Nessie
I put up horses for evaluation,These are the horses i think or have the credentials to win there respective races.I apologise about claiming barking mad i did say i wouldn't do it and it won't happen again.

good morning investor.

all it is that if you claim winners after the race people will have a dig.so to stop people having a go at you try not to do it.ok. no ofence.

can you please answer my question. is the life time form tha trelates to the factor that you wont tell me available in the racign post paper verson.

Nessie,

Have a read of my post on page 556 which I wrote at 6.38 pm yesterday.

It is a fairly basic overvue of how VDW works, but gets the point across.

Gilly

You wrote that your post on page 556 offers "a fairly basic overview of how VDW works".

Putting it kindly, I would say that aspects of what you wrote have a slight, passing resemblance to part of the VDW's approach - which is altogether different from being a "fairly basic overview".

You are no doubt correct when, in your previous post, you wrote that it is unnecessary to go over the previous 555 pages of this thread to get a sense of VDW's approach. But one would need to know very much more than you evidently do in order to be in a position to reach a well-founded judgement. And I would bet long odds on that, whatever opinion someone in such a position reached, it wouldn't be that VDW's approach was "nothing special".

In short, on the evidence of the two of your posts to which I have referred, you are in the same position as Jimmy, JIB, Epiglotis and Three Legs: insufficiently informed to make a well-founded judgement.

Dr Fulham,

Perhaps you could show me where I`ve made such a judgement. I may be wrong but I don`t believe I`ve done that, unless it was included in a light hearted attempt at humour.

I refer you to the thread I started "VDW Reconciliation". My thoughts on VDW are posted there, which are non judgemental.

Basically, they read, if VDW is your thing, fill your boots that`s your business. I don`t think that`s ill-informed.

My issues are usually personality driven.

111
.

Fulham

My judgement was based on the information I had at the time I made it. More information may be available now so it may be that my judgement was wrong. This, however, seems unlikely, based on the results I have seen on this thread. My original judgement of VDW was that he had some good ideas but that most of the results were based largely on backfitting. Note the different methods on here, if a winner can’t be made to fit one method it is usually ascribed to another. The only way to get at the truth would be to publish the correct method in its entirety and have it independently assessed. For example, investor claims to have found a “secret” and if it was posted it would be a fairly easy matter to apply this to ALL races to see if it had any validity. But, it appears that peoples ego’s won’t allow this in case it is found to be wanting. In this case their “secret” would be shown for what it is.

What I find most suggestive about your latest post is the implication that reading and being involved in this thread from the outset still leaves a person insufficiently informed to express an opinion worthy of attention.

III

Your response is fair, and on reflection I was wrong to include you with the other three.


Jimmy

On 8 June you wrote: "I realised back in the late seventies that it [fathoming out VDW's approach] was not worth the effort".

Prior to 1 January 1980, VDW had had half a dozen letters published in the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book in which he had introduced readers to two or three ideas, but had yet to get to the heart of his approach, still less demonstrate the ability rating or say enough for people to have any realistic chance to cotton on to the fact that, for VDW, consistent form and the horses in the first five/six of the betting forecast with the three lowest consistency aggregates were not one and the same. The very large majority of VDW's publications date after 1/1/80, including most of the key material, so I think you'd have to admit that, by your own admission, you are inadequately informed to express a well-founded opinion.

And this thread is no guide to VDW. Only a very small number of contributors have any real grasp of VDW's approach, and only one of them has pre-off posted any selections. If you achieve better results than he has demonstrated, well done. But also reflect on the fact that, while the strike rate demonstrated would, for many, be a great improvement on what they achieve, by the poster's own acknowledgement it falls well short of what is possible.

VDW regularly stressed that his approach was a method, not a system. Proper application of that method means that the appliers are all considering the same horses. But there is nothing in the method to take the place of the individual's judgement as to whether any given VDW selection is strong enough to back (and VDW himself explicitly said that he only backed a fraction of the horses shown as probable winners by his approach). If there was, it would be a system, not a method.

Given that we are talking about a method and not a system, it follows that there is a distinction between understanding the method and success in applying it. Those who understand the most and thus have most to impart to others are not automatically the most successful practitioners. To take golf as an analogy, David Leadbetter, Bob Torrance and John Jacobs are all brilliant golf coaches and rightly consulted by the very best players, and even at his advanced years I have no doubt that Jacobs could thrash me round his and my club, Sandy Lodge. But none of the three would make the cut regularly even on the European tour, and VDW's 80+% strike rate is only for the Tiger Woods of the betting game.


Epiglotis

You are like the people one sometimes meets whose opinions of books or plays derive from the reviews they've read, but who never actually read the books in question or go to the theatre. It's called living life at second hand, and in my experience is a very poor substitute for first hand experience.

Fulham

I have already admitted than my judgement may be wrong. What I have also said is that I can see no evidence that it is so.

Dr Fulham,

Thankyou for your reply.

The belief that reading books and watching plays is living life first hand pretty much sums you up. Apart from that please answer my point about your judgement of this thread as uninformative.

Fulham

Thanks for the information RE Island Set. I'm still a little surprised that Guest made that post. Island Set wasn't improving so why would Guest think I would have considered it?

All,

After all the talk about consistency and consistent form being a different thing. Why didn't anyone ask about Macadamia, the only consistent horse in the race? In that race she was the ONLY horse I looked at. Before the knocking brigade start jumping up and down. No, I didn't back her, she failed on ability. I do wonder if some can't see the wood for the trees, and are just trying to make it too complicated.

Be Lucky

Fulham
Out of interest do you make QUIET STORM c/f in the 3.45 at salisbury.

Mtoto
Don't stop posting mate.

Fulham,

Was there anything in my ‘basic’ evaluation of Wild Spice that was incorrect from a VDW standpoint?

Gilly

The main point you missed with Wild Spice was the fact that it had almost 3 stone in hand of its nearest rival, and should have started at much shorter than 6-4

Jimmy

Epiglotis rattled 'a cage' rather than my cage.

Sincere apologies for having an opinion.

Rob

Swish

I have no doubt that VDWs ideas can be applied to class F races. It's just that you have to search through a lot more races to find good selections than you so with higher class races.

Presented with a number of meetings on any one day I'd go for a handful of the highest class, class D or better normally. However if I'm going to a race meeting I'll check every race from class A to class G.

Rob

Mtoto,

Thanks for your comments re yesterday. Another penny dropped, although you've said many times before that you only look for consistent or improving horses.

Many thanks

Oldtimer

Gilly (is that Gillian or Giles) i read your post. thanks. you dont like vdw either do you.LOL

ok. I would investor to answer the question please. only two meetings today yet not horses to consider.

I am starting to think that investor is a wind up. simple questions that I ask and never a straight answer. always the winner after. .
please dont let me down
my friend.
as we say round here.