- This topic has 202 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
GL,
Nobody is going to come and here and explain to a ‘newbie’ how a selection is arrived at, whether that be from the past or from a current race. I’m afraid it’s totally unrealistic to expect anybody to do so.
Although as is obvious from threads on here there is some disagreement from enthusiasts over elements of the method it should be bourne in mind that VDW said once everything is understood, everybody will have the same horses.
Although it’s a ‘method’ and not a ‘system’ the results of explaining exactly how selections are arrived at would have the same results as a system. If you released a very profitable system into the public domaim then I could virtually guarantee it wouldn’t remain profitable, weight of money as word spread would see to that.
If people did start to explain exactly how a selection was arrived at then I think they would either:
a) Be doing so without a full understanding themselves, which will only serve to push people down the ‘wrong’ route.
b) Be padding their posts with superfluous information to disguise the ‘real’ reasons a selection was made.
The only way to fully understand his method is by studying his writings and those 30 year old examples you’d like people to steer away from. Following the route of some others who ‘claim’ to have an understanding can be a dangerous and time-wasting exercise as I know to my cost.
Even study of his writings and those 30 year old races is no guarantee to success as countless people will tell you. I floundered for years without spotting certain vital elements and I’ve still not fully come terms with all aspects. Fortunately there are some generous people like L33 who will drop some subtle hints to help people studying his methods or give some current days selections (without the reasons) to help people who are prepared to help themselves better understand.
I can fully understand that it’s this reluctance to discuss things openly that frustrate others but it won’t happen here or anywhere else I’m afraid. There is only one ‘true’ expert on VDW’s writings and that’s VDW himself. Following the route of other ‘self-proclaimed’ experts can be a futile exercise.
Grand Lodge
Crock has set out in detail the answer to your response to my post that I would myself have given had I looked in before him, and I have nothing to add that is relevant to your point.
Crock
As you say, VDW did indicate that, once people had understood his approach, they would have the same selections as he. But I wonder if he meant that absolutely literally because, if he did, it would surely be a system (ie entirely rule-bound) rather than the method (which implies the exercise of discretion) he persistently claimed it to be?
crock,
I totally agree with you.
Personally, discussing VDW is a futile exercise as many prefer to remain guarded or, indeed, hidden behind the VDW book and emulating his mastery of cryptology – which many people on this board seem to do, with annoying accuracy. If people are not prepared to put up …..!
However, I am lucky enough to be able to make racing pay through my own methods and stat’s and am thankful of not needing to rely on such folly as a foot-in-the-door for my race analysis and betting.
GL
ok if you wont explain here,s how i,ve done my version 5.40 newmarket rate all of the field for ability and consistency divide ability by consistency mark down 6 or 7 top ratio this is my first few in the betting no time backshift today early tomorrow of those top 9 i,ve marked of the 5 most consistent confuchias,opra cape,zidane,greek renaissance, galeota, of those best lto are zidane and galeota 511 lto ,then project lto rpr for todays weights to give ZIDANE all very quick no time today or tomorrow if i had time i,d use it as a method and not a system
Hensman,
It’s my belief that once fully understood people will not come up with ‘different’ VDW selections for the race. The betting process of course is far more abtritary and may result in differences of opinion.
It worth bearing in mind that Irish races have prize money stated in german dollars and not proper money, so adjustments need to be made.
Grand Lodge
Actually, there was one additional point I would have made.
You wrote: "That’s all very well, if you have the form books for those races, but most people do not and, therefore, cannot study the races in-depth to find out exactly how these contenders are weighed up against each other."
The point is, that if people want to study VDW’s approach seriously, getting (access to) the Form Books is a necessary step, just as getting (access to) the relevant books is a necessary step to embarking seriously on any course of study. As has been said previously, it is a myth that the Form Books are not to be found, so there is no serious impediment to those who, perhaps unlike you, don’t find their current betting profitable and think they might do better on VDW lines.
Crock
You may be right but I am not sure. Obviously, with many of VDW’s selections there is no problem, but I can think of several where he seems to me to have exercised judgement in one way rather than another, and it would be interesting to know if all the selections were made in advance of the races concerned. Making those judgements is much easier afterwards!
If we think of VDW’s selections as the class/form horses in the relevant races, and leave aside the back them or leave them judgement, it would be interesting to see if, in a complicated race like, for example, today’s 4.55 Newmarket, serious VDWers agreed on the class/form horse, whether or not they thought it worth backing individually or as part of a book. I suspect that there would not always be unanimity, and of course (unless the reason is a flaw in the analysis such as a miscalculated ability rating which is accepted once pointed out) there is no certain way of knowing who would be right.
I think that we’re all realistic enough on here to realise that nobody who has fully understood VDW and is obtaining 80% winners is going to come on and explain how he or she achieves this. I am sure that there are a number of forum members who are capable horse-race selectors who would have little time for VDW methods. As far as I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to acquaint any interested parties with VDW methods. It would then be up to that individual whether or not they wished to pursue the matter any further.
Hensman, we shall leave it at that. After all, this thread is to try and help newbies to better understand the method and debating the debated only serves to cloud the waters of progress.
GL
Crock/Hensman,
The ‘Probability’ is that we ALL end up with the same horses, whether we choose to back them, due to the conditions they face on the day is the only factor that will make any difference.
I think that we’re all realistic enough on here to realise that nobody who has fully understood VDW and is obtaining 80% winners is going to come on and explain how he or she achieves this. I am sure that there are a number of forum members who are capable horse-race selectors who would have little time for VDW methods. As far as I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to acquaint any interested parties with VDW methods. It would then be up to that individual whether or not they wished to pursue the matter any further.
It’s rather odd that people who claim to have cracked the method quote exactly the same strike-rate as VDW. Why not 75%, 78%, 83%? Always 80%!
Anyway, I agree with you, goodlife. Perhaps, if anybody wishes to offer future races up for analysis (without being frustratingly cryptic about the whole thing) then I won’t mind throwing a few coins into the hat myself.
GL
After all, this thread is to try and help newbies to better understand the method.
If only the above was the truth. How can anyone be expected to understand VDW when an important part of the equation is being left out? What happened to the FORM bit of the equation?
Be Lucky
If only the above was the truth. How can anyone be expected to understand VDW when an important part of the equation is being left out? What happened to the FORM bit of the equation.
Sorry Mtoto, you’ve lost me there.
The form bit of the equation is right where VDW said it was consistent form + ability etc.
Of course there is more than one way to view the term ‘consistent form’ and it must be married to class.
Crock/L33,
How does adding up form figures involve form? It gives the consistency part only of the formula. How do form figures represent form, three 2nds in a seller = 6, three 2nds in a Group1 still = 6. As L33 said Form represents a degree of achievement. Ok in the case of winning form the ability rating can help but what about horse that have not won many?
Be Lucky
Crock/L33,
How does adding up form figures involve form? It gives the consistency part only of the formula. How do form figures represent form, three 2nds in a seller = 6, three 2nds in a Group1 still = 6. As L33 said Form represents a degree of achievement. Ok in the case of winning form the ability rating can help but what about horse that have not won many?
Be Lucky
Mtoto,
First of all, the adding up of the from figures is basically for the consistency data-column and is used, solely for the purpose of elimination. As you rightly explained, from figures in sellers can be the same as group races and the difference in the quality of these figures is arrived at in the ‘Hard Work’ section of the method. In other words, you will have to look at each race in turn to determine the class and form of the race.
I have covered the topic of ability ratings for younger horses/low earners in a previous post.
GL
Crock/L33,
How does adding up form figures involve form? It gives the consistency part only of the formula. How do form figures represent form, three 2nds in a seller = 6, three 2nds in a Group1 still = 6. As L33 said Form represents a degree of achievement. Ok in the case of winning form the ability rating can help but what about horse that have not won many?
Be Lucky
If all that was involved was adding up form figures then I’d agree with you. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that VDW didn’t choose the word ‘consistency’ rather ‘consistent form’ in his equation suggests that there is far more to the term than adding up form figures!
It’s impossible to know exactly what VDW thought when giving this formula but (IMO) the term would also fit the way I think he viewed form analysis (when allied to class of course).
Sorry Mtoto, it’s impossible to be more specific without going into more detail which I’m not about to do at this stage.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.