mtoto. thanks for the reply.

VDW did talk about trainers leaving a high weighted horse in a race to the benefit of a stablemate, though it is quite a rarity today.

I think it is a mistake to try and rationalise every winner, especially when they are 100/1. The simple fact is there are many races where the winner cannot be found via VDWs methods, or any method for that matter. One interesting point though from a VDW class rating point of view was that the winner came from the highest class race LTO, as did several other runners. It would still have taken a leap of faith to select him though.

One other point regarding Pedrillo and some posts I have seen elsewhere. Many are saying how can anyone back a 7/2 shot in a 36 runner handicap? Yet, if anyone thinks about it objectively you can compare Pedrillo to a past 4/1 fav winner of the Cambridgeshire, Pasternak who was 10/1 on the morning of the race.

One of these had already won a top class hcp when expected by the market, the other had been beaten on it's first of two runs this season and then won an inferior race after against only one real opponent.

Conclusion, there is nothing wrong with 4/1 in a big field IF the form and class are there to support it.

As stated yesterday I didn't bet in this race, nothing was strong enough. My 3 against the field was a classic case of trying to find the winner OF the race rather than a winner IN the race.

Then we can say with certainty that weight is an important VDW consideration.

Another post full of sweeping statements. Who are these folk that stick to only the consistent horses? I think you will find many who follow VDW don't stick to the consistent horses. That is part of their trouble.

Your example with the sprinter. There are occasions when consistency are not part of a method so this horse could/would be considered then. There are also occasions when this horse would fall into the consistent category, when it was in the lowest 3 in the c/rating.

You then move on to Mark Johnston's record at Ascot. Do you think he just wakes up and says we'll run so and so at Ascot. I think you will find in many case the horse has already been tried on a stiff course first. A case of the trainer looking at the HORSE? Yes, you can make a profit by backing him blind there. I have never backed a horse because of the trainer, but I notice I have backed more than a few of his at Ascot. So it begs the question (I don't know the answer as I haven't checked) is it possible to have a better ROI by only backing the consistent runners?

I don't doubt it is possible to make money by studying the sire stats and trends, etc. What I have said is my thinking is based on THIS horse in THIS race. I'm not backing his father, brother, I'm backing him. I want to know what HE can do. If you want to start a sire thread I wouldn't come on there and take the piss. Even though it is possible to point out the failings. How many of the experts in this field can't/don't agree about the their findings?

I do find it quite amusing that you can use facts and reasons after the race to prove your points, and that seems to be expectable.

TC,

I except your reasons for trying to keep the thread alive MAY be out of interest. It doesn't help when you look at your 'main/nosiest' contributor. I don't think he is here out of interest, more a case of ego. Listen to me I'm all knowing all seeing is his message. Thread was started to talk about VDW, no one was forced to read it, or believe it.

A Parasite

Sunday, October 3.

UK racing only,

340 Uttoxeter, C hcp hdl, £8.5K

Made In France
Wizard of Edge

Are these both VDW selections?

NOt enough data, but I think these two are joint equals, so I suppose, as weshould look to "find the winner in the race", there is no bet.

For the purpose of the experiment, I'll include them as VDW selections, unless I hear otherwise.

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

JohnD

I think you will find that I have actually added more worthwhile points than people that come on here saying X was a good selection after the race.

Your opinion of what is constructive means nothing to me as you come across as a blinkered supporter of anyone pro VDW and anti anyone that isn't in the faith.

Therefore I don't really take much notice of your opinions as they are biased..can't do with that.

Are you AlanB/Fulham by the way?

Johnd:

We're going over old ground; I'm here to learn about VDW. Very few things have no value, even though I may not be able to see it.

For example, the valuable painting that is found chucked away in a shed with rubbish. Or a valuable book that is being used under a tableleg to stop a wobble.

I don't think you'll find that I've knocked VDW: afterall, I'm yet to be convinced that he existed! Haven't got very far, have I?

What I have done, probably as much as any, is post up VDW selections and ask questions of persons like your good self who know better.

There's fk all wrong with that; it's the way we learn quickest.

As I said initially, so,so, so many posts ago, I won't be getting drawn into any personal slanging shit. Doesn't mean I won't cop some of the fallout; I worked with pigs when I was a young kid, so I learned early, that a man has to expect a bit of shit now and again.

Temperament has been mentioned loads on this thread. I 've found already - just after a few weeks - that many here do NOT have the right mental attitude for gambling; far too temeramental and over-emotional.

Gambling's a rough old game, and I'm not much good at it myself. However, when I say that some of the dudes on here may be happier taking up trainspotting or, butterfly catching, as a hobby, it is meant to be helpful. That's not "knocking" in my book; but whether it is or not in VDW's pamphlets, I have no fkin idea (yet).

Keep smiling! What do you think of the VDW selections posted earlier?

"Seanrua,Ectoo (And all the other knockers)

"If you think VDW has nothing to offer, why are you here?
If you think you understand VDW better than those who have studied it more depth, where is your evidence?
Cynics are 10 a penny on this thread, constructive posters are a rarer breed, yet it runs to almost 17,000 posts. Why?"

Ectoo,

Are you Fulham is about the biggest insult anyone has ever given JohnD. I except he is having a lay down trying to get over the shock!! To say John isn't Fulham's biggest fan would be an understatement.

Be Lucky

sorry John

get up

I don't know the history of these people

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seanrua:
Johnd:

We're going over old ground; I'm here to learn about VDW. Very few things have no value, even though I may not be able to see it.

---

Sean, some time ago I posted this on the 80% thread.... may be of some help or not!

quote:

---

IMP
Member


posted June 09, 2003 09:09 PM
Some months ago this was posted...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
statajackMember
More Navel GazingAugust 23,2002,11:26 ..... But just concerning the consistency rating, lets move on to Determined's recent list of horses thought to be good things by people on this thread:

18/05/02 Noverre lost
18/06/02 Rock Of Gibraltar won 4/5
09/07/02 Feet So Fast won 7/2
Millenary won 5/2
26/07/02 Repertory won 7/2
27/07/02 Grandera lost
02/08/02 Nayyir won 9/2
03/08/02 Prompt Payment won 6/4
Scotts View won 6/5
10/08/02 Feet So Fast won 6/4
16/08/02 Systematic won 4/11
17/08/02 Reel Buddy won 7/2
Fayr Jag lost
Mubtaker won 11/8
18/08/02 Alasha won 4/6
20/08/02 Bandari won 4/5.

Thats an 80% strike rate which bodes well. Lets remove those horses not in the top 3 for consistency and we are left with:

18/06/02 Rock Of Gibraltar won 4/5
09/07/02 Feet So Fast won 7/2
09/07/02 Millenary won 5/2
02/08/02 Nayyir won 9/2
03/08/02 Prompt Payment won 6/4
03/08/02 Scotts View won 6/5
10/08/02 Feet So Fast won 6/4
16/08/02 Systematic won 4/11
17/8/02 Fayr Jag lost
17/8/02 Mubtaker won 11/8
20/08/02 Bandari won 4/5.

A small sample perhaps, but thats 11 bets with 10 wins or a 90% success rate if you like, with Fayr Jag unseating his rider in the stalls and not taking part in the race. Only 3 selections were odds on too! Anyway, I think thats in keeping with vdw's 80/90% claimed success rate.
Perhaps the key is actually "temperament" and waiting until everything lines up.
That means at the very least leaving any race where the initial numerical picture does not show up an outstanding candidate....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



can history repeat itself?
Posts: 471 | Registered: August 19, 2002

---

IMP: it's interesting but that the list was defined by Determined is in itself cause for concern as he has been one of the Barney/Fulham gang with notable consistency since his first appearance.

Mtoto,

Reading your reply I am left with the impression that the red haze my posts create before your eyes is impeding your ability to read what is actually written.

The purpose of my post was to try and examine 'consistency' generically. That is to say I wanted to explore its various manifestations besides good horse form.

Surely there is no harm in that? Is the range of permitted discussion so limited that harmless musings are to be branded as heresy?

I dont know what was/is your professional activity away from horseracing but surely you must be familiar with the use of facts and figures in any report or research document?

That this causes you some amusement is like someone complaining there is nowhere to park in Venice. Please do not do yourself the injustice of creating the impression that you are an upholder of the idea that ignorance is bliss.

You have much to contribute but to do so you must not be thin-skinned nor intolerant, you may find the concept of consistency cut and dried but I am sure that I am not alone in finding the idea, when applied to horseracing, to be sufficiently complex enough so as to want to examine its consequences a little further.

A Parrot Shite

JIB. what time is it in Brazil?

Nessie,

It is 10:20 am.

We are currently 5 hours behind but after your clocks go back only four.

Thank you for your post, IMP.

That was an impressive list of selections from Determined! Is he still around?

I'd like his comments on my selections.

Your point about "temperament" is a good one, I feel.

Waiting till things line up and then shooting is a good policy, I'd say. Bit like JIB's idea, in a way. Different criteria, though.

Back to Determined's list; an ideal basis for "rolling doubles" or "sequence betting", possibly?

All comments welcome - including abuse if any feel the need. It's all stimulating stuff.

Seanrua: Determined's post was wishfull thinking, you can get a better idea of "good things" and their fate by reviewing the 80% thread.

Mr Parrot Sh1t

It's not your use of facts and figures that amuses me. It is that fact you can use it after a race and it is ok.

I notice JohnD is now suggesting it may be of use for others to look at the examples Lee posted. I can only assume this is because they were posted before the race, but does that change any of the facts that are important? For me the only consideration is why has this example be posted. If it doesn't hold true to the ideas the poster was been pointing at then it is after timing for no good reason. I think you will find when this happened in the past, that contributor was asked to explain himself.

I'm well aware there is more than one type of consistency. In this case I'm looking at the type VDW tested and used in HIS examples. I don't always agree with VDW thinking, and this was one area I argued with. Until I ran a check on my selections and found cutting out the inconsistent horses I increased my profits. So I sat down and thought about it. I had to see there was some sense in sticking to horses that ran their race even when conditions were not in their favour. Much is made of how important money is in racing why waste money with a prep race that proves very little? I think for a trainer to learn about the horse it has to be put into the race, it also picks up prize money.

My terms of reference are the old examples, you think something the happened years ago has little or no importance. Your terms of reference seem just as strange to me, you place a lot of importance on what the sire and offspring achieved. Based on this you make your judgement of what this horse is capable off. This is also based on things that happened in the past, and may not have anything to do with this particular horse. I assume for your posts you would never back an older trained Gosden horse at Newbury no matter how that horse had performed in the past. I wouldn't have looked at that information, I would judge it on how it had performed on courses like Newbury. I may come to the same decision as you, but it would be because I looked at the horse. The only difference is I haven't spouted reams and tried to tear your ideas apart.

TC

I notice you said some think VDW ideas are written in stone. I think the opposite. He said racing is always changing and we must change with it. It is because NOTHING is written in stone we have disagreements. The disagreement may be about important thing like how to judge class, but I think we all think it is an important factor. The same can be said for most of the basic factors. Racing may of changed but the idea is still to win races and make money, and it is the horse that runs the races.

A Parasite

Result Oct 3.

Selection Made in France 4/6 fav,2nd, beaten 7 lengths by 12/1 shot, Noshinannikin.

Winner had a higher OR 115, MIF 109.

9 days ago N had come 4th in a £8.3K chase.
6 days ago MIF had won a £5K hurdle.

Jumping is not my game, so I don't know what's significant.

Winner's Best RPR was 134, MIF was 136

Epi,

I'll check out the 80% thread.