Wonderful.

Duncliffe 1255E could be the bet of the year at the 5/1 I've taken! Not only is the horse a proven class chaser back to hdls here, have a look at the trainer/course stats as well.

Smart Cavelier 210F looks well ahead of the opposition. I've just had 2.36 matched which should be ok as the horse will probably be odds-on at SP.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

Shadow Jumper 1230S is a small bet. Backed and 2nd

I see Dandy is back from his hols. Has anyone any idea how much he is asking for his pair in this claimer?

Anyway he and his charges should hold up the price of the selection.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

Smart Cavalier won't like the ground John imho.

TC,

Your envelope has arrived. Many Thanks!

Forgot that Swish - "beat me to it "

- Still - Never hurts to be reminded !

JIB - 2

EC - 0

-

come on ectoo

Just a small AW bet on Quantum Leap 1240L.

Horse: two positives ratios but not even placed on either of them. Horse is D4 C3 (CD2), has had three consecutive runs over 8f which is obviously not his best dist and has had his mark reduced 4lbs for them.

J/C = 27/111.

T/C = 19/247.

T/J = First ride!

Sire/C = 26/206

Fc 10/1

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

One that does catch my eye , is in the 3.00 at Southwell .

Pat Haslam is a canny Yorkshireman, and when canny Yorkshiremen do something apparently daft, you should ask yourself why ??

He runs his Jumps horse MAUNBY REVELLER currently trading at 5/1 down from 8s

quote:

Originally posted by ectoo:

quote:

Good Old Mtoto.
All those form books, for all those years, and still, gut feeling apart, has no idea why consistency is important! Tolstoy must be turning in his grave

Mtoto has forgotten more than you know about horse racing JohnD.

Apart from Investor..you must be the internet's biggest dream merchant.

Your last few contributions on this thread sum up VDWers like yourself to a tee..not a clue about backing horses but full of verbal diarrhea.

Keep dreaming luv.

Ectoo
Alas, the internet is full of small-minded tw*ts like yourself who believe that, if they can't find the answers, there aren't any; and, thus limited by their own blindness, proceed to try and convince everyone else that there is nothing there to see.
You are merely one of the latest, in a long,long, line on VDW's work, who has failed to find value in what he wrote, yet this thread survives, and many still find value in his teaching.
Mtoto is one who has benefitted more than most from his work, yet, by his own admission, he is still uncertain about 3 of the 4 criteria that VDW gave as the basis for his method. The answers are there for all 4, VDW was quite specific about them all, but they will only be found by thinking about and understanding what he wrote, and not, as so many have found to their cost, through endless trawling through old form books.
Advice from one who has been there and done it, by both approaches, over a great number of years; not from one who has given a perfunctory glance and dismissed it, and those with a real interest, Mtoto particularly, would do well to spend their time studying VDW's intent rather than his selections.
Others, such as yourself, will continue to find their comfort in cynicism.


HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!
(Even those who seem to enjoy being miserable )
Johnd

The "thinking about" advice strikes me as sensible. I've just been reading about Roushayd and thinking about the mechanics of selection. If one were approaching a race unarmed the Roushayd process would be impossible to perform fully using a daily paper, even the Racing Post. Using a computer it would take time (I'm not going to experiment about how much time), it would be boring clerical work and it wouldn't guarantee to find the winner. The only way for the Roushayd mechanics to work as a practical method is if the selection is already "known" from a list and it's checked out before each run. JiB seems to have reached a pretty much similar conclusion, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did so independently but if he did so after reading the literature it was presumably by thinking about the method more than about the example.

JohnD

I have read your latest post with some interest. Could you please name the three basics of the methods I'm uncertain about.

I use the formula, Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work - Winners. This is the formula given by VDW. The only thing you can say I don't agree with is ability as later explained by VDW but you can't say I'm uncertain about it. I have rejected it out of hand. Why, because it is full of flaws, flaws VDW was well aware of when he said it was a quick easy way to judge ability. He then went on to point out less money didn't automatically mean lower class of race. That's not to say I don't use an a/rating I do. Just not the one most use, but one based on and explained by VDW. Consistency was a well explained factor, and how to find it. Form I accept I may use in a slightly different way to most. I take it to mean the over all form of the horse not just its last three runs. Capability and probability, are both used, again perhaps not in the same way as others but used nonetheless.

I then did the obvious logical thing and tried my ideas against the VDW selections. Isn't this the correct procedure how else can you find out if something works? You try it out against the known facts. In this case the only known facts are the VDW selections.

You are quick to point out everyone else has it wrong, even when they take the trouble to try to explain how they work. For this I thank them even if I don't agree with them. You on the other hand explain nothing. You are full of pompous ideas, everyone is wrong, end of story. JohnD rules, JohnD says so it must be right, JohnD doesn't need to explain anything just take his word for it.

I would also like to wish everyone a happy new year, even the pompous.

Be Lucky

Reciprocated, Mtoto.

JohnD

The internet is full of yellow backs who daren't post selections..but make out they are successful..you are the king of them.

Good luck with the dreaming..coz it's a certainty you make bugger all at this game..I can spot a bullshitter at five paces..you are a five star merchant..a know nowter of the worst type. You also wanted to cheat in the tipping challenge we were going to have..how sad are you?

one of the saddest sacs I've come across on the internet basically..and there's been a good few.

anyone believe anything this donut says?

If anyone truly believes that they know the way to find winners, using VDWs writings - then surly they should have the "Balls" to post those selections - before the race, and then to - explain exactly "why" - they selected the winner from his reasoning !

We have yet, after 26 thousand posts - had a single VDWr meet those criterea .



tc

Duff racing again tomorrow.

First thoughts say -

12:45 Wetherby -SABREFLIGHT 33-22
12:30 Hereford -TOKALA 112
2:05 Hereford -KARANJA 11F-221
3:50 Hereford -ROSETOWN 135-313

will adjust in the 'morrow - before the off

Epi

Why do feel the Roushayd process would be impossible to perform using the Racing Post?
From memory, the Sporting Life would have given the horses career form figures, its wins including for each race; prize money, class of race, c/d and going,s/f and h/c ratings, and the full form for his last 3 races, and likewise for the other contenders.
Is that not enough?

Mtoto
Far from explaining nothing, I have given you a direct lead, viz: "The answers are there for all 4, VDW was quite specific about them all," into how to establish definitive answers for all 4 criteria. That you overlook the message, in your eagerness to shoot the messenger, is hardly my fault.

No, it's not enough. One would need complete details, enough to perform an on-the-day assesment, for all the horses in the selections recent runs.

Not much survives the overnight, as most of the selections dissolve into Dutching !

for the sake of a selection, will stick with KARANJA in the 2.05, even tho its hard to have confidence in either jockey or trainer.

tc

oops - sorry folks never checked the price
hate to put up the "bleeding obvious"

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