WINDSOR 7.20


ORPENINDED AND OSIRIS WAY are the 2 to be with in this race in my opinion, does anybody thinks any different.

I'd say Diriculous looks the most likely, with Mullein the threat.

JOHND
For me Diriculous went out of the reconing because he did not fall within the 5 most consistent. However if you can excuse the 9th placing in it's penultimate race then the consistent figure would have been 7 and would have made my short list for consideration.

Mullein ,for me just has not shown enough to date .

good to see somebody awake this afternoon

Paul

You can safely ignore D's 9th of 9.

Paul

I agree with you and in particular think Osiris Way looks interesting, dropping a long way in class. Although Orpenminded has the higher ability rating, Osiris Way has the better form and looks the more likely to me.

However, both horses are lower down the ability ranking than Van der Wheil suggested and, although I accept that his reference to marking off the top four was a guideline, while I'm trying to get to grips with the method I'm playing safe and looking for ones that fall within it. So I'll be watching and not betting. Good luck if you have a bet.

Guys has anyone got an email address for Lee a member of this forum,and if so would it be possible to pass it on,Thanks in advance.

GEORGE

EL BOSQUE 68 IDLE POWER 68 IMPERIAL ECHO 68 EFISTORM 64
LITTLE EDWARD 63 ORPENINDEED 57

Do these figure's not put orpenindeed in 4th position, or do you see it in 6th position

Paul

Thanks for pointing that out, as from the tables in the March 1981 article 4th, rather than 6th, seems to be the answer.

Fortunately the one I was more interested in, properly ranked, was 6th and still below the threshold. If he'd been 4th I might have been tempted to back him.

I was surprised to see last night that Kelamon was the forecast favourite in the Post, and even more surprised that he went off favourite. No surprise, though, that he failed to win, or even make the frame, as from a Van der Wheil perspective he had absolutely nothing in his favour: not a consistent horse; not, I think, a form horse; and ranked only 7th on ability. The winner was only ranked 7th on ability, too, but at least he was a consistent horse and, I think, a form horse.

GJ

Are you Fulham, or his b*stard offspring, because you are definitely not what you'd have us believe?

quote:

Originally posted by BlackCat:
The "class in which they ran", (which can also be confirmed by "what it had behind it"), would be my odds-on favour-it.

And most on here, but that is not at all what he said?

Johnd

quote:

you are definitely not what you'd have us believe?

? (And as a matter of fact Portsmouth, so feeling disappointed since Sunday.)

vdw states that all relevant horses should be rated by 2 different methods who are relevant first 5/6 in the betting?

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:

quote:

Originally posted by BlackCat:
The "class in which they ran", (which can also be confirmed by "what it had behind it"), would be my odds-on favour-it.

And most on here, but that is not at all what he said?

"To confirm what the figures say, it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and most importantly, how they performed in the later stages of each race".


- Class in which they ran
- Course ran on
- Pace and going of the respective races
- Distances won or beaten by
- How they performed in the latter stages of each race


I am inclined to stick with my view of class as the lynchpin. Mind you, they do say "horses for courses".


Johnd - I don't understand why you keep having a pop at George. In doing so, you do yourself no credit at all.

BC

My fault for not being clear, but the part of your post I disagreed with was "what it had behind it" . Too many think that is were the answer lays, but that is normal form reading, not what VDW advised.

quote:

I don't understand why you keep having a pop at George. In doing so, you do yourself no credit at all.

Wouldn't be the first time I've been misunderstood on here, nor the first time I've cried foul, and eventually been proved correct against the consensus, either.
Why would I need credit? If it looks like fish, and smells like fish,..............................?

BlackCat,

Your posts are very good. Generally, you quote directly from the vdw written mythology.

That this is never good enough for the few who reckon they understand vdw ( if, indeed, there be more than one such)tells me that seeking a sensible answer here is a vain pursuit.

JOHNY D HAS GOT THE HUMP BECAUSE HE DONT LIKE FULHAM AND FOR SOME REASON HE THINKS GEORGE IS FULHAM BUT HE CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHY, JUST LIKE HE CAN NOT EXPLAIN VDW, BUT WHO GIVES A S**T, ANSWER NO ONE

I THINK JOHNY D GET'S MORE LIKE BUBBLES , PRO , INVESTOR EVERY TIME HE GO'ES INTO HIS LITTLE TEENAGE I HATE EVERYONE MOOD , BUT AGAIN WHO GVE'S A S**T

quote:

Originally posted by sean rua:
BlackCat,

Your posts are very good. Generally, you quote directly from the vdw written mythology.

That this is never good enough for the few who reckon they understand vdw ( if, indeed, there be more than one such)tells me that seeking a sensible answer here is a vain pursuit.

Thanks Sean.

I'm not achieving 80%. Nor even 50% at the moment. So please don't think I've got it sussed! But I am making money from using "the vdw written mythology". And that's what it's really all about, isn't it?



Cheers.

Absolutely, Blackcat.

The bottom line is the be-all and end-all in this gambling game, imo. I always felt that you, yourself, have a good grasp of the bit of vdw methodology that I think I can follow, so I'm glad you're able to use it to your advantage.
I haven't managed to make much good use, myself, of the wee bit of it I can follow, but that's by the by.

As for the attitude of one poster here, who reckons he's got it by the balls, I think Paul may have hit the nail on the head as to why we get the regular sniping at fellow posters.
The underlying reason for all this hostility among the vdw aficionados is something that I'm not party to. It must be linked somehow to the sale of the fkn booklets, I feel. Other than that, I've no idea what lies at the root of the problem with the silly fkrs.

Sean

quote:

It must be linked somehow to the sale of the fkn booklets

I've recently bought what I thought were the lot - seven in all (though it now seems there may be a booklet published last year which I haven't got), and even though one was disproportionately expensive (and seems to add very little) the total cost was south of £100. One of the booklets is by VDW himself, the others are compilations edited by Tony Peach. I doubt if anyone is making any significant money from publishing them.

If you've not read any of them, I can really recommend the first, "The Golden Years of Van der Wheil", which I bought for £12, postage included, from Browzers Books. As far as I can see, it contains virtually everything, though three of the other booklets are very helpful in developing points. (And in case anyone is suspicious, I absolutely guarantee I am not Tony Peach, or the owner of Browzers Books!)

the geoffrey freer stakes a three horse race,sixties icon,mad rush, and geordieland but who will be most suited by the distance any thoughts vdwrs my pick at this time sixties icon