Epiglotis - You still seem to take the view that because there is so much disagreement on this thread as to how to find the class/form horse VDWs way, then VDW must be wrong. Could it not be that the vast majority have got the application of VDWs method wrong?

JohnD and Statajack have similiar views to each other it would appear though both their approaches, from what they have imparted, cannot or have not been held up to examination against VDWs own selections. His selections can be the only benchmark because it was his method and anyone who doesn't see the logic in that is just playing blind.

As just one example, how could anyone think that a horse such as Beacon Light could go off at even money in a top class hurdle event without being top or highly rated by any or all of the press ratings?

VDW said his method of rating all concerned showed Beacon Light well out of it. He later said that rating and ratings were two different matters. Why does no one seem very interested in trying to understand just what VDW mean't by that statement? He said it for a reason, as he did with most things concerning his method.

And just to set the record straight, Kerry Lads was not a VDW good thing today. For starters it was unproven with the weight in handicap company.

As i said in an earlier post,I dropped a booby even you drop them now and again.The record was already set straight from my point of view,Long before your post appeared,But thanks for putting me perfectly straight on the matter.

It is not VDW who is wrong, far from it , but you and your acolytes who have for too long peddled your version of his teachings as the Holy Grail, without even an elementary understanding of what he was saying. The consequence of this is that far too many members are now chasing their arses trying to figure out your misguided and often mendacious postings.
Enough of this crap, lets lay it on the line.
Let you and your buddy stop hiding behind the smoke and mirrors, and post your selections from your long and detailed analyses of VDW's work on this thread and see how you fare.
If you agree to this I will post my selections, from my very simple understanding, which only became clear to me recently, and I have only been operating for 1 month.
If my selections win the day, then perhaps you and your followers will finally have a rethink, or at least stop propounding your contrived and convoluted interpretation.
If your selections win the day, I will not only pack up betting, I will take up the cloth.
THE GLOVES ARE OFF, EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Nice one JohnD,
You tell 'em!!!
Yours
Swish

Interesting response there from JohnD and one which tells it's own story I think.

Again, simple truths have been overlooked. Not only have I posted umpteen selections before the races over the past months, I have also shown before the race where some of JohnDs own selections would fail. I think it was him who came up with the suggestion of following the 2 shortest forecast favs method and I took up the gauntlet on that one and demonstrated a high percentage of winners. I also pointed out those that would lose in the same method.

One month and so few selections is hardly concrete evidence and I am still slightly amazed that JohnD only found Devon View on Saturday (a bet I didn't take personally) and not several other VDW horses.

One further message to JohnD, with all due respect, despite a couple of emails exchanged you told me nothing of any real note where as I pointed out a bit more than I would in public. I challenge you, for want of a better phrase, to show just how your approach fits horses such as Prominent King or Battlement,Strombolus,etc,etc.

Swish - Your another who continually shouts the odds, yet fails to post any consistent winners and all based on a few months findings. Why don't you take up JohnDs challenge?

I think its because you have not posted anything for a while.

The natives are getting restless.

I didn't say that I think VDW is "wrong", I simply pointed out that when I successfully disagree with those members who apparently think that VDW is the only viable approach to selection there is a tendency by the said members to ignore my imput, instead of considering the possibility of shortcomings in either the method or in their application of it they prefer to search for some manner of excuse. I have several times said that I think the common sense aspects of VDW were worth stating, on this point I will again say that your own appreciation of the statement about the punter constantly putting the odds against himself demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of horse racing. I know that you have posted some pre-race selections that have in fact won their races but I dont find either your strike rate or the prices returned particularly impressive. What I primarily dislike about the manner of this thread is that VDW methodology is constantly touted as some wonderful money maker yet those who delight in espousing this view have never given a demonstration of the superiority of VDW over other approaches. It doesn't worry me if there are some people who prefer to hide behind VDW, for whatever reason, however the assumption of authority without qualification and the general mystification involved in pretending to impart secrets is pernicious.

Now then, Guest,
Why would I want to take up JohnD's challenge when, the few times he and myself have discussed a horsey worsey on the board we have agreed?
Don't get yourself upset.
Since you opened up a bit, recently, I agree you have pin-pointed some decent winners.
You got that 20-1 shot recently when you made a book. Although what you were doing looking at 20-1 shots when you reckon 0nly first 5 in betting should be investigated, I have no idea.
What I am saying is, is that if your interpretation of VDW is so good, why do you not find more big price winners?
I don't find many either, I agree it is difficult. Its the way some of you chaps come across about VDW, that you have figured it all out.
Well to be quite frank, I don't think you have. And you won't either just reading what he wrote and said.
May i ask, have you put all your findings on spreadsheets and then analysed them?
If you have not learned spreadsheet computing I should be happy to help you out.

I AM QUITE SERIOUS ABOUT THE LAST SENTENCE I JUST SAID.
I AM NOT AFTER YOUR SELECTION METHODS. I CAN PICK MY OWN.
Yours Truly,
Swish

I would just like to add I have never seen ALL VDW wrote BUT from what I have seen (and I am quite intelligent), the best advice comes in SYSTEMATIC BETTING.
cHEERS
Swish

I agree with what you have just written.
I have never seen a horse (maybe odd one, perhaps) alledgedly picked by VDW that can't be found by good form reading etc.
Yours
Swish

Do you mean Epiglotis, myself, JohnD,Guest, or perm any 3 from 4?
Cheers
Swish

I would describe it as pure un-adulterated waffle.

Tikram looks a bet today back on decent ground

12.45 Fontwell

its a shame there is not as much mouthing off when vdw's methods get it right.

swish,

tyndarious
super nomad
amberleigh house


ohhh cant be bothered not worth it!

According to Guest VDW's methods did get it right, he says that Kerry Lads was not a VDW selection.

quote:

---

I have never seen a horse (maybe odd one, perhaps) alledgedly picked by VDW that can't be found by good form reading etc.
Yours
Swish

---

Spot on, Swish, and this is why VDWs method is effective. It swiftly points towards the area of horses with the ability to win in the current class, consistent and in-form. Many seem to read something magical into VDW, but as VDW would have admitted, there isn't, it's just the careful application of sensible form principles. Not everyone agrees with the way the principles are applied by VDW and his 'disciples', but surely those on this post agree with the principles themselves.

Rob

It would seem that we have several different 'approaches' to VDW amongst the contributors to this thread. That is as it should be, each is entitled to express his opinions and as VDW himself said, there is nothing to be gained from trying to subject contributors to ridicule or abuse.

However, this poses the problem of just where does a newcomer to VDW start if he wants to understand the methods for himself?

VDW in his various texts gave over 150 examples of his methods in operation, surely those examples must be the benchmark!

Guest uses one method and has researched the old examples. He is happy that his understanding of the methods fits ALL the examples.

Mtoto by his own admission uses a slightly different method. He also has taken the trouble to research the old examples and has found that his way of thinking solves 'all bar a few' of the examples.

JohnD has yet another method of working but doesn't feel it necessary to cross check his thinking against the old examples.

I'll leave any newcomers to decide for themselves the best place to start.

Cheers