well spotted, last time he was one but this time he is not, if he was one of the c/f he should have won? or been there abouts if he was coming into this from the penultimate he would have more chance.

thanks for your explanation barney you are very kind.

Raywaan does look good today, but Romany Prince could be a serious threat. He finished third lto, without ever being put into the race, and he could be "training" again today, but I suggest a csf saver, just in case.

Walter Pigeon.
On a number of occasions, VDW set out his equation for reducing the odds against you, and this is what I use for a cross check, in any race where there is a possible bet.
Applying it my way, there is conflict in every worthwhile race today, apart from possibly Craic Sa Ciel, 3.40 Don.

Newbury 2.25

Purely on the figures

Consistency
Romany Prince - 6
Starzaan - 8
King Eider - 9
Master McGrath - 11
Rahwaan - 15

Recent Class (Average last 3 runs)
Rahwaan - 164
Romany Prince - 91
Starzaan - 77
King Eider - 59
Master McGrath - 45

Ability
Starzaan - 67
Rahwaan - 55
King Eider - 54
Romany Prince - 47
Master McGrath - 45

RAHWAAN comes out worst on Consistency, but this is countered by the fact that he performances have been in a higher class than the rest. He comes out 2nd on Ability. ROMANY PRINCE rates highly on Consistency and Recent Class, but is not so high on Ability. STARZAAN is the only horse tp figure in the top three of all ratings, so presumably would attract the most VDW interest, but I don't see any strong indications to make a selection.

Rob

[This message was edited by Rob North on October 25, 2002 at 02:35 PM.]

Suggest you have another look at R's consistency figures, only this time in the context of his runs on good ground or softer.
Regards

As Swish says please dont just post the initials of the horse's name, it's extremely arrogant behaviour. But, when you have the grace to include name, meeting and time please get it right. If you cant copy that down how the **** is anybody meant to think you can understand the finer points of VDW's more obscure writings? The selections posted on this thread show no great profitability so come out of your shells and tell us what it's about. Despite 5,000+ posts I still dont know what a c/f horse is. If you could show that you have something worth protecting I could understand your reticence but, what?

are you on drugs?

I have to admit that one of the reasons i dont give times or meets and cryptic posts come to that, is so that people cant go back through all the posts (without a good deal of effort) and find out what is what, not that I thought anyone would be stupid enough to look at my posts but I did it anyway just in case.

If you cant follow a race under discussion by the horses initial then TOUGH LUCK, the workings of VDW take more than looking back a post or two. BUT I forget your not intersted anyway in someone elses views or secondhand opinions so WHY DO YOU BOTHER?

To say that we need to understand the finer points of VDW's more obscure writings is part of the myth perpetuated by this thread, G Hall went a lot further than anybody has yet achieved on this forum, ( as far as we know, anyway ),on the strength of just 2 letters.
For all his profound knowledge of horse racing, VDW wasn't born with it, and as I understand it, he was successful in what he did at a very early stage. This doesn't suggest a "Degree course" as it was once referred to, rather one or two basic and logical concepts upon which, after achieving early success, he used as a foundation to build the rest of his knowledge upon.
Maybe some contributors know a little bit more than they are saying, it is also apparent that some also know less than they are saying.
This does not mean that there contributions are any less valid, and were it not for the more prolific and outgoing contributors to this forum, ( Take a bow, Barney, Guest, etc.) this thread would be much the poorer.
As the man said, if you pass round the hat, it is customary to throw in some silver yourself.
Regards

Here we go again. This thread seems to have developed a pattern whereby after much activity for a week or so, it goes a bit quiet for a while and so the doubters raise their heads shouting the odds.

Epiglotis - I don't think anyone on here claims to know everything VDW was trying to tell us, but speaking for myself I can say that what I have understood has proved very beneficial. Sure I still make mistakes, but I have posted many winners before the race including several double figure priced winners recently all found via his methods. You will never get anywhere near the full VDW story if you don't even want to know it, so I echo Barneys question to yourself, why do you bother?

Chivalry has all the ticks in the right places, and should be a good bet.

Epiglotis
Solo Flight is probably the c/f horse in this race, depending on how you view his last run, but they don't all win.

Epiglotis,

I fail to understand your last posting. Guest has gone into great detail to explain the formula to find the c/form horse. He has also given more than a few examples of how it works. I do think in the last few weeks he has moved away from the conventional methods. That maybe because he feels he has said too much.

Even after going into so much detail, people on this board went against the c/form horse in the 4:00 at Newbury today. Is anything sinking in? add to this the posting that says what is the c/form horse!

I know, I don't use the same ability rating as Guest, but yet again mine came up with the same c/form horse as shown by him. We may not agree about the finer points of VDW, but to try and win, without finding the c/form horse really is putting the odds against yourself. The main trouble seems to be people don't want to put in the hard work, and/or read what is written. That applies to the words of vdw and what has been written on this board. Guest has gone as far as he can on a public board, and so have a few others. I would like to feel that includes myself. I have tried to explain how I work, and some of you, including Guest say I am wrong. Barney says s/f are useless, but Guest admits to using them. Ok I put more emphases on them, I have tried to explain why. A lot has been said about Mr Hall, but I think they were used by him. Guest has said about the examples that didn't have s/f. Love From Verona, but did any of the form horses have them? The same goes for Son Of Love, did the form horses have s/f that were good enough to consider relevant for a classic?

Every race, and selection put up by Guest is examined in great detail. To be honest sometimes I think why that one? Lord Protector was one I could never have backed, a strike rate of 9% doesn't give me a lot of faith. Sure it had run some good to fair races, even some on the course. The ability rating is meant to show the horses will to win, it hadn't shown a lot of that. I did ask about this horse, and was told didn't want to give to much away on a public forum. There are other forums.

Be Lucky

I always enjoy his postings because I suspect he is always more interested in playing devil's advocate than being a c***.
He could of course buy the vdw books, or email someone who might transmit them to him. It seems to work with my pals around the world, and epi always manages to post on this forum so everything should be fine.
I'm sure his questions will be answered.
regards,

Here i must say that I do not understand your letter.
The class/form horse was SMOKIN BEAU which won at 10-1.
You know exactly how to pick that one, so I am very confused.
Please write on here or e-mail me if you do not agree because I CANNOT understand how that would not be your bet.

All the best
Swish

Swish,

That was my reading, but then who am I to say. I did think that Smokin Beau was one of the more obvious ones, but usually in that case I get it wrong for some reason. And all I know about VDW is what I've read on here, plus helpful comments from yourself and Mtoto.

Oldtimer

First I would like to express my completely unreserved and most shamefaced apologies to Rob North if my previous post caused any offence, it was not intended to have any personal connotations.
Apart from that, a very reasonable bunch of replies, thank you.
Barney: yes, ethanol. I dont understand why you want to make things more difficult for students of this thread. I have no particular motivation for bothering, it's just something I do sometimes.
Johnd: a very refreshing post. Certainly and particularly in light of Guest's recent rating tables, I suspect you have stated the truth.
Guest: I'm glad that you have benefited from the study of VDW's writings. However I suspect you damage your results by an over literal application of the methods. Nevertheless, congratulations on the successful selections that you have posted and thanks for expressing your confidence by sharing.
Mtoto: I wonder if you are talking about these four column tables of Guest's? Naturally I am not asking you or anybody else to explain their selection procedure, I'm asking about the workings of VDW, which I consider to be neutral territory. I've noticed that you dont always agree with Guest as to the class/form horse, this seems at variance with VDW's remark about all having the same selections. If the class/form horse is derived from these little tables I wonder what more there is to say. I wonder also what happened to the "hidden factors"? Statajack claims that Guest is ignoring something simple that would unify the selections... Barney won't explain "cross checks" because it would give away the method... Guest never comments on Barney's posts no matter how obscure...
Statajack: thanks for the appreciation. I'm considering your offer, if I decide to take it up I will send you a different e-mail address (from the one on my profile) as my regular accounts are fairly full.
Fulham: my apologies for letting our discussion lapse. In a nutshell my reading of VDW is that of a mildly hysterical personality, as such not fully trustworthy and consequently I dont believe he had anywhere near the success rate he claimed. I think it's important that those who decide to try to follow his methods bear this in mind.

Epiglotis

As things stand, none of us knows the truth about VDW's own betting, and probably none of us ever will.

What I think is clear is that VDW left a substantial legacy of material which can be addressed at a number of levels. What I see on this board is evidence of a number of individuals who have differential knowledge and understanding of that legacy, but all of whom seem to be doing quite well in terms of finding winners, and palpably regard themselves as having benefitted from VDW's work. I think VDW would have been pleased to know that, years after his main writing, his efforts continue to benefit some, and more than pleased had he known how seriously a few take "solving" the puzzles he set.

Thanks for the reply. As you say we'll never know the historical facts and anything that encourages productive study is a positive contribution to the general heritage.

I think that JMP will be very disappointed if he cant get a result from his very promising 2yr old.

He has had some very strange placements this year not least the first run this year SIX FURLONGS?

Epiglotis

I didn't go quite that far. Although it is unlikely, one can never discount entirely the possibility of more information about VDW, his approach to betting, and his actual bets, coming to light. After all, who would have supposed, a month ago, that we would now know that John Major had had an affair with Edwina Currie. (My own "experience" with that lady is fully described in the current Health Services Journal.)

I take your point. I'll try to find an online version of the current Health Services Journal. My wife wonders how this private affair became common knowledge.