Swish,
In the quotation you kindly gave above, I cannot see Guest stating or inferring that you cannot ''win backing horses with improving speed figs that are dropped in class'' which is what you said in your penultimate post.

Yes, I probably did infer that you have adopted your own version of the Roushayd method but I hardly said you had improved on it, as it stands in Systematic Betting.

Also, what do you mean by the ''basis I am starting on!!!''? You surely cannot be offended just because I do not agree with you?

I think the point is being missed somewhat regarding the Roushayd method. VDW actually wrote a further article about the races involving Roushayd , which can be found in the book Systems In My Racing by Tony Peach. It is in this book that VDW voices his concern that the real lessons had not been learn't within the Roushayd exercise. There was a very important point that was not clearly pointed out by VDW, though he did give a further clue with the reminder that "bear in mind that in practice all horses receive the same attention." I have yet to see anyone put this factor/consideration into print in public. Why? Because anyone who has found it, and to be honest it is quite straightforward and logical when you think about it, decides to keep it to themselves once they have proved how relevant it for themselves.

VDW was still going some 8 years after the book and has already publicly stated that he didn't let Raceform publish the full version of what he wanted to write. So yes, he may well have been thinking of revealing all, as he later said he was intending to do eventually, but he didn't. Not clearly anyway. He also later said that all he had put forward so far was just a scratch on the surface and most of his secrets went to the grave with him. However he did offer enough and to say his previous methods were inferior is well wide of the mark. I'm amazed that Swish thinks he has actually improved upon VDWs strike rate! I would say he may have improved upon what he thinks the strike rate was, because using the criteria of just speed figures and class will not give 80%+ winners. Also the examples VDW gave for Roushayd were mainly handicaps in which he identified the winner in every race but only backed one. Why is that last point so hard to except that in order to get high strike rates you have to miss some winners?

John,
How long have you been marooned in the rainforest?
Regards,

Dear John,

Tony Peach (the editor of Systematic Betting) informed us in a later publication that VDW's family had many friends in the ''horsey'' set, from which he learned his trade and started to apply it in this country, in the early thirties. Based on these facts, I would say VDW spent the best part of 50 years applying his craft before his racing ideas were ever put into print.

So, if I may, I would like to turn your questions around and ask you- what possible motive is there for someone who has spent the best part of 50 years learning and applying his craft, to start writing any old piece and only giving us his real money spinning thoughts 10 years down the line?

Dear Bensam,
What the hell is wrong with you?
I said thank you for your reply and that is what I meant. You are so busy trying to read between the lines with VDW and whatever that you are doing it with me.
I SAY THINGS STRAIGHT as all my 1000+ posts confirm, whether I am right or wrong, I don't send hidden messages, allright.
I have quoted what Guest said exactly ok?
Perhaps I have not improved the Roushayad method then, but there is no way you can know because we don't have a list of selections that VDW picked that way do we?
What are you talking about that I am offended?
I appreciated your letter and if I was offended I would have told you so.
I am offended now because you are trying to talk to me like I am an idiot and I certainly am not.
I shall try and explain what a good basis to build on means. You may read it slowly if you like so you can understand it.
VDW came up with the Roushayd method. I think it is brilliant. I have used as a priority basis for selecting horses to bet on, and added a few things to it that he did not say, to try and do better all the time if I can.
Now you must let me know which part of that you do not understand, and while you're at it give us a winner, as if,
Swish

Guest

I've not come across the VDW statement to which you refer in the first sentence of the second para. of your last post, and would be grateful of you could post the source if you've got it to hand.

Dear Guest,
I have never said I have improved on an 80% strike rate at any time whatsoever.
I aren't even near to that.
I will say this though. I have never met any man, nor read anything by any man that proves to me an 80% strike rate is attainable backing odds against, one horse a race, regularly.
I have tried to be right with you and asked you many questions including how often a bet would be in order to obtain an 80% strike rate. You refuse to answer like you refuse to answer most things. I was impressed with you the other day because you had the bottle to name 4 horses before the event. They all lost, but so what, we all back losers, it's a fact of life. It is a much better way of carrying on than saying "I get 80% winners but I don't need to prove it".
Anyone who got 80% winners every day at odds against would not bother coming onto this board saying "Hi everyone I get 80% winners but I aren't telling you how,so there!"
They would be too busy flying the world living a millionnaires lifestyle for that.
When I was much younger I was in a certain lifestyle where I met dangerous people, shysters, fraudsters, the lot. I had to learn very quickly how to react in a given situation, how to work out what was lies and what was not. I also NEVER took anything at face value until it was proved to me. This knowledge has kept me in good stead all my life, so I am hardly likely to change now am I?
Yours
Swish

Dear Bensam, if you care to read my post even with only a modicum of attention, I think you will find that I said that ones ideas evolve. In my dictionary evolve means develope gradually and naturally; develope from lower to higher state or form. If you wish to invert my statement you must first understand it, it does you no credit to make me appear guilty of the thoughts that your own carelessness makes you appear responsible. I can accept that VDWs thoughts can evolve (my whole point being that he was made of flesh and blood), it would appear that you cannot. I had hoped that whilst my ideas might not be accepted they would at least not be misrepresented. I hope that when you read VDWSs articles you do not continue to put your own unique interpretation upon them, as you will find that you will have difficulty in being taken seriously.

Regards JIB

Dear Swish,
Why are you having a temper tantrum, flying off the handle and taking everything out of context that I say? (Smile, I'm joking). I do not view you or anyone else on here as an idiot, so if you're offended it is misplaced. I was saying things straight to you, and never meant my last message to you to sound condescending.

Dear John,

Please give my last message to you more attention. The best part of 50 years should give anyone time to evolve their ideas.

Dear John,
You were kind with your last statement to Bensam.
Impossible to be taken seriously is more like it.
Yours
swish

Besam,
Well why don't you take a bit of effort to speak properly to people then. As far as I know you have never named a winner on this board (correct me if I am wrong) so whom do I take seriously? Those like Max who do give winners or those who don't? Think about it!
Yours
Swish

Swish
I think it is safe to assume that Guest doesn`t
achieve a 80%+ strike rate given that he gave
4 losers on the trot, something that would hardly
ever happen if his strike rate was as high as
80%+.But has Guest ever claimed that his strike
rate was this high.He implied that it was possible to achieve something like 80%+.And i agree that if you are very selective like Statajack then 80%+ may well
be possible.I think also you would have to
be willing to bet odds on some times.Fulham
and Mtoto have a good strike rate but they
don`t bet below a certain price,i`m sure if
they backed at lower prices they would have
a very high strike rate but would their roi
be any better?

regards


Maggsy

Dear Maggsy,
I have no argument with you, not atall.
Mtoto never names winners before the event and claims 46% strike rate. In his case I know it is true because he has a) shown his past winners and b)(more importantly) taught me how to get the winners I get.
The rest of them have never proved a single thing,
at any time.
Hedgehog did well to get that 11-2 winner the other day (in my opinion) because the fav looked nailed on to me. But none of them can even give an opinion on it.
It's same when I picked TYNDARIUS a few weeks ago (W25-1). I asked |Guest his respected opinion on whether he might have picked that horse. All I got was negatives.
They are jealous. End of story.
Yours
Swish

Ludwig Van der wheil anyone? "Ode to Roushayd" ?

Swish/John - Once again issues are being clouded with everyone seemingly missing the point. It is almost certain that VDWs methods for finding winners were developed over a long period but once found, he would have been unlikely to change them radically, certainly not by that stage in the late eighties. The factors that so many are missing were there long before Systematic Betting was published and were present within the method for Prominent King and Celtic Pleasure and co. He gave many clues as to the extra areas we should look into, but I have never seen anyone discuss them in full view for all too see. They are there and do prove to be the closest thing to the legendary "missing link", but they don't make the process of picking winners VDW style a cut and dried systematic process. I have already stated myself many times, that I will not pinpoint these areas for others to see because it is not in the long term interests of the methods effectiveness. However I will not criticise others who do likewise, that would be hypocritical of me. I do seriously doubt though from some peoples postings that they are even aware these extra factors and processes exist, let alone know how to use them.

I am sure VDW would not have been very happy with around 50% winners though. Personally I do get a high strike rate, but also make factual mistakes that are always endeavoured to be ironed out. Anyone who thinks I find something to bet on everyday is way off the mark. Once all the factors are known it is then down to practical experience and that is why VDW often referred to us all as novices with some being so longer than others. Having made my bed, so to speak, with some bad decisions last week, though as stated I stand by Adiemus and Colourful Life(The other 2 had glaring factual mistakes relevant to the method and were not VDW bets with all the credentials), I now have to lie on it so I will continue making posts pre race but without full explainations, but I hope readers understand that there are many days when nothing can be found and I can make no comment. I did comment on Nassau Night, but fail to see why the favourite was nailed on. In my book he was nailed on to lose.
As regards negative comments about others selections, I can only say it as I see it. I'm not going to state things are there that are not. I also gave very positive comments to Through The Rye and Mytimie which finished the 1,2 and I did back them both at 4/1.

The comments VDW made post Systematic Betting can be found in Racing In My System and Systems In My Racing - VDW The Final Story all by Tony Peach. VDW was clearly not happy with the powers that be at Raceform and decided to let them only have the less informative version of his book. He did not like the title as he always stated quite clearly that his method was a methodical approach and not a system governed by rules.

I for one hope you keep posting,and whether pre or post race,I find your selections very helpful.
The hard work has to be done in either case.

In the case of Colourful Life it is hard to legislate for the winner,this will happen from time to time.
Adiemus was unlucky,end of story.