this is a thread i think should be started,not interupting the other one,which the vdw faithful will no doubt see,

i hope vdw taught you all about the weight for age because im sure one of you posted the other day a good thing in the weights even though they had never heard of the weight for age scale,ok it won but i hope i`m not trying to teach this person to suck eggs,but there is a weight for age and it also differs with distance.

hi greg,

like the footballers and tennis players, if your good enough your old enough.

when it develops it should get better dont you think??

well doneGUEST + DETERMINED.
this is what we all wanted to see,admitting getting it wrong,by going down this avenue you will also get a lot more praise when you get things right.

Greg,

As I’m sure you’re aware the subject of weight has been discussed previously on the main VDW thread. Some are of the opinion that weight is not an important factor, however, VDW did give us many lessons on weight that prove otherwise and indeed they covered all aspects such as Weight For Age. But alas these lessons, like much that he shared weren’t written in an easy convenient format. They were put across in such a way that only those that went looking would find them.

For anyone who cares, a good example that springs to mind is Wing And a Prayer. Coming off the back of 2 wins against horses of his own age and winning with a penalty, he was then sent to contest a race against older horses. A look over the form shows that he had the measure of them class/form wise and so with his weight for age allowance he was all the way a winner. With the other factors that went his way it would have been a major surprise if he blotted the formbook, as VDW stated.

Similar types of bet occur fairly frequently and in these circumstances the strike rate, which VDW suggested was available overall, rises well in to the 90’s.

lee there are a few different views of wfa,lets take a 6f race in march,now the official wfa allowance as invented by admiral rous,is 13lb,but timeform do thier own scale they think it should be 8lbs,as for 90%+ winners,i hope you dont be offended by me having a small amount of disbelief,pherhaps you would like to post them up as they occur fairly frequently,to prove all us doubters?

Greg,

We should only be concerned about the weight for age scale that is used officially to set the weights carried by horses. I suspect that you are referring to their usage by handicappers as a means for rating a particular performance. Unless you want to compile your own collateral form ratings then the only concern should be the weight that a horse actually carries in comparison to others.

The fact that Wing And a Prayer was in receipt of weight from older horses was just another confirmation of his chances. He was the class/form horse with everything going his way.

Perhaps it would have been easier if I’d not mentioned strike rates. As I’ve posted previously it is up to the reader to decide whether or not there is any worth in posts that are put up, particularly on the subject of VDW. It matters to me not whether you doubt what I claim, why should it?

I put this to you. VDW managed to achieve an 80% strike rate at all manner of prices, which included betting in large field handicaps. This alone seems to cause people problems as they find it hard to believe. Presuming that you believe this to be true then why do you think by employing the same ‘main method’ that VDW used, but restricting your betting to small, non-handicap fields, that your strike rate wouldn’t improve? Or do you think that VDW attained an equal 80% strike rate across every type of race? I doubt this very much.

lee you misunderstood my comments about wfa!

Lee

As regards VDW's strike rate, all we KNOW is that he claimed one.

Lee,
I would hope you realise that there is a considerable difference between Wing and a prayer and a 0-60 AW classified stakes at southwell. I also cant find the passage where vdw advocates taking on older horses for the first time and ignoring the weight for age scale.
Regards,

Statajack,

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at with regards to your last post. What has a 0-60 AW classified stakes race got to do with anything? My point is that there are certain types of race that will return a strike rate higher than 80% when everything lines up, these generally being smaller field non-handicap affairs, but obviously in general they won't be found in a 0-60 Class Stakes on the AW.

Also, where did I state that the Weight For Age scale should be ignored? Far from it. I'm sure the trainer was using the race conditions to his advantage when placing WAP, which was spotted and capitalised on by VDW.

When a horse has performed well when giving weight (penalised) and is then sent out to compete against lesser horses, in receipt of weight, well it's betting boots time. And this was the point I was trying to make.

Lee,
I thought you were comparing WAAP with Nassau Night, a bet by one of the vdw thread posters who claimed it as the class/form horse and weighted to win when running in a 0-60 at southwell while ignoring the fact that it was only receiving weight because it was a 3yo running against older horses (for the first time too). As it happened it won at 11/2 so I dont think the poster will care to be told that betting 3yos against older horses in 0-60's in March is a dangerous game. I think this is what Greg meant when he started this thread.
regards,

No, I certainly wasn't comparing WAAP with Nassau Night! And apologies for the confusion that I've caused.

Still it's brought up a few points that are worthy of thought, for those that care to look.

Like you say, great caution is required with the younger when taking on older horses at this time of year, but there are the exceptions, and it is where speed figures are an extremely useful guide. Nassau Night wasn't an exception though for me.

good evening .. i,m sorry to say this but you come across has being very sceptical,and negative with regard to vdw,s methods all you seem to do is make derogatory remarks,youv,e obviously gone to a great deal of effort, yet you still make negative remarks,like the one in your last post,surely you can see the power of his methods ..regards investor

Fulham,

Regarding VDW's strike rate, unfortunately you'll only know for sure that it's attainable once you have attained it, simple as that. What I will say though is that progress can only be made with a positive attitude and approach. If you have any doubts, which seem to be creeping in judging by your recent posts, then I'm sure you'll realise that the puzzle will be far more difficult to solve. I'm sure you've put in stacks of effort already, so Keep at it.

Investor/Lee

I regard VDW's canon as a resource for learning, and the appropriate frame of mind for that activity is an enquiringly critical one, not one that takes everything at face value.

As a result of applying myself to VDW's letters, articles and examples, I have been comfortably in the black for five years now, and I am therefore very grateful to him. But that does not blind me to his faults: he was at times palpably careless as regards facts, arguably inconsistent as regards the advice he gave, and most certainly muddled in his thinking.

When I first went through VDW's earliest examples, like Mr Swann I found good reasons for the selections. But then I realised that I wasn't analysing the races critically, but simply trying to find a line of argument that validated VDW's selections. Going back over some of them with, I hope, a more critical eye, other equally plausible possibilities are clear. The very first example VDW gave is a good illustration. No one who looks at it in any detail can, I think, fail to reach the conclusion that Prominent King was being trained to win it, and all the relevant evidence was there before the off. But to make a pre-race assessment of whether Prominent King was indeed likely to prevail also depends on the evaluation of his competitors which, I suggest, is very much open to interpretation. Because we know that Prominent King won, with hindsight it is tempting to "write off" the competitors: whether we'd have done that as easily before the off is, for me, another matter.

And that brings me to Guest, and his recent examples. It is evident that Guest knows the VDW canon inside out, and has been through the examples very carefully. Over the past fortnight he has put up a number of what he confirmed were selections, and he has chosen some competitive events.

In each of the races Guest chose that I happen also to have looked at, a case can be made for his selection. But, as I have pointed out, there were also contrary indications, clearly known before the races in question, which suggested other outcomes. And, as it happened, Guest's selections in the six races about which I've commented all lost.

As far as I'm concerned, these results are a reflection of the complexity of the task of analysing competitive races rather any any reflection on Guest's personal competence.

So where does that leave me? I have little doubt that very high strike rates are possible (80%+) if one confines one's attention to races where there really do appear to be no unanswered questions or contrary indications. But I very much doubt whether comparable strike rates are possible with competitive races of the kind VDW used for this 1978 examples, or for which Guest has offered his selections recently. And, as far as I know, nowhere does VDW make such a specific claim.

Now, if in your eyes that strikes you as sceptical and negative, rather than realistic and appropriately critical, so be it.

hi greg,

sorry to harp on about NN, i would have backed that at 9-8, and it still would have won, weight wasnt,for me, the determining factor. it was a bonus.

just have a look at the race forget the age of it.
if it had been slow i wouldn't have bothered if it had had 2-0 on its back.

barney,
now your just talking daft,it would definately not have won with an extra 13lb on it.

my mistake an extra 15lbs,no chance

Enjoyed reading this again tonight.