Nessie
Would you point me to the post(s) where i have said that there is a single factor that runs through examples.

quote:

---

nessie
It is difficult to explain at times,The factor is evident in the last 3 runs,Some of the time.What has got to be remembered is that a horse may have consistent form but it isn't always evident in the last 3 runs,Remember you have to evaluate a horses whole career.

---

To be a good liar you must have a good memory.

Gilly
So that makes me a liar does it,I think you have been reading too many post's by jimmy I'm not going to make excuses afterall it doesn't look good the way that has been worded,What will be will be.

Gilly
if you think i would be so blatant then you are a very stupid person.

Investor,

It wasn't me that suggested there was a single factor that ran through your examples, only to later suggest that wasn't the case.

That's twice It's been suggested on this thread that I'm stupid...(how I laughed).

Epiglotis

You are being disingenuous. You know perfectly well that I think that this thread, especially Guest's posts, is a mine of information for those seeking to further their understanding of VDW's approach. But it is only such for those with a reasonable minimum of knowledge of his writings who are able to recognise what is relevant. Whatever else it is, this thread is not a primer on VDW.


Investor

I agree with you about Quiet Storm being the c/f in the 3.45 Salisbury.


Gilly

Yes, the method by which you reached your conclusion.

Fulham and Rob
Thank you for taking time to have a look at the race I asked about (SADDLERS QUEST)
Cheers
Swish

Fulham,

Can I take it then that Bobayaro didn't feature at all in Guest's evaluation of Wild Spice?

Gilly

Reading problems again?


Investor

Thanks for drawing my attention to the 3.45. Not a race I'd otherwise have considered (handicaps taking priority).

[This message was edited by Fulham on June 10, 2003 at 03:50 PM.]

Again? I think you’ll remember last time after a bit of discussion, I didn’t have a problem with my reading, just as I don’t have now.

I was just after clarification.

So that’s now Aldora and Quiet Storm (and of course Naahy) if you care to count the knowledge of my mate, which I have in common with VDW. Joking aside, it really is a shame that you don’t post these selections prior to racing though.

Thank you Gilly.

yes he does change the

rules

all the time. but he makes money and thats all that matters.

and thats all that matters is it.
i dont think so it matters more to be genuine.

quote:

---

You know perfectly well that I think that this thread, especially Guest's posts, is a mine of information for those seeking to further their understanding of VDW's approach. But it is only such for those with a reasonable minimum of knowledge of his writings who are able to recognise what is relevant. Whatever else it is, this thread is not a primer on VDW.

---

thanks fulham. so for those who want to start this is not the place. speaks volumes that does.

Nessie
Your spelling has improved no end,I'd love to know who you really are.

Gilly

I still think there is a reading issue. I made it crystal (I thought) that Aldora was a selection (and a bet) made by another thread contributor, not me. And I never said that Quiet Storm was a selection, just (and that well before the off) that in my view it was the c/f.


Nessie

Speaks volumes? What about? Anyone who wants to engage in the conversation seriously has only to spend a few pounds on some ridiculously inexpensive booklets and a few hours reading, and thinking, about the contents. Not exactly requirements that are likely to have the Government's Social Exclusion Unit in a tizzy about restrictive barriers.

Anyone not prepared to put in the necessary initial effort can hardly complain if those who have show no inclination to be basic-level instructors.

Dr Fulham,

I think I may have caught Swishes virus. I don`t believe you wrote that last piece.

The final paragraph was not up to your usual clinical standard and the penultimate paragraph was in direct contravention of the humour free zone rules.

It`s getting spooky, all my friends here at Ravenswood agree.

111
.

Nessie,

I think you should put that remark from Fulham into context. I may be wrong but it was addressed to someone with no knowledge of VDW. He hasn't any of the books, and appears to have little grasp of what is going on.

Eliminate a lot of the nonsense, and there is some, ignore the rantings of the doubters. There are some very good posts on here. I don't agree with some of them, but they do show how others view the problem. If you read them you will get an insight on how others balance the form and class aspect. If you have the books and an open mind you can draw your own conclusions.

I think you will find more on here than has ever been shown in public before. If you think VDW works and are willing to learn it is nearly all here. Saying that there are things I won't put on a semi public board, and I don't blame others for not explaining everything in detail.

Obviously there are some that don't know as much as they think they do. You come across as an intelligent person you will sort out those you feel happy about. Your ratings can only take you so far, that is one of the reasons I have stopped using mine. Today for example I had Najeebon top rated, not long ago he would have been the bet because of that. Since joining this thread I realise there is more to it than that. Things that just can't be filtered into ratings. I didn't back Najeebon today because I wasn't happy he would act on the course. If you take your top 3/4 top rated and then apply some of the formulas as suggested by VDW I think you will find an improvement.

Anyway it may not be a thread for the complete novice, or for those that have made up their minds it's all rubbish. I don't think you fit either bill, give it a try ask questions. Someone will usually answer, although you may have to go away and think about the answer.

Be Lucky

Fulham,

In the haste to bolster your insistence that I have trouble reading you failed to mention Naahy. Why would that be? You may have noticed how I separated it from the other two in my post.

I can’t see where I suggested that you backed them all. How could I? You’ve stated already that you didn’t back Aldora – I can read you know.

However, I know that you claimed to have backed Naahy after the event – again, I can read. So given your standpoint on selections, ie. never giving any before racing, I thought that I would take the liberty of presuming that you may have backed Quiet Storm. Which lead to me say “it really is a shame that you don’t post these selections prior to racing”.

Just to clarify, it was the method of VDW that I said my selections were in common with, nothing to do with what you had backed or not. I was just reiterating once again that it would be so much better if people on this thread were to post their selections before racing instead of afterwards.

Quite simple really.

Mtoto

You are quite right re the target of my last post.


III

You've got me puzzled. I've re-read the last paragraph of my previous post and although perhaps it could have been phrased more elegantly the meaning is surely clear enough.

re Ravenswood, is Stanley Segal a name to you? If not, it should be to the more senior staff.

Mtoto
What do you mean " there are some that don't know as much as they think they do" That is quite uncharacteristic for you to make a statement like that.Are we to take it that you know everything.

Investor,

Stop being paranoid!

Gilly
Deep purple,Great tune.