JIB
YOU HAVE A LONG EXPERIENCE ON VDW BOARDS, DRAWING ON YOUR EXPERIENCE AND MEMORY , HAS ANYBODY EVER EXPLAINED THE CONSISTENT FORM / ABILITY / CAPABILITY / PROBABILITY / + HARD WORK= WINNERS, AND ATTEMPTED TO SHOW HOW IT WORKS IN PRACTICE WITH A REASONABLE STRIKE RATE STRIKE RATE

THANK YOU
PAUL

Mtoto

As far as I can see the only way VDW could have done his survey for the combined figures (3-3-3 99% etc) was to go through his paper day after day marking off the 3 most consistent from the betting forecast and recording the results. The minimum number of occurrences needed to obtain 99% is 67 of which 66 would need to be successful. So I guess the survey could have been done over the period of a year.

Walter

I can't believe its coming up to 4 years since I posted all those stats. So it's about time I answered my own puzzle.

"One thing puzzles me though, if the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term."

If you use the magic figures 67 and 66 then to obtain the percentage figures given by VDW for his combined figures 99% (3-3-3), 98% (3-3-4), 96% (3-4-5), 95% (4-4-4), 90% (4-5-6), 73% (5-6-12), 17% (16-18-30) you need 66 wins from 67 occurrences 99%, 65 from 66 98%, 64 from 67 96%, 63 from 66 95%, 60 from 67 90%, 49 from 67 73%, 11 from 66 17%. Add them all together 378 wins from 466 occurrences 81%. So all the wins to runs that made up his entire survey for all his combined figures when added together will give a total wins to runs ratio of approximately 83%.

Paul,

As far as I can remember there has always been debate about the difference between the terms 'capability', 'ability', and 'probability'.

As VDW never properly explained what each of those three categories represented the subject was boobytrapped at birth.

As I now know who VDW was in real life I have lost what few illusions I may have held about his own mastery of this subject. The poor quality of his english is not because he is a foreigner, as he would have us believe, but because his education is insufficient.

We all have our moments of genius and VDW had his, no small one either, but I believe that he didn't have the intellectual wherewithall to understand what the true nature of his discovery really was.

The people who do best with VDW are always the ones who have developed their own method of judging ability, and the significance about this is not just that ability is the key, but that the methods developed are all different, suggesting that no hegemony in approach exists. It also strongly suggests that what VDW wrote is not gospel.

The fabulous 80% SR is currently being achieved by Fulham though he is being extremely rigorous in eliminating any selection if any doubt exists about its chances. This only gives two or three bets a week but as he only bets in flat hcps the prices are odds against and things look fair set.

340L Transcend

quote:

The fabulous 80% SR is currently being achieved by Fulham though he is being extremely rigorous in eliminating any selection if any doubt exists about its chances. This only gives two or three bets a week but as he only bets in flat hcps the prices are odds against and things look fair set.

How times change,Dont think he ever posted a selection on here,

Good luck to him

Rab

Don't buy their bullshit!
What Jib probably meant to say was that Fulham recently managed to get 4 winners from 5 short-priced selections, which is totally different from what he would have us believe.
Ask him why he never mentioned Lee?

I've no idea why Lee wasn't mentioned, or, indeed, why should he have been mentioned, but...

In the
340 Lingfield,

I have a shortlist of three:

Edge Closer
Ceremonial Jade
Transcend.

I'm afraid, later checks made Transcend the weakest pick of these for me.
My original list came from my opinion of good " speed figures".

Comments very welcome - before the race if poss.

Secondly, I take it as given that the mythical vdw character is known to be Fulham now.

Is that correct?

Compared to his last race where he was around the same price Transcend has a wee bit more on his plate today.No doubting his performance lto puts him in the class 2 bracket bordering on listed.
He should improve again and taking into account the weight he recieives from the proven class types i for one certainly wont be taking him on.The slight concerns on this surface along with Gosdens record with his older horses mean i will let him run but best of luck, he is there with a fighting chance.

Well done Sean.

If you use the magic figures 67 and 66 then to obtain the percentage figures given by VDW for his combined figures 99% (3-3-3), 98% (3-3-4), 96% (3-4-5), 95% (4-4-4), 90% (4-5-6), 73% (5-6-12), 17% (16-18-30) you need 66 wins from 67 occurrences 99%, 65 from 66 98%, 64 from 67 96%, 63 from 66 95%, 60 from 67 90%, 49 from 67 73%, 11 from 66 17%. Add them all together 378 wins from 466 occurrences 81%. So all the wins to runs that made up his entire survey for all his combined figures when added together will give a total wins to runs ratio of approximately 83%.
...............................................

If the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce 83% winners (Methodmaker, accepted by VDW), then how can any consistency form figure combination, 3-3-3, 3-3-4 etc, produce more than this in the long term."

It is here where the misunderstanding lies. VDW's consistency percentages were calculated on the above 83% winners from the first 5/6 in the forecast. Races where the winner came from outside the forecast area didn't featured in the equation.

For example, from these 83% winners, which came from the first FIVE in the forecast (non-handicap), a horse that had won each of its last three races won again 33% of the time.
Where there is three horses that won each of their last 3 races VDW calculated that the chance of one of them winning would be 99%, but again, only from the 83% winners that made up the first FIVE (non-handicap) in the forecast.
..............................................

Must admit im a bit confused at how best to take this forward Garston, the waters are becoming muddier also with doubts surrounding the mans integrity and ability surfacing once again.

Think i might have noticed what he's done

He's kept records of results and come up with the form figs 111 wins 33% and 112 wins 32% or whatever

He then heard 83% wins come from the first 5/6 in the betting

Resulting on him thinking why not use the form figs to filter the first 5/6 in the betting

Resulting in a pile o dung

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
The fabulous 80% SR is currently being achieved by Fulham though he is being extremely rigorous in eliminating any selection if any doubt exists about its chances. This only gives two or three bets a week but as he only bets in flat hcps the prices are odds against and things look fair set.

Good luck to him.

My 50% has taken a bit of a nose-dive towards the end of April... just when I thought I had it all sorted too!! Upwards and onwards. Ho hum.

_______

P.S. Walter - sorry about leaving you "hanging out to dry". I wouldn't have though of it if you hadn't pointed it out, but as you have, I'd be mad to post there again!! Pleased you and your son liked the game. It really is a good, educational, fun game.

Cheers.

Walter

The best way forward is Blackcat's way, onward and upward. I don't know why the water is muddy by you; it is crystal clear where I am standing. Perhaps the following will help.
VDW gave his magic formula in the vain hope it would help readers with his consistent form method. He then used the same formula to introduce a new method which could find virtual racing certainties. But in doing so he changed the meaning of the word ability to mean class and gave a means of rating this class. But the formula with a class rating no longer fitted his earlier method. Also the first part of the formula was not a requirement for the virtual racing certainties. So when Tony Peach asked him to put everything together in Spell it all Out he had no option but to combine the two methods.
Unfortunately, this led to people misinterpreting what was shown and thinking there had to be a correlation between class and consistent form without realising that there were two separate methods present.
To separate out the original consistent form method just ignore the ability ratings completely and begin evaluating from the same place as was done in the Erin. You should then see something that is in all the examples in siao, all the early examples (if you have done the research) and also in both races VDW evaluated at the Erin meeting. Consequently, with what you have seen and what is written time and time again in siao you will know what VDW meant by the missing link. And as a bonus, you will also know what VDW meant by the only race which was ˜on'.

Garstonf

With due respect, I think you are quite wrong about this, there never was more than one method, the one he began to show us in the Erin and continued to reveal right up until the Rivage Bleu examples. Even 17 years on from that first example he implored us to "follow a researched path signposted in such a way as to require logical evaluation of variables in order to point out the turnings which lead to a conclusion" (TUWOF - The Finishing Post), which suggests little had changed since he first gave his equation.
Class (ability) always was the kingpin, and though few appreciate it, there is an inextricable link with consistency, in all sports let alone horseracing, something VDW covered in detail in SIAO and expanded upon in Systematic Betting. Ability ratings are a guide to class, as is consistency but, like OR's or s/f's, they won't show the true class of the horse used independently.
The signposts are there, and have remained constant for a number of years, it is only how they are viewed that changes.

Johnd

I won't bore you by listing the different methods VDW gave so I will just say this. Anyone who has done the research will know that consistent form and class, in the shape of ability ratings, have no bearing whatsoever in the selection process of his handicap hurdle method.
When you boil it all down there is no real method as such. All he is doing is narrowing his field of vision to areas where he knows he will find the types of horses he is seeking to back.
To be honest, I am being a bit unfair to VDW in dissecting his formula but I am only doing so as a means to an end. After all, VDW did say he only gave his formula for those who were looking for something in the way of rules. But it is this actual succumbing to the whim of the readers where VDW was doing the most harm. What he is doing is going against the number one principle he was trying to teach, temperament. He is unwittingly bumping into those signposts that you spoke of, in such a way, that they don't quite point in the direction they are supposed too.

[quote]P.S. Walter - sorry about leaving you "hanging out to dry". I wouldn't have though of it if you hadn't pointed it out, but as you have, I'd be mad to post there again!! Pleased you and your son liked the game. It really is a good, educational, fun game.

Cheers.

BlackCat

That`s how i get repaid for showing a fellow human being a bit of compassion hung out to dry again, you complete and utter shower!.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfT7p6kBE0

Av been alfied!.

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:
Rab

Don't buy their bullshit!
What Jib probably meant to say was that Fulham recently managed to get 4 winners from 5 short-priced selections, which is totally different from what he would have us believe.
Ask him why he never mentioned Lee?

So where is your 80% then Johnd, maybe it will start with New Approach , is'nt exactly a big price though

Re New Approach,

On all the criteria I know and use i'd make this race a shortlist of

NA
IK
RP.

BUT, that's not the way the boat floats, so

small place:win ( 80:20) bets on
Henry
Perfect
Stimulation

for me.

Ravens Pass each way for me (9/2 with SkyBet).