why not?

is it a racing forum..or a masonic lodge

i can do a VDW handshake

Well done with Strong Magic a fine bit of handicapping. If you looked you would find a not to dissimilar trait in several of CVDW's examples. He was just better at it than most.

Autopsy

PKB,

Are you a relative of Mtotos?

You have now both 'claimed' SM as a VDW horse after it had won. I have searched the thread but can find no support for it from yourselves before the off.

Forgive me for being a trifle cynical but if it hadnt won I feel it was now being used as an example of why Ectoo should study the old articles.

Your other common trait with dear Mtoto is to question the 'right' of critics like Ectoo and myself to contribute to vdw discussion because we are unable to pretend there's nothing wrong with it.

As far as I can see if VDW had been a doctor he would have been a terrific pathologist.

JIB,

I have no objection to you or anyone disagreeing with any of the VDW ideas. It's when all one sees is it doesn't work, no explanation why. It just doesn't work. One minute all his ideas are poached from others, but it doesn't work. Are you saying all these poached ideas are duff? Funny that when they turn up somewhere else they are brilliant. Cue the weight compression idea.

I'm not claiming Etcoo's winner as a VDW selection, I just mentioned the only thing that made me look again at the horse was at a stretch it had one of the factors VDW suggested we look for. It would have to be after the race as I had already discarded that race early this morning. Why? because as I have said before I don't back poor horses under any circumstances. I am not that desperate for a winner.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

"Are you saying all these poached ideas are duff? Funny that when they turn up somewhere else they are brilliant.

A lot of the ideas, though not all as some are real stinkers, are fine. Its the way you weigh their importance and your disregard for some obviously important factors.

" Why? because as I have said before I don't back poor horses under any circumstances. I am not that desperate for a winner."

That is an excellent example of the snobbery that emanates from VDWology. A winner is a winner, does your bookmaker charge a comission on your winnings if you back the winner of a seller?

Tuppenycat
Only too keen to help, but would you kindly explain a little clearer what you want me to answer.

General
This business about form figs 111 win 33% of time etc etc (which i have took the p*** out of several times.)
Now we all know it is a certain fact that ANY favourite also wins 33% of the time.
Does this mean then that favs with 111 win 66% of time??
Does it mean that 16-1 shots with 111 also win 33% of the time?
As (alledgedly) horses with 000 only win 2% of time? Does this apply to favs? HA HA HA HA HA
If so we are absolutely laughing cos we can back and lay accordingly.
THE TRUTH IS , IT IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHAT FORM FIGURES THEY HAVE it is due to where they lie in the market that produces these results.
TO FIND WINNERS AND MAKE A PROFIT, you have to find winners that defy the odds, and it is nothing whatsoever to do with what their ***** form figures are.

Ectoo,

I'm sorry about Paperprophet, you lost on that because I selected and bet on it. I'm the best filter I know for a lay bet.

JIB,

All I'm trying to do is find out what parts you do think are worth while and why. If I place to much reliance on any one factor that's down to me, how/why would it reflect on VDW?

If my wish not to back poor horses is snobbery, it has nothing to do with VDW. (Although I was happy to see he also took that path.) This snobbery has always been a big part of me. Why marry an ugly woman they are no cheaper to keep than a pretty one? Why employ a poor tradesman when there are good ones around? Why back a poor horse when there are plenty of good ones about? I started backing horses in 1964 and within 2 years I would never back a horse with a s/f of less than 80, or a strike rated of less than 20%. You can blame a lot of things on VDW but not my wish to only risk my money on good horses. I have always liked money too much to take unnecessary risks with it.

I had been backing for about 14 years before I ever heard of VDW. I was busy starting a business and didn't really have time to study him then. I read the articles as they came out and little bits and pieces stuck in my mind. These where used to quickly find a bet on a Saturday, but if one couldn't be found I was happy to wait. In 97 disaster struck and I had to find a way of making money. I devised a method based on Roushayd to do this. I took no notice of consistency and only backed in handicaps it took a few years to find out this was a mistake. I joined a VDW forum and learnt there was far more to it than first appeared. There have always been folk that says it doesn't work, I know different. These doubters don't bother me in the slightest, the only thing that annoys me is they may stop other people from even looking at it.

Be Lucky

Ectoo,

Well done with Strong Magic, a fine bit of handicapping.

If you looked, you would find a not to dissimilar trait in several of CVDW's examples.

He was just better at it than most.

JIB,

NO

I have searched the above post thoroughly and cant see any reference to "the claim" as you call it.

Correct, I am congratulating Ectoo on a good analysis. Is that not allowed?

Ectoo has found this "new thing" which was there
"from the beginning" all along, a bit like your lists. Rubbish CVDW though Isnt he?

swish - thanks

Tend to agree that bare finishing positions are not a reliable guide after all a win in 3 sellers in a row is hardly coing to set a horse up for a win at Ascot is it ?

The requirement for the horse to be in the first 5 in the betting market tho does tend to eliminate these horses, to lean towards your thinking.

Personaly, have recently started to put more emphasis on the Time figures than on the finishing positions -

What I am more interested in tho, since you appear to have studied strike rates in relation to offered odds - are your views on "Dutching" - in particular with reference to VDWs offered plan for 3 horse Dutching ??

quote:

---

And of course to get this strike rate - He had to "Dutch" the top 3 !! -

He goes on to describe the Dutching Method for 3 horses when the lowest price is 5/2 -

this is the A-B-C method - where the bet is split into 2, - backing 2pts horse A , 1pt horse B - and second bet 1pt horse B , 1pt horse C !

If horse A wins - Return on 2pts

if horse B wins - Return on 2pts

if horse C wins - return on 1pt

---

If we accect that he did actualy achieve his claimed 80%/90% strike rate by Dutching 3 horses - Do you think that the suggested method is better that a simple "proportional" Dutch - or do you think that Dutching is a wast of time anyway ???

tc

Compression of Weights

Why do they do it?
I was thinking about it today. OK, so their 'favoured' horse gets to carry less weight. But then, so do all the other horses don't they?

Is it me being think? (Set myself up for some stick with that comment methinks!)

BlackCat

you are correct of course BC

but the clear intent isn't there with the others..just a bit of good fortune.

to go to the trouble of entering a horse to compress weight shows a good level of intent.

No they don't all win and no they aren't all calculated to do so but the prices they win at makes up for the losers.

Thanks for that Ectoo. Cheers.

ectoo, mtoto, pkboy, everyone, are the examples van der wheil gave in [be a winner ] valiant warrior, ever smile, killeshin, travado, rivage bleu,....compression of weight formula?...vdw, mentioned roushayd, if understood would carry readers a long way..any clues ectoo,?

I don't understand what you are saying Grundy.

BC,

Compressing the weights could also oblige good opposition with lesser ORs to go elsewhere or run out of the hcp, or take a good jock off their backs if he cant 'do' the weight.

Its a spoiling tactic that puts the compressor in charge and leaves his opponents with less room to manouver.

There are also horses that simply dont like to carry a lot of weight.

Tuppenycat
You have merely repeated the same quote.
Sorry, it is not clear.

Why say 1pnt horse B and second bet 1 pnt horse B ?
What is the difference between just saying 2 points horse B ?

As for my views on dutching, well dutching is backing long odds on. I know some people on here and elsewhere claim to win at odds on.
Personally I don't think you can. or the people that do win at backing odds-on work to tiny profit margins.
Dutching at odds against is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Say 3 6-1 shots . 3 on 7 back if one wins. Nowt wrong with that.

Thanks Swish

I thought that I must have missed something in the quote/example ! - I don't find it clear either

Also glad to have you confirm my views on Dutching long odds on - when you do loose - you loose a lot more, and it takes an awful long time to retrieve the loss.

The Nov Handicap was my last Dutch, backing at 4/1- 12/1- 20/1 nice return on the 12/1 - I hear what you say

Hi JIB - thanks for that too. Cheers. BC

BC

I think you are correct in thinking that G hall spotted that VDW was evaluating the better class races.
The only other common factor between the relevent examples is that all were being raised in class (penalty value wise). Also all had won at least one of their last 2 races or finished 2nd twice in their last 2.