HOME »
Gummy Racing    Gummy Racing Forum    Gummy Racing Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Archived Van Der Wheil    VDW (CONTINUED)
Page 1 ... 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 ... 854
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
3-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
epi - sorry Red Face
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Vanman
Member
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tuppenycat:
Try a simple experiment - VDW says that 3-3-3 ie a total of 9 - will trap 99% of winners.

Take 3 dice - the odds on a single dice rolling either a - 1 or a 2 - are 33% - actualy 1 in 3

By VDWs statistical calculations - if you roll all three dice together - then there is a 99% chance that a 1 or a 2 will be featured - ie a VDW win !

My own practical experiment showed something under 90% success !

A real statastician would be able to give the true probability - but the basic premise is clearly wrong !

Further - If the 3 horses in question are in a race of say 50 horses is the chance that their form figures would trap the winner - the same as the liklehood of trapping the winner in a field of 5 horses -

I think not !! - Does this show that even at this basic level - the "Godhead" has "Feet of Clay" ???

Anyway lets see what the figures show at the end of the day.



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.
 
Posts: 4040 | Registered: October 02, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
Keep them coming Barney !! Razz

You gotta "PROD" them, folks !!! Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

It gets them - "Out of their Holes" !!! Eek

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
The Vital Spark
Member
Picture of john in brasil
Posted
    Bill Clinton
    TC,
    I'm not sure Barney wants you to prod his hole. However hed probably be quite pleased if people started kissing it.
 
Posts: 4717 | Registered: February 10, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
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?
 
Posts: 1512 | Registered: August 20, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
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
 
Posts: 3443 | Registered: October 02, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
For those realy interested in calculating the probability of a win - I recomend this site -

http://www.saliu.com/theory-of-probability.html

Razz
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
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 !
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
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
 
Posts: 690 | Registered: August 19, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
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" !!

Roll Eyes

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
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.
 
Posts: 748 | Registered: October 14, 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
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 !!

Smile
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
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,
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Tuppenycat: dont worry, I've been knocking off Barney's wife ('s sister) and the rest is history.
 
Posts: 3443 | Registered: October 02, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
GLAD Y'OR DO'N SUM'T CONNST'UCT'V !
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Vanman
Member
Posted
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.
 
Posts: 4040 | Registered: October 02, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
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.
 
Posts: 1512 | Registered: August 20, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
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.
 
Posts: 27 | Registered: August 05, 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Vanman
Member
Posted
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)
 
Posts: 4040 | Registered: October 02, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jolly Swagman
Member
Picture of Tuppenycat
Posted
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" !!

Eek
 
Posts: 2359 | Registered: June 17, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by groupee community Page 1 ... 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 ... 854 
 

Gummy Racing    Gummy Racing Forum    Gummy Racing Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Archived Van Der Wheil    VDW (CONTINUED)

© Gummy Racing 2004.