not-g-hall,

on your first point, by establishing the form of all concerned.

second point, you need then, either to do a bit more work on the examples or adopt the "lazy mans way to win". An evaluation of the true odds would have bolstered your confidence.

"True odds", now there's a point for discussion.

wrong again, it must be the air over there, that is a point worth researching.

True odds as a concept isn't worth discussing??

Barney: I'll stick up some horses and you tell me their true odds, we can compare with FP, SP and OS, then see how it goes.

Todays 3 most consistent - Winners/Loosers today.

Consistency figs of Winners vs VDW prediction of 3 most const'

2.20 L 332- W
2.50 L 199- L
3.20 L 699- L
3.50 L 221- W
4.20 L 125- L
4.50 L 317- W
2.40 R 370- L
3.10 R 251- W
3.40 R 355- L
4.10 R 438- L
4.40 R 195- L
5.10 R 123- W
2.30 W 355- L
3.00 W 313- W
3.30 W 111- 4 to choose from
4.00 W 074- L
4.30 W 999- L
5.00 W 333- W
5.30 W 640- L

7 wins from 18/19 - 80/90% or what ???

Oops wrong place

Pipedreamer: the entire VDW concept is a lazy man's approach, otherwise why narrow the field?

Not v bright,

Sorry if I assumed you had a sense of humour.

I thought your original question was a humorous attempt at exposing the cerebral lesions of our Nobel candidate Barmys renewed example of the danger of spending ones social security money on Narcotics.

I didnt realise you were a fellow crewman of his. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of his book (though apparently you dont read them) and will find it easier making up lists of winners after racing.

It never had occured to me that "VDW" might have been a booky, that would explain Guest's results. In fact it explains almost all of it, great, I can cross this thread off my social calendar.

Barney: Please stick up the "true odds" for the following horses, I append the latest placings just in case such information is required:
S 3:45 Borora 211
L 4:00 Fulvio 075
W 8:15 Absinther 143

3.45 S -

Well ! - I suppose that Bottom in the Betting and Form figs of 878 - represents an ideal opportunity for the VDW Brigade to "Backfit the result !!

Studying VDW is like most things in life. Start with a negative viewpoint, and you will almost certainly come up with a negative result, which then becomes 'your' truth.
Approach it with a positive frame of mind, and the outcome may eventually be more rewarding.
A number have had a pop at Barney over his recent posts, and, in the main, he is reaping the richly deserved whirlwind for his own previous offerings.
However, on the subject of consistency, it may be unwise to shoot the messenger just yet.

Monday - 3 most consistent - Winners/Loosers

Consistency figs of Winners vs VDW prediction of 3 most const' - edit has placed "race class" after race time !

2:00 f L 666- W
2:30 f L 333- W
3:00 g L 314- W
3:30 e L 411- W
4:00 e L 454- L not in 1st 5 in the betting
4:30 f L 530- L not in 1st 5
5:00 f L 600- L not in 1st 5
6:00 f T 170- L not in 1st 5
6:30 e T 333- W
7:00 e T 447- L not in 1st 5
7:30 d T 221- L not in 1st 5
8:00 f T 444- L not in 1st 5
8:30 e T 111- W
5:45 d W 555- L
6:15 e W 716- L not in 1st 5
6:45 d W 111- W
7:15 c W 141- W
7:45 d W 522- W
8:15 e W 479- L not in 1st 5
2:15 e S 043- L not in 1st 5
2:45 e S 212- W
3:15 f S 247- L not in 1st 5
3:45 d S 878- L not in 1st 5
4:15 g S 444- W
4.45 e S 221- W
5:15 e S 631- W


13 wins from 26 races - 50% strike rate for VDW !

12 races won by horses not in the 1st 5 in the betting ??

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

Tc
"Studying VDW is like most things in life. Start with a negative viewpoint, and you will almost certainly come up with a negative result, which then becomes 'your' truth.
Approach it with a positive frame of mind, and the outcome may eventually be more rewarding"
A 'negative' person would look at yesterday's racing, and come up with the kind of list you have, whereas a more 'positive' person might see there was only one race worth considering, (The only class C of the day), and notice that the 3 most consistent finished 1st, 2nd, & 4th.
The latter, in his positive frame of mind, may even study the result, and glean further knowledge from it, while the former will content himself that he knows the real truth.

Barney, thanks for your reply. The lazy man's way is not for me. I do not have a problem with the reading of form, and noticing when "all lines up". For example I could find nothing last week, one on Sunday and one on Monday. It is just trying to establish the true odds, that's giving me the problem.

JohnD.
Interesting posting about Monday's racing, as it appeared to me also to be the only "on" race of the day, but what do I know.

johnd

please note - these are not "negative" posts - I am not at this stage - seeking to "Proove" anything one way or the other !

I am at this stage - simply posting results which take VDW's consistency figures at "face value" - to check how they stand up in the "real World" - how at the end of the day - we can draw conclusions from the figures - remains to be seen !! - but if the figures are not posted "Warts and all" - then we shall have no figures to draw conclusions from !!

For interest, and as a result of your contribution, - I shall include the "Race Class" in the table !

Tuesday - 3 most consistent - Winners/Loosers

Consistency figs of Winners vs VDW prediction of 3 most const'

Race "class" follows race time.


B 2:15 e 480- L
B 2:45 e 122- W
B 3:15 e 259- L
B 3:45 g 000- L not in 1st 5 betting
B 4:15 e 055- L not in 1st 5
B 4:45 e 909- L not in bet forcast - but a "Springer"
N 2:00 e 361- W
N 2:30 g 224- W
N 3:00 d 781- W
N 3:30 d 971- W
N 4:00 d 522- W
N 4:30 e 194- W

7 wins from 12 races - just over 50%

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

Note to Epiglotis

Hi Epi

I noticed you wrote on another thread that "Someone posted at RSUK that they were copying all Guest's posts, Fulham pointed out that someone else had already collected about the first half on a CD..."

I just thought I'd say that it was me! (Confession being good for the soul). Fulham had suggested that Guest's posts on here had helped him greatly with his understanding of VDW methodology. So I thought I'd give it one last go to try and get my small brain to comprehend.

Having contributed to another forum on the subject recently, I now think I have a pretty good understanding of the writings as they stand. (And I don't think it's so mysterious as some like make out either - it's all there in black and white - he wasn't writing a puzzlebook). Any further knowledge/improvement would be ones own interpretation and development, which is what I think Mr. Van der Wheil was trying to get people to do... look into the art of punting for themselves

So I did make some cut and pastings. But I shall not be completing the task.

I do not think an 80% SR is possible (other than by making a book). Not using singles and not over a prolonged period. And that's the nub of it isn't it. Having said that, I do think the writings are valuable in that they help people to concentrate on ways of finding winners and to look closely as various aspects that they may not have previously considered.

BlackCat

BC - I sed - you were a "masochist" - glad to see - you have now seen - "The error of your ways" !!!

quote:

---

I now think I have a pretty good understanding of the writings as they stand. (And I don't think it's so mysterious as some like make out either - it's all there in black and white - he wasn't writing a puzzlebook). Any further knowledge/improvement would be ones own interpretation and development, which is what I think Mr. Van der Wheil was trying to get people to do... look into the art of punting for themselves

So I did make some cut and pastings. But I shall not be completing the task.

I do not think an 80% SR is possible (other than by making a book). Not using singles and not over a prolonged period. And that's the nub of it isn't it. Having said that, I do think the writings are valuable in that they help people to concentrate on ways of finding winners and to look closely as various aspects that they may not have previously considered.

---

we may yet get "somewhere"



tc