Marcel 1235H 92231111111 L2/5!

Lol preparation my dear boy.

67% is probably correct,But what we have to remember is that vdw had a criteria for races where the method would be applied a few quotes while i'm here.

"there are only possibly 2 3 or 4 horses that can win "

'subject to other considerations,The 3 lowest figures often trap all the winners on the card"

There are loads of quotes that could contain more than one meaning. again today.

12.35 hay 2f
1.40 3f
2.10 2f
2.45 2f
1.45 weth 2f
2.15 2f
3.25 2f
12.55 chep 4f
1.25 4f
1.55 f
1.00 sand 3f
2.05 2f
2.35 2f
3.05 4f
3.40 j4f
15 races of class c and above and the winner was in the first 4 live market in all of them.Like i say to go outside this area (on most occasions) You are pissing in the wind.This factor is evident in a vast majority of the older examples but don't forget them words "SUBJECT TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS".

jib
you forgot to mention

Marcel 113 w6/1
fashions monty 111 w
Astronomic 1 ( which is the equivalent of 3)
contraband 122 w
Moscow flyer 111 w

If your going to put them up,Then at least do them all.And don't forget like i have said on many occasions,There are certain races to apply the method i.e higher class races not donkey derby's or maidens.Cosistent horse WIN john when factors are in there favour.When will you ever learn.

The first horse should of course be MOUSESKI,Which won at 6/1.

so in all those races there were VDW selections /examples then Investor

could you post the selections up so that those wanting recent examples have some to look at

thanks

Ectoo
I don't think i made myself clear last time so i shall say it again loudly.I SHALL NEVER MENTION A SELECTION BY NAME EVER AGAIN.We wouldn't want to be accused of aftertiming would we.

Jib
sat 27th nov principal meet
12.25 Marcel 111 w
12.55 Vodka bleu 231 w
1.30 great travel 441 w
2.05 barracouda 112 w
2.40 Celestial gold 211 w
consistent horse don't win races of higher class,Then this lot must be a figment of my imagination.

were they the only consistent horses in those races Investor?

Ectoo
That is not the point,CONSISTENT HORSES win when everything is in there favour.Jib put up Marcel today because it lost at 2/5 and wouldn't have been backed anyway,But he failed to put that the horse that actually won the race Had a form figure of 1 which in vdw's eyes is equivalent to 111.Another thing i would like to add is that CONSISTENT FORM (the way vdw meant) has nothing to do with the cons ratings of horses in a particular race

Ectoo,

I think the idea behind showing these results is to disprove the statement that backing consistent horses is not a good way to narrow the field to find the winners.

I except there are often more than one consistent horses in a race. What can't be argued is that consistent horses do win races. Agreed you have to when choose the right one to back, but if you don't look in this pool of runners the chances of finding the winner must be greatly reduced.

If the argument being offered was that fact that any consistent horse would do I could see the point you are trying to make. It is coming across that you, and JIB, are saying consistent horses don't win, that is obviously incorrect. Do you are with that?

Be Lucky

i just don't understand why the point needs making all the time.

does it make a profit putting them up..no..does it make a profit before they run..no

what is the point of it?

beyond me.

how can a horse with 1 be consistent?..being consistent involves being so over a number of races..i think trying to say a once raced horse is consistent is bit of a nonsense.

I can only agree with you. The question must be asked why put them up when they lose then? I agree it wasn't you that put the losers up, but I don't think the reply was addressed to you either.

I win from one run, I agree how can that be classified as consistent? Investor, I know the theory, but did VDW ever use it in an example?

Be Lucky

the vdw key is hidden in a houshold air freshener!and a special one at that

we agreed twice there Mtoto..I'll note that down

Mtoto
No i can't say i have come accross that scenario.but what must be bore in mind is that a horse COULD come out first time and win a high class race and be the class/form horse in it's next race.But it still doesn't detract from the fact that vdw considered a horse with one win as consistent.

if VDW says it, is it so? without need to question it, even when it is totally illogical?

how can it be consistent? it's not proven that..one race cannot prove consistency.

Ectoo
I am following the methods that were set out by vdw,Of course i have questioned it many times but i'm happy with the way things are turning out.What i would like to know without sounding arrogant,Can you question his methods in all truthfulness,I don't think you can.

I have questioned two aspects Investor and given logical reasons why both are flawed..you even failed to understand why I questioned the ability one which I find amazing

we all have to do what we have to do..i just like to understand what the f*** i'm doing..call me old fashioned

Ectoo
i will say this again,The ab rating is flawed i agree,But it isn't when it is used as vdw intended,if you want to know what the **** your doing (from a vdw perspective) then take the ****ing steps required.Simple really,I had to do it but i did it because i could see the merits in the methods.You already have a negative outlook along with many others on here.If you make racing pay why bother with this subject in the first place can never understand why people keep coming back on this thread to criticise when they don't have a clue what it's all about.

That is a hard one to understand, Investor.

I expect there to be an element of repetition in consistency, so I would never have guessed that once is enough.

I suppose horses that win once at a high level are more likely to win again than critters that never win fk all.
Maybe that's why VDW may have suggested backing them.

BTw, what can you tell us about the way a horse finishes? Any comments on the first three in the Tingle?

The winner looked the most comfortable, I thought. Is that a good thing, or, is the way the other two battled, the thing to note?