I understand that Investor

BUT

you have to admit that those figures show clearly that horses with sexy form positions are OVERBET and not profitable.

There is actually a real lesson to be learned looking at those figures. It is clear that the market is ALL powerful..we know that for a fact. It can decide that a horse with 666 form will win more often than a 111 form..thats quite powerful.

If the market IS that powerful then we should be using it to help us to make a profit..and profit is what we all should be after.

A horse's price and how it runs against that price is the area that should be interesting to people who want profit.

Ectoo
Horses can have inconsistent ratings of that i agree,But with vdw's methods we are looking at top class races.I.e the top 2 from the principal meeting and the top race from other meetings.That is the area that vdw told us to look.I would like to give you some RECENT races of the highest quality and lets see how the ratings hold up.But it must always be remembered that it is class and form that will point us towards those that should be supported.

cheltenham festival

kelami f43
Hardy Eustace 331
Contraband 213
No refuge 121
Trabolgan 122
Moscow flyer 111
Thisthatandtother 222
KingHarald 212
Inglis drever 211
Penzance 111
Moulin Riche 162
Kicking King 211

I think that shows quite comprehensively that the cons ratings do work,But it is not those figures alone that will win a horse a race it is a balance of all the factors,I know i keep saying that but it is important part of evaluating a race the way that vdw set it out.

but it doesn't show that Investor at all..we have been here before

would you like to tell me what % of horses at Cheltenham had a consistency rating average of 3 or less..I'll bet it is a large %..some of those races were FULL of 1's & 2's.

So the fact that Festival winners had good placings isn't unusual seeing as most horses running there had similar figures. Kelami had crap figures for a Cheltenham winner..surprised you put that up. What about the other consistent horses?..loads of them that ran there and came nowhere..this sort of putting winners up with 123 is pointless..you know that.

You are getting away from the figures I posted

Mtoto clearly stated that horses with poor last 3 placings would do worse than those with very good LTO placings on the 7/4 analysis...those figures blow the consistency being important idea out of the water..ODDS are what are more important than any other criteria.

I think if you look at those figures there is an important message for anyone giving them some thought..time far better spent than counting £'s and places on horses.

Ectoo
Please read and understand what i have said,IT IS THE STUDY OF FORM that will tell if a particular horse is worthy of support,Vdw himself said that he only backed 20% of those he thought would win.I agree there are many high calss races where there are horses with low cons ratings that finished well down the field,But why does this happen.A close study of all concerned will give you the answer.

You said that Kelami had crap figures,But was the FORM crap going into the race,i suggest you take a good look and hopefully you will come to the conclusion the although the firgures were crap the horse wasn't.Like i have said it is all a balancing act,And when the relevant factors fall into place the horse is seldom beaten,That is what vdw said,And on present evidence i have no reason to doubt him.

Investor: in short consistency ratings are unimportant, why then does VDW methodology insist on using them?

Epiglotis
If a majority of you had the literature and read it you would see that ALL ratings are a guide in determining one performance against another.Just because Moscow flyer has cons ratings of 111.it doesn't mean to say i'm going to go running down the bookies to back it.it is a culmination of factors that vdw gave us that will show wther the horse is worthy of being backed.This is what most don't understand.i agree that many horses with low consistency ratings get turned over,But if they have the cons ratings and everything else in there favour then on a majority of occasions they will be hard to beat.

So in conclusion.Ratings are just a guide,It is class and form that will sort the wheat from the chaff.

ok Investor

i can see you obsessed with the one incident area.

you have missed the point of those stats I posted completely

I think facts based on hundreds of races clearly show that horses win races no matter what their 3 previous runs have been and they clearly show that CONSISTENT horses are overbet so you cannot make a profit unless you eliminate ALL the losers and just back the winners. It's no use posting horses here there and everywhere that win with 111..thats a statistical/argument of nonsense. I can post any number of isolated incidents to try and prove some argument..totally pointless and it shows it is you that lacks understanding.

Did you post Kelami on the other board before the race? Because if you didn't it shows again that your method has little value before a race..any method can look great after a race.

You fail to understand this most basic element but keep insisting others don't understand????

I'll stick to reality Investor..in my world I can't rely on a methodology that only gives me winners after they have won.

When you can show how to win backing CONSISTENT VALUE horses I'll be very impressed.

No one has ever shown they can do that using rocket science,VDW or black magic.

I think you will find that most 7/4 fav's with 111 form are generally the best horse in the race on that day Investor...but only viewed before the race..that is why they are 7/4 fav.

Do you understand those 7/4 figures

Do you think a horse is 7/4 with 111 after it's name if it has won a string of sellers and is now running in a lot better race..you being silly.

Not enough 111 7/4 horses win Investor..FACT..they don't make a profit..so you are wasting time studying that area..it is NON profitable..don't you want to win?????

Ectoo
I'm not concerned about your figures or statistics.I have spent enough time looking at vdw's selections and have formed a picture and contrary to what you believe it is profitable,If you know where to look and what horses are worthy of support.You have no substance in your argument because you haven't studied the examples that vdw gave.So basically your argument is unfounded and worthless.Study the examples and then present an argument,Because from where i'm sitting it is you who doesn't understand.You may understand about racing but not vdw.Consistent horses win races and always will do provided they have the class and form to go with it.

of course they WIN races Investor..I have shown they do with the 7/4 stats but they make a LOSS..can you not see that??? The NON consistent CLASS horses make a PROFIT..so you are wasting your future time studying that area.

you may as well just bet every favourite..you will end up with the same amount of money and save all the time studying.

IF you had posted before races and made a profit from the consistent horses on the other board I might believe you have an edge studying VDW..but you don't have an EDGE..so you will lose money backing consistent class horse same as you would backing every fav.

Each day it would be more profitable betting ALL favourites with the last 3 form figures of 6 or worse than bothering studying VDW..thats fact mate.

Shall we start a thread posting favourites that start at less than 2/1 with 666 or worse form and see if they are better than those you select..just blind backing them..no study..then we will see who understands.

Ectoo: it's an interesting point and critical for VDW theory. There is no general theory of horse selection, be it VDW or anything else, that can tell us before hand which horse will win for every race. As far as anything can be said it's that favourites win more than any other market position, so the means that define favouritism are the best "methodology" available, yet favourites only win one in three races. It seems to me that one can deal with this problem in two different ways, either by trying to find reliable, "genuine" favourites or by considering the myths that move the market to find under-bet opportunities. As you have pointed out, recent placings figures are one such myth.

Ectoo
Like i have said i am not interested in your statistics and i would venture to add that there are many good thingd from a vdw perspective at much bigger prices than you envisage.All i am interested in is swapping thoughtds with like minded people,That doesn't mean to say that i don't back anything and many of them are higher than 7/4.You talk of backing horses with form figures of 666 (bad numbers) Why not look at the 2/3 highest penalty value races from the principal meeting and the highest from all the others and see how many off them are won by consistent horses,That doesn't just mean the rating that includes consistent form but you wouldn't know what that is.

no I don't understand form like you do

as you do understand it, then I would expect your selections to win money..looking at what you posted on the other board it doesn't seem that "understanding form" is worth much.

like I say, if you had proven that you can "find" the ones that win and eliminate those that lose I might think you know what you are talking about.

leave you with it ..you don't understand the relevance of most points anyone makes..the blinkers are spoiling your future learning abilities..you'll still be picking bad value consistent horses in 20 years time..your choice.

Let's give it a go shall we? I've grouped all today's favourites that quaify over their latest three runs into two, A) no figure greater than 3 and B) no figure less than 4.
Group A)
Folkestone
4:15 Precious Mystery
4:45 Saraba
Brighton
7:35 Grand View
Southwell
2:30 Annakita
3:30 Ticki Tori
4:30 Polar Magic
Group B)
Folkestone
2:45 Speed Dial Harry
Brighton
5:35 Rathmullan
6:35 Mr Whizz

cheers Epi

It won't convince Investor if you post these for a 100 years, he'd still rather pick one horse with 111 from the past to show his "logic".


I conclude that VDWers are hobbyists/anoraks with no interest in profit..they just like to look at past winners and have little scope for developing their future skills.

Some people are like that, there are blokes in my local bookies who are doing now what they did 20 years ago..backing poor value consistent favourites..then they nip down the club for a pint..same routine..no ability to ever develop..set in their ways.

What is so sad now is that people have a superb way of developing with the net but prefer to model a winner in 6 months time on the 1974 schweppes or Sweeps Hurdle winner..very strange behaviour..it's a free country though..but what a waste.

Ectoo,

The trouble with your figures is they are based on only one factor, the form figure. Just because a horse has won it's last 3 doesn't prove it should be the 7/4 favourite. While the horse that has been unplaced in it's last 3 may well deserve to be.

I do agree backing horse is all about looking for value, I don't agree that looking for consistent horses always means you will not find it. As you say many systems and or mug punters rush in and over back the consistent horses making them useless for making a profit. By the same token many consistent horses are left to run well over priced. There is a simple answer DON'T back the under priced horses let them run. Form figures are only one of many reasons horses are over backed, trainer's and jockey's are another. I maybe a little arrogant but I don't take much notice of the market. I don't think the average punter knows more than me, so why worry what he thinks. If/when I back a horse I usually think it is over priced, to my mind it SHOULD be 1st, or 2nd favourite at worst. To be honest all this talk about 7/4 favourites is a little strange to me. In 7 years you could count on one hand the bets I have had at those prices, and NONE were because the horse was the favourite. I'm looking for two winning bets a week preferably around the 4/1 mark or better. Some weeks there is no bet, some days there can be 2/3.

You are making too much of one element of the VDW methods. Why not spend a little time on a really important one. Temperament!!

Be Lucky

Mtoto

you are back peddling and moving away from this area.

you said that the last 3 placings would see the 111 horse win more times than the 666 horse..no they don't..they win less and make less profit..now because of that you are trying to move away from it.

VDWers are ALWAYS going on about CONSISTENCY..those figures show it isn't important.

the 7/4 has nothing to do with anything you back..I used that as a constant..I'm sure you must be able to grasp this ..I know Investor never will.

VDW made a MASSIVE play of consistent horses being better than inconsistent horses..well they aren't if you wnat to make money..those figures clearly show that.

The real shame is that neither you nor Investor can see the real potential those figures point at..you will need to think outside the box on this.

You will learn more comparing a horse against it's market chance than a bucketful of this OLD, INACCURATE vdw stuff.

That VDW board is like looking at 30 year ago punters..no development..just a hobby with no profit.

I have no problem with that..but unless someone proves they can make money from the hobby then all this talk of having "special" insight using this hobby isn't going to cut much mustard with people that like a profit. VDW = hobby with no profit..prove me wrong..Investor..Mtoto..I don't think you can..thats why no one wants to put any selections up on here..until they have won.

Do you not think people might take it more seriously if VDW wasn't worse than using a pin for making money?

EPI

SPEED DIAL HARRY..the INCONSISTENT fav wins EASY..nowt to do with his form figures otherwise it would have finished last according to VDWERS

the first 2 CONSISTENT fav's lose

on your logic Investor..one swallow makes a summer..that proves consistency has nothing to with winning and making a profit

I would expect the lowest to win more often. But again these figures would have to be backed up with something more than the bare finishing position to be of any use to VDW. The c/rating is just the starting point not the final solution. Wouldn't you agree?

Ectoo,

How has my position change? On the win front we have 69 plays 44. I accept there were more runners in the first group but there would be given the form figures. More false favourites due to the figures. I said in the first post that the figures had to be backed put to mean anything.

Consistency is just one element a horse requires to in the method it has to have other factors to back it up. I don't believe you don't/can't understand that, you can't be that mistaken. If class and form isn't enough how can bare form figures do the trick it needs a balance of all the factors.

If you want to use a constant why not use race class? Take the top 1000 races and then work you figures. Why use one that will cut out the better priced consistent horses, using one that favours the inconsistent horses proves nothing?

If you really believe backing inconsistent horse is the way to go, why should I worry? After all it's the mugs money we pick up at the end of the day. But I don't think you believe it, if you do you will still be drinking, and going down the bookies with the same people that are backing the favourite because he has those pretty form figures. Different problem, same effect, broke!

Be Lucky