The only way to make Vdw maths possibly fit is
If his calculations or stats are confined to the first 6 in the betting/betting forecast
More so when the winner actually falls in that area
Which is 80%+ of the time

mtoto,
I am afraid lmfao,means
laugh my f****** A*** off.

Sorry that it is not constructive.

VDW well what more can be said about it really.

I do feel that there is a hidden agenda to disrupt any VDW forum,why?well basically to prevent it from being splashed out into the public domain.

I would like to see the discussions going further but have realised a long time ago that this will not happen.

Lee seems to have departed,why?who knows,but reading his posts at the inception of the original forum started by Swish may give the reasons.

Nice to hear from you again, Pipedreamer!

I trust you've made better progress with this VDW stuff than several of us here.

There seems to be only about three punters using VDW on here nowadays. Boozer does seem to have a pretty good knowledge of the subject, but the three are

Investor ( in a of class his own)
Mtoto
JohnD.

The trio rarely agree, and I don't feel that the rest of us can make head nor tail of the methodology.

As far as i can see there is no way either of the Guineas winners was a VDW selection, but there have even been claims that Ectoo must have used VDW ( unwittingly, I suppose) because he managed something that VDW himself never did - he got the Guineas Double up!

All very baffling stuff.

Ectoo,

I don't have to make up my mind do I? Don't the figures show consistent horses win more often flat or NH? I keep saying you don't back them JUST because they are consistent, but with THIS method you don't back them if their not. Personally, the more consitent horse there are in a race the happier I am. Not because I can point at another race and say another consistent winner. Simply because it is easier to profile these consistent horses, and the more of them there are in a race the more chance you have of finding the best one. So don't bother on my part to try to find races with only one consistent horse.

JIB,

[ My own combined figures from the three most consistent produce - 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%. I
also stated in my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods.]

Of course I maybe reading the above statement incorrectly, but my take on it is. If the horses with the consistent form figures are rated it is more than possible to have only three most consistent horses. So you question about 4 making 132% + is meaningless. There are never more than three.

[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.]

I think in part VDW agrees with you as he has taken the trouble to rate them and not take anything at face value. Although I can't see how the bare figures can be a myth, they are unquestionably a pure and simple fact. CONSISTENT HORSES win more often than inconsistent one, Consistent horse that come out best on two ratings win more often than consistent horses taken at face value.

Be Lucky

quote:

Originally posted by boozer:
The only way to make Vdw maths possibly fit is
If his calculations or stats are confined to the first 6 in the betting/betting forecast
More so when the winner actually falls in that area
Which is 80%+ of the time

Boozer
Which mirrors, almost exactly, Lee's reply to Garstonf some time ago!
My own modest research, some of which I posted on here around the same time, also shows the figures have much more authenticity when applied to the type of races VDW advised.
However, it is easier, as some have shown, to rubbish something with spurious mathematics than it is to actually check its veracity.

Pipedreamer
I am afraid Lee, according to Gummy's recent list of members, is no longer able to access this forum, which is a great pity as he obviously knew, (latterly), a great deal more than any of the supposed cognescenti, past or present.

PD,

No one following the 'traditionalist' evaluation of vdwology is getting exciting results. My own opinion is that one of the reasons for that is that 'consistency' is not being subject to ruthless examination, and the CR is a red herring whose only contribution is to take the punters eye off the form.

As for disruption, it seems a natural consequence of aftertiming.

yes I have read Lee's stuff

you are easily sucked in JohnD

I'll have to go away again..I do like a good laugh but when the VDW cyber hugs and compliments to each other start flying I shudder.

Any chance of anyone ACTUALLY giving any VDW selections on here..because if you can't get selections..WHATS THE F ing POINT.

except for swanning around making out you some kind of vDW oracle and everyone else is a piece of shite.

maybe that is what this stuff is all about

Ectoo


As with VDW, you either believe that statement or you don't; everyone has a choice, but, entirely upon the strength of that belief will their next step be predicated.

Which may well be chucking the toys out of the pram and disagreeing with anything they don't understand themselves.

Such unerring accuracy!!!!!!

I quite like the look of Contact Dancer in the 230C. Though being a big hcp I'll just take it for a place.

Boozer,

As far as I can see you are dead right. The figures I have show an increase in the good % 's if you then ask for the first five in the betting [it maybe forecast if RSB can do that). There is then in most cases a further rise if these 5 are then subjected to two ratings. Handicaps are shown with the first 6. These already good % can rise as much as 100% from the bare form figures to the final figure. Ectoo of course could show these figures but then it would blow his (and JIB) whole argument out of the water. I have no idea exactly what these other rating are, but when you consider VDW ratings had PK as top rated and joint top his must have been pretty good. I have found no commercial ratings, split second, timeform, formcast, etc. that came up with that result.

Pipedreamer,

Hope you are keeping well.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Your on a hiding to nothing on this forum,I tried to be constructive,Ectoo pulls 2 winners out of the bag and vdw is rubbish al over again.Complete waste of time they just don't want to know,I'm off again for my sabbatical from this bollocks i wish you luck.ta ta.

Investor, et al: the purpose of this thread, instigated by Swish, was to see if VDW is a useful tool. It is neither limited nor dedicated to the precepts of the VDW literature, it's an ongoing investigative process and as far as VDW cliches fall short, the active membership of the thread will discard them. VDW has been demonstrated to be nonsense, over and over a****inggain, as this thread advances in it's investigation of race solubility, if you "died in the wool" VDW types cant hang with the thread, **** off, your recalcitrant anachronistics are boring and unproductive.

Van Der Wheil Ratings For Todays Chester Cup


http://www.bettingboots.org/van_der.htm

That's interesting, Gummy.

Funnily enough, though I won't be betting in this race, I found that when i looked at the old win prize money stuff, that I came up with

CONTACT DANCER.

However, I didn't think he was a VDW qualifier, bc he was out of the betting forecast top six.

Another surprise for me was that my original fancy, Dr Sharp, came nowhere on VDW methodology.

We'll see.

G,

Of the three M Johnstons runners Mana D' Argent usually needs a few runs and then wins at Ascot.

Swift Sailor -311 is a demonstration of how form figs distort things, 2nd fav at 11/2 it has only ever won one hcp, a small 6k affair at Musselburgh and only at 1m6f. Although its obviously improving it would be a remarkable achievement to win this today.

I liked Contact Dancer because it won a big Nmkt long dist Hcp last back end. M Js horses are in good shape and with at least three (?) of these classy long dist types this year hes going to have to get a few prizes shared amongst them.

Contact Dancer is one of only two Saddlers Wells progeny in the race and is sure to love the ground.

Anak Pekan 16/1 1st

Contact Dancer 16/1 3rd

A fluke?

I will do some more ratings during the week.

877 ANAK PEKAN

beaten 17 lengths when only 8/1 in the betting
beaten 22l when 20/1
beaten 13 lengths when 7/1 in the betting

this is a consistent horse the VDW way??

loads of "consistent horses in the race

221- Big Moment
511- Balyan
11-5 Coconut Beach
42-1 Dr Sharp
413- Contact Dancer
31-1 Swift Sailor

what the F did the last 3 places have anything to do with the winner winning..is my question

I have to admit, Ectoo, that I tend to disregard both last3 formfigs and betting rank.

However, by the same token, I have to say that on the old win prize money thing, I had Contact Dancer and Anak Pekan top of the list!

And I said, VDW would probably be no good at Chester!
Where's that fkn red-faced smiley head thing?!

but we keep being told that "consistency" is very important..Investor keeps posting them when they have won..of course as in todays race that was loaded with consistent horses..none of them winning..we won't hear a dickie bird.

you know..if these people were more for discussion than pushing silly form figures and making out they are gurus with no evidence to back it up we might make something out of all this.