TC,

Ok you say a performance in the recent past. While I except recent form is usually the best, why does this performance have to be recent? Or even in the last 3 runs.

Does the performance have to the same standard as the race in question? Or just better than the performances of the other likely contenders in the race? VDW made a lot of notes about consistency, does the horse have to be consistent? The Erin was the first example, before the ability rating was mentioned. Did VDW use an ability rating to analyse this race? If he did was it the same rating as he later showed us?

The field is massive, you chose where to start. It's easy to say your wrong, pick a factor and lets tear it apart. I think the folk you are happy to say are wrong have gone into detail on most factors of their thinking. Fulham is wrong, he has gone into a fair amount of detail on how he works, show us why you think he is. You can't bring up the 80% thread with him, as he didn't participate. Start the debate rolling, but please keep it to VDW, and don't go off on tangents.

Be Lucky

Please define the parametres within which discussion can be considered to be restricted to VDW. On top of such I would like to see meta and para VDW ideas and certainly intend to propound 'em.

Evening All

Here's something to throw in the Pot.

A little was left for you to complete, but
all the relevant factors were there to set
up a "second numerical picture",providing
you read what was said

Taken from Betting the VdW way

Delboy

Thanks delboy -

I guess to cobwebs covering my books obscured that one.

Anyone got some thoughts as to where he was pointing ??

tc

accentuate the positive --

eliminate the negative !!!

tc



You tell me !!

i'm just an ignorant Aus who knows Now't !!



re - Lateral thinking - Most of mine has moved away from VDW , and therefore under your"Definition" - is classed as "unadmitable evidence" !

so can I or can't I "submit" it ???


Vote please !!!


tc

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on October 09, 2003 at 10:16 PM.]

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on October 09, 2003 at 10:16 PM.]

I don't know if its me but if i have got it right and the penny has dropped its very simple it could be why people don't believe they have cracked it, I think the missing link is that people don't like the hard work side of it and after all this time it just hit me while rereading these posts here so i think these debates do work i feel quite silly for not getting it before.

Thanks to all
have fun

Thank you Michael !!

tc

Can someone give the full quote concerning the missing link and if possible the correspondence that provoked the disgorging of the idea.

Why on earth don't you buy the books?

This is a community, there is no need for more than one person to have the books.

FULHAM/MTOTO
VDW said "Most of the year has been spent in Cleethorpes, and at the time of writing I have just returned from Alton Towers.
A couple of days after my return I evaluated the Ascot Card, which resulted in the acquisition of funds for my previously arranged day out in Skeggy. I found three 4/1 shots which I thought couldn't win and laid them on Betfair at 1/5, with £100 on each.
Has a certain ring, doesn't it?

MICHAEL
From the mouths of babes and sucklings??????

Johnd,

I can only assume you have nothing to say that will bring the board to life. That's a pity but why do you insist on making yourself look an idiot?

VDW said {Profit must be taken where you see it} you know as well as I exchanges were not around then. If you think that VDW wouldn't have made money by laying the favourites he thought couldn't win. You are doing the members of this board a disservice and making yourself look very foolish into the bargain.

TC,

You can of course use your lateral thinking in any way you like. I just thought this thinking was connected to VDW. As explained before any thoughts or ideas would have to be used in context with the examples VDW gave. You must be able to see why, as they are the examples given by VDW himself.

As you know I have some different ideas to the high priests as you call them. Every idea I have is worked back through the examples. It would be pointless otherwise. I have no qualms about disagreeing with anyone, except VDW.

Can I suggest if this new thinking has nothing to do with VDW it may be better to start a new thread? This may encourage any members who are interested in VDW to speak up, and not add to any confusion.

While I'm in favour of this community spirit I do wonder how far it will be taken. The end result could be interesting. You do all the hard work, you have the experience, I can't be bothered as you will do it all for me. Sounds good for some!!!

Be Lucky

Johnd,

Living just down the road from Cleethorpes, I just thought that I`d let you know that I shared a coffee with VDW in a small cafe on the seafront earlier in the week.

He`s looking well all things considered,

quote:

---

Originally posted by epiglotis:
This is a community, there is no need for more than one person to have the books.

---

Epiglotis

That's like going into a Mathematics lesson and saying, "We only need one copy of the text book between us".

Rob

Epi,

If your next-door neighbour came and asked if he could borrow your lawn mower every time his grass needed cutting, surely after a while you’d tell him to piss off to B&Q and buy his own?

A community is all about give and take. With VDW we’re not interested in YOUR or ANYONE's idea’s we’re interested in how people perceive VDW’s idea’s – One cannot exchange anything on a subject if they haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.

Okay.

While I can see the strength of Winner in a race idea

I couldnt see the same strength applied to losers

While going through some of the earlier postings on this thread one of Bensams stated that it was a common misconception that VDW never named a winner before the event.After Pegwell Bay`s Mackeson victory vdw states,The result makes it appear he is capable of winning again before long.If you check the Cesarewitch, you will find exactly the same procedure made Nomadic Way also a sound wager.
Of course Pegwell Bay won next time out at odds of 7/2.
From that statement i`d be looking into the result of Nomadic Way`s race prior to the Cesarewitch for some clues.
Ive had the books a few months now but did`nt really pick them up till my own betting scaled down on the flat(turf).
On a different tack Delboy`s 2nd numerical picture had me trawling through the books late last night, i may be pissing against the wind with this but then some idea`s were requested. It`s just something that did`nt seem to sit right that`s all.
In (siao) vdw shows us how he evaluates class in a horse quote: Class should be defined as ability and to assess the merit of one against another it becomes necessary to compile a rating.This can quickly and easilybe done by considering the prize money Won to date in hundreds of pounds and dividing it by the number of races won.For example, a horse has Won 8 races worth a total of £20,000 (200 hundred) so to find its ability rating, divide 200 by 8 which equals 25.
In (btvdww)just before the Pegwell Bay example quote vdw:The class (value of prize,penalty value) is the first piece of information required about a horse`s previous runs and,just as in the first part of the method, it can be much better visually assimilated by simplifying. Divide the prizemoney by 100 (move two decimal places) e.g. value £1000 = rating 10
value £56,000 = 560: value £150,000 = 1,500 and so on.When you are evaluating previous races, it is usually only necessary to consider the last 3 runs in creating the first numerical picture.Class needs to be related to performance, so it isn`t just a case of a set of rules, but an unemotional, positive appraisal of known, easily-viewed facts.
He may just be going over old ground and im almost embarrassed to sugest it but from the (siao) article he divides prizemoney won, in the (btvdw article he divides prizemoney.Im away later on today but hope to look in again before leaving.

Walter P

I've always taken the second numerical picture to be the ranking of class/form horses in the race under evaluation.

i.e. Top ranked would be the highest ability rated horse in form. Second ranked would be the 2nd highest ability rated horse in form etc. - the ranking continuing until all horses deemed to be in form are covered.

Hope this makes sense to you. Just my thoughts though and not saying that I'm correct in my assumption.