Fulham ive been proved wrong with Refuse To Bend by why rub it in i dont understand at all, better judges than i fancied him strongly of that there is no doubt, ive lost money on this horse today along with many others who thought he was good enough to do it before the race was ran.Take a look at Yesterday Yesterday lol, if you want to talk about unlucky losers.

Walter

Sorry, no offence meant to you: just a little banter with Johnd.

JohnD - The presence of a high ability horse running below his class will often throw a spanner in the works. Whilst JM was not a form horse in the context of todays race (note how I phrased that SFB) he was just one factor against Anani who didn't have the full deck. Note in the races VDW analysed that I mentioned in relation to Anani earlier, they won the races unbacked. What do you think the significance of that was/is?

Just as yesterday my only bet came too late today, though not as dramatically as the filly. The result does back up my selection process though, because the form of the Derringstown was proved as worth more than the 2000. The winner was of course supplemented after I made the selection, but even so I couldn't have it.

In relation to what I said about trainers earlier today, just ponder how many times we heard top trainers claiming the 2000 Guinneas was the best trial today as we do every year. The last to uphold the theory was Nashwan 13 years ago and he was out of the ordinary.

What on earth made you think that post was addressed to you?

Oh My aching ribs
You fell into that one Fulham

Fulham,

I have to admit as Guest once again was following the VDW logic, he (Guest) was correct about the 1:40. Doesn't this once again bring the VDW logic on weight into serious doubt? It's not as if this is the first (or even 2nd or 3rd) example in recent days that has shown the thinking to be incorrect. I can see no way Jazz Messenger can be classified as a non form horse. I agree there were certain doubts about the horse, but it has to be a c/form horse Whether it was a bet is a different matter, and the reason given doesn't hold water. This isn't hindsight it is fact.

You also make much of the fact Refuse To Bend was beaten, as has Guest. I would have thought it was obvious he just didn't run his race. He was beaten too far out for it to a lack of stamina, he had an off day, period. Were Alamshar didn't/couldn't confirm the form with the 2nd. An interesting detail is RTB, A, and Kris Kin all had a s/f of 114, all achieved the figure last time out. I spent a few hours going through the form of these 3. interesting Guest says he wouldn't have changed his mind about A.

I have to say, I wish Johnd would change his tone, and moderate his language. I don't see what it achieves, or how it puts his point across any better. I don't want anyone to stop posting, believe it or not, I really think the thread is making headway. That can only continue if we all keep putting up the ideas, in a civilised manner.

Be Lucky

DON’T BE SHY

Fulham, you must have made a fortune today by laying Refuse To Bend? I wish you had made your thoughts public before the event though. Just think of all the £1000’s you could have saved folk if you’d have come out and made such a bold statement prior to 4pm.

There’s no shame in backing losers. I backed Refuse To Bend today. No problem with that. But to say after the event that the horse didn’t have a cat in hells chance really sums this thread up? And, if you were only having a bit of a joke with John D then why did you say, “OTHERS expressed mis-placed confidence”? That to me is aimed at everyone who backed the horse. Totally out of order.

I’m sure that there are cases Fulham where you’ve backed the loser (that’s of course if you back losers?), and I’ve backed the winner. In that instance I wouldn’t dream of making such an arrogant statement as you did once the result was known. Have you ever put up a selection on here that has lost? If so lets have a look at them as I’d be interested to see if I backed the winner.

After 546 pages I find it extremely strange that there have only been a handful of selections put up prior to racing, in comparison to the number of posts that have been made.

Why? The only answer has to be because those who make the claims cannot back them up, simple as that?

If this thread was only about the discussion of the horses that VDW backed 20 odd years ago, the fair enough. But that isn’t the case. It seems that everyone’s only too happy to discuss the good bets after the race has took place. Come on guys, get real.

Rant over.

Mtoto - I'll wait & see JohnDs response, if any, to the points regarding those horses VDW thought would win but didn't back. I've said before, though as usual it just doesn't seem to come across as intended, that VDW wasn't trying to be clever by showing the probable winner in a race and not backing it. The result was worth more to him in the long run without money on.

I think also I have said that I backed Refuse To Bend in the 2000. However, the result relative to a top class race over 12 furlongs with top middle distance opposition was not a positive one. The result of the Derringstown was positive relative to the Derby and todays result backed this up. I don't expect to collect on every bet, but I ask serious questions if they don't go close.

JohnD gave his support to Refuse To Bend on another thread and again this morning, though it's not clear if he backed it. He was clear that he thought Anani a good bet earlier and compounded the folly by decrying the ability rating.

Form means different things to so many. I didn't say JM was "out of form" in fact I was careful to say running up to his best. I said he wasn't a "form" horse in the evaluation. There is a distinct difference, but because like so much of VDW it appears to contradict commonly held beliefs, people don't understand the thinking on it.

Again today I hear a commentator confidently predict a horse won't win because of misheld beliefs into how he thinks form works. And it bolts home. It's a good job so many racing "professionals" get a salary for their views. They would all starve if they had to rely on their betting.

Would you be good enough to tell me what your strike rate over the years with the guidance of VDW principles in the Derby has been?

Gilly - I'm sure Fulham holds his own. If people were to explain just why they think Refuse To Bend was such a good thing, and there were plenty of them, then maybe we could get to the bottom of things. I know why I backed Alamshar and the same reasoning gave the last 2 Derby winners both overturning Guinneas horses who had shown their hand at a different trip against milers or worse.

Check the thread again, there have been plenty of beforehand winners at all sorts of prices. I am sure I have also yet to give a horse I say is a duff fav who actually won.

Feedback from today,

FULHAM,

Well done with Jazz Messenger. I didn`t have a bet in the race. I couldn`t split JM and `A` so it was either back them both or leave the race alone. I chose the latter.

Of the horses I listed this morning only one was backed which lost making a losing day.


GRAHAM,

Well done with Gateman.


ALL,

One of Guest`s quotes namely " how many times have you seen a good thing lose only to find the winners enclosure next time " was evident today with TOUGH LOVE.

Weight - FRIZZANTE would appear to be another example of winning when unproven with the weight.

AIDEN O`BRIEN - with the exception of The Great Gatsby perhaps his 3yo colts aren`t up to scratch this year. Maybe that`s why he`s kept Hawk Wing and High Chapperal in training ?????

KRIS KIN - reminded me of Lammtarra and will improve again. But will he have the measure of the French horse come Irish Derby day.

TRAINER PATTERNS - D.Nicholls yet again shows he is a creature of habit. Where does this fit into the methodology ??

It is a very powerful weapon and should have a place in our armoury.

Hello Gilly,
I can't agree more with your letter. You have summed up this thread very well.
It is a well known fact (by us who have been on here a long time) that Fulham NEVER names a single horse before the event
Cheers
swish

Guest,

If you read my post again you will see that I said ‘in comparison to the amount of post there have only been a handful of selections’. Am I right or am I right?

Alamshar didn’t win. You said it was going to. Refuse To Bend didn’t win. I said it was going to. What’s the difference?

Are you going to tell people who backed Kris Kin that they backed the wrong horse?

Swish,

Tell me, is this thread a joke?

Is Jeremy Beagle going to come and put his hand on my shoulder in a mo' and tell me I've been had?

GUEST,

Hope I`m not rocking the boat but Royal Ascot is just around the corner so what chance of you changing your mind and staying with us just a little longer.

I accept you have gone as far as you want to with regards hints, advice, etc and I`m certainly not suggesting you name your bets before racing but your feedback after a days events would be gratefully appreciated.

Gilly,

Even the 80% brigade if they are out they get it wrong 20% of the time.

Kris Kin didn`t have the form in the book to win today. No one, no matter how good they are with the formbook can truely know how much a 3yo can improve at this time of year.

KK has now shown his hand and will have the beating of any of todays opposition granted similar conditions should they meet again.

Well said, you've put your finger directly on the point: the Derby is not a bettor's race, it's an industry and sporting event. If you people understand what 'exclude the element of gamble' means then you shouldn't even have looked at the race.

Gilly,
I have often wondered.

I especially detest how one makes out the other has picked a winner when neither has.

I have suspected for a long time that Guest and Fulham are the same person, if not more than one person. However I have no proof of this,
Cheers
Swish

Definatley not so

Guest/Lee???

Gilly

Like Johnd, I see you have trouble reading. I made no personal comment on the runners in the Derby: I merely observed that Guest, long ago, picked the one of the three most prominent in the betting that finished (well) ahead of the other two.


Mtoto

re your query on the "Roushayd method", I've got my records in order, and have notes on nine handicaps from the date you mentioned up to and including the Pegwell Bay race, excluding Nomadic Way as you specified.

Of the nine, two are top rated in their fields; all are (in my view) form horses; on that assessment at least six are c/fs. I need to spend a bit more time checking the other three, but if they are not c/fs they are 2nd c/fs, and presumably preferred by VDW following in depth consideration of the form in the context of capability.

I'll be glad to try to answer any specific questions now I have the papers in order. However, I am going to be substantially unavailable from Wednesday 11th for about five weeks, so if it is urgent please get back to me before then. (I'll be able to look in on the thread, and hopefully continue to counter-balance the sceptics and plain wrong, but won't have easy access to notes on VDW's examples.)

As to how VDW handled the weight issue, as I posted in reply to Determined this morning, there is a problem which, currently, I can't quite solve. But for the comment I received (in an email, not on the thread) about Crow Wood, I thought I had the solution, and would certainly have taken the same view as Guest re Jazz Messenger. However, Crow Wood needs thinking about, and hopefully discriminating from some relevant VDW examples and Jazz Messenger. The priority task for me 'til Wednesday.