Great post Chaz, !!
I can see by reading it you do know your stuff and have learnt a lot about VDW.
I have to concur with Chaz & Fulham, that I feel there is an underlying theme to all his methods including the Roushayd example, a lot of people refer to this method as completely different as it is all about drop in class and SF's and this is why VDW remarked "It would seem that the object of the exercise was lost, which is a pity and a waste of my efforts - because had it been understood it would have carried readers a long way". While I think as Chaz has said he was just setting it all out a bit differently in the Roushayd example, I also feel there were a lot of horses that were mentioned that were not really taken notice of. I do not at all profess to know all the in and outs of the Roushayd method as I'm sure the likes of Guest is the better person to comment.
Chaz like's to think of his methods as to the arms and legs of the human with one heart, I like to think of them as one main method with just different templates that fit in with his various methods.
Cheers Mimas.

hello all..i also feel the roushard example very illuminating, also what happened along the way,with the likes of MERCE CUNNIGHAM and BILLET vdw gave us a framework,and every framework has a base from which it,s built,i believe all the horse mentioned as likely winners had that base.and it will follow them through there careers,remember he appraised all horses (flat) from 2yr old when all factors come together they are a powerful combination,if anybody cares to check out FEET SO FAST,MILLENARY, PRIORS LODGE,IMPERIAL DANCER they may see something,i certainly have,and have no doubt in my mind that these methods work,but obviously the form books are needed to go deeper

the base of the framework,mentioned in my last post UMISTIM had and may well have been a good thing,but without form books,i could,nt check out MASTERFUL so another passes by..

since saturday morning there has been no mention of any current races or horses.at which time i intimated that islington would reverse places with quater moon, and that border subject would be unlikely to win.before the races.

This would have been the ideal time to so called discuss the relative merits or not of the said horses.but no, no one want's to see there arse.on a relativly(LOL) public forum.

since then there is the same content as last year round and round and round.

With this in mind i would offer a race for consideration(to anyone without any of vdw's very important instruction book's).

the 720s.

if you dont have the books you must have picked up on both the method's of producing the class and form horse if this was carefully applied the scotts view would have looked a good thing, some would say even at 1/2.To take this simplistic a view would ensure that the absolutely bleedin obvious good thing that won at 10/1 was missed.

i had my biggest bet of the year on this horse £900 on the nose and it won as expected (i managed to get 20/1 on the exchanges). if you had even tried to unravell a few of the 43 factors (i have found a few more since) then you would realise that i have told all the answers to this suberb method of vdw's.

Barney,
I havn`t been anywhere.
I`ve been reading every thread ,but i havn`t
felt that i`ve had anything to contribute.



Maggsy

Barney.

I would like to be able to congratulate you on finding 10/1 + vdw winner. However could you explain to me how this horse qualifies for that accolade, which of vdw methods did you use?

You talk about 45 factors you use, I can't find even one of them explained in any detail. This horse does have two of the factors I have talked about, that you said were rubbish. An OR within 10 points ot the top and a s/f gained in this class or better. I do except the favourite was a silly bet, and I wasn't happy to back it at the price on Saturday. With your winner, I can see 2/3 other reasons why it COULD run a fair race today. I would have thought the weight would have put a lot of people off, but for me that would not have been a negative. The mere fact it finish last in it's last race makes it hard for the horse to be in form. The right handed track would have been a help, but the last run was on a similar course, and all but 1 win have been on easy r/handed tracks.

If you have 45 + factors, why can't you explain a few of them as a guide to where we should be looking? One or two shouldn't blow the whole thing wide open, should it?

Can't you see you clues are so cryptic they are of little or no help?

JIB

As far as I know s/f have been published in the racing papers we know vdw used since 1968 if not longer.

Be Lucky

JIB,
its not my formula its VDW`s.
I don`t claim to be anyexpert in VDW.
But i think Probality means as VDW said
that the art of succesful gambling is being
able to correctly appraise the odds and to
never go against them.



Maggsy

Determined,
No i havn`t been looking at old examples
but i have been looking at other ways of
making this game pay ie computers.
I`m not sure VDW is right for me.It`s the
time element that bothers me.Not enough time
in a day.I think there maybe quicker and easier
ways to make a profit than VDW these days.
Having sais that i am still very interested
in VDW.



Maggsy

congratulations on your win,but i cant agree that C.S was a good thing the first part of vdw,s formula was consistent form, 1/13 at the distance and not proven on the ground all six wins on g or gf not really credentials for a sound wager (in my opinion)

Hi Barney,

I too would be interested in hearing further the factors that made Court Shareef 'a bleedin' obvious good thing'.

I don't pretend to have all the answers to VDW's methods but in my understanding the 'good thing' is the class/form horse when others factors go in favour. In all the different permutations I consider I couldn't make Court Shareef a good thing.

Plenty of factors in his favour undoubtedly including a similar prep to winning over this trip last year and certainly the value bet in the race at 10/1 compared to the ridiculously short priced favourite but if he was a 'good thing' by VDW's methods then I'm missing an awful lot more than I thought

Cheers

first of all answer this question posed specifically in the paragraph before the race comments.i cant spell it out much clearer.

I have a copy of NH course characteristics in an excel spreadsheet.
They are of course 'my interpretation' but I will gladly e-mail you a copy if it's of interest.

Cheers

Crock, that would be great. Could you use johngringo@uze.com.br . Many thanks in anticipation. JIB

The SPORTING CHRONICLE 'RACING UP-TO DATE' FORM BOOK was published weekly and the earliest one I have is w/e 12/5/62. This has speed fig in for the first 4,5,or 6 home, although not every race.

I believe TIME FORM was first published in 1948 but whether PHILL BULL made up his own figures, I don't remember,
Swish

I HAVE A SECOND HAND THEODOLITE GOING CHEAP!

Barney,
I haven't seen the form for the 7.20 at sandown but a couple of people have posted some pretty good reasons as far as I can make out for not regarding CS as a good thing. We are all interested as to how you found this winner and I think we are all somewhat bemused by your number of "hidden factors" that you mention. I think you should enlighten us all a little, some of us stuck up for you when you were being accused of talking cryptically and it would be a shame if by not responding some people might think that there was some basis in the accusations. You did after all say you wanted to discuss the race....
regards,

i think you need a break from all this analysis,i reckon it,s sending you wappy,what race comments and where.help us barney your getting more cryptic than the times crossword,you once said to me name names,well nobody expects that,but you claim a 10/1 asthough it,s second nature,and just leave it at that

have you been swigging grandads cough medicine again?