Investor

So you think

Investor

how much is your % from the sales of the booklets?

remember NEREO?

Investor,

I would love to find your method works, however nothing so badly thought out or alienated from reality will ever pretend to be anything more than a method for retrieval.

If you have bought a brand new car with your retreiving, well done! Twenty years ago I too thought I had cracked it with retrieval. Whilst I deluded myself for 18 months I never had difficulty in supporting the racing media I used.

Most human endeavour gets found out if it is inadequately researched and to be quite frank your disability at reading comprehension suggests you have your two hands firmly gripping the wrong end of the stick.

If your only problem was understanding what is written then perhaps hard work would go some way to bridging the gap, but your inability to accept logical argument or construct a comprehensible defense of your ideas suggests that you think that retrieving at the short end of the market is not only the financial way ahead, but also your long awaited opportunity to try and finally achieve some status in a less than glorious career.

I find it interesting that you become paralysed when called to question your methods, and can do no more than spout some drivel about how your enemies havent read the books so dont know what you know etc etc etc, then claim a series of horses you never previously mentioned as being selections as the proof of your forensic abilities.

If you want to be taken more seriously you will have to do rather better than up to now.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

In his first mention of consistency,(Letter 8), VDW only considered one race to be 'on' for the application of his method, from what was oresumably a full card at a grade 1 track.
He next mentioned them in letter 13 and presented 'a few form figures from his own extensive surveys, which were no doubt, again compiled from only selected races.
Those that wish to rubbish his method,(And some that don't), should at least begin to understand his first letter on the subject before holding forth.
Fortunately, some saw value in this, and still can, otherwise the ignoramus might have won the day, and we would have 20,000 posts on an 'Ectoo' thread.

JIB/Boozer,

I think VDW makes it quite clear there can only be 3 horses considered as the 3 most consistent in any race. If there are multiple qualifiers he cuts it to 3 by using his ratings. This is what is written what do you think?.........

{My own combined figures from the three most consistent produce 333 99%, 334 98%, 345 96%, 444 95%, 456 90%, 5612 73%, 161830 17%. I also stated in my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods.}

This does raise the question if one of the 3 horses with the form figures of 111 is well down the ratings is it even counted? Perhaps it is even replaced by another consistent horse with a slightly higher c/rating. If some would like to look at the Pegwell Bay example I think you may well find this scenario. There is a horse with a c/rating of 6 and it isn't included when horses with a 7 are.

I have know idea how many races had 3 horses with the form figures 111 when VDW worked out his %. If these three horses were also the top rated horses in the race would a 99% strike rate be that unbelievable?

Be Lucky

Wetherby 2:05 Well Chief is clearly indicated, not that that's a particularly impressive manifestation.

is WELL CHIEF a PROPER VDW selection then?

answers before it runs would be nice

Ectoo: I'm running a test of the method as recently expounded by the author of VDW. If a horse is highlighted I post it, whether or not it's a bet is another matter, nevertheless those posted are the VDW qualifiers.

Mtoto
You are right probably I was just demontrating the poor maths
its a pity we dont have the magic ratings
even so any will do so no problem there


Johnd

I dont rubbish the methods but find it hard to accept things that arent logical
also

You missed out a sentance in letter 8 it was

A high percentage of winners come from the three lowest figures. Leaving out sellers and novice handicaps it often traps the winner in all races on the card.

all races on the card doesnt suggest to me that his survey was resticted to lets say high class races

especially when in one instance he demonstrated the method on a seller

Whatever class of race is used to test the percentages for 111 etc
I would think the results would be the same any way

Can anyone name one horse from 2003 flat that won with the form figures for the current season of 111
I ask because I can only find one horse out of 23 that won in races valued £20000 or more

can Anybody run it through RSB as a cross check?

Any of you guys backing Mister McGoldrick today?

Rab: VDW methodology rates Mister McGoldrick fourth after, respectively, Well Chief, Armaturk and Cenkos.

Last 6 Topspeed figures for Well Chief are

-

114 123 148 150 171 185

-

in addition last TS figure of 185 almost equals the RPR figure of 187 !!

-

Both Ratings well clear of the field !

-

2 sets of "Ratings" !! -- can these be used "Today" to effect ???

-

Still no commitment from the VDW crowd !

-

Is this yet another - NO BET

Hi Epi

Well chief's price looks far to short for a horse/trainer that has little form at course,
Will be interesting if it loses today and runs at Sandown and a better price could be got on it

Nice to see some real live runners being mentioned. As ever I suppose we will have to wait till racing is over before we hear from a VDWer that a) if the animal lost, " it couldn't possibly win bc it wasn't the cf kfc cdm kgb or whatever",
or b) if it won, then it was the clear top vdw selection that everybody who bought the form books knew about and backed last night at a massive price etc.

Talking about paying for things, and hearing how some on the " rock n roll" have the roof kept not only over their heads by us lot ( who can't understand VDW) but presumably over their garaged new Peugot,
perhaps, it's a good time to mention that this freeloaders' thread may be due for the chop, if there isn't a bit of chipping in, to cover running costs.

There you are , my lucky lads, a warning: your days of fame and glory ( plus free advertising for the booklets) may be coming to an end.

Don't say nobody told you, or, that it can't be right bc VDW didn't use it in the examples etc.

It could be - pay up or fk off.

As to pkboy's point about insufficient data, I think most stats gurus would have to agree, but, they would also say that the few selected examples from VDW would not be a reprentative sample by any means, so the point is neutralised.

However, it does seem that Mtoto has a good quantity of recorded figures, so I couldn't dismiss what he has to say about his own methods.

From what I can gather, Investor has no records , but relies entirely on what VDW said.

This could prove costly, should the rock-n-roll decide to check out the new Peugot by referring to the IR. Also, the income from the book sales would probably be of great interest to the snoopers.
Then, of course, there's the copyright issue on the formbooks.

Yes, it looks more and more likely that this thread will be axed. It could be a liability, with those who don't benefit from VDW, having to pick up the tab.

Similar profile in lower class is -

2.10 Exeter - Control Man - which also has the Majic 111 figs

Last 6 TS figs -

109 114 — 125 139 —

RPR 148

-

None of which puts it solidly clear of -

Alexanderthegreat - tho - the odds may compensate for that.

Again - Any Input ?????

Very perceptive post seanrua -

be a bof a bugger wouldn't it !

-

What would we have to laf at then

Mtoto,

The consistancy percentage figs dont make sense because we all know that the chances of a horse winning has all to do with the relative qualities between itself and the opposition. It has little to do with its form figs.

Form figs indicate how the trainer has placed the horse in the past, but they dont tell us how it is placed in the race being studied, other factors tell us that not least the quality and suitability of the opposition.

Form figs of 111 will have a good record in races with plenty of old maidens but in a G1 where there are more horses with the same sort of figs the percentage will drop.

If the effect of form figs is subject to the race profile then we are saying consistancy is too. Therefore we know that consistancy is not a reliable factor because in itself it means very little, particularly so in the higher class of racing.

Mtoto/Johnd

Re; letter 8
It appears non of us can read what is there
In this instance he clearly states that the 3 lowest cons figures from the first 6 in the betting forecast is what often traps the winner in all races on the card

That will make a difference

i can't see anything against well chief..the race will be true run..2 or 3 like to make the running..he showed last time he has improved vastly from last season and is now probably the 2nd best 2 mile chaser

not my idea of fun at 1.6 ish but not one of these is anywhere near this horse in a true run race.

i notice investor has shit himself again when asked for a pre race selection..nothing new there

i would love to know how someone wins money without the balls to make a selection BEFORE the race...must be hard