Well, now you mention it, there seems to be as many hints being dropped as bollocks, but I fear i don't understand.

True, I've got more balls than braincells, but they're very small too.

Not a bit of wonder I can't understand how VDW posted something recently. Who the fk is he, anyway?

Surely he's nothing to do with Nina and Frederick? Should I join a seance group or just fk about with the Ouija Board?

Oh, what a give away! Now I've given the game away about those winners that would leave you in a trance.

Just a minute, the glass is getting clearer; oh bollocks, it's just another of those naked women again!

Fk that! I really thought I was getting closer then.

sorry seanrua-

just remember 1978 et al - ( date of his last post - 1987 )

is not that far away - and tho VDW sounds like something from the 1930s -

you have to view the letters in the context of the time that they were posted !!

was he realy a Dutchman from Pre-war ???


as I say - the Doncaster Winners are worth looking at tho - sometimes we make the whole business of finding winners - more complex than it need be !

-

I dont claim that !



I think both - Swish and Lee know - but not from the same starting point !

tc

Me ??

I make no pretentions at all - I am still learning -

I get - well pissed of when I get more than 1 loser in a row !!!

I can pick the Winners, - but -

Staking is currently my Problem !

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

Seanrua
Oh dear,Youv'e just been scrubbed of my list.Good luck for the future.

By their Posts - you shall know them !!

-
BC - are you going to rescue the Bugger

-

Again ????????????????????

And good fortune to you, Investor and Tupenny!

You're both still on my list.

I've just been looking at the work of a guy who had Creskeld and Rafferty as his top two.

I think that's very good.

He used OR and RPR.

I wish I could do that. TS is something I can use now, but I didn't know how, for years and years.

I get the feeling CD uses VDW in a fairly useful way, but that's something I can only guess at.

{Investor what constitutes consistent form}

Walter.

When VDW talked about consistent form there can be NO doubt he was looking at the form figures. Every time he mentions the form figures he also mentions consistent form. This is just one example from TGY........

[Consistent horses win races and to illustrate I will give some examples which show percentage wins next time out from various form combinations . . .
'' 111 33%, 121 32%, 131 29%, 141 26%, 122 30%, 313 24%, 214 24%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
'The figures show beyond reasonable doubt that consistent form does have an important part to play.]

How anyone can say different is beyond me.

TC mentioned he had looked at the early posts on this thread, so I had a look. Somewhere in the first 3 pages I said I didn't take them into account. On checking my records a little while ago I found it was a big mistake not to. So I do now. I hope the folk that say I never change my mind or take any notice of others will please note.
Once something logical is proven to me I change.

Be Lucky

Hi Seanrua,

DANCING MYSTERY WON 7/1 Well done

Seanrua
I know you like the A/W.Watch what the trainer does with MAGIC GLADE he marked his card yesterday.

Mtoto
Consistency is the "key".But how did he really use those figures.Once that is understood and researched then your well on your way.

P.S I hope you have a happy and prosperous New Year.

Plumpton 1:30 Greenhope is indicated.

Thanks to all, for the good points above.

Now for something totally ridiculous; I've tried to do a rough VDW selection process on AW banded racing!
How daft is that?!

Anyway, here are the selections for Southwell today, 2 January.
These are the ones that also roughly tie in with my own picks that are based on TS and other factors:

130
Travelling Times
Shifty Night

200
King Priam

230
Dubai Dreams
Regency Red
Mandika

300
Air of Esteem
Coolfore Jade

330
Crusoe
Kumakawa

First named in each race is top ranked.
Believe it or not, only one selection has been rejected: Marengo at 50/1.

Now on the last three form figs we have a big prob .in this ,lowest of the low, banded crap.
There are few true qualifiers, and I'm going on Mtoto's more tolerant idea of max total = 12 rather than Charlie Anderson's "nothing over 5".

Prize money too, is almost non-existant at this level.
Finally, at a pinch, many of the selections just about scrape into the top 6 in the betting but not all.

Well, if the only one to place, of all these I've mentioned, is the 50/1 Marengo, i think I'll eat my left testicle - just to balance things up a bit!

Take care, children: gambling can damage your wealth.

[Consistent horses win races and to illustrate I will give some examples which show percentage wins next time out from various form combinations . . .
'' 111 33%, 121 32%, 131 29%, 141 26%, 122 30%, 313 24%, 214 24%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
'The figures show beyond reasonable doubt that consistent form does have an important part to play.]

lets get some FACTS involved in this, these are the ACTUAL strike rates taken from the last 18 years results

111 = 25%
121 = 20%
131 = 16%
141 = 19%
122 = 20%
313 = 16%
214 = 15%
404 = 9%
000 = 3%

On top of exaggerating his claims with these form figures VDW fails to mention that the figures are irrelevant when compared to what actually influences the results of races most..THE BETTING. If you look at the strike rate of only the favourites in all the above combinations you will find they all have very similar strike rates.

In fact there isn't much in the top 7 combinations anyway..any difference will be related to the prices of the horses in each category. Following bare form figures as a basis for making money at horse racing is pre Janet & John.

So we are supposed to believe VDW is a genuis.. but he can't even get his basics correct.

Ectoo
Them figures are only consistency ratings nothing else,They don't constitute form as vdw saw it.But when you get a horse with those figures that has consistent form above that of the rest of the field then it's time to fill your boots,Remember Siver Birch.

those figures are the same ones that VDW wrote Investor ..he said ALL horses with those figures produced those results..you can't alter what he wrote..they were INCORRECT..the rest of his rantings are generalisations a 10 year old could come up with.

REMEMBER GOLDEN MILLER?

you soon respond to posts Investor..are you trying to protect an investment?

Ectoo
I respond quick when i see someone who doesn't understand the methods,Putting very basic figures up on the understanding that this is all vdw is about.If you read the golden years he said that "enough had been given to create a 2nd numerical picture".Infact everything about vdw is numerate based it's also logical and it most certainly works.But you'll never find that out because unfortunately you won't take the steps required which is of course your prerogative.But don't keep coming on here and telling folk who have spent a long time sorting this out,Because that really is bollocks.

I don't know how you think you can understand anything Investor when you clearly MISS the point of what I posted.

I NEVER said his work is JUST form figures..I said that even this basic aspect he got WRONG.

If you build ideas on poor, inaccurate statistics then how can you take any notice of the rest of it.

It's not brain surgery Investor..start reading posts properly..it will gve you a good grounding for trying to understand other readings..that way it won't take you years to understand HIS readings..a dinner hour would do it for most people.

You really don't grasp much that is posted here do you?

now read what is posted..take it in..and then only respond when you can answer.

EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN TAKE ANYONE SERIOUSLY THAT CAN'T EVEN GET BASICS CORRECT. do you see what i was getting at now?

remember NIGHT NURSE

Epi
Greenhope had some form but it wasn't consistent.The winner was the class/ form horse.Which is the one we support when everyting is in it's favour.

Ectoo
LOL,You say the figures are incorrect.No it isn't the figures that are incorrect.They will always guide to the good things or sort the wheat from the chaff.And maybe it is you who should go away and look before posting yet more innacuracies.

Remember Arkle

black is white eh Investor?

read the figures that Mtoto posted which are EXACTLY the same as those that appeared in the Handicap Book ..well they are completely wrong.

VDW also stated that as 111 horses won 33% of the time (which they don't)..then if 3 of them run in one race they win 99% of the time...Laugh out f*cking loud..and you think this guy is some kind of oracle.

pissing mesen Investor

remember COMMON SENSE?