Well done you guys.

I wonder if VDW ever gave the winner and the distance it wins by before the race..I bet someone comes up with an occasion

ectoo,

Spot on prediction, congratulations.

carlos

Any more tricks EC lol tonights lotto numbers could be handy,

Well done

Some interesting elimination pointers there. Well done to those who singled Motivator but a particular well done to Ectoo on his success in the classics this year. Mighty impressive.

ah well, thanks lads

makes up for yesteday a ltiile bit anyway.

I might as well go and get a lottery ticket I think

ectoo-

you simply "Dug Up" a Bloody " Crystal Ball" -
Didn't you !!!

Well done Ectoo.



Did your lottery ticket do any good?

no

van der wheil, mentioned about differant methods only giving few bets during season do you think this could be based on high value races not just the main race card...ie the derby??

Hope springs eternal

Well as it doesnt work as it should with the days racing I suppose one way out of the hole is to reduce the number of races to apply it to.

JIB,

Who says it doesn't work??

Grundy,

It seems that VDW had various "methods", for instance the one based on the SC selection box. I'd imagine the Derby would have been asessed using the "class/form" approach. Class is usually strong in this race and it often throws up a good bet, particularly if you strike an ante post wager or two. The material he wrote on assessing 2yo performances with regard to middle distance 3yos usually holds you in good stead here.

Not really answered your question, the truth is I can't claim to have a definitive answer.

Regards

Carlos

P.S. Apologies, lots of edits tonight, too much Guinness.

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

C,

I say it doesnt work.

Prove me wrong.

The principal meeting tomorrow is Newbury and the most valuable race the 800pm. Corcoran is top on ability and consistancy and coming from a more valuable race lto where the ratings show improved form. You wont see many more straightforward selections.

Give my regards to the crowd in Monte Carlo!

JIB,

Coracon is also a filly and has failed to win at this distance. Coracon LTO is probably the best form on offer in the race, I wouldn't touch this at 6-4 with your money.

I'm not claiming to be a professional, never been to Monte Carlo. I live in Yorkshire, Ponte-Carlo is nearer the mark. As I said before, I'll post up what I consider to be good VDW bets for a while and we'll see. I'm not going to claim a supernatural strike rate but it'll be healthy and profitable (that's it, I've probably cursed myself .

Good Luck

Carl

P.S. I take it from your posts you live in/near the rain forest, now that is lucky. If I made enough to give up the day job, f**k Monte Carlo, I'd far rather live somewhere like that.

There are various possibilities with VDW, at least:
A) it doesn't work
B) it works but is so difficult to understand that only a handfull have managed it
C) it works but selects horses that could equally well be selected by other means
D) it works, isn't too difficult and finds winners that would otherwise be overlooked
If any of cases A, B or C apply then one might as well forget about it, so we only need consider case D. As VDW has been around for something like 30 years and has been studied by thousands, if case D applies we can expect that a significant number of VDW followers will back these otherwise obscure winners, and this will be reflected in a shortening of the price. The claim is an 80% strike rate in 20% of the races considered, to test the likelihood of case D I will review all the recommended races from June 1 to August 31. If there is no significant shortening in the price of non-favourite winners in 10-15% of these races I will feel justified in stating that VDW is bunkum.

JIB,

I suppose what I'm saying is if you want me to have a crack at proving it at least let me pick the horses.

Epiglotis,

Reading through some of your posts and they're generally interesting/thought provoking. Fail to see how you write off any but hypothesis A here, if that's true I agree, forget it. For myself I've found the VDW booklets really sorted out my betting. I can't say I really care who wrote them and I'd freely admit that some of what is written is bunkum (33% + 33% + 33% = I DON'T UNDERSTAND PROBABILITIES, yet other articles suggest a much better understanding??). I sometimes even wonder if it was all written by a single individual.

Having said all of that this is a VDW thread and I for one think it's a shame that there seems to be a "baby and bathwater" mentality here. Like a lot of the posters on here I do find the "cryptic club" do my head in and, for the most part, say little that could be considered helpful. I'd just like to see some constructive debate on the subject rather than an endless "it doesn't work" / "yes it does but I'm not telling how" debate.

Regards

Carlos

Carlos: I agree that there may be parts of the theory worth adopting, the purpose of my present investigation is to answer the question of the worth of the total package. VDW has been under discussion at Gummy's for three and a half years with no indication that any member has radically improved their performance through it's influence. It would be nice to decide clearly what one can hope to gain from any further discussion.

Epiglotis,

I'd say that I do apply pretty much a "whole VDW package". Nearly all my thinking on racing is VDW based. When I first came across the material I hadn't been backing horses long, but I was loosing money which I no longer do. I can't PROVE that VDW turned around my betting, even if I post profitable selections it doesn't prove that it's not just experience gained on my part.

I think there is value to be gained in discussion, I've joined this forum to learn from / share with others. While I try to get some constructive debate started I'll also post selections, but here's the rub. Given I'm not a frequent backer many will dismiss my approach as dull, but I'm confident I can show that a decent profit can be made.

I look forward to constructive debate.

Regards

Carlos

quote:

Originally posted by epiglotis:
There are various possibilities with VDW, at least:
A) it doesn't work
B) it works but is so difficult to understand that only a handfull have managed it
C) it works but selects horses that could equally well be selected by other means
D) it works, isn't too difficult and finds winners that would otherwise be overlooked
If any of cases A, B or C apply then one might as well forget about it, so we only need consider case D. As VDW has been around for something like 30 years and has been studied by thousands, if case D applies we can expect that a significant number of VDW followers will back these otherwise obscure winners, and this will be reflected in a shortening of the price. The claim is an 80% strike rate in 20% of the races considered, to test the likelihood of case D I will review all the recommended races from June 1 to August 31. If there is no significant shortening in the price of non-favourite winners in 10-15% of these races I will feel justified in stating that VDW is bunkum.

Epiglotis,
I find your position on this a little difficult to understand.

You say if A, B or C apply we might as well forget about it. If A applies and it doesn't work then I agree but if B applies and it works but has only been mastered by a handful of people then why not take the positive view and aim to join those handful? If C applies and it works but the selections could be found by other methods why does this mean we should forget about it? Are you saying the VDW methods can only be any good if none of the selections can be found by any other methods?

Finally, how do you hope to prove your hypothesis about shortening prices, do you have access to the early prices or exchange prices for this period? The exchanges now set the opening shows for the course so if a horse had shortened from 8/1 to 3/1 throughout the day it would probably only open 3/1 on course and probably wouldn't shorten much.

Bunkum

I have identified 13 principles from the booklets, which I have outlined on here on at least two occasions. I took these principles and set them out into a 'system' which I tested on the "Flash in the Pan" thread for five months (95% posted pre-race).

The system's summary:
Bets 38, Wins 20, SR 53%, Longest losing run 3
Prices were on the short side. I'd guess about 11/8

Now the point of me writing is this. My results were not good (i.e. losses) until I stuck to betting horses that fitted these principles. Some will also know that I experimented with a VDW-style staking plan on RSUK, using selections that had most of the principles present in their form. Again, although not spectacular, it produced a profit. The net results of this were that 2004 was my first profitable year – thanks to the principles contained in the booklets.

I am quite willing to admit that these "Flash" selections were not ˜true' VDW selections, as some would see it. Pro-VDW will say that many of them fall down in one very obvious area (race type) and there are other aspects that may take some of them out of the ˜pure' VDW theory too. Anti-VDW can say that the prices were too short, they were favourites that their auntie could have picked, etc etc. But the point is that the principles and overall guiding theme (Temperament) turned a loser into a winner. Not a big winner. But a winner.

I would agree with Epi that the books in themselves don't spell it all out. Even the ˜spells it all out' article doesn't (imo). Mr. Van der Wheil didn't give us everything. So I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a VDW selection (unless either he, himself is still betting. Or he gave the secrets away to his favourite nephew!)

I would disagree with Epi on his definition at point D. I don't think that the VDW method is looking for horses that have been overlooked at all. Doesn't he say to stay in the first 5/6 of the betting forecast; the further you stray away from the favourite the lower your chances; look for consistent horses (horses with 111 by their names will not be overlooked). I think the VDW method is saying look for fancied horses where, in your opinion, ALL the form lines up in relation to the competing field.

Work is all-consuming at the moment. So I will not be playing for quite a while. But I will be looking in.

Good luck everyone.

BlackCat