JIB,

Here you go again. I have NEVER said the reason a horse is selected is because it's consistent. First it has the class and form THEN it is a possible if it is consistent. Do you think VDW didn't realise the bare form figures didn't say it all? So what do they say apart from the actual finishing position in a given race?

The first thing is the better the finishing position in it's last 3 races the better it's chances in this race, (after the consideration of form and class) Do you disagree with the stats that say this?

If a horse can achieve a figure of 12 or under over it's last 3 races. It shows a horse can run well even if the conditions may have gone against it. Thus showing the horse is in good heart. This can/does include trainer and/or jockey error. Changes in ground conditions, draw, bad luck in running and prep races. For me this shows a horse is a trier, and can run well even when everything is not in it's favour. It's all very well and good backing a horse that can only perform when everything is right.

Could you please explain how I am whipping anyone in, and how my thoughts are tied to a stake? I have read many articles on racing, some have made me think and a few have made me laugh. The biggest laugh is the one that says a trainer can do it without the horse being good enough. I will still wait until the horse has shown it is good enough, until then it is just guess work. Somebody said it's what is done on the track that is important, suppose that is just more evil witchcraft!!

Be Lucky

Investor,

At the time of those selections I was demonstrating to you horses that were well in. That is to say that in non hcps the horse is carrying less weight than it would if the race was a hcp.

If you look at the selections from the point of view of their ORs and the weight they carried relative to the oppositions' ORs and weight, you will see a coherent pattern.

"If a horse can achieve a figure of 12 or under over it's last 3 races. It shows a horse can run well even if the conditions may have gone against it. Thus showing the horse is in good heart. This can/does include trainer and/or jockey error."

Mtoto,

As someone else (apologies for forgetting the author) has pointed out. The horse is now likely to be badly handicapped and overbet.

Jib
I must say this,You have a massively high opinion of your own prowess with regard to winner finding.On the invest or underpants thread you proved bugger all to me.You tried to win that particular challenge by volume of bets and for the amount of horses you put up the Roi was piss poor.So i'm sorry,Your not the tipping guru you think you are.Wether you have had successful threads or not you still have inconsistency in your selection method which was apparent to me at least during that little bit of fun.

If a horse can achieve a figure of 12 or under over it's last 3 races. It shows a horse can run well even if the conditions may have gone against it. Thus showing the horse is in good heart. This can/does include trainer and/or jockey error. Changes in ground conditions, draw, bad luck in running and prep races. For me this shows a horse is a trier, and can run well even when everything is not in it's favour. It's all very well and good backing a horse that can only perform when everything is right.

How does running less than 12 prove it can run against conditions that are against it?

If that horse has figures of 223 it may have been a beaten fav each time showing it's actually run below it's form..not above it. Thats flawed logic Mtoto and generalising as with many aspects of VDW. It's that generalising and using horses to make set rules for the future where more flaws lie in VDW ideas. You cannot make a set of future rules for all horses from one horse's pattern of running..it's nonsense and you must know that.

Most VDW supporters are very selective and use the one winning example to "prove" some pattern..they omit the others that lost with the same pattern..again nonsense and backfitting.

I do not understand why you take VDW criticism so personally, you didn't write the stuff did you?

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

JIB,

I would suggest you don't bother to remember the name of the chap that gave that very misleading statement.

If I was to show you how wrong that is, you would accuse me of after timing. So spend an hour or two on the Racing Post site, and look for yourself. Yes, there are horses that aren't worth backing (well I wouldn't back them) there are many at prices you wouldn't believe up to 33/1 in a non handicaps. I'm not just talking about the consistent ones, I'm talking about horses that have the complete profile of class, and form to back up the consistency. There are to many to mention in just the 5/1 to 8/1 range. That's just starting prices, then there's betfair.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Well spotted with your observation concerning the consistency figures and horses running over inadequate trip/going/course and that still remaining consistent is a positive.
CVDW did allude to this fact in relation to one particular horse who had been consitent over differing trips, for instance over 2m and 2m 4f, I must re read the booklets and try to find that animal.

i think you need to start actually considering what consistency is and start assessing whether horses ran above or below expectation on those magical placed efforts.

This simplification is one of the main reasons why VDW is not going to make you rich.

a horse with 666 form can have run far better than one with 123 form

Blackcat,

VDW was very astute when making observations concering the form of his selections, Particularly the first run of the season, as with BK.
CVDW, on occasion, completely ignored them from a betting point of view, in fact he wanted them to lose.

how was that astute?..wanting them to lose because he couldn't assess if they were contenders due to first run???

shall have to remember that one..my favourite this week is that

Ectoo,

I am in total agreement on that score, as is Is every CVDWer I have been introduced to. Where/how would YOU start to measure those aspects that form the crux of consistency?

He NEEDED them to lose FTO. Particularly Handicap Runners. Classy ones like BK were the clotted cream on the Jam scone.

How does running less than 12 prove it can run against conditions that are against it?

Ectoo,

You look at the past performances. In fact Carte Diamond was a nice example of this. Two wins on flat tracks, two runs on stiff tracks, two defeats one as favourite. Then back to a flat track.

I have never suggested one pattern suits all horses you study each individual horse. They are all different but most have a preference. Flat, stiff, straight, or round a bend, left or right there are many types of course look where it wins or runs it best races, it's all in the form book. When they run well against that preference they are in form. I'm not just looking at the last race here I'm looking at all 3 of its last races.

No, I'm not clever enough to have written it. As I have said I don't give a monkeys if you believe in VDW or not. If you want to put it down lets have some logical arguments. You seem to think anyone who uses it must be an idiot who can't think for themselves. It is the fact that the famous EC takes the piss, newcomers just may believe you and not bother to make up their own minds on the subject.

Be Lucky

This is basic, and may sound like a daft question, but

what is the definition of "ran well"?

As in, " a horse ran well".

What spurred me to ask was Mtoto's point about horses running well against adverse conditions or in unfavourable and unsuitable circumstances.

Just wondered, are there any numbers involved?

Again, not ashamed to show my ignorance of VDW, may I ask whether a horse's SP in previous races is ever taken into consideration?

Investor,

Its a pity you find the concept of being 'well in' too difficult to understand. If you could master it, you could see a little of how 'placing' works. But dont give up, if you strain hard enough maybe something will come through.

My memories of the underwear thread are a little different from your own, where I thought you were in danger of wearing the paint off your keyboard after 3 consecutive winners. Unfortunately your luck didnt last and I seem to remember your farewell to us all. Thankfully for us you have returned!

A newcomer, reading some of the recent posts on here, could be forgiven for thinking that VDW was guessing at many of his selections, yet his work is riddled with terms like [I]racing certainty, good thing, outstanding bet, etc,, etc,[/I which displays a level of confidence not to be found in any similar treatise.
If he is to be believed, (And some of us do believe, having given the matter much more thought than those who dismiss him lightly after a perfunctory effort at understanding his work), then guesswork should be virtually eliminated when arriving at a selection.
Despite the continual knocking, there are many on here who have derived a great deal of benefit from his work, and using parts of his reasoning as their basic strategy, have enhanced their knowledge of what constitutes a good bet without going the full distance.
That, alone, should be enough of an answer for the likes of Ectoo and other detractors.
Having said that, and being careful enough to avoid the aura of omnipotence that many claim, I do firmly believe that the strike rates and the price range he suggested are attainable to anyone with the full knowledge.
I do not profess to have that knowledge, but, conversely, can see enough, week to week, to realise that the method could be every bit as potent as portrayed, in the right hands.
IMO, the crux of the matter is this. There is nothing startling or revolutionary about the basic approach, and contrary to popular belief, it is based on very simple and logical concepts that are available to anyone who cares to study his work, but it his the way that he put them together, allied to trainer intent, that makes the vital difference.
So much so that he was moved to write "Given an understanding of class and form and the basics behind the training of horses, anyone who has bothered to acquire temperament can consistently find winners".
I would humbly suggest that trainer intent is something that is far more important than many give credence to, and that while his method was essentially simple in concept, a stab with a pen will not do in this regard.

"Given an understanding of class and form and the basics behind the training of horses, anyone who has bothered to acquire temperament can consistently find winners".

This is the VDW who is pissing in the pot. Theres not a comma or full stop out of place in the above statement. Its only a pity that this is the minority opinion, incomprehensible to some, ignored by others.

Jib
Your head is getting that big,One of these days it may explode.You tried to win that particular challenge by volume of bets end of story.And you are right i started well and finished poor.But i believe i was 0.5 of a point behind you after posting only 6 bets.How many bets did you put up john.You say you only fun bet nowdays and if i lost 7 grand in one hit (fool) i would probably lose my bottle as well.I suggest you try upping your stakes from fivers and tenners and then you would think a lot harder and the volume would decrease remarkadly.

Investor,

In your last post you are making presumptions.

£7000 to one man at a given time may be life savings or pocket money. Indeed, if it were his life savings then he would be a fool, however, if it were pocket money…

Has Michael Owen been a fool in the past for reportedly gambling away £40,000 in one week? No different really to the betting shop punter who squanders half his doll money on the GG’s.

So of course the same applies to those who only (in your world) bet in tenner’s; unless you know how much that tenner means to that person your observations are pointless, whatsmore, worthless.

In short, what does the size of ones stake matter to anyone else but the backer and layer?

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