I think the most likely reason for a particular selection failing is that another horse has run faster on the day.

or taken a shorter route.....have you seen how wide some of those jocks takes their mounts on the AW bends?

Yes BC,

It was me! And you remember the test old Fulham set new Fulham? I answered it by using our archives and replying with his own opinions!

Strange that he he said I would need a good day job! I could elaborate further but other operations are curently being undertaken.

The man is a bogus fraud.

Jib
"A bogus fraud" is too strong.Guarded would be a better way of putting it.he knows the scores on the doors make no mistake about that.

Iv'e just been looking at the 80% thread,Guest was a clever bugger.he took those who haven't got a clue to the cleaners,One great big con.But nonetheless very clever.

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

Of Course He did Investor

Trojan has raised a point.
How can speed figure be true, how many feet more did a horse win by and thefore if it had not travelled all the way next to the rails.
Did VDW ever consider speed.

Boozer
yes he most certainly did unlike posters like Jib who like to be the centre of attention Guest didn't want to be.So in a very clever way,He guided those who had an idea of vdw's methods towards possible betting opportunities andpushed those who didn't want to know away from himself.He wasn't interested in the likes of jib,Johnd or even yourself,But for those who had put in some effort there was a lot to be gained or not by the selections that he put up.He started giving slections on the 18th of june and the last one came on the 26th of july.Do you really think that anybody using vdw's methods would have struck 81 bets in a month.It was brilliant because it took the focus away from himself but helped a lot of other people.Don't for one minute think that Guest wasn't genuine which he most certainly was,But only towards those who had took the time to at least try and understand vdw.He put you all away big time.

Another well aftertimed excuse Investor,Guest could tell you anything and you hoover it all up

Investor
Now I have heard everything
I am at a loss
I feel embarrased for you

JIB

Your Avatar
Have you got a square head with a plaster on it

What are we going to do about Investor
He has surely turned the corner and is on his way to the funny farm

I was not around here at the time of the 80% thread.

However, I understand that Guest was the VDW guru of the time. If that is so, then what Investor is saying does seem plausible to me. 81 bets in 5 weeks would not happen.

Are you sure you haven't been had?

After all, there are some very clever contributors around who can mischievously mislead, aren't there?!

Black cat
They have been had make no mistake,He wasn't interested in the 80% thread.He was only interested in guiding which he did.I didn't know this at the time because i didn't have the form books,There was no explanation or anything he just kept pumping out selections.Fulham knew full well what was going on.As you rightly say 81 bets in a month,No chance.Sorry Jib you got suckered by a very clever individual.

Investor,

Once again you are reading far to much into things. Guest did like to be the centre of attention why else would he have joined so many forums. He was also like so many others (there is a very good example on the new forum a chap called Pro) he was right and anyone that didn't agree of course was wrong. I think he is genuine in as much as he believed every word he said, he is just misguided. No problem with that except it took many people down the wrong track. Some of these folk, like Guest are so sure he is right I fear they will be lost for ever. I do notice a few are starting to take notice and are back tracking and starting to use some of the more important cogs VDW suggested, like consistency. Many of Guest selections failed in this department. When this was pointed out they did improve when consistency was used, but as it wasn't part of his thinking he quickly reverted back to his old ways. Personally I think the only people Guest helped were those with a far greater knowledge of horse racing than himself. He undoubtedly knew the books backwards and could easily throw up a smoke screen by hiding behind the comments like 'other considerations' but fell down when asked to explain the logic behind his thinking.

The sooner folk stop taking what the 'experts' say as gospel and start thinking for themselves the better. Didn't VDW say Jock Bingham was well on his way, and he worked very differently to Guest, Pro, Barney, etc. VDW was saying here are the basics, and gave his formula, it works use it. These basics can be found by using many different ideas, he didn't say this is the only way. As long as the ideas are logical, and find the same selections as VDW did in his examples. Who is Guest, or anyone else to say you are wrong and my way is right? As with every thing the proof of the pudding is in the eating!!

Be Lucky

I enjoyed the vest & underpants challenge last October, and am sorry that I missed the 80% challenge of 2003. So, would anyone be interested in a 2005/6 version?

What I've got in mind is a month by month challenge. Two winners each month, and an overall winner for the year, for:

1) Strike Rate
2) Profit

Qualifying for the month needs a minimum of 5 races to have selection(s) in.

Qualifying for the year needs a minimum of 60 races to have selection(s) in.

Any Strike Rate winners MUST be in profit, even if it is 1p.

Strike rate is by race, not horse, so dutching 3 in a race that produces a winner is a winning bet, BUT only so long as it produces a profit (using 1 point per selection - no fancy staking for the Challenge please).

Dutching is permitted, but remember, you use 1 point per selection.

Each Way is permitted, but that is 2 points per selection.

Clear selections only. Do not write "I quite like the look of Westender". If you do, it will be a non-refundable selection!!!

Proposed Dates: 1st March 2005 to 28th February 2006

Prizes: The honour of winning, with perhaps a certificate commemorating the fact!

Any takers, sign below!

Blackcat

Hey, there's one already! Oh, it's me.

Mtoto
That is of course the answer i had expected from you.Guest knew what he was doing and he also knew what a consistent class form horse was.Do you truly believe mtoto that Guest would have struck 81 bets in a month using these methods.I'm sorry but there is no way that he would have wagered on that many races.So i put it to you that he knew full well what he was doing when he set out on that
particular thread.There were bets to be had in that lot but nverall of them and guest was fully aware of this.Don't take him for a fool he had endured 18 months of contant questions and probably the same in mud slinging,He helped a lot of people by them posts wether you can accept that or not.

Why not e.mail Fulham and see what he thinks about it.But the way i see it Guest would have thrown temperement out of the window and to have 2 bets a day average over 39 days.Is nonsensical given the knowledge that Guest had with regard to vdw's methods.

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

BC

I assume selections have to be up before the race rather than after

All Our Yesterdays

Guests first post:

Epi - The size of field doesn't have too much bearing, but the size of the purse does depending on what the horses have already achieved.


2nd post:

Epi - Only in respect of the fact that Bonus had won in much higher class last time and was then going for a much lower class race against a significant older opponent.

There is more to it than just that though. As I said on the other thread, the question is why is a horse being dropped in class?

Sometimes, it is for a confidence booster which was not the case obviously with Bonus. Often we see high class proven horses run in valuable trials and not win, but then go on to the big day and collect.

So, yes I am supporting some of his view, but I don't think it is a set rule. It has to be judged on what they have done before.

3rd Post:

Epi - That is just one reason why the rating is never taken at face value.

As just one example there was a horse rated higher than Cripsey Brook in the race on Sat, namely Rani Two. Most will say "how can Rani Two not be a form horse having won last time out?". My answer is that before I establish who the form horses are for a race, I study their previous efforts relative to todays race. Obviously this takes time, so to get past the deadwood, I take the horses in ability order. This way the class/form horses appear in order of merit and I often don't need to delve any deeper than the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rated c/fs.

I only want to post single selections on this thread and as it seems price stipulations don't go down too well, I won't nominate a horse today as I will be amazed if it reaches my price.

I'm sure there will be bets to be had though this week.

4th:

Two good things imo today.

Ascot 2.30 Arakan
Ascot 3.45 Nayef

Have a good day all

Guest followed by Investor with comment from JIB:

G: Asc 3.45 Mamool
Asc 4.55 Sublimity

I make these both good things for today.

Have a good day all.

I: This horse has done nothing wrong stepping up in class,And has the credentials to win this.I was in two minds wether to put this on as Guest has already chosen it, But it looks a sound bet to me.

4.55 as SUBLIMITY.

J: Investor, I see you have allowed Guest to go first today.



And so it goes on for another 15 pages of vdw cock up after cock up!

Jib
You can put the whole 15 pages up as far as i'm concerned.You cannot pass judgement can you,Have you looked at the horses involved,Do you understand what a consistent horse is.No you don't and neither did i.But i got myself together and tried to understand and i'm telling you without any doubt in my mind that Guest would not have backed that many horses.Those who understood class and form at the time would have known what was going on.And i believe he took the likes of you for a good old ride round the block.