Ectoo

I had you down as a critic of the VDW method

Seems you have been converted

Nobody would ever convice me that adding form figures up is anything else but basic and Naieve

even if some of our Guru's can make a science out of it, and some have tried

There have been a number of VDW boards before and after this one, all gone down the pan

It seems they dont last as they dont seem to be able to get on with each other

I wonder why

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

Ectoo

why did the split occur to start with?

Simply: Greed and selfishness;
and though Mtoto wasn't the instigator, (The other one you mention was!), he was a willing accomplice in their self-serving purpose.

nothing to convert to Boozer, it's just a basiic method that looked good in a racing paper in 1978 which I read avidly at that time...it then needed work as a person developed their interest.

instead we got folk obsessed with the examples..all aftertimed..and this has made the whole thing lose it's way imho.

VDW = a basic way of finding contenders

it is not a completed winner finding machine with just a few knowing it's "secrets".

It then needs an individual to then develop and improve it using his own interpretation of form reading...thats what the "missing link" is in reality

if certin people weren't obsessed with self promotion and pimping their ego off it then the 800 pages on here might have been worth so much more.

Some people aren't interested in winner finding at all, they just want to be recognised as a guru of something you can't really be a guru of...some past examples that mean bugger all.

I don't really understand the greed bit JohnD. Did they want to keep selections to themselves you mean? so took it away from here

Ectoo,

The reason I couldn't work with JohnD is highlighted in his last two posts, and in his general attitude to a discussion. He's right therefore any different stance must be wrong. Just look at "unless it fits precisely with what he said in SIAO, it won't be VDW's".

In reply to this I point out VDW clearly states in SIAO, to be a selection the horse must be in the TOP four for ability. Many of the selections from the early VDW examples were not in the top four therefore NOT complying with SIAO. Does this mean they are not VDW selections, of course not? Does this mean Pegwell Bay wasn't a VDW selection as he was also not in the top four for ability, again of course not?

SIAO is the orginal VDW for dummies, written at the behest of Mr Peach to make it easy for the struggling general public because VDW wouldn't explain is "other" ratings. Without which the whole VDW saga doesn't make sense. I don't think you will find Lee, Fulham, or even Hensman will agree with that thinking so I don't think you can really bracket me with any of them.

Boozer,

Nobody would ever convice me that adding form figures up is anything else but basic and Naieve

I agree it is very basic, perhaps even naive, but you can't really argue with the stats as even today the majority of good races are still being won by consistent horses. As you know for years I didn't use the consistency rating. When my records were run through a filter it became very obvious that the profits were increased in no small measure when it was applied. So I'm happy to go along with basic and naive.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

You wrote: "In reply to this I point out VDW clearly states in SIAO, to be a selection the horse must be in the TOP four for ability"

With respect, he didn't. VDW certainly said "Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast", but nowhere (I think) does he say that to be a selection a horse has to meet either of those criteria, and as we know quite a few of his selections didn't. Indeed, his very first selection, Prominent King, didn't meet either.

Prominent bloody king...ffs

give it up Hensman, the selections were made after the races were run..they are not worthy of being discussed..get in to the real world and get your own up to date examples that you can judge before and after the race

the difference between pre and post race analysis is way more relevant when you have actually done pre race...which VDW never did.

backfitted selections are worthless..you are totally wasting your time..imho

Hensman,

I think you are being just a little pedantic here. Why mark of the top four if you are going to use horses outside that range? He gave four examples and in every case only the top four for ability are marked. I agree he later gave another example where he used the lowest five for consistency but here he only used the top three for ability. Nowhere have I seen him recommend going any lower than 4th best, he even said when using rating it was best to stick to the top few.

Indeed, his very first selection, Prominent King, didn't meet either.

My very point, he was 7th best hardly in the top few. But joint and top in his ratings.


Be Lucky

Ectoo

The greed bit showed itself when they decided to syphon off members for a private forum because Fulham thought he could gain something without sharing it with others.
I warned them at the time that it wouldn't work because they would never get any new blood, which has been proven time and time again by the number of forums they have started, and seen rot.
That, and that alone, though they'll give all kind of bullshit excuses otherwise, is also the reason for their sudden appearance on TRF. Otherwise why would they want a secret forum if they choose to discuss VDW on the busiest of public forums?

Boozer

VDW forums would work, this one did for years but, for the reasons above, only if they are open to everyone, and this forum has been a shadow of its former self ever since Gummy decided otherwise.
He has reversed this decision recently, and while it is encouraging to often see 6 or 7 members in the gallery, there will always be the spectre of the 'secret society' taking without giving, so it might never return to its former glory.
A pity really, as a number of people have learned a lot from it, (including me), and without the above influences it would have progressed a lot further, but it still remains the finest monument to his work, and the interest it created, than anything else in the world.

oh no..not another mention of that blasted horse

Mtoto

You wrote: "Why mark of the top four if you are going to use horses outside that range?"

That is a pertinent question with a range of possible answers, depending on what one thinks was the purpose of the article.

But it is worth remembering that VDW referred to seven selections in the article, not just four, though he only went into detail on four. But not all seven of the selections were in the top four on ability, any more were plenty, including Prominent King, he had given earlier.

(The mention of Prominent King was of course quite unnecessary, but as I know the mention of Prominent King is a red rag to one particular bull, I wouldn't want to let the opportunity to mention Prominent King pass.)

quote:

Prominent bloody king...ffs

Ectoo,

I would agree with you about this aftertiming, but there is just one thing that stops me. If all the VDW are back fitted how did he know when he chose the Erin to use as his first example the same criteria would hold good for so many examples?

I use the same template I used to help solve the Erin today. Fair enough I have used a small adaption but it is used in every analysis I do. Contrary to what you may believe I do bet and rely 100% on the lessons shown in that example. As some could confirm there are some very nice winners being thrown up using it.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I know that horse modelling doesn't work long term..is 10 years long enough? Yes I did have success with it, but not profitable success.

This prominent king [arrrrgh] business is horse modelling whatever way you look at it, it doesn't work beacuse all horses are different...as is each and every race.

A race can only really have individual analysis made BEFORE it's run, if a race or horse is looked at only afterwards then you will make totally different conclusions.

It's comparing your before thoughts..to your after knowledge that helps you learn where your general analysis is good or flawed.

races that have been run...that you didn't analyse beforhand..are imho...worthless...and thats talking from experience.

I have been there many times..I used to believe horse modelling was it...it isn't

but if folk beleive it is..then I can no longer labour the point..I only speak from experience...maybe thats not good enough


at least we are talking about it anyway


Hensman...........stop it

Ectoo,

I don't think by using my template I'm actually doing what you consider to be "horse modelling" if that is what you explained in a previous post. Waiting for a particular horse to repeat a type of sequence that another horse has performed with success. I'm only interested in THIS horse in THIS race.

My template ranks the competitors in ability order using what I think is the VDW logic. Once you have a ranking, an accurate ranking of the horses ability the consistent form horses (here I mean the horse with the a standard of form to run well in the class of race being considered) are examined in detail to find out if the conditions are suitable. Factors like course type, going, distance, and class of the competition are all looked at.

VDW said "Logically form must represent a degree of achievement". Here I ask the question did that run, even a winning run in a valuable race have a degree of achievement? Winning or running well in a valuable race doesn't prove the form is special/good, I have put a line through a good few classics and top hcps. "Form is what it did, class is where it did it".

Be Lucky

EC,

Of course you are right that in essence VDW is based on modelling. It's quite obvious that VDW used modelling techniques to arrive at his methods.

Where I disagree with you is when you say the selections were backfitted. Modelling and backfitting are not necessarily the same thing.

Modelling is the approach used to hone the data into a workable approach which must then be consistent with the future selections. That's entirely different to backfitting your selections.

It would only be fair to say the actual selections were backfitted if they were not consistent with the approach he'd previously given earlier.

This is why I think it's important to keep harping back to the old examples. You need to make a decision yourself as to if the selections are consistent with the method previously outlined and if the modelling approach held good then and continues to hold good today.

Moreover, you need to decide if the approach holds good in general terms and not just in the quoted races. It's easy to cherry pick races that fit with your earlier modelling techniques of course, the real trick is to ensure it holds good across all races used and not just the quoted ones after.

Personally, I can't think of any other way of doing that other than going back to the early examples and deducing the critical factors employed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Andy Capper,

quote:

Originally posted by Mtoto:
Ectoo,

The reason I couldn't work with JohnD is highlighted in his last two posts, and in his general attitude to a discussion. He's right therefore any different stance must be wrong. Just look at "unless it fits precisely with what he said in SIAO, it won't be VDW's".

Mtoto

"You will have the same horses as myself" is a completely unequivocal statement which leaves no room for doubt that we should all be arriving at the same selections as he would.
As the statement directly and unquestionably referred to SIAO, there should also be no doubt that enshrined within that one article were the tools to find these same horses as he would.
The above words were VDW's, not mine, nor Tony Peach's. You can put whatever spin you like on the article to suit your own interpretation, blame whoever you like for paying him or pressing him into writing it, but what you cannot do is alter the fact that he wrote it.
Not only did he write it, he headed it VDW SPELLS IT ALL OUT, wrote a number of references and articles afterwards referring to it as the key to his method, and even told us 5 years later that "Everything concerning my methods had been explained as long as you READ AND UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS THERE."
If, in the face of all the evidence above and throughout his work, you still disbelieve or disagree with that then the only logical conclusion has to be that you haven't understood?

John

Can't disagree with most of that. Only thing I would maybe take issue with is:

quote:

Not only did he write it, he headed it VDW SPELLS IT ALL OUT

I suspect Peach chose that title but it doesn't change the gist of your post.

quote:

By EC
"if certin people weren't obsessed with self promotion and pimping their ego off it then the 800 pages on here might have been worth so much more."

For someone who has decried the VDW method on many occasions in the past you haven't half spend a lot of time in this room. I remember sometime ago you stating that VDW was just about selling the booklets? And here you are now entering into some nostalgic bullshit about your avid interest back in 1978. I think Boozer is right regarding the change of heart.

You accuse JohnD and myself of being one and the same, and even suggest that I used the name ˜Mandrake' on TRF to ˜big myself up' – I notice you still haven't offered any evidence to support your claims?

You have banged on and on about pre race selections (proof of the method) and your response to Hensman's following post:

quote:

By Hensman
Ectoo

As I have pointed out to you more than once, there are many pre-race selections from a VDW standpoint, on this forum and elsewhere. In particular, there are quite a few from Lee, including a small number in the current turf season.

These selections prove:

1) there are differences of view about what constitutes the VDW approach - as you rightly say;

2) some achieve more success than others - Lee's selections in particular have been highly successful, but others have had success too, as the table I drew to Arkle's attention shows.

What more is there to be proved?

Was:

quote:

By EC
really don't know Hensman

but what I do know is..this forum has now livened up a bit...doesn't take much coaxing does it


but i'm sure it will just drop off again as quick as it started

now...i'm off to say a little prayer and hope the weather isn't to harsh on the east side...because they are forecasting a grim night over there

What sort of response is that? A side-step.

i respond in the same way you do to things now Lee

VAGUELY

annoying isn't it?



all the best now

Not annoying at all - just confirmation of your foolishness and the short term memory you have.

Oh yes - nothing in my inbox from you as yet - another side step.