do you remember talking about iris de baume jack it was in one of your races on 20th march 66/1

A fine winner that made a mockery of vdw, imo!

Way out of the hcp.
Way out of the betting.
Never done fk all remotely like this before, but

is related to Voy Por Ustedes, I believe.

Well done the connections and their 150/1 bets!

SEAN
IRIS DE BAUME WAS WITHIN 5 MOST CONSISTENT IN A LARGE FIELD

quote:

Originally posted by sean rua:
A fine winner that made a mockery of vdw, imo!

Way out of the hcp.
Way out of the betting.
Never done fk all remotely like this before, but

is related to Voy Por Ustedes, I believe.

Well done the connections and their 150/1 bets!

Sean

Ponder this!!!
Halcon Gealardais had (unquestionably) the best lto form in the race from the highest previous class race, and was amongst the most consistent and the first 5 in the betting.
However, all his best form had been at shorter and he had failed to last home on his only previous try at the distance. Had yesterday's race been at a similar distance there is little doubt (none, if you watch the replay) he would have won.
VDW never claimed his method gave the winner of every race; he did say "The class horse, given certain other factors, usually wins" which would almost certainly have been the case had he had all the factors yesterday.
We all saw the same race yesterday, some will learn and progress from it, others will be content just to mock.

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

Never mind the mocking, johnd!

If we read back through the hundreds of posts on the old forum here about vdw,

one of the FIRST PRINCIPLES given and agreed by MOST vdw-ers was

that

" 80% of winners come from the top 4, 5, 6 in the BETTING."

OK, there was disagreement about the actual figure, and I suppose this does depend a bit on size of field, BUT

this principle was put up as one of the first steps we take when " narrowing the field".

Now, in my book, we either stick to our principles or we don't. If we are going to drop the basics when backfitting known winners, then, imo, vdw, or ANY method, starts to lose its fundamental credibility.

In other words, we return to an " anything goes so long as it can be squeezed in to fit the agenda" viewpoint.
If this were what I wanted, then I wouldn't have bothered wasting decades "pondering"; instead, I'd just go down the bookies and listen to the same old shit about " I knew that one was going to win BUT...".

Good horse as this SN winner was, there is no way it fitted the major principles of vdw, imo.

If it did, why didn't any expert here put the thing up BEFORE the race?

Imo, it is far more honest to take results like this on the chin, and admit it has fk all to do with vdw.
It is more likely a "freak" result - something that will hit the best of methods/systems from time to time.

Btw, what will pondering tell us about Pipedreamer the other day? What it tells me is to

back these things "Place only", IF they're well fancied.

Just my opinion.

Les,
Wincanton 3.30 by my interpretation of the basic 'elementary mechanical procedures'. Column headings are - cloth no, £Class, ability and for confirmation RPR, Adrian Massey ratings: -

1__0__X__X__0 (Sou'wester - my rating 8 = 11/4) WON 4/1
2__0__0__X__0 (Copper Bay - my rating 4 = 6/1)
3__0__X__0__X (Count Kristo - my rating 4 = 6/1)
4__0__0__X__X (Silver Inngot - my rating 4 = 6/1)
5__0__X__X__0 (Oiseau De Nuit - my rating 6 = 4/1) 3rd 7/1
6__X__0__0__X
7__0__0__X__0
8__X__0__0__0
9__X__0__0__0
10_0__0__0__0

Although this is a G Hall 'key' type race IMO as the class/ability is not confirmed by the ratings for this platform it is a race where VDW would probably advise 'the alarm bells should be ringing', so best left alone.

However ..................if I go to the Patternform site adjust and rate the basic columns this is what it looks like in comparison:

Basic columns evaluated were - class, speed, multi, ran to - plus course, distance, probable SP and trainer form. Priced to a theoretical overround of 112%:

1 Sou'wester, rated 19 = 85/40, improver that could progress. WON 4/1
2 Copper Bay 15 = 3/1, not straightforward? King/Thornton combo
3 Count Kristo 5, Powell/Jones combo
4 Silver Ingott 6
5 Oiseau De Nuit 7, Hobbs/O'Brien combo. 3rd 7/1
6 Mango Catcher 11 = 5/1, on a reasonable mark. 2nd 5/1
7 Ronald Jack 0
8 Urban Tiger 3
9 Irish Stream 8 = 15/2, doubts about general health and fitness?
10 Charming Oscar 0

I suppose a few might be interested in the above, in fact I may be that few thinking about it . Anyway IMO speed will probably be the critical factor on this galloping track over 2 miles.

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

your doing a grand job jack,give a man a fish and he can eat today,give a man a fishing rod he can eat for ever

Well done again Jack.

well done jack

quote:

Originally posted by les henderson:
your doing a grand job jack,give a man a fish and he can eat today,give a man a fishing rod he can eat for ever

Les - have you ever been in a "Private Syndicate"?

I sometimes wonder why folk bother with vdw, when Jack's methods work so much better.

Well done again, Jack!

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:
Vincent

You may not think you have 'slagged off', but "the only truth he gave was hard work" does VDW no justice at all and, despite your extensive library, you have failed to mention a single publication that gives one item of the 4 very specific details VDW gave us that I set out in my post to you. You claim VDW is a plagiarist, yet have no evidence of where he plagiarised from???
Whatever or whoever VDW was/is, there is no doubt in my mind that he knew/told more about reading form than anyone else I have read or communicated with. I wouldn't disagree that it is simple, neither did VDW.
Having had some communication with the unfortunate JB, all I can say is that he was just another in a long line who purported to know all about the method then found they didn't. Others have been more fortunate and still make money from his wisdom, why else would they maintain an interest, 30 years on?
You obviously think that it's all about collateral form, and make a few cryptic remarks from the sidelines as justification, I don't, and give long and detailed reasons why. Maybe you think that your way is good for the forum, maybe I don't.
Nothing personal at all, but how many posters do you think we've had on here over the years who have tried to appear enigmatic, and given very little at the end of the day? Dozens would be understating it.
I hope you don't leave the forum as I'm sure you could add something useful but, please, spare us the smoke and mirrors stuff.

Sean

Bit early in the season yet, so no bet at Newmarket tomorrow, though BERBICE came close in the Free Handicap

HELLO JD

Mr voegle's publication will give you most of VDW. Statist and Devonian will give you the rest.

I do not give smoke and mirrors, truth is my currency, so dream on with the rest, how big do you require your plate to be?

Has VDW looked in/ - and Check your Mirrors. Not long now and I will be gone, you may then live in peace to search what is available.

THANK YOU

VINCENT


PS I find your cheap shot at JB a little perturbing and that relates to my above question pertaining to VDW.

Vincent

You sound like I imagine VDW would
If he were on here

Talking down to people with these silly work it out for yourself phrases you keep coming out with

Regarding JB
Your hero worship of same is shall we say slightly out of touch with the character I knew.

"and Check your Mirrors. Not long now and I will be gone, you may then live in peace to search what is available"

Vincent you are an ego maniac/drama queen

Thank you

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

vincent

I have read voegels book and found it very interesting,who are the other two you refer to.

I remember fondly Kartajana winning the sun chariot for stoute in 1990,also the likes of Colosus, sharpalto deprecator and others from around the early 1990's who all won when the time was right.

hi pipedreamer, vincent, paul major, author, of horse sense, on the same lines as the american book..

quote:

Originally posted by sean rua:
Never mind the mocking, johnd!

If we read back through the hundreds of posts on the old forum here about vdw,

one of the FIRST PRINCIPLES given and agreed by MOST vdw-ers was

that

" 80% of winners come from the top 4, 5, 6 in the BETTING."

OK, there was disagreement about the actual figure, and I suppose this does depend a bit on size of field, BUT

this principle was put up as one of the first steps we take when " narrowing the field".

Now, in my book, we either stick to our principles or we don't. If we are going to drop the basics when backfitting known winners, then, imo, vdw, or ANY method, starts to lose its fundamental credibility.

In other words, we return to an " anything goes so long as it can be squeezed in to fit the agenda" viewpoint.
If this were what I wanted, then I wouldn't have bothered wasting decades "pondering"; instead, I'd just go down the bookies and listen to the same old shit about " I knew that one was going to win BUT...".

Good horse as this SN winner was, there is no way it fitted the major principles of vdw, imo.

If it did, why didn't any expert here put the thing up BEFORE the race?

Imo, it is far more honest to take results like this on the chin, and admit it has fk all to do with vdw.
It is more likely a "freak" result - something that will hit the best of methods/systems from time to time.

Btw, what will pondering tell us about Pipedreamer the other day? What it tells me is to

back these things "Place only", IF they're well fancied.

Just my opinion.

Sean

You just never learn, do you? I really don't know why you bother, as there is obviously nothing on here for you.
It is a well known fact that around 80% of winners come from the first 5 in the betting, but however you look at it, that still leaves around 20% that don't. VDW never advocated backing in every race, indeed he warned us not to bet at all if there was no clear-cut winner in the race.
Few would have selected Saturday's winner, and thoug stating the obvious, he only won because other higher class horses didn't.
Far from being after-timed, Halcon Genelardes lost because of exactly the same reasons that were widely discussed post-Aintree, and coincided exactly with what I said on here a couple of years ago about capability viz;Is the horse capable of performing to its best in todays circumstances?
You might not find it useful, others, with a different outlook, may.


Vincent
A vague reference to some even vaguer authors answers nothing - much like most of your obscure and meaningless posturing.

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

I find it interesting more than useful, johnd. For this, I'm grateful to you and all who post on here, BUT

when something has clearly not worked, i believe it's best to admit it openly, rather than backfit with after-time excuses.

To my eyes, many on vdw threads all over the 'Net just can't bring themselves to accept that this selection method has a strike rate of probably less than 17% ( my guess only - as most of the experts never put up the selections).

Now this SR would be OK if the thing wasn't orientated toward the short end of the market, but, as it is, I doubt if vdw throws up many winners at prices above 4/1.
This makes profit difficult to achieve.

The Scottish National was probably the correct vdw race of the day; it's a race that takes place but once a year. This year vdw didn't get the winner. That's all about it. I had no bet in the race myself, so cannot mock or praise with any justification.

If forced to bet, I'd have done benny place only, so would have just scraped in.
Pipedreamer the other day I did bet. My feeling here is that, often, vdw selections ( or rather my idea of them) are prone to be

* animals with old form that may be starting to decline
* animals who are not quite ready yet ( seasonwise)
* short-priced animals that are overbet.

I admit I'm only shouting from the sidelines, but as most of the players are making invisible moves, it's fkn hard to know who's kidding whom.

My guess is that it's the booklet publishers who are laughing all the way to the bank.

No doubt this debate will still be raging a century after I'm dead and gone, in just the same way that there will always be somebody eho reckons he can sell the secret of winning the lottery or beating the wheel in the casino.

Im sure A,King stated after the race that HG nearly got his ground and conditions got to dry for OB,
So imo they both run ok with conditions not exactly suiting,

JohnD

I backed OB early on in the week,Missed the 10/1 that was available due to lack of time,
Did you by any chance back OB?

Good luck

Rab

quote:

Originally posted by sean rua:
...this selection method has a strike rate of probably less than 17% ( my guess only - as most of the experts never put up the selections).

Now this SR would be OK if the thing wasn't orientated toward the short end of the market, but, as it is, I doubt if vdw throws up many winners at prices above 4/1. This makes profit difficult to achieve.

As you know, I still consider myself to be learning. Not only learning the VDW method, but learning horse-racing generally. However, I am achieving around a 50% SR with my version of "the method", my own selections, and an associates selections (who is also for VDW). They are at the short priced end - I'd say the average SP is 11/8, the biggest winner this month being 7/2 (and not strictly VDW).

The point I'm trying to make is that, imo, temperament plays the biggest part in achieving a high SR. Only backing when YOU think the green light shows can be hard. After all, you may wait 3 days (or more) for a bet to come along. That means you've done all that hard work for nothing, and therefore the temptation to "find" a bet (or bets) is naturally high. They are the ones that drag you down to 17%.

For example, I tested a selection box method in February, which probably had a 20%SR. Needless to say, I am back to strong bets only.

When reading the booklets, the thing that does surprise me is that VDW appears to play in races like the Grand National. Huge, evil fences on never-ending, testing conditions, with 40 runners falling and bringing each other down!! WHY? Madness.

I put this forward for consideration: what if the method works thoughout the race classes? (provided the race make-up is such as to reduce the risk of being brought down, trapped in behind, etc).

I put forward Mia's Boy the other evening. Perhaps not strictly VDW you may say. But what else was there in the race to beat it? That, to me, is a green light.

BC