are still around, i wonder if i could ask if you know how to work VDW`s staking method used for 3 horses in the one race. I think you have to split them into 2 separate bets A&B B&C (2pts on A & 1pt on B)for the first bet (1pt on B & 1pt on C) for the second bet & apply them to simple staking method.Would it be possible for you or anyone else to show it working in practice as i may have found something very simple to work in tandem with it. I will post it up on the systems testing page when i have the staking info to hand as i want to try to put the stakes alongside the horses as we go.Any idea`s on the size of bank required would be great as well.

For interests sake the 4.00 at Wolves throws up 1, 2, & 8. Lucayan Monarch is currently 5/2 i think that was the min price to accept.

Hello Rob,
The insulters are no longer with us but I don't know if this thread will ever get back to it's glory days.

Gummy

For the moment, - I am keeping very quiet !!

some opinions - may come shortly

tc

Gummy / Walter,

I am still here and will continue to be. Whilst I presently do not post on this thread it doen`t mean I won`t in the future.

Why do I not post at present ?

It certainly ain`t anything to do with the `old` members who ruined the thread.

It is quite simply because after 2 years of inconsistent study ( due to time pressures / work commitments, etc )of the VDW eg`s I still do not feel I have made sufficeint enough progress to do the thread justice.

The likes of Guest, Fulham, Lee, etc may have moved onto to pastures new and the very best of luck to them but I will remain a regular visitor to the thread for 2 reasons, ie -

a) it is a brilliant reference library for anyone wanting to learn the VDW methods and

b) I feel some loyalty to Gummy hence my recent £20 donation.

Hi Determined,
Opinions abound of what VDW was or is & your views are due as much respect as anyone else`s as far as im concerned. I would`nt be too bothered about doing the thread justice m8 if you contribute as you have before many times in the past then that would do for me. Would`nt it be something if we could work out a method between those of us left, a method that could work even if it meant betting 3 in a race.

Letter 30 tgy,

Returning to consistent horses, readers may care to add together the last 3 placings of each horse in every race down the card and review the findings,considering type of race, etc.`They may also care to do the same with the position in the betting forecast of each winner`.

What does vdw mean by the latter?.

winners come from first five in the forcast

cheers IMP

Thank`s for the reply Barney here`s my angle on it see what you think.

`They may also care to do the same with the position in the betting forecast of each winner`.
Prior to the above we were asked to add together the last 3 placings of all the horses down the card & review findings.

Taking any one horse lets say his last 3 placings were 5-4-2 = 11.

The race in which he was 5th was won by 6th postion in b/f/c.

The race in which he was 4th was won by the 3rd in the b/f/c.

The race in which he was 2nd was won by the 4th in the b/f/c.

So doing the same & adding together the position in the betting forecast of each winner which is what he tells us to do after all, would give us figures of 6-3-4= 13.So we could then arguably have a consistency(1) & (2)any horse in top 3 for both gains plus marks.Im sure Guest used a cons (2) in some of his work but he was using it to highlight those consistent horses outside the forecast area.

Walter

If the 3rd,4th or 5th fav wins the race then the betting forecast was wrong,
How can you use wrong info to select a horse?

Hiya Rab,

Im thinking of using it as a cross-check against the original consistency rating.Being in the top (3) for consistency was a basic requirement for most of his selections (i think).
So, let`s say a horse had an original consistency rating of (7) & was in the top (3). Then the f/cast positions of the winners in his last 3 races (even if he were one) were 4-4-3=11 placed him out the top (3) in that category, then that would go against him.

walter,

try to read the peach note from "true form two-year-olds system" from "SYSTEMS IN MY RACING". There are some reasonable ideas there.

walter,

in your example I would think they were quite poor races and wouldnt bother with them myself.

Barney,
According to that article in systems in my racing, a true-run race is a true-form race.How do we know when a race is true run? i mean how would we know in simple terms?.As some of the stuff ive seen people talking about re-pace etc is often very complicated.

WALTER
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the above does seem to be a search for a system, rather than a method, which isn't what VDW intended.
He strongly advocated putting the odds in your favour and gave us certain perameters to achieve this.
A rough guide would be that the horse would be consistent, have the class, the capabilty under the day's circumstances, and expected to be fit, Any selection that didn't have those 4 basic attributes would be considered putting the odds against yourself. Common sense really, as with most of his approach. The first 5 in the forecast was another way of reducing the odds against you.
There is, of course, more to it than that, but the above should form a reasonable basis to begin from.
Hope it helps.
Johnd

John
Where do you get these off the wall quotes from?
VDW wrote that his method holds true, Flat and Jumps, AT ALL LEVELS.
The foundation of his method is class and consistent form, and it remains true that the further you go down the class scale, the more obscure those 2 elements become. That doesn't assume that the principles don't work, just that they are harder to establish.
How many group winners are there in an average Derby,how many have consistent form; and how many minor winners are there in a selling handicap, and how much would you trust them to run to form?