Ectoo
For goodness sake i will say this for the 3rd time I DIDN'T BACK POLAR MAGIC.Instead of looking for bits to pick fault with,Read the posts properly.You can play with me as much as you like i don't really care.I proved a point today and you didn't like it so you twisted it round and brought value into it.The races that you mention wouldn't have been given a second glance using the methodology so again the points you make are useless from a vdw perspective.

CLASS C AND HIGHER

FAV'S PRICED 6/4 - 15/8 (AVERAGE 7/4)

form figures
111 = 27/92 = 29% ROI -22%

form figures
444 or worse = 23/50 = 46% = ROI +25%

so could someone tell me how backing consistent horses is profitable? -22% looks like a big loss to me.

just randomly backing those here with 444 or worse figures have made a great profit.

i wonder which we should pick to support..the consistent ones..lower strikerate..big loss

OR

the inconsistent ones..higher strike rate and PROFIT.

leave it with you

I think it's me that's proved the point Investor

you won't like what I have posted today because it shows NOT following VDW is the way to profit

it matters not the class of race..2/2 in donkey derbys today..PROFIT is what people want..VDW ain't cutting it..never has

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

Ectoo
Yes you have proved a point,That you don't understand vdw.That's fine by me,I'm happy with where i'm at thankyou very much.

MR WHIZZ

makes it 3/3 with the inconsistent fav's

I think anyone reading today can see that VDW = no before the race selections..those given will be poor value and that supporting inconsistent paper fav's looks very profitable.

I think people that read this that have got more than a few brain cells will have learned more this afternoon than you have in 3 years.

you'll never win anything with your dyed in the wool attitude Investor..you probably enjoy backing winners without making money..same as the other vdwers

your choice

Ectoo,

As VDW didn't ever play favourites, or as far as I can see placed any restraint on price. Would it be possible for your little machine to spit out the figures for the better races(after all those where the races he looked at) showing the facts for consistent horse V inconsistent? I don't know how it works but if it can be done consistent = 12 or under, Inconsistent = 13 plus. It would be helpful if it was presented in the same format as you used today, winners - Runners - profit or loss.

Be Lucky

the figures above are a LEVEL playing field Mtoto..they are for horses with the SAME market chance..they clearly show that in CLASS C and above you will lose money supporting horses with sexy from figures.

I can't really make it any clearer.

todays inconsistent fav's didn't do to badly eh?

Ectoo
Your figures are of no consequnce unless they are accompanied by form.You proved absolutelynothing against vdw methodology today.The only point you did prove is that like so many you cannot decipher the consistency rating from consistent form,There is a big difference.

Investor: I think Ectoo has, at the very least, pointed out that consistency is not important. It's fine to say the form is what matters but that doesn't explain why VDW theory also insists on consistency?

Epi
With all due respect ectoo has proved nothing,Only that the consistency figures don't work in isolation.That is of course correct.I said in an earlier post that vdw only backed 20% of horses he thought would win.So this would discount a lot of horses with good consistency figures.it is when all the factors line up with those figures that the method comes into it's own.

Ectoo,

Why do these figures show a level playing field. Are you saying all 7/4 favourites stand exactly the same chance of winning. I don't think you really believe that. The inconsistent horses haven't the fancy figures as you call them so how much of the money is clever in the know money as opposed to the mug money chasing the form figures. One thing that does stand out is how few inconsistent horses become short priced favourites, especially when you consider how many inconsistent horses there are.

As you don't want to put up the figures I asked for I can only assume they don't show what you would have us believe. No matter, you believe what you want but don't ask me to believe it. What you have shown is if you back a short priced consistent favourite because it is just, that you will loss money. I can also see if you take to opposite view and back the inconsistent horses when they are the favourite you can make money. I can see the logic in that, but would need to see what happens when they are taken out of that narrow band.

I will stick with what I know to be correct, VDW didn't take the form figures at face value. As I stated in my first post on this. Today has been interesting in as much as it may have given folk some ideas about backing short priced favourite that have no consistency. Did these horse win because they were not consistent, or because others knew they had better form? At least you have proven a VDW idea, don't back a horse just because it is consistent it MUST have the form to go with it.

Be Lucky

Investor

but you are only aware of those factors lining up after the race, hence no CLEAR selections given before races..then if they are given and said horse loses the disciples all disagree about it being a "true" selection. Strangely enough if it wins ALL the disciples agree what a perfect example it was..basically the whole methology is a con because TRUE selections don't exist in real time.

the only people making money from VDW are those selling the pamplets. the pamplets are full of discrepancies regarding strike rates of certain simplistic form positions. they also list misleading figures about the first so many in the betting win most races..when in fact they include 4/5 runner races..so it's not really surprising that the first 5 tend to win those types of races is it?

the whole thing is simplistic, outdated and I would think the only people pushing it with fervour are those selling the pamplets..such devotion is normally money driven.

anyone disagree with the above?..then show some guts and post some DEFINATE selections BEFORE a race...as the alternative is that people will think it doesn't make a profit and it is actually an embarrassment to post selections due to the fact they show horrendous losses.

any soft t*at can say they win this and win that..I don't mind that..what I can't stand is people who have latched on to this and make out they are some kind of an oracle on racing..when in fact they are at kindergarden level looking at some of the rubbish I have come across on here.

If this is so good where are the threads with winning selections??????..I can't see anyone that has posted for a year a two and shown one iota of profit. I'll say again..I don't mind that..it's the arrogance of people that can't back up what they say then rubbishing ANY different approach or an actual improvement to what they already have.

If my methodology was making a loss for 25 years as VDW does then I would be glad to try and improve it..not Investor and those like him..they can't make two beans out of VDW but make out they have some special knowledge..you don't mate..I sussed you after a day reading your posts.

If this forum had been used by people that wanted to improve it wouldn't be in the state it was in..all I have seen on here is self appointed experts passing little comments alluding to how f*cking great they are..no evidence..just many ego trips based on aftertiming.

As soon as someone wants to introduce some new way forward the old guard comes out and squashes it with arrogant comments like..thats not the VDW..I know the way..such shite, little tin gods building up an image of knowledge they haven't got.

I think this suppression of development is done purposely so that the pamplets look more like the holy grail as they get older.

I think the main agenda here is to promote the pamplets...it's got nothing to do with making money from racing thats for sure. If it isn't to promote the pamplets then there are some people addicted to it like a religion..and like those fanatics won't hear a word against their belief. Personally I'd rather be trying to promote the pamplets than thought of as mindless disciple unable to think much further forward than 1978.

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

Ectoo
i just scrolled through that post in a milli second because there is absolutely no substance whatsoever in your arguement.Mtoto
has said that other factors MUST be there to put a particular horse in front of another one.And on many many occasions using vdw's methods this is evident.It is a lack of understanding of vdw's methods that eludes you.Maybe you make racing pay and i wish you the best of luck,But from a vdw perspective you haven't got a clue and i will always be happy when your type put money in the bookies satchels for me to take it back out.God bless you mug.

you've no spine Investor, no spine.

you will know all about being a mug, take a look in the mirror the next time you bet another overbet "obvious to Bill and his mother" type.

i don't even think you bet, it's to be hoped not.

Can you get a bet on once a race is over?

If you can, put me a bet on The Minstrel, I reckon it's a cert for the 77 Derby.

put the lights out when you go

Ectoo
Stay lucky,and i wish you the best of luck.There is a very good reason why horses are not put up pre race,And that is because the factors or balance is not that difficult to spot.But to some thick t...s as you call them just can't see it.Sleep tight.And don't have nightmares.

i won't

you still make me laugh

Ectoo
The only one at kindergarten level on here is the one who throws his toys all over the place when someone won't tell him their little secret.
Did you always get what you wanted as a child by screaming abuse and throwing tantrums?
Some people never learn!!!

you know that reply you just gave JOHNd?

it just sums up what I have been saying.

believe me..i don't need anything from you..LMFAO..little secret??..lol..you really are demented..pissin mesen at that

get over yourself you sad chap.

I'd brush up on what you know before you start making out you know more than others.

deary me..still laughing at you

did you always pretend you were something you aren't when you were at school?

this site has got some right dickheads having themselves on that's for sure

still laughing at you

Investor: You say "ectoo has proved nothing,Only that the consistency figures don't work in isolation", this is actually completely incorrect. In the VDW literature the meaning of the consistency rating is clearly explained and percentage figures are given to show that horses with lower figures win more than those with higher figures. Various posters have re-checked the original figures using RSB and although not as favourable as VDW claims there is still an advantage to those figures in isolation BUT the problem for VDW is that the literature doesn't advise using them in isolation, it specifically advises that one take the lowest (consistency) rated horses from the head of the market and it is this specific combination of factors that have been examined by this experiment. At the very least it's another example of the sloppiness of VDW assertions.

Yesterday's experiment was interesting, amusing and cast light on VDW thinking so I thought it might be fun to do one today on another aspect of VDW. The literature recommends the use of two ratings, one for speed and one "handicap" rating, further one is advised not to select outside the top rated three. For today's experiment I have included in group A) all favourites that are within the top three as rated by both PM and TS, for group B) I have included all favourites that are outside the top three in both. I have not considered races with less than six rated runners.
Group A)
Catterick
4:20 Tartatartufata
Epsom
4:40 Anuvasteel
Perth
3:00 Topanberry
3:30 Jazz D'Estruval
5:05 Getinbybutonlyjust
Worcester
5:30 Miss Academy
7:00 Jaunty Times
7:30 Bobsbest
Group B)
Catterick
4:50 Ticero
5:20 Mynd
Lingfield
5:15 Pagan Sword
5:45 Boden Bay
7:15 Montosari
7:45 Adantino
Worcester
5:00 Bee Hawk
6:30 Hamadeenah