investor, you mentioned silver birch was rated 90, second set of rating is this your own private handicap rating,?...all of van der wheils,.. examples as far as i can make out were rated 90

Grundy
it is what i believe to be vdw's rating.On boxing day i had Harchibald at 88.

Grundy
i do apologise,iv'e just looked at my paperwork and i have Harchibald at 81 which was good enough given the rest of the field.

Investor: as an adept in the method, tell me how the result of that race conformed.
VDW is bullshit.

Hi Epi

What would be the point of Investor doing that? You have already made your mind up.

BlackCat

investor,

in sports forum some years ago a book was mentioned called ;weights right; the contributor stated this was van der wheils second method of rating, any thoughts on this investor, or do you use rating from racing post, daily mail, do you move away from the top 4 on ability if the rating do not back up your class/form selection

Hi Blackcat and Investor,

I agree that the two of you have been helpful, for which I'm grateful.
However, I am disappointed with Investor's answer to my query which I've reposted here:

Quite honestly, I don't see any " harshness", BC.
Perhaps, you can help square the statements that seem, for all the world, to contradict each other?

------

"" posted December 28, 2004 11:07 AM
Just a minute, please, Investor; it cannot be end of story unless the story had no meaning:

you said above:

."Just because it is miles clear on ability means jack shit.It's recent form that needs to be looked at and then the ability may play a part in finalising a selection."

Further down, you say:

"Epi
Spelt it all out in the previous post.I might like to add that "class" is kingpin."

end quote)

---

Perhaps I've understood nothing of VDW, but I'm sure somebody said that " Class = Ability" and that this "never fades".
To rate this Ability, you told me " divide all winning prize money by number of wins".

This figure ( the highest of) gives the "class" horse.

Then this " class" has to be balanced by " recent form" which I take to be the " consistency" figure that comes from totaling the last three finishing positions. The animal with the lowest total is the " form" horse.

Could you explain how the fk you square this with statements like
" miles clear on ability means jack shit. Recent form needs to be looked at and then the ability may play a part in finalising a selection". And

" class is kingpin"?

I'll guess that the answer is that this cannot be understood without buying the form books ( from??????).""


Btw, I don't expect anyone to give his or her selections on here for my benefit, so that's one less thing to be concerned about.

Seanrua -

if I had just made the mistake of paying - upteen thousand pounds, to investor - for his "FORM BOOKS" - then I would tend to jump to his -"defence" !!

Never mind tho !

Seanrua
With all due respect it has become apparent that it is your misundestanding of the methods that frustrates you so much.

Epi
I spelt a winner out for you,Unfortunately you missed it.

Grundy
The second rating is based on form,Which is what vdw said it was.But look before you leap that's the best piece of advice i can give you.

Strangely enough tho -

"The Rest of the world" - managed to find - the same "Winner" -

'mazin - Innit !!!!!!!!

Seanrua.
Can I please have your email add and I will give you a way to sort out 'ability' in seconds and then you can finally put yourself out of this torture
Mikebaler@btinternet.com

All
I still believe Hen. K got a good wager from just letting BM go thu the motions. Come Cheltenhem, Come the going good, Cometh the horse.

Clearly today -

as a VDW selection - "Best Mate" was a total -"NO BET" !!!



Would any VDWr - now like to tell me if it could be confidently backed for the Gold Cup ???

is it - "A BET" ?????

Hi Seanrua
The tone of your posts were a little harsh imo. Anyhow, I think Investor left out the words "on its own". In other words, "ability on its own is no use without consistent form". That's what I think anyway.


Hi TC
That was funny

Not that it matters I suppose, but as it happens, I defended Investor before he offered form books if you recall. Later, I told him to re-consider his post to your good self, for which he apologised. You may be interested to know that the timing of my rebuke to Investor happened to be AFTER sending him a cheque in the sum of £148, and BEFORE receiving the form books, awaiting cheque clearance.

I have the books now. Nothing more he can do for me. So why am I defending Investor? As I pointed out before, he is picked on - and all he is trying to do is help people who wish to learn the VDW method.

I even jumped to JIB's defence once - like he needed that!

BlackCat

Investor,

I don't wish to knock you - to many seem to be doing that anyway without me joining in, but...

HK and Best Mate and molly codling and running in a bog - he's run on heavy twice won 1, placed 1. He's run GS 4 times won 3, placed 1. Now I'm certainly no expert but would think the going had absolutley nothing to do with the result today - okay he's never run on soft (but hardly a bog), but the goings either side he won 4 from 6 - quite consistent I think.

Oh fek,

I've lost another 2 hours of my life in the Tardis known as VDW.

Fascinating at times, frustrating at others.

Black Cat, Investor, et al:
I have the honour to have received some recent literature penned by the author of the VDW material. An interesting point is that the author clearly says that readers, both in the VDW period and the present, insist that there is more to the method than was written BUT this is not the case. From VDW one needs no more than Little Owl and the rest of the stuff in Guest's little boxes, form books have got sweet FA to do with it.

Well, we continue to live and learn;the reason I am unable to see how class = abilty that never fades and is " kingpin" MAY be used to finalise a selection, is, apparently, because I'm frustrated!

I wondered why I thought I saw naked ladies between the lines, but not between the sheets.

Anyway, perhaps frustration is contagious and I've caught a dose from this thread.

Here's a post from Investor, who, btw, has helped me a lot:


""posted October 22, 2004 11:14 PM
Seanrua
It really is frustrating for me this is.I have given an area that MUST be looked at and not many want to put in the work.And it really pisses me off when horses like pick up sticks are brought to the fore.Onlytime will tell was the c/f horse in this race irrespective of the fact that he finished 6th lto.Forget o.r's t.s rpr postdata or whatever for the time being,And try and evaluate the race in question the way that vdw would have done.Forget collaterral form.And again i will put this Consistent form + ability + capabilility + probability + hard work = Winners.It would appear that my last post has gone straight over the top of your head,Which really does my nut in.Start thinking about A horse rather than THE Horses otherwise you will never get "the winner" and that is the one we want.""

From what I glean from old posts, including some from BC, Fulham and Guest, we should NOT back the C/F horse when

it is diadvantaged by high weight

when the going is completely unsuitable

when it has bad recent form.


How am I doing so far?

Then it's over to you Epi van der wheil.You now have the tools to advance your s/r from 0%.I wish you luck.

Seanrua
You just gave a formula that vdw used all the time,Which is constant form +ability +capability+probability+hard work=winners.The winner has to have all these characteristics,Otherwise the formula would have just said "ability" or whatever.Also don't forget that horses run in different 'class" of races against different "class" of horses there ability is gained in these races but a horse competing in a 3 grand seller is very unlikely to fair in a 18 grand h/cap if horses have shown form/ability at this level.There is a lot of work to do sean and you won't find these horses just by opening to the racing pages of the racing post.

Investor: try feeding Parkview Love through your latest post.