Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
Reply
![]() |
![]() |
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
epi - sorry
![]() |
||
|
Vanman Member |
quote: WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS! 'OSS RACING IS NOT A RANDOM EVENT. Something before the event? I'll tell you what your figures will show.......Combining the forcast area and the three lowest consistency figures from there, will Trap a high percentage of winners. Who said that ........ERM..... It was a long time Ago............ERM........LET ME THINK.............ERM.........Ah thats it.......VDW. Right then now thats out of the way.... try page 2. |
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
Keep them coming Barney !!
![]() You gotta "PROD" them, folks !!! ![]() ![]() ![]() It gets them - "Out of their Holes" !!! ![]() This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat, |
||
|
The Vital Spark Member ![]() |
|
||
|
Member |
Barney
I trust you will be able to provide figures to substantiate your beliefs; or are you having a go at Tc on the basis of wishful thinking? |
||
|
Member |
Saturday
Sandown 1:40 Silk Fan 2:50 Deep Purple 3:25 Devise Chester 2:40 Pango 3:15 Delsarte Newton Abbot 6:35 Royal Predica |
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
For those realy interested in calculating the probability of a win - I recomend this site -
http://www.saliu.com/theory-of-probability.html ![]() |
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
Anyway - back to the results !
Friday - 3 most consistent - Winners/Loosers Consistency figs of Winners vs VDW prediction of 3 most const' Race "class" follows race time. A 2:20 e 777- L not in 1st 5 in the betting - 100/1 winner ! A 2:55 e 300- W A 3:25 d 121- W A 4:00 e 633- W A 4:35 d 985- L A 5:10 e 440- L not in 1st 5 C 2:10 c 656- L not in 1st 5 C 2:45 d 215- W C 3:15 b 060- L not in 1st 5 C 3:50 c 551- W C 4:25 d 333- W C 5:00 e 604- L S 2:00 d 321- W S 2:30 c 222- W 3 runner race S 3:05 c 783- L S 3:35 d 027- W 4 runner race S 4:10 d 777- L S 4:45 e 031- W S 5:35 e 374- W S 6:05 d 444- L S 6:35 e 333- L not in 1st 5 S 7:05 d 825- L S 7:35 d 455- W S 8:05 d 331- W S 5:20 e 246- W S 5:50 g 762- W S 6:20 e 973- W S 6:50 f 603- L S 7:20 e 240- W S 7:50 e 131- W 19 VDW winners from 30 races 5 races won by a horse not in the 1st 5 in the betting for a second day - the notorious Southwell - features good results ! |
||
|
Member |
Barney said
WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS! 'OSS RACING IS NOT A RANDOM EVENT. Quite right Barney Sorry TC But whats on Page two (snigger) Is it 111 111 111 99% certain of the winner coming from these three This is a joke right?? Here ang on Who said that ........ERM..... It was a long time Ago............ERM........LET ME THINK.............ERM.........Ah thats it.......VDW. Yes and its in print An even bigger load of bollocks No matter how obsessed you are with VDW You cannot ignore such a Naive basic mathematical blunder Based on that I would be worried about some of his other pearls of wisdom |
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
Thank you boozer - that saves me from trying to point out - my concerns over the accuracy of VDWs maths - in umpteen different ways !!
I refer again to - http://www.saliu.com/theory-of-probability.html no doubt "Blarny" - will explain - why - Its - " ALL A LOAD OF BOLLOKS" !! ![]() This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat, |
||
|
Member |
1. the first 5/6 in the betting forecast produce a high percentage of winners (86%)
One problem with that statement is that there are many 5 & 6 runners races. The strikerate of the first 4 or 5 in the betting is relative to the number of runners in a race. |
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
ectoo _ corse - it is a problem !!
You may note - that - over the last 2 weeks results - I have "Highlighted" - Races with only 5/6 runners !! We can talk about these races - when we look at the "Final Figures" ! Please contribute !! ![]() |
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
epi -
the strike rate from the - upperclassconsistentintheforecasttrueoddstemperamentalthingy - seems to be a little short of VDWs 99% - no doubt - the " High Priests" will help exp'n - X'tly W'y !!! This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat, |
||
|
Member |
Tuppenycat: dont worry, I've been knocking off Barney's wife ('s sister) and the rest is history.
|
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
GLAD Y'OR DO'N SUM'T CONNST'UCT'V !
|
||
|
Vanman Member |
Boozer,
it would be VERY foolish to make the assumption that VDW based his figures on Basic mathematics, he quite obviously, to me, based his figures on the years he studied racing and form. They were ?-1940 and then 1945-1978. BY MY CALCULATIONS, thats' at least 14 years data. Unless one accumulates the form books and actually checks the relevent races it would be unwise, to say the least, to come to assumptions about his mathematical capabilities, especially when one understand's the genius and generosity behind his winner finding techniques. |
||
|
Member |
Barney
If the above post is an example of your mathematical capabilties, you are in deep s***. I have no problem with consistency, indeed I see it as a fundament of the whole method, but I do feel that that it is misguided to accept the figures quoted in the booklet as gospel, and I am fairly sure that Tc's figures will show your blind faith to be in error. There is more to it than that, of that I am certain, but just quoting from the booklets without any justification earns you all the derision you and your former colleagues seem to attract. |
||
|
Member |
Vdw's figures were drawn from his own experience and records. Some think that these were flawed, I feel certain that vdw would be one of the first to admit that he was no mathmatical genius, but then again he did not have to be.
He was well able to make his records/figures work for him in such a way that enabled him to make a living from them, and this I feel is the crux of the whole matter. I see no future in comparing these figures to basic mathmatical accuracy as it really is not the point. One thing I am aware of though is that these numerical pictures/figures have enabled me to place with confidence four wagers this week all of which duly obliged, and I am certain that I was not on my own in wagering on these from the point of other vdw "blind faith" followers. Barney. Many thanks for your comments they have enabled me to see what I was missing. |
||
|
Vanman Member |
Johnd,
I am pleased that you appear to have turned the corner regarding consistency, as on the first of August, after your 2 week and 26 race sample, your comments were "a small enough sample....but enough to cause doubt as to the true worth of consistency as the basis for a succesful system". Be assured that I don't follow consistency figures with blind faith, in fact, ultimately, they hardly matter a jot except to draw attention to where consistent form is most probably located. This is the whole point of the VDW thread isnt it? VDW told interested parties that they had to "read and understand what was said", quoting from VDW's books is drawing attention to certain points that appear to have been misunderstood, Who else should I quote Charles R. Gibson? (incidently not-g-hall I would compare that level of knowledge on a subject , at that time, as akin to that useless prick from raceform update speaking authoratively on the developments within the G-nome project or alternatively the recent developments in nuclear fusion technology) |
||
|
Jolly Swagman Member ![]() |
not_g_hall
Welcome to the forum I hope we shall see some "Constructive " posts from you ! If I may make a couple of points - 1. VDW - did not make his living from placing bets on the horses - He was a succesful businessman in his own right ! 2. The accepted norm on this thread is now - not to make "Post Race" claims of success - but to post "Before the Event" !! any retrospective claims - I think you will find - tend now to attract a great deal of "Flack" !! ![]() |
||
|
Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by groupee community | Page 1 ... 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 ... 854 |
![]() | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|