JIB,

Let's get a couple of things straight, I have never at any time been against constructive criticism. In fact I welcome it, it can only be a help to everyone. The more knowledgeable the person offering the criticism the more helpful it should be. I was more than happy when Ectoo joined the thread I expected him to provide much food for thought. Unfortunately he didn't (for me at least) the cry goes up it can't/doesn't work. When asked why/where are the flaws were we are presented with the old chestnut that consistent horses are over backed and even when they win there is no profit. I agree that some consistent horses fit this bill, the answer surely is not to back them then. As I have pointed out I have backed horses, consistent horses at all prices. 33/1 through to a 12/1 in a 7/8 horse non handicap.

While I agree I'm not happy with the a/rating to say it being trampled on is a gross misstatement. There are still many VDW fans that swear by it. For me the c/rating has gone the other way, I didn't see the point in it at first. After going through my records and many hours thinking about it, I have changed my mind.

You say VDW is horse bias. Is that because it is the horse that has to run in the race, and it is what the horse is capable of achieving that is the important factor? Is it not possible a good trainer knows this, and enters his horses in race knowing (or at least having a good idea what they are capable of) and tries to choose the races that suit. Yes, it is trainer intent, but that intent should be based on the horse anything else is wishful thinking.

As I have said before, you use trainer and sire stats, fair enough. I have looked at them and I can see the flaws in this. The difference is I don't decry them and take the piss, I think well this chap must have thought about it and is willing to risk money based on his ideas. There might just be something in there I haven't seen or understood. It's not for me but it suits you.

Ectoo seems to be working on the principal just because you are old, and tried most things you know it all. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm older than him and have tried many ways of making money, I don't know it all by any means. That is why I want to bounce ideas of others and learn from them. That is the main reason I joined and read other forums. Strangely enough it was a passing comment by Ectoo that helped me see, and hopefully rectify a flaw in my a/rating. All I ask is if you think VDW is not a realistic method of making money at horse racing show me why. Just saying it doesn't work and/or it is out dated isn't enough. It certainly isn't enough to say anyone that follows the VDW ideas can't make money and doesn't bet is taking the piss. I do, I have to too, because of personal circumstances it is the only way open for me to make a living.

Be Lucky

B.C
Your a good man,In a very short space of time you will be recieving the form books that will really set you on your way in respect of the methods employed by vdw.I have endured a lot of shit on this thread for a number of years,But now i can laugh it off and so will you in time.Don't worry about the doubters,There criticism is unfounded and they will never find out the real merits behind these brilliant methods.You know how to get in touch now my friend and my e.mail is always open to you.Any questions or whatever,Just ask.

Hi Investor

Nice to see you up and around.

Cheers

BlackCat
(edited unhelpful comments)

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

thanks to any support I've had here..Swish,JIB you know the score.

Black Cat

I'm sorry I have upset you,,I will refrain from over boistrous reaction in future.

Mtoto did post a few nasty things about the threads I have started maybe due to "baiting".

I'll just say to all of you that I am sorry for upsetting anyone..Investor, Mtoto..Lee..I thought I could get a bit of debate going but obviously my style isn't deemed appropriate.

Sorry for any upset caused.

I get a bit aggrieved when I don't get answers to points sometimes..I have asked some sensible questions amongst the mickey taking..I won't mickey take anymore.

I would like to see REAL vdw selections pre race though

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

Hey Ectoo.

Great. We can get along fine.

Thank you for that reaction.

BlackCat

quote:

---

Originally posted by ectoo:
I would like to see REAL vdw selections pre race though

---

JIB and Swish have been trying for three years... so I wouldn't hold your breath!

thanks BC

Unfortunately, answers to questions do often go without comment. I notice that Seanrua is often after an answer to a question, and posts the same one up in a couple of places, and still doesn't get a reply sometimes! It's nothing personal. People may not notice the question with other things going on with the forums and board in general. And those that do notice may not feel qualified to answer the question.

For instance, I noticed his question on Wolverhampton in two seperate places (was it yesterday). I am NOT qualified to comment on that track. It is the burial ground for my little system. I will now only post completely 'IN' bets up at that track, and it will need a lot of persuasion for me to actually put money on the thing!

Cheers

BlackCat

I would like to see REAL vdw selections pre race though.

Hi Ectoo,

I am quite happy with the above statement. However I do think before that can happen there needs to be a lot more discussion about what is a REAL VDW selection. As BC pointed out the selections being posted now can be argued as being a Lee/Mtoto/Investor/whoever type VDW selection. We don't agree on how the method(s) work. What I would like to see is the methods taken apart piece by piece, looked at logically and discussed.

To do this it needs people who have at least read the literature, but in some/most cases have some of the form books. Folk that don't have the form books can still contribute (if they understand the principles VDW was trying to put across) by reading the posts and following the logic of the others.

I know that you, JIB, Swish, don't seem to think being consistent is a must for a horse to be a selection. Can I ask why you all think this? What is it based on? If you just take a look at the records of the results of the good class races do you really believe being consistent isn't a +? Just look at the winners of the last 11 Mackesons. If you use RSB and check the results of the top class races doesn't it prove it? Before anyone gets carried away I'm not suggesting being consistent is enough, or only consistent horses win.

For me the biggest stumbling block is the a/rating. I know VDW suggested a rating that could be used, but is it the method he used to solve the first examples? One of the reasons I ask this is because somewhere he said any rating will do but it would be sensible to stick to the top few. Some of his selections are not in the top few if that rating is used.

Ectoo I'm more than happy to discuss VDW and how I think it works. It's just I don't think the right way to start a discussion is to say that doesn't/can't work it is a load of bollox but not explain why you think that. Then to say anyone who thinks it does is a loser and can never have made any money at it. That just adds insult to injury, and is not a good way to start any discussion. I make money, maybe not enough to drive a Ferrari, but enough to get by on.

TC,

I have no idea if you class me as a c/form merchant, and I can only speak for myself. When I make a selection I do look to see who the trainer is, but that isn't the most important factor. The horse is, but I look and try to work out if the trainer is being realistic with THIS horse. If he has taken a horse to a track were he the trainer doesn't have a good record it isn't a negative for me. If the trainer has a good record but the horse doesn't look right it then is the negative. I do agree that some can't see past the c/form rating and back horses that should be left. I also can't see if there is a flaw in the probability or capability column how that horse can be the c/form horse.

Be Lucky

Rocket Science

Just look at the winners of the last 11 Mackesons.

Today there were 28 British horse races, how many were won by horses which had a CR of 12 or less?

To save you the trouble there were 51 qualifiers from all races, 8 of them won.

You would have done far better just backing the favs: 13 of them won.

I suppose if VDWers can hibernate they can set their alarm clocks for the Mackeson! I just hope that when they wake up they dont find that in a 10 runner Mackeson there are 6 or 7 horses with a CR of 12 or less nor that the first 5 in the betting solely consists of them!

JIB,

I must start with an apology, I couldn't have been very clear or concise in my last post. When I said good class/top class I didn't think for one moment anyone could have thought I was talking about the class of yesterday's racing.

However as you bought this racing into the discussion. If you are going to look for the best racing class wise, on a day, the principal meeting seems a good place to start. Catterick is listed as the principal meeting in my paper, an 8 race card. In the first race there was no runner that could be called consistent, as how can a horse with one run under it's belt be considered consistent? Of the remaining 7 races 6 were won by a horse with a c/rating of 12 or under. Do you agree with that?

As VDW said we are looking for GOOD consistent horses. I was happy that there were non running yesterday. You appear to think there was, and logic says the best of these would have been found at the top meeting.

Nice to see you joining in the discussion.

Be Lucky

Just form isn't enough.
Just ability/class isn't enough.
Just the trainer isn't enough.

But a combination of ALL of these factors, and the patience to wait for them... that is what these methods are about (imo).

You may agree. You may disagree. That is OK. But Mtoto is right about this. At the moment, there is no such thing as a VDW bet, bacause the VDWers themselves do not agree on what one is!

The Van der Wheil Method won't suit everyone. There will not be many bets. However, there are some days when you may get three or four (not in winter I suspect though).

There will be days when three or four horses in a race can not be elminated. That is a fact of these methods. You need to know and accept from the outset that this is the way it is.

When I put the "Key" thread up, I made it clear I was not impressed with my findings. But I did indicate that perhaps this post was just the forerunner of more important discussions... discussions on how to assess class. What constitutes form and its place in the selection process, etc.

Perhaps now that the air has been cleared, people from BOTH sides of the divide will be willing to contribute with restraint. Otherwise, it won't run for long!

I will put more up later... better do some w..w..wo..wo..worrrr....work. There. I said it!

BlackCat

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

I WILL NOT ALLOW THE "W" WORD ON THIS BOARD

Do it again and it's no more cream for kitty

Mtoto,

Surely it would be logical to expect the potency of consistency to be seen to best effect when up against an enfeebled opposition?

In top class races there are far more consistent horses in their composition so that while normal probability indicates that a consistent horse is more likely to be the winner of the contest, it also makes it far harder to say which one (before the race).

In yesterdays racing there were a lot of races where there was only one or two of your consistent animals but this 'asset' availed them nothing.

A trawling net is no use to an angler!

Surely it would be logical to expect the potency of consistency to be seen to best effect when up against an enfeebled opposition?

JIB,

If consistency by it's self was enough I suppose one could use that argument, but it isn't. The horse has to have a bit of class to match the consistency. When I'm talking about class I mean real class not just being the best of a bad bunch. To be honest there was only one consistent horse running yesterday that meet my par for class.

While I agree there are more consistent horses in the top class races, I don't agree it necessarily makes it harder to sort a race out. Of course I'm talking about before the race. If a good horse is consistent isn't it more likely to run to it's profile? Making it easier for the trainer, and punter to judge what the horse is capable of. Given a race full of consistent horse it must be easier to sort out the likely winner than a race full of inconsistent horses. Wouldn't you agree?

Be Lucky

mtoto,

i hear what your saying with top class races.
but as i bet in so called donkey derbys as investor put it,would you just agree that consistency doesnt matter in the slightest in,eg,all weather racing?

"Given a race full of consistent horse it must be easier to sort out the likely winner than a race full of inconsistent horses. Wouldn't you agree?"


Mtoto,

As I have already demonstrated that consistency has nothing pertinant to add to the winner finding process, how can it be of any use in whatever circumstances?

Lee has drawn our attention to the fact that he has discovered a way of short-cutting to finding a horse that has been placed to win without having to consider the trainer. I can assure you that before you get to that advanced stage you will first discover that consistency is an irrelevance to be ignored much further back.

From Lees posts it is quite clear that he would happily back a horse with a CR of 23 or 24.

From my research on the little system I operate, I have found that consistency does matter. From A1's to H's.

However, could I suggest that Mtoto is looking at one way of approaching racing, and JIB is looking at it from another, different angle.

Remember, the VDW method is only designed to provide relatively few betting opportunities... waiting for all the ingredients of the cake to present before baking. One of its main objectives is to obtain a high strike rate.

Whereas JIB is prepared to accept a lower strike rate, but pull in some big priced coups on 'unfancied' runners. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

It will be difficult for each to see the others point of view until they recognise that imo.

BlackCat

JIB,

Sorry, but I can't see how you have demonstrated anything. Are you happy to just ignore the stats that say consistent horse win more races and, there are less of them running? I can't speak for Lee, but I think you will find he also thinks consistency is an important factor in one of the methods. I also think you are quoting him out of context, wasn't the selection you are talking about from the Roushayd method? Consistency isn't a factor in that method.

Greg,

I only have a handful of bets on the a/w in a year. I have noticed the standard of horse racing on the a/w is starting to rise, slowly. However I will stick to backing the consistent ones if and when I decide to bet. That's not to say you are doing anything wrong, if you understand how these horses and trainers work and can make it pay good for you. I'm looking for a good, consistent horse with proven ability, while there are plenty of them about that's where I'll stay. Unlike you I'm more than happy to back the jumpers.

BC,

I agree JIB and myself are starting from different angles and that is his choice and is to be respected. The difference is he is continually saying an important factor is of no use. I except it maybe of no use to him but the suggestion that it is of no use to anyone is misleading.

I don't doubt he finds some big priced winners. So do I using the consistency factor. This is the VDW thread, and we are trying to discuses the VDW methods. If someone wishes to say an important element of one of the methods is a waste of time he should be prepared to explain why. Not just dismiss it because he can't see the point. I'm happy that consistent horses play a large part in one of the methods, if he isn't he should be able to back it up with facts or be quite.

I would like to get on to the interesting part, the a/rating. This is where I seem to disagree with most of the VDW folk. I just can't see how the early examples were solved using the rating most use. This is where I think the trouble starts and so many come to different solutions for the selections.

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto

Yes, that is a fair point. We are discussing VDW, and JIB's methods are not VDW's. It works for him and that is certainly to be noted and respected.

I read John's post, and thought that perhaps I should apply all factors except consistency for a while to see how it goes. But then I remembered the early days when I was trawling through old RP's every day recording stats and results. One of the improvements made was to bring in the 2 out of 3 rule.

To narrow my field, the last outing must have been at least a close-up place or better still a win. Then I noticed that a higher percentage of the losers were unplaced in their previous two outings. So I look for a place and preferably a win in teh last 3 outings, one of which must be LTO.

By applying that 'rule', I have improved the strike rate considerably.

Now, the problem with this 'rule' is that it does exclude potential selections that I know I should consider. After all, a close up 5th in a 12R race is better than a distant 2nd in a 3R race imo. That close-up 5th IS showing good form, subject to other considerations (sorry, couldn't resist).

However, as time is tight, I must continue as I am at the moment.

As consistency has commenced on this thread, perhaps you won't mind if I open a separate thread on Ability.

BlackCat