Results, October 2.

First, 155 Chepstow (Novice Chase £8K) was definitely NOT a VDW race, so anyone, attempting to apply VDW rules to this, has made an elementary error.
The penalty for such a glaring mistake is to be sentenced to another twenty years of hard study of the form books.

OK, onto the correct VDW selection, and lo and behold we have a winner!

ATTRACTION, 315 HQ ( £116K) fought hard to beat off Chic. Won at a decent price of 11/4, beating more fancied runners (in the market), of course.

The pattern set by the winners of the few sected races to date is now emerging:

Attraction;

Top OR 119.

Joint Top Best RPR with Chic (137)

Best Topspeed (way ahead)

Way ahead in the winning prize money stakes, too.

Full Monty selection wins! I didn't back her, but I should have done at the 3/1 that was available. Dickhead!

Nowhere!

I've quite frequently noticed that if a horses good chance is uncovered when it isnt supposed to it usually disappoints, though it must be put on a 'remind me' list.

Glum faces in the Gosden camp I think .

Nessie
Yes they did show improvement in higher class,But we can't bet on that alone.We have to look at he race and the opposition that we are evaluating on the day.Have a good look at Vodka Bleu,And set the race out has vdw wold have i.e put all the cons ratings down get the ability ratings for all the horses in the race,First 5 or 6 in the betting.Then compare the horses performance Where,Over what distance,Class,Class of opposition,Are they capable under today's conditions.It's all there nessie.

of course it's all there Investor..the problem is you will never profit from it as you only see it after the race and conveniently backfit your thinking to exclude the rest of the field

i can't really believe that people actually waste their time doing this sort of thing.

I have you down as one of the best aftertimers I have EVER come across Investor.

Do you know how to have a bet? of course not..it's always a no bet race UNTIL you know the winner..it's a good job the US MB members don't ever read this forum..jeez would we be a laughing stock.

Ectoo
Go back to your nest,I'm conversing with Nessie.And don't personally give 2 tom tits what you think.

Seanrua
I agree the 1.55 wasn't a vdw race,I never said that in the first place did i,Dickhead.For clues on class and form it is a good example to look at.

Well I think the cleverest piece of placing today was Obe Gold at Redcar !

I looked at it - then discounted it because - it had the "Wrong" jockey

Can Culhane "make" 8-3 ?

Go back to your nest,I'm conversing with Nessie.And don't personally give 2 tom tits what you think.

lol, that has just about narrowed your age down for me.

UK message boards are so full of bullshitters.

Ectoo
Whatever you say,Frustrating isn't it when you can't get it or them on a plate,Be patient.Oh by the way i'm 41 but you can take 20 years off if you feel like it,I'd love my hair back.

you seem to think i want something, no, not at all mate. i don't believe in mysteries, i prefer to deal in facts

sorry about your hair

just wish you would put a selection before a race

investor. yes done that. but as I said before you get 3 or 4 probables. to be fair it is easier after the race "oh yeah, of course its that one !" etc. before the race its " hmm but what if .."

thanks.

ps I havent had hair for 65 million years.

investor. do you find vdw the most profitable of your methods? do you dutch, place or e/w?

do you do it full time? what sort of points profit do you make?

just curious.

personally I dutch all the time, and make 2-3% a day for around 20 bets. bloody hard work.

Ectoo,

I have been reading your posts with some interest, but in some cases I find it hard to understand your thinking.

Didn't you learn anything from reading and examining past races. When you have a bet don't you ever re assess the race after the result is known? Did you really place the money down before you fully understood the method you are trying to learn?

If you wanted to explain something wouldn't you use a past race as an example?

To my mind there are two very different reasons for after timing. While I agree blatant after timing for no good reason is stupid and annoying. If it is done to show how something works where's the harm?

You make much of there being few selections, but couldn't that just as easily be the people who would be likely post haven't found anything worth posting. If they do and say no bet after the assessment that is also held up for scorn. Even if they have gone into detail to explain why there's no bet.

I don't know why you post pre race. When I do it's because I think it is a good example of what I'm trying to explain. There not there as free tips or what ever. The idea is to take them apart and find the reason for the selection. With some that reason can be down to my things, fair enough but if they have nothing to do with VDW why post on this thread?

When you arrived my hope was you would explain why VDW doesn't work in today's racing. You then appear to join in this consistent horses don't win or when they do the price is no good argument. Nobody has ever said the only reason is just because a horse is consistent back it. Why not stick to the consistent horse that have the other factors that are a good price? I don't think you can argue with the fact VDW is about class and form. You don't agree with the method VDW suggested and pour scorn on it. Why not explain how you do it?

Why did I wish you could explain why it doesn't work, because I like to see people stretch themselves and try the impossible? With good sensible questions, and answers we may all benefit. If this started with racing in general and then it could move on to VDW and you tell me were his thinking fails. I think this starts with class and form but it has to be backed up with other factors. He makes many suggestions about what those factors are. They range from breeding to suitability of the course. Yes, he says watch the trainer, but he also says judge a horse by what it does on the course.

Attempt the impossible prove it doesn't work, I don't think I've ever ducked a sensible straight question. Try it without all the noisy hangers on, who's only interest is to make lots of noise, and ruin a perfectly good thread. Have to admit I can only give my version, and there are many that wouldn't agree with me. but that's life.

A Parasite

mtoto. good one.

a straight question.
1. what do you think is the 'common denominator'
2. when looking at a race what 2 things do you do first?

Nessie
You old dog,I know who you are,I have never been solely vdw but you know that already don't you.I hope you continue to do well with the dutching mr protege.

I think this starts with class and form but it has to be backed up with other factors. He makes many suggestions about what those factors are. They range from breeding to suitability of the course. Yes, he says watch the trainer, but he also says judge a horse by what it does on the course.

As far as I can see, that only leaves the jockey, assistant groom and car park attendant out of the formula.

I really cant understand if VDWology is really so reasonably comprehensive you and your noisey hangers-on cant make a stab at more races before the off.

A Parrot Shite.

what the feck is mr protege? dont get it.

Mtoto

Of course we look at the past races but that doesn't mean I take one horse from 30 years ago and then post each time a horse wins with a "similar" profile.

Horse racing is very complex and that is why most VDWers are reluctant to pick selections before a race. Their method is so generalistic that each time they look at a race there are always 3 or 4 horses they CANNOT split..only afterwards do they manage to highlight the winner and conveniently eliminate those other 3 that were such stumbling blocks beforehand.

It's not really hard to see that the "method" is the god here..the fact that the "method"..makes no profit and isn't good enough to isolate the winner BEFORE a race should be telling people that aren't in the faith that it's not a method of much use to man nor beast in it's present form.

It reminds me of Jehovah's witness's, they believe profoundly in the what they peddle as well.

I really don't think any person spouting the faith actually believes it's profitable..it's just a devotion to myth.

The fact that VDW never existed makes the parallel with Witness's even more scarey.

epi has put up some good arguments relating to his "non existance" !

Best I think - relating to the fact that the name is not in the "Dutch" language !

Surely the man existed at least?.
If not then this whole thread is based on fallacy.