TC,

Don't see what this has to do with VDW. Chivalry ran in this race last year coming from a low draw finished 6th I think. The same questions were asked last year why was a horse that had only run in race classes 30 50 60 winning the first 2 beaten in the third now running in a 690 Last year he started at 20/1 this had to be based on the trainers reputation.

This year at one stage he was made ante post favourite, again based on the trainers reputation. No horse as won this race first time out in 30 + years. A marvellous training feat, but nothing to do with VDW. He did say look what the trainer does, but with horse that have other qualities, as well as a brilliant trainer.

Be Lucky

Precisely !!!

The Two "Main" Methods -- "Fail" when adopted - in isolation -

But that is not to say that VDW would not have come close - by viewing " "Trainers Intentions" and "Made a Book " to include this Horse !!

I think that we should all read " VDW " again - with an "open mind"

and "Look Again" for the clues that are there !!

This Concentration on the "Two Main Methods" is "Getting us Nowhere" !!!

I say again - ASK -

"why ,why ,why ".


tc

Was this a "VDW" race or not? Simple, yes or no.

I don't think so !

Certainly - not one that I could work out !

as I implyed earlier -

I think that the answers - come from reading - the Trainer !!

That was "B" difficult in this Race, but --

There are plenty of races , - where it " Jumps out a mile" !!!


tc

Tuppenycat: Thanks for that. Pkboy and the like: idiots like Fulham haven't got the slightest shit spitting clue, ignorant as ****, think for yourself for about 2 minutes and throw these ****s out.

Reply

Just a Bit noisy -"Situation - "Normal" " -

But - as you know - I have my own views on VDW - and they don't correspond with the "Mainstream" - main methods

re my Thoughts on - "Trainers" can I suggest that anyone interested -looks at my post about the 5.30 Amatur Race - on Sept 3rd in "Ratings Workshop" an example of "Jumps out a Mile" if ever there was one !!!

Wilst the " High Priests" will throw their hands up and protest that "it has nothing to do with VDW " I assure you - that that was my from - my interpretation of "VDW" thinking - "plus a lot more !!!"


tc

I'm very tired and lots to do tomorrow but I heard about the Dream Time and maybe the ghosts will walk again.

PKBoy - My second area of betting won't be found in any VDW books. What I have learn't though from his many examples and articles is how to spot duff/false favs. I may not know who is going to win most races, but I'm regularly sure who won't.

These days that can be turned to advantage and I'd be surprised if VDW wouldn't have availed himself of the lay button if he was around.

Yes, the Cambridgeshire is a race VDW would have looked at. We will never know if he would have backed any thing in this race. I'm equally sure he would not have found the winner using either of his 2 main methods.

TC,

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying we should back any horse were we think the trainer is trying for the coup, trying to win the race with the same horse on the 2nd or 3rd attempt? Or back a horse when we can't understand why it is running?

I tried to find the post you refer too about a horse that ran on the 3rd Sept, to see if it explained your thinking. I can't so would it be possible to go into a little more detail.

You say the main methods are not working. I'm not sure what you base that on. I think you will find that Guest and Fulham are happy enough with their results. I am although I can't bring myself to back the short priced examples. No one has ever said there will not be bad days, you just have to work through them.

No one at the moment is coming up with exactly the same horse in the same race. That doesn't mean it doesn't work it just means there is more work to do. I use a different ability rating to most (even though I think it is VDW based) There were 35 runners in the race today, the 2 I had top rated ran 3rd and 5th. Now it's sods law the one I thought would run the best didn't. I didn't have the winner (nor did any other VDW follower I know) that doesn't prove my ratings don't work anymore than it proves VDW doesn't.

Be Lucky

WALTER
VDW once wrote, "What is form, if not that one performance is better than another?", and in that context Roushayd's performance in the Northern Dancer was much better than first apparent.
The answer is there in the form book, and I did give a part of it recently, though Mtoto didn't want it, and Fulham thought it was some kind of magic.
Alternatively, you could subscribe to the recently expressed view that trainers and jockeys are mere artisans, and that if a horse is top on ability, in form and well weighted, it is just a matter of pointing it in the right direction!

tc

Most races are, potentially, "VDW races" in the sense that application of his ideas will identify the class/form and other form horses. But, as has been frequently noted, VDW only backed a small proportion of those he thought likely to win.

A detailed study of VDW's examples can put one in a position to:

1) correctly identify the form horses in a race, and thus the class/form horse;

2) know how far down the class/form list VDW would consider going for a bet;

3) understand that VDW never backed class/form horses with certain profiles.

(Obviously, I'm hoping that such study can also enable one to learn the defining characteristics of a VDW bet, but mine hasn't - yet.)

However, even if only armed with 1-3 above, one is on solid ground, and it is a question of waiting until the right opportunities come along. Although one can sometimes strike lucky by going against either (2) or (3) above, my experience is that, overall, it is better to wait - as with yesterday's Cambridgeshire:

"Like [two other members], I have Jazz Messenger as the class/form horse for the Cambridgeshire. Quite apart, though, from the highly competitive nature of the race, I know of no "handicap" example where VDW indicated he would bet on a horse with JM's profile."

(Posted elsewhere at 11.04am, as a score of Gummy members could confirm.)

None of those whose approach is deeply rooted in a study of VDW's examples will thus have backed the winner of the Cambridgeshire yesterday, but more to the point, none will have lost money by going against the odds. Rather, they'll be waiting for the next good thing, from a VDW perspective, to come along.

Complete rubbish, a VDW race is one in which there is a winner (winner in the race not of the race). Use a little self observation and you'll see that the first mistake, and the one that you've insisted on repeating for the entire two years of this thread, is choosing inappropriate races. So what if VDW gave an example from the Grand National? That is not a race worth looking at, so the conclusion is that whatever is illustrated by the examples they shouldn't be taken tails an' all.

class/form,

there are two class form horses that should easily win their races today

MR DINOS and HIGH CHAPPAREL I wonder why I can never find the big priced ones though. I cannot find hardly any VDW bets that were short prices, they were all 10/1 and 20/1. Exactly the opposit of what crops up in my evaluations.

Little Owl 4/5
Kenlis 11/4
To-Agori-Mou 5/2
Stray Shot 3/1
Bonny Gold 2/1
Zamandra 13/8
River Rhine 6/4
Kevinsport 5/6
Wing and a Prayer 5/4
Cool Gin 4/1

If it takes years of study,you need all the Formbooks , is open to different interpretation.
How come you will have the same horses as VDW if you find the Vital Factor that was not deliberately pointed out, repeat ONE VITAL FACTOR
Yes ONE (Singular)
He said so didnt he
no ambiguity there is there
His statement is not open to interpretation is it
Mind
If you approach it in the wrong way THE ODDS are it will remain obscure
But there again go back to the begining and you will find it was all tied up with temprement and the ODDS
Maybe

TC,

I’ve had another look at the Cambrigeshire and I think you could be right about Chivalry. He may well have had this under consideration. Poor draw last year and the only one on that side to beat it was Far Lane who had to give it stacks of weight yesterday. No idea if he would have backed it though.

Epiglotis - I would venture your reply is complete rubbish and totally illogical. Why would VDW give so many examples in all the top races if they were races to avoid?

PKBoy - I would be wary of backing High Chaparral today. Others can vouch for the fact that I made High Chaparral a confident bet in the Irish Champion Stakes at 4/1, but I take the view he is up against a very good French horse today in Dalakhani who also has the profile of a winner waiting to happen again.

I have said before, it is a good idea to look at the situation regarding horses going up in class and starting at much shorter odds than last time. It is just one of the many pitfall areas to fall into.

Boozer,

I think that you've hit the nail firmly on the head with your last post.

There is NO ambiguity about the statements that VDW made regarding the so called missing link. ONE vital factor, simple as that.

People have been trying to operate his methods since they first came on to the scene, but alas, without the success that he said was attainable.

That to me says something MUST be missing.

Guest

I entirely agree. And there is the even more fundamental point that, to discover whether there was a "winner in the race", VDW naturally had to analyse the race first. Our assumption can only be that the selections he said he backed (in whatever class of race) were those that, post his study, he concluded were "winners in the race".

It's interesting to see the division between those content to try to work from the evidence - most particularly the approx. 150 races to which VDW drew attention, and those who work without any knowledge of it. It seems we now have two who are inclined to the view that VDW worked by ESP, judging by the nonsense being posted.