Jib
I think with you we have a child locked in a man's body.You are the one who chases certain individuals from forum to forum even creating stupid charachters.i gave an opinion before the off and said i wasn't prepared to play.As for the other point,You are like lightning when a supposed consistent horse goes down so don't give me grief about giving an opinion after the race that is based on fact that you either through blindness or sheer stupidity cannot see.I congratulate Ectoo on his 1 and 2000 guinneas success,And also his new found status as the vdw guru,I will carry on in my own sweet way happy enough with my take on vdw's methods and with the knowledge that it will be a good flat season for me,This year and many more to come.

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

Investor

My methods are far far removed from VDW. It's no use associating the fact I got those winners with VDW..you like attaching VDW to anything that shows any remote success..when VDW doesn't even figure.

"i gave an opinion before the off and said i wasn't prepared to play"

Investor,

Can you please copy and paste your pre-race view of the 245Nmkt?

Jib
Fair comment,Then would you paste your comments r.e consistent horses not winning when both the winner of the 1000 and 2000 were both "consistent Form horses" as was the winner of the race you mentioned.

Ectoo
Again well done with your 2 winners,But i don't see the point of putting them on a thrad that is dedicated to vdw's methods if you feel they show no resemblance or they weren't found via his methods.Is it just a case that you want to show you can find winners.There are plenty of other threads on this forum,But what i am concerned with is vdw's methods and not (with all due respect) Ectoo's methods.As it happens somebody who i have a great deal of respect for on a vdw basis made a book that included Footsteps,So maybe you weren't that far away from vdw but don't yet realise it.

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

I see that you have got round the "it was a VDW" selection bit by inventing people "you know" who made it a VDW selection.

You clearly didn't make it one nor did Mtoto..SO IT F ING WASN'T ONE.

I won't post any more selections up Investor, just to keep you happy

i think you will find that the 1000 + 2000 contained many "consistent" horses

MOST HAD 4 LEGS AS WELL

both observations have the same relevance in helping find the winner

Investor,

You are retarded.

There were a total of 40 runners in the two Guineas, only 5 of them could be considered not to be consistent.

Instead of trying to talk horseracing go out and buy yourself some St Michaels' knickers at M and S. You might find a pair that matches your facial hair.

quotes that equal saying a race full of consistent horses "gave a winner with consistent form"

1. The winner had a name..proving that horses with A name DO win races.

2. The winner had a jockey on..proving that having a jockey on WINS races.

3. The winner started at the same time as the others..horses starting at the same time WIN races

4. The horse had a saddle on..horses with saddles on DO win races.

5. The jockey wore colours..jockeys wearing colours DO win races

6. THE F ER HAD 4 LEGS..HORSES WITH 4 LEGS DO WIN RACES

Have to agree with your six positive factors, Ectoo ( don't know which pamphlet you gleaned them from), BUT,

I notice you haven't put up anything about the

WINPRIZEMONEY/ NUMBER OF WINS

or, anything about " not expecting a horse to do what it hasn't done before."

I hope it won't be too long before Investor/KS gets back from the Clubhouse and puts us right.

His Saturday night specials have become one of the main events of the week for a sad old git like me who is not allowed to drink anymore.

Just to make sure he's in good humour, I'll mention the £7K again. I know he likes that.

Here's something else to amuse him:

When I used to drink, I was one of those blokes who'd rather spend £15000 a year on drink and have to take a cab, whereas my mate preferred to spend £2 on drink,
and then bought a nice, new car.

FOOOOL, wasn't I?


I should have spent it on the horses.

Any thoughts anyone as to why the Winprizemoney/number of wins did so badly in the Guineas?

I still think i was correct in saying that it's too early in the season for VDW to be used.

The Irish horses seem well ahead of some of the UK ones.
No wonder VDW went on holiday at this time of year ( April).

Ive seen it said that at this time of year, you should follow the trainers, as only the top ones have the ability/money etc to start the preparation early enough to have the horse ready.

Maybe this echo's seanruas comments

Jib
It is you who is retarded,I have mentioned that consistent form and the consistency rating are not the same.But again you come back with some stupid statement that suggests that are horse has to be a "consistent form" horse if it has figures off e.g 112.This is not the case.After all this time and you still class the consistency rating as form.Talking of hair there is a certain haircut that is called a brazillian,I would advise you to stop talking like the area this particular hairdo is Situated.

JIB

Are you "Waxing Lyrical" ?

quote:

consistent form and the consistency rating are not the same

Investor

Where does VDW say that?

Consistent horses win races and to illustrate I will give some examples which show percentage wins next time out from various form combinations . . . '' 111 33%, 121 32%, 131 29%, 141 26%, 122 30%, 313 24%, 214 24%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
' The figures show beyond reasonable doubt that consistent form does have
an important part to play

111 = 33%

LMFAO

he forgets to mention that most favourites have sexy figures and it is in fact that reason that makes the strike rates.

sexy form figures = poor value + no profit

no use to man nor beast.

you would be better off just backing EVERY maiden fav and enjoy lots and lots of winners..far more than VDW could ever throw up

no profit though..but plenty of winners

Ectoo,

Two things. I don't have RSB, but I have seen figures that show 111 = 333.64%. These figures are based on NH racing over a fair period of time, eight years I think. I didn't note over what period that was, but it was fairly recent. I accept you may not think it is winner finding stat but even you must admit it does show ignoing these horses would be stupid. One of your main gripes seems to be these horse are over backed, but didn't the two Guineas races show this isn't always the case? Your other gripe is many of these horses are found in the same race, doesn't the fact that the stat still holds up, again prove it is a fact that should be believed?

The other thing is what does LMFAO mean?

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Supposing your 111 horse does indeed have a 33% chance of winning, I see you vdwers claim if there are 3 of them in the race then there is a 99% chance of one of them winning it.

What happens if there four 111 horses in the race? (132% chance of winning )

Or if there is 6 of them does that mean that one of them will also win the next race on the card?

The % idea is a complete myth. A 111 horses' chance of winning is mostly dictated by the quality and fitness of the opposition it has to face compared to itself.

In simple plain english the form figs have nothing to do with it.

make your mind up Mtoto is it jumps or is it Flat??..the flat isn't close to that..the jumps is..but I can't split these to show just one 111 horse per race

These are for FLAT "111" horses since 1986

644/2556 = 25.2% = LSP -164 = ROI -6%

These are for JUMPS since 1991

858/2622 = 32.72% = LSP -234 = ROI -9%

Before you get carried away.. more of the NH ones are in the same races compared to the flat due to the maiden races having no last time winners..which means they should be winning 66% of the time. ..well above 40% anyway.

I can't think of a way of recording it using RSB so that we only get 1 X 111 horse in one race.

The above figures will NOT be just 1 x 111 in each race so to be fair both sets should be higher if VDW states that 2 x 111 horses should win 66% of the time.

That bit is a nonsense of course as John has already mentioned.