Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Capability
Is it capable of winning under the following conditions?:
1. Course
2. Distance
3. Going
4. Class
Additional suggestions welcomedHas it performed well with today’s weight
L33
VDW’s basic numerical picture, which you choose not to use as set out, is the platform for EVERYTHING he writes about. As he expands his method with examples such as Pegwell Bay and Roushayd the basic picture is still the foundation. Depending on how the competitors finish it will pinpoint those that are ‘on the boil’. Not everything that made up the numerical pictures was revealed, indeed he told us so; some of it was left for the reader to work out, and it is crucial that they do.
Hearing what you say. I recall a letter to Sports Forum a few years ago (pre-Wheldon) in which the writer had claimed to have sorted out the method and was achieving a strike-rate of 80%+(Sorry,Grand Lodge!)
The writer commented that he was surprised that VDW had revealed as much as he did about his method and that he (the writer of the letter) would certainly have hesitated to do so.
It seems that working out the second numerical picture goes a long way to solving the mystery.On the subject of capability, when reading through the form of whichever horse you may be considering, ask yourself " does this horse really want to win? Has it shown that it has the " bottle" when the chips are down?" Every year there are touted horses who, while placing in high-class races, never quite get their head in front. Two extremes spring to mind, both trained by A.O’Brien.
Giant’s Causeway who, to me at any rate, embodied exactly what sort of horse you should be looking for.
All My Loving, who even somone as capable as O’Brien just has not been able to work the oracle with.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.
class tells
CLASS and CONSISTENT FORM are vital factors and this
often confounds those who rely upon handicap or ratings alone(VDW’s Capitals)
I think maybe you are placing too much emphasis on ratings.
They have a value but should beused as a guide in
conjunction with other factorsWhen calculating ability ratings use wins on the flat for flat racing and wins over jumps for n.h
L33
however many of VDW’s examples were going up in CLASS for the prize
Can you recall from memory how many of these, although being raised in class, were still in the highest three class last time out?
I didn’t know about that. It just seems to indicate that there is software out there which can do the business.
You’re bringing it all back to me now Dave, it was slow torture inputting all the data required for one race! After having the 7/1 winner I spoke briefly on the phone with the author who apparently hadn’t had the winner himself.
Good idea,this thread,Cormack as -despite the top-class discussion taking place on the main thread – newcomers to the Van Der Whiel methods could feel a little out of their depth . One of the problems for anyone wanting to study VDW’s methods in depth is, as Mtoto has already said, that the relevant form books are no longer available.How much of a hindrance this is I am not sure. I have never seen any of them myself but, after about ten years of studying the booklets I can tell you in all honesty that there have been about a half-dozen occasions this year when the Class/Form horse stood out like a Belisha beacon.The reason I have stayed with the methods for so long is that I know of no more logical way to begin studying a horse race. From all that I have observed 95% of all that VDW wrote is just as relevent today.
Yes,I wish you well with that, Huntingdon. At around the same time that I was using Pro-Punter I joined a small group run by one Padraig Kirby (does that name ring any bells with forum members?). He had some very interesting views on the use of computers in the process of horse-race selection. He made the very good point that, unlike chess-playing software , for instance, any computer software which proved very successful in picking winners was unlikely to become widely available.
I have no doubt myself that now, given the enormous data-processing capabilities of modern computers, there will be profitable software.Cheers for that Matron, I understand now. The software my brother and I were using was " Pro-Punter". Purely from memory, I think the author’s business was "DSG Software" and I seem to recall that he was based around Manchester.
Huntingdon
A few years ago my brother and I tried some software. I’d better not mention the name for fear or breaking forum rules but we were moderately succesful with it. At that time it was extremely time-consuming entering all the data for each race but it did focus the mind and aid logical thought. I remember the software in question advising a banker bet in a tough-looking Ascot handicap and the horse romped home at 7/1!javascript:emoticon(‘:)’)
SmilePeople might already be aware of this but I’ll point it out anyway – Prominent King’s actual form figures were 4 – 2 2.
