JIB,

You really are a tiresome person. You seem to completely ignore the fact it is the two of you who have come on to this thread The VDW thread. I didn't go out looking for you. You want me to prove to you this works. All you do is stand on the side lines saying it doesn't. All I'm asking is why do you think this? based on what facts?

Now if it is the load of bollox you say that should be very easy to prove me wrong. You are asked straight questions where does it fail. Both of you dodge around without a sensible answer. You have both come up with the consistent horses are over backed and no value. I have said I used to think that until I proved to myself the is also complete bollox. Carte Diamond the best horse in the race based on OR and my a/rating (in no way connected) consistent won 50% of his races. Very conspicuous jockey booking, forecast in the paper and early price bookies at 8/1 wins at 12/1 overbacked??? All the betting shop punters on it??? I have had a 12/1 winner with the same profile in a 8 runner non handicap. You can both believe what you want.

I have said the purpose of the pre race selections is not to convince anyone of anything. They are to show that the profile works, it worked for the Erin it worked in 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, and it will work in 05 and beyond. It works in some of the hardest races to sort out, it throws out the horses folk who haven't studied it would consider to be the VDW selection for the race.

I have asked both of you why and where VDW fails and why you think it is such an evil. The you both have come up with is this consistent horses are no value, simple don't back the over backed ones. Wait for the fair prices, whats the hurry. Screw your bumps, and it can pay well with only a couple of winners a week. So what else is so bad/wrong with the methods?

If the pair of you didn't keep on that it doesn't work I doubt I would answer your posts. I only joined this forum to talk to people that where interested in VDW. I have been at this (backing horses) long enough, and tried many different ideas. I read some of your posts I have grave doubts about some of your ideas, do I run around sounding off about them?

You find something VDW mentioned 25 years ago and run round like a dog with two tails, going into raptures about it. If you had read the booklets it wouldn't be such a novelty. What else have you missed?

Be Lucky

Bream
Yes in "13 against the bank" the idea was that a long winning run of winners would come up. iF IT WENT RED,BLACK,RED,BLACK most of the time, the idea could not work.
So yes I agree it was a different staking plan to retrieval, BUT it was still based on when one loses the other wins.

Tunkie,
I have tried to contact you several times on this board.
My old computer is knackered, (won't work atall,) so lost your e-mail address and my e-mail address, now, is bobswish@hotmail.com.
The 4 figs are still going in. ROMIL STAR 1.0 SOUTHWELL (W11-2) was one today. But there are nowhere near as many as before. Do not know why.
E-mail if you wish,
Cheers
swish

Mtoto,

You simply have not been reading what I have been writing about VDW. At great length I have detailed the reasons why both the consistency and ability rating are flawed to the point of stupidity.

I have also demonstrated on my Sires View thread, my Mice and Men Chasers thread , and my Donkey Register that consistent and indisputable level stakes profit is to be had by avoiding the very methods you recomend as the best approach. This begs the question as to where your proof is to be found.

You are currently making great stock of a horse you tipped in a private email that won at 12/1, but which as usual you obviously did not feel confident enough to post on this forum, (unlike you do with your complaints).

Well a couple of weeks before on a thread started by Fallachan on the general section about the Cesarewitch I posted quite unambiguously:

"posted October 16, 2004 02:47 PM
I think M Johnston is compressing the weights with Pushkin and Contact Dancer has been laid out for this." (w16/1)

I dont feel an isolated tip like this gives me any authority to disdain VDW but I have TWO YEARS of threads that I feel do indeed provide considerable substance to my unfavourable observations of your methods.

I am sorry to tell you that you do not enjoy this status in my and others eyes, and longwinded complaints, which upon examination have as much substance as flatulence, do not provide a substitute for your lack of performance. You are repeating Fulhams mistake and it will serve you best to reflect on how his reputation is now in tatters on any of the public boards he once contributed to because of these same tactics.

You are confusing public and private forums, on the latter mutual excusing and delusion could be prerequisite, but on the former you will always have to endure the hasher realities of facing up to criticism and backing up your claims.

quote:

---

Mtoto,

You simply have not been reading what I have been writing about VDW. At great length I have detailed the reasons why both the consistency and ability rating are flawed to the point of stupidity.

---

JIB,

Do you think that Mtoto is so simple to think that in-consistent horses never win? VDW’s selections themselves involved seemingly in-consistent horses, and I have given an example of both types, before the off.

You haven’t read what I have been saying regarding consistency, or maybe you’ve felt it isn’t important enough to read, either way you certainly haven’t understood the intent judging by your reply to Mtoto.

Lee,

What I wroie about consistancy involved its mechanics, i.e. a form fig is of no use on its own because it is not composed of time, distance or ease.

Remember we are talking about an animal that has just raced, not a number that has just appeared on a roulette wheel.

Does it work?

I think it does. I can't prove it does, but I think it does. I have posted quite a few selections up over the past few weeks. They all have the same underlying criteria.

I do not use the AR at the moment due to time, but I do use another, quicker method for assessing "class". The consistency of the selections will be self-evident. Again, more selections may have been possible if I had time to dig into the form a little more - (as with Investors selection Alcazar the other day).

This 'slackened off' quick method is producing around 45% for me (sometimes drops to 38%, currently at 55%). At prices between evens and 3/1, the selections will be about break-even. However, what would happen if I had the time to add in the components I know I am leaving out? Or at least only put up the full criteria ones?

In the summer, I joined another little forum. It didn't last long unfortunately. However, it co-insided with me having a bit of extra time. Of the five dutched bets using the full method as I understand it, 4 won. Too small a cross section to have conclusive merit, but nonetheless, more in keeping with the claims of VDW. Mtoto joined the same forum and may be able to back me up on that.

I intend to start a thread on the systems testing thread. This will contain selections that fully meet my criteria. (And will exclude some that appeared on here where I slackened off the ropes a bit).

It still won't prove that VDW works, as my 'quick way' will not deal in the typical VDW races, nor will it use the AR. However, they will be 'class/form' horses as identified by my system, and I hope that by adhereing strictly to my criteria, I will see the SR for these singles increase to 60%+ (which it was doing when I tested it before, but this was only for a few moths in 2002).

But if it can achieve that kind of strike rate, which would then make it profitable, it should alert us to the possibility that the full VDW does work after all.

And if not, BlackCat has smelly egg yolk on his fur!

Three close but no cigar horses today:
New 1.20 Big King (not proven, form query)
Fairy 1.00 Emotional Article (proven query)
Kel 2.40 Russian Sky (jockey)

So nothing today unfortunately. But the one yesterday (winner) was bang in as stated.

BlackCat

JIB,

Do you think anyone of reasonable intelligence, with more than just a passing interest in horse racing, believes that a horses form figures per-se are of any other use than identifying what position it finished?

Lee,

That is exactly my point!

But friend Mtoto says that the horse must have a Consistancy Rating of no more than 12.

If VDWers know that the CR is of no use to anyone with 'reasonable intelligence' then why bother with it?

The last time I was up in Santa Elena De Uirén, Venezuela, getting petrol I was held up by a retarded boy who was dragging a dead dog around on a rope. I get the same feeling when talking to vdwers about the CR.

Consistency Rating

I think that many of Mr Van der Wheils suggestions were aimed at people who had not considered betting methodically or who were new to the idea.

The 'bare' figures themselves of course are meaningless, other than to denote finishing position as Lee says. A horse that has won three consecutive sellers will be mullered by a horse that has placed close up in three listed events.

However, by marrying the factors of the horse being proven to be able to run in todays company, with the fact that it is showing current, consistent 'form', does mean that we are looking at a possible selection who is fit for todays task and able to handle the pace that the race will be run at.

The next question will be asked of the area that JIB is best at focussing: what will the trainer do with that animal?

BlackCat

'O' Level

In fact, developing the thought above, I used to train prople in a certain field of endeavour, far removed from gg's.

My training course had a basic training, fror new recruits. There was no point giving most of them the advanced stuff. They would not have taken it in. Some of them could, but most not.

Only after a period of doing the job, could I take them to the next level. And many succeeded by just carrying on using the basics. They just were not capable of going to the next stage. But they did make a living nevertheless.

I think, rightly or wrongly, that many of the letters, especially the early ones, gave the 'O' level version. Later on, he gave the 'A' level stuff. But maybe the degree's are only there for those who want to progress to VDW university?!

By sticking rigidly to form figures, my little device is probably just using the 'O' level version. Let's see if that works first.

BlackCat

Out of interest, my three nearly horses today had a 3/1 winner and two seconds.

All 3 were 'consistent'. All 3 had 'class' according to my "quick" way of looking at it. All 3 had doubts. And none of them carried my money!

B.C
Good effort today a winner and 2 seconds.It might be worth noting the weight that Russian sky was carrying today,I can see where your coming from with the irish horses.It might be worth having a peep at Rising generation and Ballinclay king,And comparing the form of the others in the race.

quote:

---

If VDWers know that the CR is of no use to anyone with 'reasonable intelligence' then why bother with it?

---

JIB,

I will say this on the subject of consistency:

You, I, and others are fully aware that the CR has no use per-se. However, I respectfully suggest that those who contribute to this thread know that, and if they're honest with themselves, know that there is more to it, they just don’t know what.

I have seen many variations of how folk have tried to devise a means of using the CR in a more productive way, however, although an improvement on blindly following them at face value, ALL have fallen short of the mark.

For instance, judging a horse on how consistent it is over given conditions is one sensible way of improving the worth of the CR, but that is ‘conventional’ and a technique used by many handicappers and tissue makers (bless you), but certainly not the way VDW used them.

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

Hi Investor

Russian Sky: yes, well up in weight from LTO and not past proven at carrying either. To be honest, I probably didn't even get that far once I'd ruled it out (jockey). I do usually look at the weights, but if I'm going to overlook something, that will usually be it!

With regard to Rising generation and Ballinclay king, RG had narrowly beaten Totally Scottish LTO, but it was a hard slog, by the sounds of it. But I can see where you're coming from. Personally, I couldn't have considered BK on recent form.

Thanks for your comments tho'. I will always look at what you've got to say. As you say, we do seem to come at this from a similar direction. (i.e. Bury St Edmonds )

BlackCat

Lee,

You seem to know some stuff about CVDW. Was that a sneeze at the mention of tissue makers?
How do you think CVDW used the consistency rating.

Investor,

Well done with that pair. Did the fact that Ballinclay King drifted not put you off? Have a look at Exellance yesterday. Shrewd Mr Hobbs, Shrewd.

Grundy,
I’ve had a look at those today. I think I see what you mean. Ta very much.

P.Kboy
I backed neither rising generation or ballinclay king,I just put them up for B.C to have a look at.I didn't back them but that doesn't detract from the fact that they had class which was superior to the rest of the field. I did look at xcellance yesterday but didn't like the cheltenham performance,I think i should have looked a little more closely though.

Lee
Nice post regarding the consistency ratings.I thought the P.K article Gave a big clue,No doubt like the man said "the odds are it will remain obscure" he wasn't wrong was he.

Lee,

As far as I understand vdwology the AR is its attempt to define 'class' and the CR is the attempt to be a type of crystal ball that will tell us if the horse will run well.

There are better ways of judging a horses' class and there are better ways of foretelling if a horse will run well.

In the latter besides fitness, the part played by the art of 'placing' must be acknowledged, then understood to be taking place.

'Placing' in part involves the quality of opposition, and whilst we may not be sure of our exact location, we can be sure that we now suddenly find ourselves a v v long way from the CR.

The vdw thread has to allow this freedom of thought to roam amongst the lanes that criss-cross horseracings countryside. By your own admission most vdwers know the CR is not the whole story but dont know in which direction to head.

Being 'whipped in' by Mtoto is neither good sheparding nor productive nor agreeable, and leaves the whole area of thought chained to a stake and surrounded by burning faggots while some hidebound fanatic chants the last rites.

Hopefully, I will in time discover if my 'convential' approach to predicting a good performance is correct or can be bettered. At the moment I'm not even sure if it is all that important as some of my biggest price winners suggest that this is covered by the market.

But, as I repeat, I dont pretend to have cracked the problem and I only aspire to improve my technique rather than wear a crown.

Jib
it is apparent that even you have inconsistencies in your approach when you plump for horses like Pushkin.Yet on other occasions Eg The Prince i am on the same level.So we all have our problems in the quest to constantly find winners.