HOME »
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
| <Fulham>
|
Mtoto
I understand your question, but which are the "Roushayd examples" in respect of which you'd like it answered? (My records of VDW's examples are in chronological order of race, by VDW's selections' names. Because, apart from the two small ones referred to earlier, I don't think in categories like "consistency method", "Roushayd method" etc I'm simply unclear which particular VDW examples you have in mind.) III re wankers, I've always thought Woody Allen was spot on there. |
||
|
|
Member |
Apologies, that may have been little to cryptic.
Given the horses form, as highlighted by Gilly, ask yourself why run the horse over a sharp 7f? MTOTO Those comments weren't made lightly, and there is any amount of evidence to support them. However, that has little to do with VDW, so I will not labour the point. |
||
|
|
Forum Manager Member  |
111 very funny. I think you are very funny. ha ha.
Well this wanker thinks so. About lengths. thats lengths beten by in horse racing not beating your middle length 111. ha ha. Tea urns tee hee. f*ck me. But seriously ho ho. this obvious in normal form reading. there are hanidcaps which are hard and nohandicaps which are easier to work out. the lengts matter mostly in nonhandicaps as do placings. ratings includng proze money is better in handicaps. vdw was looking for where a horse wa sbest in both forms. handicaps are mosl;y artifical because it is based on an opinion of how a horse ran. we use our ratigns to beat the ofical ratings. nonhandicaps are more factual because it realtes to the fact of placing at a given level and by how far.thats why nonhandcap fc is lower becuse they are easier. my tables seem to pick better handicaps but when they also hsave more usul form like placings which is rare then they usually win . nice one 111. Hi Gilly. I think we got our wires crosed. its who not where. the whos who read vdw.thanks. |
||
|
|
Member |
I believe you posted that the factor common to Investor's 'horses for evaluation' is that their recent runs demonstrate improvement by the fact that they were beaten by progressively less lengths in more recent runs(?) This is not the case. On one occasion Investor expressed surprise that LTO starting price was being taken into consideration by some posters and at that time he said that he did not use LTO SP, now he says that he does consider previous SP. So, I think his factor is something along the lines of shortening prices with successive runs but higher FP for the race presently under consideration.
With respect, your answer to Gilly is an evasion. Please show me who among the VDWists "regularly" gets 80%. |
||
|
|
Forum Manager Member |
hi epi. yes got me there. nobody get 80% and nobody looks at improving horses via the finishing positions. ive been caught out.
trouble wit hthis is that nobody reads the thread. how many times have i said that it is a balnce and not a single factor. investor may or may not chop and change it dont matter. its the bif pictur that matters. if it was say 100 factors that told the story then some clever **** would have found it by now. all vdw did was put domeof it together and left us thinking about it. he didnt have all the factors no one does. but we can talk about it have fun and oerhaps some money. |
||
|
|
Member |
That's fine but the point I'm making is that you have not demonstrated a factor common to Investor's 'horses for evaluation', the value or otherwise of the factor is not at issue.
|
||
|
|
Forum Manager Member |
you really love an argument dont you. the lengths thing was common enough and good enough for me.ok. its not nough for you ok. get passedit.
|
||
|
|
Member |
You appear to think VDW is worth pursuing, if you spread it around that lengths beaten is meant to be a specialist VDW factor you make the whole business ridiculous. Who doesn't look at lengths beaten? And how do you justify saying that this is Investor's factor? If you look at the 4:40 Worcestor 1st of June you'll see his horses going up in weight and distance but down in price over the previous 2 runs but down in weight and up in price on the day. Surely that's more interesting than lengths beaten?
|
||
|
Member |
I can't really see what difference it makes whether investor has found something or not. It's like walking along the road and finding a piece of a jig-saw puzzle, it's worthless without the rest. If you find over half the pieces you may make a guess about the overall picture but you will never be sure unless you have them all. That as usual is one of the main stumbling blocks with VDW.
It's all to do with EGO! Investor won't tell us what it is in case someone looks into it and finds a large number of cases where it does not fit and there goes his secret, the same way as barney's 14 secrets. The only way this puzzle will be solved, if it has a solution, is for the inerested parties to be open and honest and put ideas for discussion in the public domain. This way the garbage can be quickly discarded and the nuggets of wisdom expanded upon. This is the reason I don't think there is a solution. If there had been, enough people over the years would have found it and it would be in the public domain by now. There was an interesting letter in the Raceform Update last week where someone tried to bring VDW back for discussion and was basically told by the editor, "forget it. We've heard it all before". So the very place the whole thing started has drawn a line under it. And this will always be the case unless people can forget their egos. But, as long as it keeps attracting people like investor this is unlikely to happen. |
||
|
|
Forum Manager Member |
sorry its not intersting. if you rember it was this race that made me think about it.
now look. you seem to be trying to say something that im not. all it is is that most of the horses and thelengths thing.ok. some may have something else but it wa sclose enough for me to think about it. it maybe borig sorry about that. but again the winner of that 440 race had the lengths thing. I asked investor for a list of horses he told be to look at some more bloody vdw eamples. if you have his list then put them up and well look at it together like frineds working together on a problem not like to old women who nag at each other ok. heres lislaughton abbey abd no its not 100% rated so look at wha tI said about types of race. LOL. cheers mate. Lislaughtin Abbey,,.......................................................Form 5-5-1 (11**) sp lto 11/4 ln 3* Av = 4k, Ab = 4k Score=2+2 47% 109E 21f 1/20 6rs Gd Fak 5K (41 days) (UP in dist, + WIN **) UP in class from 5K to 7.1k IMPROVING *** 36% 104D 16f 5/9 8rs GS Don 4K (170 days) (UP in dist, lengths) 26% 101F 16f 5/14 6rs Sft Sed 3K (187 days) (UP in dist, lengths) .................................. (33%) |
||
|
|
Forum Manager Member |
i forgot to add epi tha tyes i do find vdw interstng. because it makes you think about a lot of things with a sense of order. I have a problem wiht words but numbers are much easier. so putting in a table helps me along.
though i must thank you for arguing with me because it helps my typing.  |
||
|
|
Member |
Investor said he would put up 10 horses, it seems too small a sample to be meaningfull and I dont think his results really justify the effort of wading through dozens of runners searching for a completely undefined "factor", but, in any case here are 13 horses in six races. I basically agree with Jimmy, if Investor won't say what his factor is it becomes irrelevent. Anyway let's have a look at them and exchange ideas, as you say, for the fun of it.
1st June W 4:00 Leadership, Imoya P 4:20 Fayr Jag, Seel Of Approval, Loyal Tycoon W 4:40 Favoured Option, Lislaughtin Abbey 2nd June L 2:30 Play That Tune, Scotland The Brave T 7:10 Hambledon, Honour Rouge W 7:55 Torasay Springs, Budelli Give me a few days, please. |
||
|
|
Forum Manager Member |
hi epi. had those table to hand as they are recent. i think they fit the lengths thing as well as some other factrs.
WINDSOR, 01 Jun 2003, 4:00, Gala Casinos Berkshire Stakes (Class A) (Listed Race) (4yo+),Winner £19,040.00,(1m3f135y)1m3½f GD-FM, 5 Runners Leadership,,.......................................................Form 3-1-2 (6**) sp lto 11/4 ln 0.5 Av = 44k** , Ab = 9.7k Score=5+5 100% 114A 12f 2/¼L 6rs** GF Kem 26K (267 days)(g) (** DIST PLACED **) ***DOWN in class from 26K to 19k, No improv 71% 112B 10f 1/½L 9rs Gd Yor 19K (284 days) (UP in dist, + WIN **) 319% 109B 10f 3/¼L 20rs Gd Yor 87K (323 days) (UP in dist, PLACED **) .................................. (100%) PONTEFRACT, 01 Jun 2003, 4:20, William Hill Rated Stakes (Class C) (Handicap) (3yo+,0-95),Winner £12,278.60,6f GD-FM, 17 Runners Handicap Fayr Jag,,.......................................................Form Pl-2-3 (15**) sp lto 9/2 ln 27* Av = 13k** , Ab = 6.5k Score=6+2 100% 101B 6f 3/1 8rs GF Yor 15K (17 days)(g) (** DIST placed ?) ***DOWN in class from 15K to 12.3k IMPROVING *** 58% 99C 5f 2/3 11rs Fm Bev 9K (46 days) (Chk Dist placed ?) 0% 01B 6f Pl/23 11rs GF Nmk 15K (288 days)(g) (** DIST lengths) .................................. (46%) WORCESTER, 01 Jun 2003, 4:40, Todays Tips £5 On fantastic-forecasts.com Handicap Chase (Class D) (5yo+,0-125),Winner £7,052.50,(2m7f110y)2m7½f GD-FM, 10 Runners Handicap Lislaughtin Abbey,,.......................................................Form 5-5-1 (11**) sp lto 11/4 ln 3* Av = 4k, Ab = 4k Score=2+2 47% 109E 21f 1/20 6rs Gd Fak 5K (41 days) (UP in dist, + WIN **) UP in class from 5K to 7.1k IMPROVING *** 36% 104D 16f 5/9 8rs GS Don 4K (170 days) (UP in dist, lengths) 26% 101F 16f 5/14 6rs Sft Sed 3K (187 days) (UP in dist, lengths) .................................. (33%) LEICESTER, 02 Jun 2003, 2:30, Eamonn O'Connor 50th Birthday Celebration Fillies' Conditions Stakes (Class C) (3yo),Winner £8,663.20,(7f9y)7f GD-FM, 5 Runners Play That Tune,,.......................................................Form 2-4-1 (7**) sp lto EvensF ln 5* Av = 7k, Ab = 6k Score=2+5 52% 86D 7f 1/1 13rs GS Nmk 6K (31 days) ** DIST + WIN ** UP in class from 6K to 8.7k, BUT chk figures 89% 79D 7f 4/4 12rs GF Goo 11K (305 days)(g) (** DIST Unpl) 32% 80D 7f 2/2 9rs GS Kem 4K (327 days) (** DIST placed ?) .................................. (14%) THIRSK, 02 Jun 2003, 7:10, Herriot Happening Handicap (Class C) (3yo+,0-100),Winner £9,646.00,1m4f GD-FM, 8 Runners Handicap Hambleden,,.......................................................Form 2-15-2 (14**) sp lto 14/1 ln 43* Av = 9.7k** Ab = 0k Score=6+2 19% 99C 13f 2/½L 12rs GF Yor 10K (19 days)(g) (Chk Dist PLACED **) ***DOWN in class from 10K to 9.6k, CHK for improv 10% 58C 14f 15/34 17rs GS Sal 9K (29 days) (Down in dist lengths) 19% 97B 16f 2/9 9rs** GS Nmk 10K (213 days) (Down in dist PLACED **) .................................. (38%) interstng that the good thing Torosay Spring,, doesnt figure and came no where,. WINDSOR, 02 Jun 2003, 7:55, Gala Casinos Classified Stakes (Class C) (3yo+,0-90),Winner £9,886.50,6f GD-FM, 11 Runners Budelli,,.......................................................Form 12-4-3 (17) sp lto 7/2F ln 5 Av = 17k** Ab = 0k Score=4+4 32% 98C 6f 3/1 18rs GF Kem 12K (9 days)(g) (** DIST PLACED **) ***DOWN in class from 12K to 9.9k, No improv 26% 98C 6f 4/¾L 18rs GF Goo 10K (12 days)(g) (** DIST lengths) 73% 92C 6f 12/4 30rs Gd Nmk 29K (30 days) (** DIST lengths) .................................. (100%) Torosay Spring,,.......................................................Form 1-5-3 (9**) sp lto 100/30F ln 3 Av = 11.7k** , Ab = 8k Score=5+5 27% 101B 6f 3/1 10rs** Fm Nmk 10K (241 days) (** DIST placed ?) ***DOWN in class from 10K to 9.9k, BUT chk figures 47% 96A 7f 5/2 15rs GF Don 18K (263 days)(g) (Chk Dist Unpl) 18% 95C 6f 1/nk 5rs GF Yar 7K (281 days)(g) ** DIST + WIN ** .................................. (69%) |
||
|
| <Fulham>
|
Epiglotis
VDW may have used unique elements, (ie his ability rating), I'm not sure. But mainly he used ideas that, as you imply, most if not all form students use, eg distance beaten, (others are weight and "form") BUT he used them rather differently (and very precisely) and, as he said and various of us including Nessie have stressed, as parts of a whole. Jimmy You take the view that, if there was a solution to VDW, it would have been discovered by enough people for it to be in the public domain. That is a perfectly logical line of thought. Perhaps I could offer another, equally logical line of thought, which I happen to believe is correct. That is, a (very) few HAVE found what you refer to as the solution, and are doing sufficiently well as a result that they have no interest in putting it into the public domain. (In this context I have reason to believe that Nessie is incorrect when he says no one is achieving a strike rate of 80%.) In other words, the absence of the solution from the public domain could, plausibly (and in my view is) the other side of the coin which all those who pay for tips or systems should consider, expressed in the question "if his tips or systems are that good, why does he need to sell them?" There are various answers to that question, but the one common in the leaflets that arrive, unsolicited, on my doormat reasonably regularly, "I'm so successful I'm finding it impossible to get the money on", is palpable bollocks. It always was, and is all the more with the advent of betting exchanges. If you and others accept that what I have suggested as an alternative logical line of thinking to yours is a possible explanation, HOWEVER UNLIKELY YOU JUDGE IT TO BE, you will see that it offers an equally logical explanation as to why some are guarded about certain aspects of the VDW puzzle, especially what he referred to as the "missing link". It also offers an explanation for the gratitude expressed by some of us to Guest: for without doubt he has, albeit often obliquely, given more clues about the VDW puzzle than anyone else in a public arena. To be able to pick up those clues and use them, one needs already to have a good working knowledge of the VDW texts and examples, and be prepared to work at it, and it is entirely understandable that the clues are lost on the many who lack either the knowledge base or the persistence. But they are there all the same, and to my mind Guest qualifies as a benefactor almost on a par with VDW himself. |
||
|
|
Growler Member  |
Nessie,
Your typing is coming along fine. Coincidentally that was the very reason I joined the forum and as far as speed is concerned I`ve achieved my initial aims. I am all to aware (on this particular thread anyway) that with this milestone passed further posts are now not necessary. That`s the good news, practice makes perfect is the bad news. LOL. 111 . |
||
|
|
Member |
Nessie
I'll look at those later. To define Investor's factor it's important that it be common at all the horses, not just the winners. Fulham I believe VDW included horses with the most recent runs among his un-hidden factors, as the hard liners are avid advocates of his written word, notably in insisting on a nonsensical ability rating, it surprises me that this point seems to be dispensed with. |
||
|
|
Forum Manager Member |
111 LOL
epi and the other factor is hat hey all have a leg at each corner.  |
||
|
| <mickeddy>
|
Hi all,
Imp and Nessie, thanks for the replies, everything is much clearer now. Gilly, welcome to the club. If you read between all the bitchy bits there are people out there willing to help. See you soon, Mike. |
||
|
|
The Vital Spark Member  |
|
||
|
|
Member |
Hello all
horses for evaluation 3.25 epsom ALBANOVA/BLACK SAM BELLAMY/WARRSAN. |
||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by groupee community | Page 1 ... 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 ... 854 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Gummy Racing Forum | ||
| Servlet | eve2da005 | ||
| Version | 1.2.11 build 8443 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "MyPop Style" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
|
|
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
