He said it was all there with nothing left out
Also
Punters who do not get a mininum of 80% winners
Should evaluate their reading of form


He also Said
No missing link involved when trying to separate the 3 probables.

BOOZER
To tidy up the quote, he said "Once you find it, you'll wonder how on earth you could miss it, and you'll have the same horses as myself".
Only a complete masochist could construe that as the foundation for years of studying his examples.
There are only two logical conclusions that one can draw from that statement:

A) The answer IS simple.

B) VDW was a liar.

Anything else is a fudge, used to justify an initial basic error in understanding!

Johnd

I agree !


Every thing else about VDW -is - simple, so why should this statement be a complete exception to every thing else which has gone before !!!


(Complicated tho by the fact that "Deep Thought" tells us that the answer is 42 !!!!)


Clik Here !



tc

I firmly believe that of all the VDW protaganists I have ever encountered there is one man whom I think has most of the answers to the VDW puzzle.(later)
After I bought golden years, and read it for days & days trying to implant the print in my head-underlining everything with flourescent ink
that I thought had a tangible meaning, I went through the RP and found a race in which there was a winner in the race although its last three placings were 222.The horse won and I thought I cracked it.
After many more years of infrequent consistency, I went back to my diary which Ihad noted all my bets with results and found something which I had thought about but had never really positively concluded.
The majority of my winners were in high class races, races with a high monetary value.
Group races,listed races,high class handicaps were the vast proportion of races in which some unforeseen animal did not come out & spoil the party.These races were the ones which did seem to run to the formbook.
After reading the RP one day I seen an article about horse racing computer prediction programs and one such program came to the fore, winning many plaudits from the RP article writer.
That program was PRO-PUNTER.There was an ad in the RP for PP and a free guide/info pack which I duly sent for.
When the pack came I was well impressed.There was a level staking plan for all races+results with over £10000 prize money which looked so good I bought the program.
The first race I did with it gave me Erhaab 1st 7/2 in the Derby, the Balanchine in the Oaks @6/1.I phoned the author of the program to tell him of how pleased I was with his product & after half an hour of talk mentioned that the data input was very similiar to VDW methodology.I was very surprised when I heard that the program was written with VDW principles/methodolgy in mind.The name of the author is David Atherton who has studied VDW to the hilt,designing a computer program to analyse all his teachings, then converting the info into PRO-PUNTER.The man is open to any telephone conversations regarding his knowledge/program & I have spoken and emailed him over the years.The product is highly succesfull-results speak for themselves.I cannot give his web address but if you search for PRO-PUNTER on google its near the top.I do not have the time to analyse as many races as Id like to but needless to say when I do,in decent class races I do have a good strike rate at good odds.I have posted similiar info in the past but havent had much feedback.All fellow VDW'ers could do a lot worse than find out a good bit more about this program.It has had many great reviews such as (pasted)
"Technology to beat the bookies" - Raceform Handicap Book
"...the initial investment in a profitable enterprise..." - Acorn User
"...Has the potential to turn bookie bashing into an art form." - Micro User
"Bookies beware. Pro Punter is under starter's orders and DGA software is on a winner." - Atari ST User
"...confound the sceptics...one of the easiest ways of making money without getting arrested." - 8000+
"...technically a first class package." - Computing with the Amstrad PCW
"Pro Punter comes in with the best pedigree of the lot...the results speak for themselves." - PC Answers
"...a great program." - Amiga Format
"...deserves the praise lavished upon it by other press reviews and satisfied customers...the best racing software available." - Racing Post
"On the very limited evidence of my ‘dry run' I found Pro Punter results to be unspectacular but encouragingly solid and diligent system fans should have no qualms about considering it." - Racing Post
"King of the Computers." - Sporting Life Weekender
Any feedback welcomed

Bio,

Was it not you who said the PC version wasn't as good as the Amiga version?

I thought I had a version for the Atari but can't find it so it's probably gone

cheers IMP

Imp
Yes it was me, but he has early versions which do not run on Windows xp and were the same as the Amiga version.If you still have your Atari im sure he will give you a copy for a nominal fee.He quoted me a tenner for an early pc version

Perhaps that is why you are not getting any feedback.

You have put people off buying the PC version

cheers IMP

quote:

---

Originally posted by IMP:
Perhaps that is why you are not getting any feedback.

You have put people off buying the PC version

cheers IMP

---

Yes I have maybe contributed to that, but as I said the earlier versions are just the same as the amiga,bbc,acorn,atari ect, and there are still older copies in the stockroom.

But I don't want to spend hours inputting the data.

I wonder why the PC version isn't as good?

If it ain't broke etc.

cheers IMP

Imp
A copy to a reply I gave earlier to yourself:

It has been tinkered with so much that it has lost the essence of what made it so unique and useful in the first place.
The editor of Odds On magazine(also owner of Profile software)told me that when I questioned the wisdom of his tinkering with Profile he told me that to try to get it more accurate it ended up more user friendly but less good at finding winners and ProPunter was the exact same, and if I had an older copy of ProPunter never,never throw it away or dicard the old computer it ran on as it was gold

If you're correct in your view that you're considering suitable races, what theory would you propose to explain your lack of success?

Boozer

Are you using the 2nd numerical picture
to sort out the 3 probables

Epiglotis - I do hope you are not referring to the 3 I CONSIDERED for the Cambridgeshire. If you think that any race I evaluate using the VDW method should show me the winner then there is no point in debating it.

Success using his method comes down to knowing exactly how he used all the various components and nobody knows the exact answers UNLESS they are getting the sort of strike rate that VDW said was there.

Your suggestion that we are using the wrong races is rubbish because a 10 year old could read one of his articles and clearly that the best races are the ones to use. Try reading the books sometime. I bet you tell people a film is rubbish before you see it.

I'm pretty sure I got one of your unsuitable races spot on yesterday as I did in umpteen group 1 races this year. My strike rate goes down the further the class scale I go.

Apart from the pacemakers, virtually every horse in a group 1 race or any race worth good money, is trying to win it if it possibly can. Anyone who thinks there are non triers in group 1 races hasn't got a clue about horse racing.

There are plenty of no hopers in group 1 races though, but that's a completely different kettle of fish.

I dont use VDW methology as such
Perhaps a Variation of Roushayd
I have always used the drop in class as the first requirement. Hence the Interest

Second numerical picture?
individual people have different views
For instance assuming that I have understood Statajacks interpretation,using his approach you would be filtering races rather than Horses.

There again the betting market could be called a numerical picture and is probably the solution

Whether you learn from your results and adjust your behaviour or continue to repeat the same mistakes is up to you.

Guest,
i think you have misinterpretd Epi's post completely, which speaks volumes for your general comprehension.
You have set yourself up as the general guru on VDW, yet, by your own admission, you no longer have the confidence to bet in handicaps. Maybe he is just a trouble causer, or maybe he can think for himself?

FULHAM
An interesting result in the Cambridgeshire?
If you will cast your mind back to the Lincoln, You originally had Adiemus as the c/f horse, but changed that view after the race to say he was not 'A form horse' a necessity to make your understanding of the method fit, (A not uncommon situation).
At that time, I went to some lengths to explain why he didn't win the Lincoln, the conclusion being that it wasn't enough of a test.
In view of Saturday's race, and the fact that, even with the first-time blinkers, the race was but a few yards short of the test he needed, you may wish to reappraise that view.
Incidentally, he has NEVER been out of form, apart from his York race, for which there was a valid expanation. He may need a run or two to get him fit, but has invariably run to form, given the circumstances of the race.
No, I didn't back him, but I was fully aware of his credentials for the race.

Wonderful thing, this ESP!

Johnd

There is no possibility of a useful discussion here, as we use the word "form" in quite different ways. You use it in whatever way you use it: I use it in what my research leads me to believe is the way VDW used it. Quite often, horses that, on any commonsensical usage of the word, are in form, are nevertheless not form horses in the particular sense in which VDW used the word.

Exactly, Fulham. JohnD has his view on form but he, much like Epiglotis, can't be bothered to check it against VDWs own selections. Epi can't even be bothered to read the VDW articles and books anyway let alone put his nose in a form book concerning one of VDWs selections.

Let's be absolutely clear here. VDWs selections are the only benchmark. I can't understand the logic of anyone who thinks that looking at the form for VDWs selections is in someway daft. We get people all the time mocking VDW followers because they are "discussing ancient races from 20 years ago". So how did these same people arrive at their own form evaluation process?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that and it's down to their own theories, which most of them can't be bothered to check because it involves hard work. And I mean hard work not just compiling meaningless stats.

Nothing has changed on this board and I have to say I'm really fed up with the same old bickering going round in circles. There are genuinely interested people but personally I felt I have done enough shouting of the odds.

The other VDW forum isn't all agreement, far from it, but everything is discussed by people genuinely trying to improve their understanding and I mean everyone in that respect.

I have often likened people like JohnD & Epi to those who pass comment on a film or book without actually watching or reading it. Actually John is more like a detective going on hunches than actually checking the evidence because to uncover the evidence means hard work.

End of the day, my main aim is to stay ahead of the game. I had to work out how to do this for myself, though I am grateful to a generous VDW who posted lot's of signposts. I don't have all the answers, but I have enough to make it pay. What others do is not really my concern.

VDW didn't give any "selections", he gave examples, these were given post race so can not be considered to be genuine bets. Whether or not VDW backed these horses is not decideable but one thing is quite clear and that is that VDW was a piss useless teacher otherwise Fulham with his academic background wouldn't still be floundering after 20 years of study. The examples should be viewed with the knowledge of VDW's pedagogic shortcomings and only what each example is chosen to illustrate should be taken from that example. What matters is the method, you have demonstrated on both this and the 80% thread that your implementation of the method is inadequate, if the method is worth investigating, and the existence of this thread suggests that it is, then I suggest that you forget about the examples and start to re-evaluate your understanding of the method. First off, for the **** knows how manyeth time, look at your results, whenever there's a big race meeting you lose. Doesn't that tell you anything?

When it`s time to take the money.

This article is from sports forum 97 i`ll cut to the chase so part is left out.

Stanton Harcourt appeared in the third list.Note that the trainer JL Dunlop, a past master at bringing his horses to the boil and then placing them to win. First run of the season for Stanton Harcourt was in a class 41 race at Leicester, where it won recording a speed figure of 40.Next raised in class to 54 where it won again but recorded a poorer speed figure.Then pushed up to class 2421, the Italian Derby, where the horse finished ninth.Next dropped in class to 198 where it showed the classic give-away and recorded an SF of 71, a vast improvement on its previous best.Now is the time to watch where the trainer places the horse next.Stanton Harcourt is entered for the Foodbrokers Handicap at Newmarket class 171 over a mile july 19,1997 and is being dropped in class, also carrying one pound less than the previous race and is race fit having last run 10 days previously.
When we analyse the race we are not looking for the winner of the race but seeing if there is a winner in the race.I have chosen this race as it demonstrates the class/form evaluation method when things are not so straight forward.

Raceform 2871, July 19 1997 Class 171 1m Handicap Newmarket.

Previous race/ Distance / Placing / Horse.

Class 198 1m 2f 5th S. Harct.
Class 44 1m 1st Spec/tor.
Class 80 7f 2nd G. Libra.
Class 304 1m 6th N.M.Mrng.
Class 61 1m 1st M. River.
Class 304 1m 21st W.Ranger.
Class 195 7f Last of 6. H. Way.
Class 66 1m 2nd Sugar/ft.
Class 73 1m 6th Tigrello.
Class 87 1m 1st Stillett.
Class 34 1m 1st Shawm.
Class 198 1m 2f 8th At. Des.

..............

Speculator, Generous Libra, Mara River, Sugarfoot , Tigrello , Stillett , and Shawm, can all be discounted as they face a massive rise in class and have not shown sufficient form to indicate otherwise.
Atlantic Desire was beaten by Stanton Harcourt in its last race and is not weighted to reverse the placings, so is ruled out.Hays Way finished last of six beaten more than 26 lengths and is also ruled out, along with Wasp Ranger, who finished 21st in its last race.The race is now reduced to two possibles, Stanton Harcourt and No More Mr Niceguy, who must be respected as it raced in slightly higher class last time and also improved on its best speed figure last time.At this point we could try making a book, another idea from vdw.However consider the following.No More Mr Niceguy only improved 9lbs on its previous best speed figure and is carrying 8lbs more today.Also note that it has not raced for 30 days. The horse in question was also running on the all weather tracks after the 1996 turf season had ended, running three times as a two-year-old and continued as a three-year-old, in fact, its last win was on the all weather surface on march 29th 1997, hardly the same class as Stanton Harcourt.In total prior to this race, No More Mr Niceguy had run 13 times since the 1996 season had ended.By comparison, Stanton Harcourt was only lightly-raced and had the greater capability.Therefore, the class/form horse is Stanton Harcourt, who duly won at 5/1.
As the flying Dutchman would say "Its time to take the money and eliminate Stanton Harcourt from the list". Classform.

The form for this race is available on the post website im sure you will find the race interesting to look at, hope this helps .