what about the weekend one?

I live in the present Hensman, and I like to see CLEAR selections..not hints and cryptic picks like on that 800 page marathon.

it's this inabilty for people to give clear selections that makes me question the validity of these so called gurus

i've seen some pretty good people post on messageboards over the last 8 years, no cryptic nonsense involved..just clear picks with reasoning.

if folk want to play cloak and dagger..and hey I'm a guru admire me..then i just can't be bothered.

it is all a bit moonie like to me.

i don't know why these gurus are so scared to let these real time selections be seen

ectoo another very good post after a donnybrook on saturday with weights right a bit of a low ebb but have no other hobbies so going to plod on if some people are going to go through future races in advance i,ll stick around look and learn [hopfully] les

Ectoo

Almost all the pre-race selections that I have noted by Guest and Lee have been perfectly clear, though one of two of Lee's have been made a touch humorously - see, for example, the way he posted Double Vodka, who won at Doncaster on 22 July 2004, and much more recently Countdown, Catterick, 4 July this year. I don't think it is remotely accurate to say that these posters (and indeed some others) are scared to give real-time selections: I've not counted but Guest must have given well over a hundred and Lee certainly more than a dozen.

As I see it the basic proposition is that here was a chap who claimed to be able to achieve a very high strike rate and who spelt out part of how he did it and also gave many examples. One either thinks there may be something to it or not, and if the former one must necessarily investigate the past examples to try to complete one's understanding of the approach and be able to apply it to current races.

I just wonder if this VDW stuff isn't just a back slappers convention Hensman

I keep reading about the past..is there a future?

where are the selections that were posted over the weekend?

there are already 800 pages on here..and yet you guys get a thread going on TRF..and just continue with same old discussions

you had some decent posters on there..the regulars on TRF..and pissed them all off..they called vdwers moonies...no regular will now post on those threads...so instead of grwoing a discussion..it has retarded as this board has.

what is the point of talk talk..without some action?

JohnD says I disrupted this board..but i just wanted a discussion that would move FORWARD..the talk of races from 30 years ago..is bollox..use present day races..before and after..using horses that you actually know about.



nice one LES

Hensman

I've just put in a search for Lee's posts, there are 14 bloody pages of them

12 tips?????

I started to read and got past the first page before rigor mortis started setting in.

you guys must just like reading waffle..is it a hobby like? ...waffle studying


no wonder most folk pack in posting on VDW forums..they must die of boredom.

surely talking about future races is way preferable to that 800 pages of - repetetive -secretive - ego building - waffle

Ectoo

I can only speak for myself, but I can't imagine that many simply study VDW as a matter of academic interest - rather, they do so because, to varying degrees, they believe that the approach he discussed is useful and want to improve their understanding of it and therefore, hopefully, their proficiency.

Meanwhile, if they are like me, they look at current races and analyse those as far as their understanding of VDW's approach permits. I looked at a couple of races on Saturday but didn't find a horse in either which seemed to me to have the characteristics of what VDW termed "a winner in the race". I have no idea what races, if any, Guest or Lee looked at, or if they were more successful than me in finding a bet.

As to TRF, there have been some interesting posts and the fact that some clearly think VDW is not worth a light is neither here nor there. Personally, I think that "value betting" as espoused by some there is, intellectually, rubbish and the retreat of those who have not been successful at winner-finding, but no doubt adherents of "value betting" worry as much about my thoughts on that as I do about theirs on VDW. But on that forum those not interested in VDW don't concern themselves with the discussion, unlike what, from the posts I looked at over the weekend, seems to have been the continual habit on this forum.

Taking VDW seriously is, initially, necessarily a matter of faith - one finds (or does not find) logic in what the chap wrote to the point of thinking it credible and worth pursuing. But I doubt that phase lasts long - what, I suggest, keeps some sufficiently interested to study the old examples is not "brainwashing" or "faith", as implied in the "moonies" comment, but the results they achieve for themselves.

You definately remind me of AlanB from RSUK board Hensman

he could write like that

i'm sure you believe what you write..it's not for me though all this using 30 words when a couple will do.

i've got a very low boredom threshold..i'd rather cut to the chase

I don't understand the VDW worship..I'm more interested in developing from a basic idea something that might actually make money.



bloody ell

it's the 3rd full bonfire night going off outside my gaff..3 bloody bonfire nights ...just had one when i were a nipper

quote:

You definately remind me of AlanB from RSUK board Hensman

BINGO

Alias Fulham Ectoo

Ectoo

You wrote: "I don't understand the VDW worship..I'm more interested in developing from a basic idea something that might actually make money."

I think it would probably have been more accurate if you'd written "I don't understand the VDW approach, can't be bothered to try, but hope that somehow I'll stumble on an easy way to make some money".

and yet you guys get a thread going on TRF,

Ectoo,

I started the thread on TRF, for one purpose and one purpose only. To find out what a so called knowledgable forum who had few or no VDW threads thought about VDW. This was done in response to a well known racing journalist rubbishing VDW. Unfortunately as far as I'm concerned this lead to a few of the "experts" agreeing with the journalist, but when pushed very few didn't have even the basic idea of what VDW is about. So we had a few decrying it and the usual folk who want to turn it into a system. Re the TRF have to say I have changed my mind about it being a knowledgeable forum, they seem to be obsessed with another racing journalist Puckfrock, and his ideas on value.

What did surprise me is the amount of interest being shown in VDW, perhaps not be the resident experts but someone is certainly interested. It must be close to 30,000 hits on the VDW threads. So while it doesn't interest you.

I agree the way forward to to discuss pre race, but that is never going to happen on an open forum. Because for this to be done with any meaning the thought process has to be explained in some detail. Why should I or others explain how we work and think to a public that put nothing in, in return? You use things you have worked out by hard work would you just sit there and explain it to folk that are often just to lazy to put anything your way? There is a forum (perhaps even a couple) where races are discussed pre race, but it is by invitation only. The only way people will be invited is when it can be seen they are willing to analyse races before the of. As the forum I belong to consists of mainly VDW orientated people so contrary to popular belief VDW races MUST have be discussed in some detail for these folk to have been invited.

Be Lucky

quote:

So while it doesn't interest you.

you are wrong there Mtoto..it's the gurus riding on the back of it that pees me off..they always have.

I like your stuff Mtotto..you seem a decent bloke and I haven't got a problem with anything you post..so don't go thinking I knock all VDWers.

I personally don't want anyone spelling anything out to me..I try to stimulate discussion..and have plenty to offer..if motivated ....I am happy to discuss race analysis..as long as the person I'm discussing it with is interested..and not just trying to make themselves out to be some kind of genuis.

I just don't understand how these massive threads...800 on here..and god knows how many on TRF have achieved very little..apart from some people just using them to build up an image of knowledge and hidden mystery..where none exists.

Form reading isn't a black art..it's a logical analysis of the chance of each horse winning a particular race..in the future...looking back too much is no good..post race is fine..but it should not be 90% of it..as it appears on all those threads.

quote:

Originally posted by boozer:

quote:

You definately remind me of AlanB from RSUK board Hensman

BINGO

Alias Fulham Ectoo

I forgot Fulham was AlanB, Boozer. doh.

I have to admit..I have never understood folk using different usernames on forums..I know mine is slightly different here but there was a reason for that..can't remember now.

so now we have Hensman - Fulham & AlanB all the same person...one question...why?

why not just post on here as Fulham?

i'll never understand this internet forum game

It's just like old times on here, what with Fulham pretending he's someone he isn't, and Mtoto sending out surreptitious invites to join his secret society, it's like being in a time warp.
Much like the TRF thread, where the saddoes are holding a long and detailed discussion on which paper VDW read. FFS drag yourselves into the 21st Century.

Mtoto

Only a fool would class the TRF forum as without knowledge.
There is one particular post on the VDW thread by someone with a great deal of knowledge of how the Dutchman worked, almost certainly better informed than you and your associates, but ignored because he didn't get involved in discussing ancient races.
As far as I'm aware, he has never been a member of, or posted on, any VDW forum, so I'll respect his anonymity, but it would be arrogantly stupid to dismiss what he wtote

It's just like old times on here.

JohnD,

I can only agree, just like old times. Let's be rude for the sake of it, the fact that the points you mention like surreptitious invites are only in your mind doesn't come into it. Who the blue blazes do you think I would be interested in from this dead forum/thread? For me Ectoo is the ONLY person I think has any knowledge of racing that would be of interest. However I do promise I will stop putting a gun to peoples heads and dragging them away kicking and screaming to some dark place. I will leave them here to be educated in the ways of VDW, and to gain a good sound basic knowledge of racing from YOU!!!!

As for TRF, each to his own. I feel the main racing thread would should be called the racing lounge I'm not interested in much of what is talked about on it. Best ever horse, jockey, ride, etc. I'm certainly not interested in the thoughts of the head guru about his pointless ideas on value. I'm not interested in threads on trends, unless they are about the capability of individual horses and not about general race stats, jockey/trainer stats.

Being a "sado" I am interested in a sensible discussion about the likelyhood of the racing paper VDW used. IF he didn't use the Sporting Life I do think it does raise some doubts about whether or not the ability rating was used BEFORE he introduced it. It would have been very time consuming to compile those figures without it. As I have serious doubts those rating being used in the early examples. I can't coment on the unnamed person you mention, but to be honest I haven't noticed a knowledgeable VDW post by anyone I have never seen posting before. However that does depend on what one does consider knowledgeable.

In parting I would like to congratulate on returning this forum to its former glory when all the "bad eggs" left. Until a couple of day's ago it was just you and Ectoo and you are certainly just as rude as you used to be to him. Given a straight choice between you both, I think he has a better idea of what VDW is about, and when it comes to racing in general NO CONTEST.

Mtoto

You just don't get it, do you?
You either accept what VDW said, or you don't.

"Once you find it, you'll wonder how on earth you could miss it, and you'll have the same horses as myself"

Now, either you believe that or you don't!
If you do, then it tells you there is a simple solution, the clear implication being that is where one's energies should be spent in establishing what it is.

If you dont believe him, (or if you can't find that simple solution), you then move on to making up your own version which might involve all kinds of weird and wonderful variations, and may eventually lead you to disappear up your own orifice by discussing what paper he read, where he lived, what the weather was like for the Erin, etc etc. All the while you are doing this you will add more and more complications which will only serve to take you away from that original, simple, truth.
Not only that, you will begin to doubt, and ask other people's opinions who, like yourself, will have made up their own versions but, because these opinions will differ from your own, you will be adding further twists and turns along the tortuous path which leads to your own backside.
Now, you may think it helps to compile a history of the man, to query his every word, to analyse his every selection to the point of infinity, and to endlessly discuss every nuance of what he did (and didn't) write, but where will it lead if your premise is wrong or unproven in the first place?

Wonder who'll get there first?


Incidentally, I see from the TRF thread that someone in Market Harborough has spotted a pair of clogs with flowers in, in someone's garden. Will you and Fulham be getting your bikes out this weekend?

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

You either accept what VDW said, or you don't.

JohnD,

Interesting statement that. Surely the first thing to do before that statment can be implemented, is to work out what was written by VDW and what was suggested by Mr Peach.

Even your mentor Lee has hinted the first examples are the place to look. If this done in any detail it becomes obvious they don't marry up with the SIAO article. So do I believe that article? I find it very hard based on several things said by VDW to believe the ability rating as later explained served any purpose in those examples and something else VDW did explain solves the majority of those examples, so how am I deviating from your statment?

My problem is only I don't accept the answers put forward by others, I can't see why their explanation is anymore accurate than mine. However not being an arrogant halfwit I do others the curtesy of listening and thinking about their ideas. Lee, Fulham and most others are convinced the ability rating is part of the original method, but I do think this is all based on assumption, VDW didn't actually say it. On the other hand VDW did say he thought most had missed the lesson shown in the Roushayd example, the example that gave me the solution to the early examples. So once again who is not taking VDW at his word?

Wonder who'll get there first?

I have no idea, but I'm 100% it won't be the folk that take every word written in the VDW literature as gospel, SIAO in particular. The first question(s) have to be how much of this was written at Mr Peach's behest, and even how much of those things were already in place and Mr Peach thinks they were included at his request? Speed is just one example Mr Peach is on record as saying he asked VDW to talk/mention s/f, VDW said he had been using them for 10 years + and had records from that far back. I'm more than happt to take VDW's word on that.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

When did you stop being an arrogant halfwit?

Briefy: VDW wrote SIAO, if you don't believe that, it then calls into question everything else he wrote and just serves to confuse - even further, in some cases.
Tony Peach, even to this day, is unable to even comprehend where VDW was coming from, let alone telling him what to write.

VDW also said himself, without any assumption necessary, that the answer was there in SIAO. Once again, if you believe him and look for it, you may find it, and it should fit exactly with the early examples, his later examples and Roushayd. "It was there to see and it wasn't covered up"
Of course, if you don't believe him, then it is necessary to make your own assumptions, but the first tiny little error will lead you on the wrong trail, which will be compounded by further errors the less you believe his original statement.
Instead of seeing Roushayd as an extension of what he said in SIAO - as the believer would - you might view it as a different approach because he introduced s/f as a measure of improvement, which would again lead you on the wrong trail, even to the extent of backfitting his previous examples to make them fit your own erroneous thinking.
All the while you can cobble together your own theories, consult other likewise confused souls about their own misguided approaches, add codicils and qualifications when you come against a brick wall, and blame Tony Peach or VDW's senility for everything you don't agree with.
You might come up with your own method, even turn a profit but, unless it fits precisely with what he said in SIAO, it won't be VDW's.
Incidentally, he also said, in SIAO, about ability ratings "but bear in mind it is a rating and as such, can and will prove false if used incorrectly"
Good hunting.

You might come up with your own method, even turn a profit but, unless it fits precisely with what he said in SIAO, it won't be VDW's.

1. Select the most valuable race on the card.
2. Consider next most valuable race.
3. Select most valuable race from other cards.
4. Rate entire fields for ability.
5. Select most consistent from the first 5 or 6 in forecast.
6. Apply selected rating method to entire fields.

Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk ("¢*).

Above are the instructions from SIAO. Now work the examples given before the introduction of that ability rating. 14 selections fail as they are not in the lowest 4 for ability, 1 selection fails as it doesn't qualify on races suggested. 15 out of 37 examples including the first example. I have not included the horse that were not in the forecast or one of the lowest three for consistency, as VDW did explain these in later letters.

If you think Mr Peach didn't make suggestions about what VDW should write about, or the fact he was paid for some of the later articles you must be one of the few that didn't know. Mr Peach has also confirmed this in writing.

When did you stop being an arrogant halfwit?

The day I meet you, I didn't want to be a poor 2nd.

Be Lucky

Mtoto


1. Select the most valuable race on the card.
2. Consider next most valuable race.
3. Select most valuable race from other cards.
4. Rate entire fields for ability.
5. Select most consistent from the first 5 or 6 in forecast.
6. Apply selected rating method to entire fields.

Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk ("¢*).


_____________________________________


He then went on to say:
"To confirm what the figures say, it is necessary to study the form of all concerned"etc. etc.; a part of SIAO he felt important enough to refer back to on several occasions afterwards, and without which any appraisal, before or since, would be rendered incomplete.

There is a world of difference between asking someone to write about something, and telling them what to write, though one might ignore that difference it if it helped their own theory to hold water.

I wish we could all get on

We all have arrogant sides you know, we all like to think we are right.

There seems to be at least two camps of VDW now, JohnD is in one camp and Mtoto in the other..is it not possible to work together?

Maybe no one really wants to work together..i'm not sure anymore.

We can insult each other til the cows come home on here..but it's pointless really.

There are no medals for appearing to know MORE than another person..we all love racing so might as well try and get on.

Is it now impossible for the two partys of VDW to put things behind them..looks like JohnD/Boozer on one side - Mtotto/Hensman + TRF posters on other side..have I got this right?

why did the split occur to start with..is it the old ego thing?