JIB

Granted that many approaches would have thrown up the likes of Azertyuiop and Best Mate, I'd be truly interested to have my attention drawn to any "method, system etc" apart from VDW's approach that identified Youlneverwalkalone and Spirit Leader as bets, and even more interested if the same "method, system etc" had also thrown up similar good things in handicaps selected by various posters to this thread over the last few weeks, including Spirit Leader on two previous occasions, La Landiere three runs ago, and more recently Midnight Gunner (I THINK the last named was posted on here - if not it was on another board, before the off, by Mike, as several others can vouch).

RP (page 7 column 2/3)

Some bookie took 25K e/w on Spectroscope won @ 20/1. Who else could have backed this?

Anyone who reads the Daily Mail. Sir Peter O`Sullevan tipped 3 horses, this one + Baracouda and Earthmover, not bad goin huh.

JIB,

Your recent posts sound like posts of a bitter man who begrudges others profits for some reason and does you no credit.

To the best of my knowledge NOBODY has ever claimed the VDW only is the ONLY way, so I fail to see the relevance of the fact that other people/methods also made profits!

To the best of my knowledge NOBODY has ever claimed that VDW is all about finding 10/1+ winners. 'The waters are stocked with lots of little fish and occasionally a bigger one will come along', so I fail to see the relevance of people failing to post the 10/1+ winners.

All that has been claimed on this thread is that those who understand the methodology can achieve regular, consistent profit. I fail to see how the selections that Guest / Fulham and others have posted contradicts those facts.

III

Sir Peter has always been worth a read, not least in the days when he used to put up his own horses like Attivo and Be Friendly among his Daily Express selections.

I guess the chap who put £25K EW on Spectroscope was probably working on a bit more than Sir Peter's recommendations. Good luck to him. It would be nice to have £50K in hand, as it were, let alone enough to be able to wager £50K.

CHELTENHAM THURSDAY
As JIB said, yesterday proved to be a punters' paradise, indeed the whole meeting went aginst the layers.
This did not, of course, stop certain contributors from claiming a wholesale success for their interpretation of VDW's method.
Last night, Fulham purported to show that his use of the c/f method was the way VDW worked, I will, as usual, query that.
Rather than apply the 'c/f method', which in my view is contrived, uses 'idiosyncratic reading of form', open to individual interpretation, and often revised in the light of the result, I will use a 'Best Form' approach, which is simple,logical, available to anyone with no manipulation, and easily checked before, and after, the race.
Taking the horse from each race with the BEST FORM yesterday gives the folowing:

2.00 NAS NA RIOGH
2.35 BARACOUDA
3.15 BEST MATE
4.35 DARK'N SHARP
5.10 LA LANDIERE
5.45 SPIRIT LEADER
Compare this against Fulham's as list to which strikes a chord.
For those who think that Guest has the ultimate solution, could I modestly suggest that they compare my selections over the past 3 days, using the BEST FORM method, ( Along with a few other little things that a Dutchman taught me), alongside those of Guest, taking note of;
A) Number of selections
B) Strike rate
C) Return on investment

I rest my case!
P.S. to Guest; and I never mentioned weight once, neither did VDW in Spells It All Out.

Johnd

As Crock has pointed out, irrespective of whose approach works the best, which one is actually VDW's turns not on current results, but on the ability of the approach clearly to resolve the 21 explicit c/f examples VDW gave us, plus his other examples.

Incidentally, I've no doubt missed it, but I can't recall you putting up Spirit Leader as a Best Bet selection - but perhaps it is on one of the tipping competition threads, where I see you are still impressing everyone.

I have done as you suggested and compared your record with Guest's over the festival and staked at mythical £100 on each clearly stated selection. As Guest has given 2 in some races I've split the stake £50 on each:

GUEST
Intersky Falcon / Rooster Booster (bank +175)
Impek (bank +75)
Back In Front (bank +475)
Joss Naylor (bank +375)
Moscow Flyer / Native Upmanship (bank (+412.50)
Jair Du Cochet (bank +312.50)
Pizarro (bank +212.50)
Best Mate (bank +350)
Baracouda (bank +575)
Mutineer / Golden Cross (bank +475)
GUEST FINAL BANK = +£475

JOHN D
Rooster Booster (bank +450)
Keen Leader (bank +350)
Best Mate (bank +487.50)
JOHN D FINAL BANK = +£487.50

The final analysis looks remarkably similar to me and I congratulate you both on your profits.

JIB,

I don't think I miscontrue your motives, you would appear to have the intention of only making negative posts regarding the methods of VDW. Because you can't crab Guest for making a profit then you choose the option of 'everybody found those winners and you didn't get any of the 10/1+ shots'.

A little like your negative posts regarding ability ratings on Tuesday but little since on how much better OR was as a guide to class.

BTW, to save you working it out, betting every top AR blind returned a profit in excess of 7pts, betting every top OR blind returned a loss in excess of 7pts.

JIB,

You really must stop behaving like a spoilt 5 year old. Why on earth would I want to explain it to Mr Hobbs? Perhaps you would like to explain to Mr Pipe why Polar Red didn't win the County Hurdle with the top OR?

Your arguments are becoming increasingly pathetic

Jib
posters have put up bets before the off,Which is what all the criticism was about,And still your not happy,I agree that horses like best mate could of,And were found using other methods.

This thread has changed dramatically in the last couple of months,With the likes of johnd,Guest,Mtoto,determined all putting up pre-race analysis.It seems that no matter what individuals post on this thread,You will find fault,There's just no pleasing you john.

JIB,

Let's try and talk sensibly for a moment, please explain to me why a single result taken in isolation in the Champion Hurdle is a 'nail in the coffin' for followers of the AR'?

Does the fact that the top AR won the County Hurdle mean that the AR is the be all and end all? Of course not.

Many people on this forum have been good enough to post the ability ratings for the most competitive 3 days of racing in the Jumps calendar so that people can make their own judgements.

The fact that the top AR has made a profit from blindly betting every top rated without any further form study must surely portray it in a very good light.

Whilst I'm happy to accept that 3 days is not sufficient to prove anything, surely it's more telling than your insisting that a SINGLE race in isolation is a 'large nail in the coffin'.

Do you genuinely believe that one race from 3 days is a better guide than every race from those same 3 days!

I'm happy for you try and rubbish the AR but please try and do it without recourse to a single race to try and justify your arguments. It's plainly nonsensical.

Johnd
Off you go again,had a couple of winners and now your'e the best thing since sliced bread.Give it a rest mate.

Johnd
Have a look at Delboy's van der mail,This little system threw up 3 bets over the festival

Rooster booster (dutched)
Moscow Flyer (dutched)
Best Mate

No form,Class,Capability,Probabilty just a quick glimpse at the daily mail,And has achieved a 71% s/r since december.How did you find Best Mate,Did you use the n/hcap chase method,Because that would have pointed you to it straight away.

On another Board
Somebody put up a example as to why the Abilty rating is flawed
The example went as follows

The winner of a £20000 Race gets the score of 200

The second Btn a SH in the same race Gets Nowt

One reply and the only answer I have ever seen was that only horses with the will to win are worthy of a rating

Funnily enough the example given of a horse without the will to win was Rooster Booster
For racking up that losing run of 2nd's 3rd's etc

The price of being consistent is a constantly rising OR = Hacp'd out of the race