Thanks for the reply. In fact I did mean Postdata, amongst other things he gives each horse ratings both for ability and recent form. I also do not use Postmark or Postdata but was curious about the possibility that Postdata attempts to employ VDW methods.

Maybe of Interest

Steve Mason. Jump Ratings
Paul Curtis. Flat 3 y/o and upwards Ratings
Simon Turner. Flat 2 y/o ratings

Epi.

Sorry my mistake. I don't use the Racing Post at all, and I have to much trouble with the site to bother with it. As I understand it (it may be wrong) the guy that does the analysis for the races does the forecast and Post data. I don't really think the postdata is done with VDW in mind. The logic that ability and recent form are paramount to any sensible thinking about finding the result of a race. This is why VDW appealed to me, he gave examples of why it works. He said there were many ways to judge ability, just he found the one he explained the best. I don't know if that means it was the easiest to explain to the masses. Or if he did think it was the most accurate.

It's a pity you didn't take Fulham up on his offer, I think you would have liked the logic of the methods. Reading them without other peoples interpretations clouding the issues is/can be a real eye opener.

Be Lucky

Mr. Toto

What do you have to have the same answer 3 or 4 times before it sinks in.

Mr e d,

If I've missed your answer could you please give me the date and thread you posted it on. If you are referring to Guest's answer, I'm sorry but it was a slightly different question. I asked Guest, why does he think the race was analysed using the c/form method. He tried to give an answer but even he answered every question except the one asked. I am happy that Soaf was a VDW selection, I'm happy he filled the criteria I think he used for that race + it works my way as a double check. I'm not worried about him being a selection, although I would have thought you may. I'm worried about the reasons WHY some think he was the selection, and the resulting incorrect reasons about VDW's thinking about horses form.

Be Lucky

Mtoto, I am impressed! Your capacity to answer questions is remarkable! Seeing as how he has no interest whatsoever in your reply and considering the hostile manner in which it was framed I would have told him to go to extreme efforts to satisfy himself. 2003 is going to be a good year for you as you have the right attitude!

You have said to Mr e d that you could make some horse whose name I've forgotten the selection by both your method and by your interpretation of VDW against what would appear to be the popular conception of VDW thinking. That interested me. Two questions: first, by your thinking do you agree with the historical examples as to selections in all the cases in which you feel that you can understand VDW's logic? second, having felt that you understand the historical examples I assume you employ that VDW thinking as a 'cross check' in contemporary races, that said, on the occasions where they diverged who hit, you or VDW?

Do you still hang out in grave yards?

VDW says dont allow any degree of gamble to creep in, good advice if we want to bet for a living whereby betting and gambling have already aquired separate meanings for the cognocentii. Does the general brit like to bet? no. Does the general brit like to gamble? no. Yet they love the lottery, because it's beyond a gamble, I can assume anybody who can empoloy their brain to the extent that they joined this forum can understand my arguement so far. Every year there is one race that straight people spend money on, we cant even dignify it with the term 'gamble', the National, yet now Fulham excuses VDW's ignorance on the field question by citing the National. Someone please explain to me how betting in the National precludes any element of gamble.

Thanks for the lesson in maeutic provokation.

Epiglotis,

If I have misunderstood your question or parts of it I apologise in advance.

The first part, I am happy with all the examples I have studied so far. The selections can all be found using class and form. Where I differ with the thinking, I don't think they all conform to one method. I think many cross checks have been shown, but that is what they are cross checks. Right or wrong I think the class form element is another cross check, not the all encompassing formula. To try and make all the examples work this way is wrong. However it does solve many problems, if the class form horse isn't the selection it is easy to say in this case he used the 2nd or 3rd selection. Or the horse wasn't the class form horse, because it wasn't in form, or the form wasn't good enough. I think this is causing a lot of confusion, with people trying to find reasons why the horse wasn't in form. The reasons then being used to say this is how VDW viewed form. The biggest thing (for me) against the c/form method is it doesn't sit very well with at times with CONSISTENT FORM

The second question is a lot harder to answer. I have no idea what horses VDW would have chosen in the contemporary races. The best I can do is make an educated guess. Guest is acknowledge as being well versed with VDW, but he seems to use the class/form method for most if not all of his selections. On the occasions I have disagreed with Guest about the selection I have not fared to badly. Not counting the times I would not have backed because of the price, I think I have held my own. A few times Guest has said no bet, too much conflict, using the way I think VDW worked I have found a nice winner.

I think the first example was chosen because it was a good example of how VDW worked. Guest has used the c/form method to make it work, but I don't think c/form as explained later comes into it. For me the key is the other ratings, VDW put * against the 3 most likely. Why would he have done that if Beacon Light was out of form? Or does the c/form only come into it when you have narrowed the field down to 3/4, I don't think so?

Hope this has been of some help.

Thanks for the reply. My meaning was that if you'd understood how VDW selected the historical examples you could apply that method to contemporary races and decide for yourself if your method was more or less productive than the VDW method.

A couple of pages back I posed a question about the number of viable VDW bets, I intend to use the evidence to prove that there was no VDW, that isn't the burning question but as you appear to be the only person who has made any practical sense of VDW I would be interested in your view.

Epiglotis,

Don't quite understand why you are worried about whether or not someone called VDW existed.

It doesn't bother me if Max is Max, surely the important thing is does he make sense. If VDW did have big bets and wanted to remain anonymous why would the bookies or anyone else not honour his wishes. It's only the faces that want the publicity we hear about now, for what ever reason. There are big punters out there we have never heard off. Looking at the amount of bets and the time span I don't think they would have to have been that many BIG bets. You can't judge VDW by anyone else, Fulham, Lee, Guest, they all have their own ideas about what risk they want to take. There must be some of the bigger/smaller odds horses they wouldn't have backed.There are a few I wouldn't have backed with your money.

Your point about backing in the smaller races (numerically and class) I can't agree with. I don't think I'm a gambler but most of my bets/winners are in just the races you are against. They are usually run at a true pace and the class comes to the top. There is a world of difference in the trainer fancying is horse (and the public) and it really being able to win. Like most when I was young I meet an old chap on the course. He told me never take the form from a race with less than 7 runners, and never, never back in them. He also said never back in low grade races that's were the fiddles happen. It has done me proud over many years. Wonder if HE was VDW.

Be Lucky

Too drunk. Sorry, tomorrow.

You little kids, I dont want to break your sand-castle.

I agree that the existence or otherwise of VDW has no bearing on the validity of the method, what I am concerned about is the excessive respect for perceived authority shown by some members. This, in my opinion, causes them to adopt an overly literal interpretation of VDW, missing the worthwile advice by confusing it with the nonsense. Perhaps if they can be convinced that VDW was a fabrication they will ameliorate their utilisation of the method. I understand the logic behind your choice of large fields at short distances, maybe this is the best medium for VDW but for my own methods it is the worst.

I'm having trouble locating the passages about world cruises can you please post some details?

Now that things seem to have calmed down and I think that this thread was started for the likes of me who knows nothing about VDW, perhaps I may get some sensible answers.

My question arrises as a few days ago Fulham remarked as to W’s strike rate. From what I can make out W was not adverse to dutching. Therefore to my mind he was not always in a position to say that any particular horse when he dutched had the best criteria.

Again this brings me to think that there was ( no key), the use of these words was the equivalent to Dutch phraseology. I say this as I have a Dutch friend who very often uses words the wrong way round, but being used to it I know what he means.
If one looks at the French language they very often make a sentence where the words are in the reverse of the way we would put them.