340c

horses from forcast with double letters in name

Naahy
Abunawwas
Millennium force

Naahy's Double"AA" is nearer the front than the"LL" of millennium force so is the likely winner. However the conflict created by the double double "LL&NN" in millennium force prevents a good bet.

Close Barney !

What you missed tho - was the double L in the owners name !!!

K.Abdulla !!

I said concentrate on the "Owners" !!!

Jib
Nice winner!

Lee
Thanks for the insight into how you work. It didn't work out this time, but it does make sense.

Barney
We all know you are a twat. Don't know why you should continuously feel the need to prove it.

Fulham Jnr.
Now is the time to tell us how you did it!
Tell us again

Jib,

well spotted.

JohnD,

I was actually waiting for someone, you probably, to pick up on the distance issue, which was why I classified the horse as I did.

Working the same way showed up both Quija Board and Tropical Lady, both coming out the best rated from the probables, without any capability issues, but not at those prices.

I wouldn't dream of claiming anything here other than they were winners IN their respective races, but could have been found looking down numerous avenues.

Mtoto: now that Barney has condecended to share his opinion do you think the new-comers can look forward to an instructive discourse?

epi,

I prepared and gave away, my views, on VDW, over a year ago on here, you and others were too thick to see their worth, and, I might add, still are.

Barney: thanks for reminding me that Gummy has a humourous component.

Hi JIB

Trade Fair: Good call.

Nebulous: “small cluster of indistinct stars, or star in a luminous haze; cloud-like; hazy, vague, indistinct, formless; clouded, turbid”. Oh dear. My fault methinks.

I find the whole Van Der Wheil method very interesting. Mainly because what is written makes common sense (to me). From my experience of backing:

Consistent horses do often win again in the same sequence
Ratings do have a value
Horses that have won races in the past at current level are “proven”

It does make sense to me… except the 80% thing. So why would Mr. Van Der Wheil feel the need to tell such an outrageous fib? I will assume for a moment that it isn’t a fib, and look for an alternative theory. By reading your previous posts, I’ve come up with two possible alternatives that board members may wish to consider:

1. He was making a book within these races (which he advocated).
2. He was working from a list. The strike rate was not a per race strike rate, but a strike rate of horses winning from his list eventually (he also advocated making a list).

It is also interesting that many people want to believe some things advocated by Mr. Van Der Wheil, but when it comes to other things, they choose to ignore them, or reduce the value of them. We are looking for “hidden factors” and “alternative meanings”, and “what ratings did he use?” However little mention is made of “making a list”, “making a book within the book” and “using a staking plan”.

I think your own thinking is far from nebulous. Quite the reverse in fact!

Will you be doing your M&M chasers this year?

Better go – hotel rates for internet are outrageous!!!


BlackCat

BC,

If you make a book of enough horses there is no problem reaching an 80% SR. The hard part is trying to make a profit from them!

I am convinced that VDW was initially a dutcher (hence the name?) who had some sound ideas for punters to whittle away at a race until a reasonable profit could be made from betting on a few of its runners. That begs the question as to what would be considered reasonable.

Most pros think a 5% return on investment is good. BF shows that the big money usually only goes down on odds-on shots. All I can say inVDWs case is that he taught about how to make a book and advocated staking plans.

With the advent of betting tax most of the then pro-punters gave up and became bookies, certainly trying to take a profit from small margins and odds-on became an impossible task. And it is that at this point that VDWology becomes more sophisticated as the author seems to accept the challenge of beating both the bookie and the chancellor.

As a result I fear that there would have to have been fewer bets but much more specialisation amongst them depending on the type of race involved. And that means that if indeed VDW followed this path then naturally it becomes ever more difficult to reconcile the earlier with the later writings.

So what did VDW do turn the tables? This is where the ‘nebulosity’ comes into it because everybody has there own ideas about it but has great difficulty in proving it! To my mind VDWs transformation involved him changing his thought processes from those of a punter looking for a ‘winner’ to a trainer who has to prepare and place his horse.

The Mice and Men Chasers and the Donkey Register are my attempts at trying to substantiate my theories about finding winners. I dont give a damn if they were VDWs as well, because that was all in the past and is a futile academic exercise that at times (though not universally) best serves anonymous or insignificant pundits who need to bolster their egos by exploring the genuine interest of others.

The answer to this question obviously lies in the future, (if it existed in the past it has been lost and cannot be found), and can only be uncovered by trial and error, hard work and serious thought. But how can an interested party do this if at every turn he is encouraged to indulge in equine archaeology as being the only answer?

JiB: On course one can profitably Dutch the entire field given few enough runners but that's piss useless for you and I. The main problem with the underlying concept of this and various other threads is the idea that racing is "soluble" and that once solved we can all sit back and the booky'll pay us. Reality is that bookies are merely brokers and we're betting against each other, VDW methodology is based on cliches and I'm happy to go against it every time for two basic reasons; 1) cliched thinking chooses favourites and favourites lose 60+% of races, 2) favourite thinkers are my prey.

Epi
If favourites win, say 35%, of all races, then surely that is the place to begin looking. Anything else would be perverse?

Jib/Bc
Another little cliche for you:
" If you fail too achieve a minimum of 80% success,evaluate your reading of form".
Anathema to many on this thread, but surely, if there is an answer, that's where it lays!

As a test of VDW's consistency theory, I will put up the 3 most consistent from the first 5 in the betting, ( First 6 in handicaps), and see where it leads.
I will use only races class C and above, where the form is sufficiently consistent/exposed/recent, and as he advised us to use a little judgement, will try to take account of any 'Gay Chances'.
Subs will be used for any non-runners, and sensible comment would be welcome.

There are 4 C+ races today at Ayr, but the 2.45 has 2 unexposed amongst the first 6, and the 3.45 is a poor race for consistency.

In the 3.15, Airwave just gets into the 3, but discount her gp1/2 runs and she becomes joint top.

3.15 AIRWAVE
AUTUMN PEARL
NEEDLES AND PINS.


4.15 GATEMAN
KALAMAN
FRUMLINGSSTURM.

johnd

very brave john - best of luck - I will be watching with interest, and I hope to learn something (or more!)

tc

JohnD,

The 3.45 may well be a poor race for consistency; however, I think Top Dirham is worth looking at from a Roushayd point of view.

I’d fully expect kalaman to take the Scottish Derby.

Dunno about Roushyd - but Fallon has formidable record for M.Easterby when riding favourites !

Desert Prince progeny do v well at 9f and 11f but there is a dip in their results at 10f. I think Kalaman is vulnerable.

Its too far for Checkit (Mukadammah) and Gateman (Owington), though Checkits connections must be getting desperate for a win.

Ikhtyar (Unfuwain) gets an ideal trip, but Gosden doesnt (at least until today) target 3yo+ non hcps here.

Scotts View (Selkirk) is best at 8 and 9f, again the SR drops away at 10f and MJs record in this type of race here is poor.

Fruhlingsturm, is a half brother to Ikhtyar so the distance is correct. The trainer
is abit unknown at this track, but the horse is unexposed and clearly in good shape. The fc 9/1 looks good value.

Lee,

V nice tipping. Well done!

Thanxs Lee, I liked the look of Top Dirham, and was confident after reading your post.

Lee
Have only just seen your post. Did look at Top Dirham, but didn't have the confidence to back it. You obviously did though, and he won well. Nice one, and thanks for the input.
If you had a look at the last at Ayr, you will probably have picked up on the 'interesting' placing of the winner. Didn't have a bet, but his win wasn't the surprise his price suggested.

Did you know that Che is used in Dutch for Charles? Not a lot of people know that!