PDA

View Full Version : Van der Wheil



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Fulham1000
29-07-2009, 02:26 PM
D

Chesham chose his words carefully re ratings/methods of rating. VDW referred to ratings and methods of rating as "Two different matters." in item 35 of "The Golden Years".

Ark Royal
29-07-2009, 02:27 PM
Welcome aboard Chesham.
Hope you enjoy your time on the forum.

I was about to ask you to post the actual form figures for the PK race but can see that you have already done so - many thanks!

All the Best

AR

Dont ban me baby
29-07-2009, 02:29 PM
D

Chesham chose his words carefully re ratings/methods of rating. VDW referred to ratings and methods of rating as "Two different matters." in item 35 of "The Golden Years".

I did notice that but,that does not mean he is or is not a believer,I was just after a clarification on that point.

Or are you trying to imply that there is more to his posts than meets the eye?

Chesham
29-07-2009, 02:32 PM
Can I assume you are a doubter Chesham,in relation to the method.It would be good IMO to have someone prepared to post from the "other" camp as it were.

I accept everything that VDW wrote. However, you will at some point need to at least find the answers to those questions. The Figures that VDW put by the side of his shortlist are correct, but they are different than the actual form figures. Prominent king 442 = 8, Beacon Light, Form Figure 112 = 4


VDW
Decent Fellow-----7
Beacon Light -----3*
Monksfield-------16
Prominent King----5*
Mr Kildare-----3*

Using two methods of rating (Not ratings) Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it

Chesham

Dont ban me baby
29-07-2009, 02:35 PM
Mr Kildare for one is explainable using the method as is.If you have only two runs you replicate the last form figure to arrive at the consistency rating.I did give my views generally above in relation to these differences(I may be incorrect of course).

anchor
29-07-2009, 03:00 PM
it would be different if he only put in distance runnings ,or he left out what was not relevant have thought this for a wee while

Fulham1000
29-07-2009, 03:42 PM
D

Nothing as tricky as that - merely pointing out that just because we can't sort out VDW's ratings (as shown in the final two columns of the tables in the March 1981 article), it doesn't mean we can't work out his methods of rating as referred to in the Prominent King letter. Indeed if we can't sort out VDW's methods of rating, we can't get very far.

Incidentally, the sets of ratings to judge the reliability of the main method figures are optional and not an intrinsic part of the method - note VDW said " ... it is useful to have another measure ..." not "it is is necessary" or "it is important". Personally I am uninclined to allow figures compiled by the kind of people who work for the Post or Raceform to take any priority over the numerical pictures VDW's methods of rating generate, and I'm a bit surprised that he bothered with them. That said, the evidence of the March 1981 article is that he did not use freely available ratings as such but generated his own, albeit possibly working from the Mail and Haig ratings as a basis. Not many of VDW's selections were top rated on the Sporting Life (Whitford) ratings or Mail ratings as per his 13 April 1085 article: indeed none of the three for which he gave numerical pictures was top rated on both, yet Wing and a Prayer is as decent an 80+% horse as you'll ever find. Among other VDW 80+% horses, Little Owl (7 March 1981) was top rated in the Mail (no Sporting Life ratings for NH horses in those days), but others such as Sunset Cristo, Clayside and Broadsword weren't, and Little Owl (Gold Cup) was rated 71 compared with the top rated Night Nurse's 78.

Ark Royal
29-07-2009, 03:57 PM
Decent Fellow-----7
Beacon Light -----3
Monksfield-------16
Prominent King----5
Mr Kildare-----3

They are not consistency figures.

Chesham

Hi Chesham,

Having re-read 'Narrow the field to gain a Winning Strip' I find it interesting that although VDW states that adding together the last 3 placings of the repective horses in the forecast provides a numerical picture, he does not actually state that the numerical picture displayed was arrived at by that means, I assumed it was and that there were misprints!

What do you call the figures if they are not consistency figures?

All the Best

AR

Ark Royal
29-07-2009, 04:04 PM
I found the following article in my files. I'm afraid I didn't note at the time who wrote it and hope the original author does not mind me representing it :o

I would appreciate any views that maybe forthcomming.

All the Best

AR

This is of course the first example given by VDW in his letter 8th April 1978; unfortunately the detail given in ˜The Golden Years of Van der Wheil" was incorrect! The errors related to the consistency ratings. The example was in relation to just the basics of one of his methods, the numerical picture which provided a way of narrowing down the field - an area where many winners were to be found. The corrected details are as follows:

18/2/78 LEOPARDSTOWN Yielding
2m Irish Champion Hurdle Class 90 16 run

Last 3 Runs Horse Weight Cons

0 1 0 P MASTER MONDAY 8-12-0 21
3 1 3L DECENT FELLOW 5-11-11 7(14)
1 1 0 MELADON 5-11-11 12
1 1 2 BEACON LIGHT 7-11-8 4*
3 3 6 MONKSFIELD 6-11-8 12
- 8 9 0 BALLYMOUNTAIN GIRL 9-11-4 27
4 1 1 BANSWARA 6-11-4 6

5 1 0 - COOCH BEHAR 6-11-4 16
3 1 2 DRUMGORA 6-11-4 6
1 5 - 0 MULTIPLE 8-11-4 16
4 - 2 2 PROMINENT KING 6-11-4 8*
1 5 7L TROYSWOOD 6-11-4 16
1 1 MR KILDARE 5-11-1 3*
1 3 F 5 SILVINE 5-11-1 9
1 1 2 BEPARAEJOJO 4-10-0 4
3 2 2 BUGLE BEADS 4-10-0 7

Actual Betting: Evens Beacon Light 5/1 Decent Fellow, Mr Kildare 6/1 Prominent King 10/1 Meladon 11/1 Monksfield 20/1 Bar

VDW F/Cast: Beacon Light, Decent Fellow, Mr Kildare, Prominent King and Monksfield
(note actual betting differed slightly to F/Cast).

Here was the form for the race:

Date, Position, Race Value, Lengths +/-, Weight, Race details, SP, weight of horses they beat or were beaten by and their price
MR. KILDARE
28/1 1st 14 8 10-10 2m NAAS Sft Cond Hd 8/11f 11-0 3/1
27/12 1st 6 2.5 10-9 2m LEOP Yld Mdn Hd 2/5f 10-9 10/1

BEACON LIGHT
4/2 2nd 39 1 12-2 2m SAND Hvy CondHd 6/4f 11-12 2/1
2/1 1st 43 2 12-1 2m WIND Gd CondHd 4/5f 11-9 7/2
26/12 1st 85 2 11-10 2m KEMP Yld CondHd 5/2 11-7 6/4f

DRUMGORA (for reference)
28/1 2nd 17 1.5 10-9 2m3fNAAS Sft HcpHd 9/4f 9-7 5/2
14/1 1st 6 5 11-2 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 6/4f 12-7 9/4
27/12 3rd116 2.5 10-1 2mLEOP Yld HcpHd 33/1 11-4 4/1f

PROMINENT KING
14/1 2nd 6 5 12-7 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 9/4 11-2 6/4f
31/12 2nd 14 4 11-4 2m4fPUNCHSftCondHd 8/1 11-4 12/1
17/2 4th 88 11 11-11 2m LEOP HvyCondHd 10/1 12-0 20/1

DECENT FELLOW
28/1 3rdL 22 25 11-12 2mDONSftCondHd 9/4 11-12 13/8jf
27/12 1st 116 1.5 11-4 2mLEOPYld HcpHd 4/1f 10-4 14/1
17/12 3rd 28 12 11-8 2m ASCGd CondHd 4/7f 11-8 13/2

Result
Prominent King WON 6/1


As you can see, taking the placings literally, the 3 most consistent from the first 5 in the betting forecast at the time would have been Decent Fellow (7), Beacon Light (4 not 3 as printed) and Mr Kildare (3). Prominent King was given as 5 but this must be a printing error because his total was in fact 8. It should also be noted that in the case of Decent Fellow, his last race 3rd place (when 13/8F) was in fact a very poor last of three and deserved to be judged as finishing last and given 10 points making his total 14 points. Remember that VDW said last=10.

We then arrive at the top three on consistency (which is what we are interested in) as those * above, Beacon Light, Mr Kildare and Prominent King (even with his revised figure).

Here is a summary of the race:

Prominent King ran in the lowest class of the 3 probables last time out. All 3 horses were going up in class. Beacon Light was dropped in class last time for the second time and was beaten although giving 4lb to Sea Pigeon.

Note the Starting Prices of the horses last 3 runs. Note the Starting Prices of the horses they beat or were beaten by (Weight and S.P. of those horses on the far right of the form evaluation after each run).

At no point did VDW state that the consistent horses were the form horses,
so why do so many think that they are? This is always a point to remember as is the fact, that later on VDW offered the Roushayd method, (down in class) at this stage he was quite happy to select horses going up in class.

Going back to Prominent King you can see that in his last race Prominent King was carrying 12-7 giving 19lb to the 6/4fav Drumgora who had previously finished 3rd in a
class 116 race. Prominent King went down by 5 lengths and finished 2nd. Before that on his seasonal debut 2 weeks earlier he had contested a class 14 race over 2m 4f carrying 11-4 beaten 4 lengths by a horse carrying 11-4 who had just won a class 24 race. His last race of the previous season was in the corresponding Erin’s race (then class 88 ) carrying 11-11 and finishing 4th beaten 11 lengths. Of the other 2 probables , Mr. Kildare had won 2 races from 2 starts. Firstly a class 6 maiden race beating a horse that had previously placed 5th in class 4. Then he was raised to class 14 carrying 10-10 and beat a horse carrying 11-0 by 8 lengths that had previously placed 2nd in class 17.

Beacon Light had won 3 out 5 that season. His third last race had been a win in class 85 carrying 11-10 giving 3lb and a 2 length beating to a horse who had placed 2nd in class 37 previously. Then Beacon Light was dropped to class 43 and again won by 2 lengths carrying 12-1 and giving 6lb to a horse that had previously run 2nd in class 70. Then dropped again to class 39 carrying 12-2 but beaten a length by Sea Pigeon carrying 11-12 whose only previous run that season had been 2 months earlier in a class 350 chase (The Colonial Cup International) when he fell. Which was the better performance when considering the respective last races of Beacon Light & Prominent King?

Other points to bear in my mind are how often the 3 probables had raced that season, the prices they started in their races and also the Starting Prices of those they raced against. Why was Prominent King raced first time out after a long lay off over a 4f greater trip and then asked to carry a massive weight next time against a horse who had placed 3rd in an even higher class race than the race Prominent King was contesting that day? All these points are worth looking at to get the picture!

The two terms concerned with here are "Illusions in form" and "Blown its top" both are credited to VDW in his writings, and both are beautifully illustrated in the Prominent King example.

First lets take Beacon Light and show how he was able to show that this horse had blown its top, and could be eliminated from calculations: If we look back to BL's, third last race (1608) we can see that it won a £8,500 race beating the likes of Night Nurse and Drumgora. Next race (1764) this time is dropped in class to £4,300 and again takes the spoils, now to the downturn, race (2175) dropped in class to £3,930 beaten and hard ridden flat, is favourite, and also for good measure a downturn in SF, solid evidence on three counts that Beacon Light has well and truly "Blown his top".

Now lets look at how the trainer keeps Prominent King on ice till the following season before placing him to win, his trainer had noted what a fine performance the horse had put up in finishing 4th in the valuable Erins Food Champion Hurdle race (2015)on Sat Feb 19th.1977, the horse is then put away till the last day of the year, in a race (1746) which now becomes his first run of the 77-78 season and is placed at his wrong distance (two & a quarter miles) and first run of the new season placed so he cannot win in a modest £1,400 race, but still manages 2nd. a clear illusion of form. Prominent King is now sent to contest another modest race (1961) this time the trainer has placed him in a handicap with a massive 12st.7lb to shoulder, and up against Drumgora, who had just previously ran 3rd. in the valuable Sweeps Hurdle (£11,673), Prominent King also has to give Drumgora 19lbs who is made the 64 favourite, with Prominent King second favourite, so therefore fully expected to be beaten by Drumgora. Another clear illusion in form.

Exactly one year later, Prominent King now goes back to contest the race where he showed such improvement the previous year, and is now poised to win. Hopefully readers will be able to see the logic of these evaluations. A point worth noting is in respect of evaluating previous races and not just taking them at face value.
Half the battle can be won, simply by putting yourself in the position of the respective horses trainer and weighing up 'WHERE should I put this horse next time out'? A trainer, like all of us, only has limited resources and time and by no means can they afford to go into an in depth study of previous races so it is almost inevitable that a quick & easy method of weighing up how their horse is progressing ( in relation to the others it ran against ) has to be found.

The writer of this piece used prize money as it was virtually all that was available in those days, however old hands can now avail themselves to the Official Ratings which are readily available these days, and probably more accurate.

In the book VDW says ˜ using two methods of rating (?) all five horses shown, I found that the three starred horses came out best; if any of you have read any of my previous articles, I used my own consistency chart and split seconds speed figure (unadjusted) plus the horses OR to form a rating.

That is , to my mind, a very fascinating resume of Prominent King and I hope helps to unravel the plot. For my own part what it tells me is that a horses previous runs, as in the case of Roushayd - using a different VDW method are of the utmost importance. In similar fashion building up towards the planned coup. In Prominent King's case going up in class and in Roushayd's case going down in class. As the writer said, the starting prices of previous races also shows a picture, worth studying. I have also seen it suggested that VDW had spotted a 'link' between the trainer & the race in question.......either directly or via the previous race run in.

Prominent. King had raced better class than Mr Kildare although he was the only winner last time out and had the beating of that horse and I assume that with Beacon Light VDW felt that it had a hard race last time out against Sea Pigeon and did not perform well even though it had been lowered in class in both of its last two races.

Fulham1000
29-07-2009, 04:50 PM
AR

I suspect that the original author of the Prominent King post was the individual who later posted extensively on the old Gummy forum as Guest, as the guts of it come from a post he made on the old VDW Methodology forum on 26 April 2001. It is a more extensive post than Guest made, possibly made by a chap who posted as Marchwood and passed off some of Guest's work as his own, ie without acknowledging from whence he had derived the material.

I learnt a very great deal from Guest, but he was wrong about the figures in the Prominent King table. They are not consistency aggregates with errors in the case of Beacon Light and Prominent King (not in Decent Fellow's case, despite Guest's ingenious but erroneous effort to get PK included as one of the three lowest consistency aggregates). Rather, they are another of VDW's methods of rating - how he identified the probables (you'll recall that in that Prominent King letter he referred to the starred horses as probables). The probables in this sense have nothing directly to do with the "probability" term of VDW's formula and sorting out the probables is best regarded as part of the "consistent form" phase of the operation. It merely reduces, where possible, the consistent horses to three (you'll be aware from the Pegwell Bay example that sometimes there can be half a dozen or more consistent horses, and his probables method of rating was a way VDW reduced such long lists of consistent horses to, ideally, just three. (Incidentally, in case you rely on the reprint of the Pegwell Bay evaluation in "Betting the VDW Way" it is worth noting that there were only six consistent horses, not seven, in that race. The star next to Gee-A indicating he was a consistent horse really is an error and is not there in the original article in "Winning Ways To Bet".)

Ark Royal
29-07-2009, 05:12 PM
(Incidentally, in case you rely on the reprint of the Pegwell Bay evaluation in "Betting the VDW Way" it is worth noting that there were only six consistent horses, not seven, in that race. The star next to Gee-A indicating he was a consistent horse really is an error and is not there in the original article in "Winning Ways To Bet".)

Thanks for that Fulham.

AR

bobajobber
29-07-2009, 08:17 PM
In the Narrowing the Field To Gain Winning Strip

I think you boys have got the wrong end of the stick...
Why would VDW explain his way to narrowing the field down with two methods and the numbers not tally right?,....definate typo.
He has no reason to confuse the masses with something like this,so early into the explaining his way.
I bet you it is a Tony Peach typo,because remember he edited it,not just that it bears no difference to the race,also why does it not rear its head again later on,its also been kept there to retain a bit of mystique to the whole saga.

Dont ban me baby
29-07-2009, 08:23 PM
Bobajobber a question if I may.
Do you think the whole method rests on "how vdw himself" evaluated form.As apposed to how each of us chooses to evaluate form?

Just for clarity this is something I believe and explains why the races he evaluated are so important as apposed to modern race examples.

Mtoto
29-07-2009, 08:36 PM
Bob,

Personally I think the only mistake with the "stray" numbers is the fact they were shown here. To many just put them down as misprints, and didn't give them enough thought.

You say the problem doesn't arise again, but it does. Why is Bishop's Yarn noted as one of the three most consistent with an rating of 7 when Warners For Leisure has a rating of 6? Why is Right hand Man the selection when like PK he isn't one of the lowest three in the forecast? :confused:

Be Lucky

Dont ban me baby
29-07-2009, 08:40 PM
Welcome to the forum Mtoto.I read many of your posts back in the "Gummy" forum days,Which were always a pleasure to read,and very informative IMO.

Ark Royal
29-07-2009, 08:54 PM
Hi Mtoto,

Welcome aboard, I guess that now is the right time ;)

All the Best

AR

Fulham1000
29-07-2009, 09:04 PM
B

Suppose for argument that the figures were misprints. Using the Mail forecast, as VDW clearly did, the first "narrowing" factor cuts the field to the five horses VDW listed. The second "narrowing" factor, on the correct placings, then cuts the five to three, Mr Kildare (3), Beacon Light (4) and Decent Fellow (7). Only if one goes down the Guest road and counts Decent Fellow's last run as a 10 does Prominent King enter the three lowest, and why would one treat that run as a 10? If you look at the race you'll find it was a three horse one where DF was the outsider of the three. He was competitive until 2 out when he was clearly beaten, so what did he do but eased up and finished in his own time, knowing he could finish no worse than 3rd. To give that run a 10 defies logic and would then raise the question, why not give Pegwell Bay a 10 when he finished 2nd, beaten a mile, in his penultimate race?

Fulham1000
29-07-2009, 09:12 PM
Mtoto

Evening.

Not to confuse folk willfully, but one could add and why were Love from Verona and Son of Love selections when they weren't anywhere near the first five in the forecasts for their races, and in the latter's case he wasn't one of the horses with one of the three lowest consistency aggregates?

This is why, whatever some insist, to get fully to grips with VDW's main method there is no alternative to studying the examples as well as the texts. Only by studying both do all these seeming anomalies (or at least most of them!) make sense and the rules VDW really used become apparent.

Dont ban me baby
29-07-2009, 09:15 PM
So it was Guest who said a last place should count as 10 regardless of the number of runners then and,not VDW?

bobajobber
29-07-2009, 09:43 PM
Bob,

Personally I think the only mistake with the "stray" numbers is the fact they were shown here. To many just put them down as misprints, and didn't give them enough thought.

You say the problem doesn't arise again, but it does. Why is Bishop's Yarn noted as one of the three most consistent with an rating of 7 when Warners For Leisure has a rating of 6? Why is Right hand Man the selection when like PK he isn't one of the lowest three in the forecast? :confused:

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto,

Nice to have you here.

Can you give me the name of books / chapters where I can find these races,sorry to be a pain,it makes it easier if there is some reference.
Another thing is if these numbers were so important,why is there no write up on them.
Its easy to assume they were typo's,....as he goes to the point of telling you how to derive the said figure,why would he not explain fully why they were how they were.

bobajobber
29-07-2009, 09:49 PM
Mtoto

Evening.

Not to confuse folk willfully, but one could add and why were Love from Verona and Son of Love selections when they weren't anywhere near the first five in the forecasts for their races, and in the latter's case he wasn't one of the horses with one of the three lowest consistency aggregates?

This is why, whatever some insist, to get fully to grips with VDW's main method there is no alternative to studying the examples as well as the texts. Only by studying both do all these seeming anomalies (or at least most of them!) make sense and the rules VDW really used become apparent.

Fulham,

How many races in all did he show examples,I have the 4 books you pointed out.
The Golden Years Of Van Der Wheil
Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune
Betting The VDW Way
Systematic Betting

Fulham1000
29-07-2009, 10:33 PM
D

It was Guest who suggested it in the case of Decent Fellow, but he was applying (in my view mis-applying) advice VDW gave in item 35, and in a more nuanced form in item 39 of "The Golden Years".

B

That is not as easy a question to answer as it might appear - for example, do we count as 18 races the three cards at minor meetings on Boxing Day 1986 where he referred to them only to point out that 14 of the 18 were won by form horses? Depending on where one draws the line, there are up to 150.

Dont ban me baby
29-07-2009, 10:46 PM
Cheers for the clarifications Fulham.I think I too am guilty of going off on non relevant tangents from time to time.I think the method has become "clouded" to a bigger degree,by me reading other peoples posts literally,instead of objectively at times.I think I should go back to the beginning again to some degree and try to read the booklets again,to try and clarify the facts from opinions.

anchor
29-07-2009, 11:37 PM
ok something mildly related to vdw

2.10 goodwood

charm the guard..........134
fastnet storm.............133
dome rocket...............133
sandor......................131
geneva geyser............131


these are speed plus +marchwoods ratings+ ability as thousands

after going through what was there think that fasnet storm has a good chance of a place,and maybe a win at a good price 14/1 in sporting life 20/80 i think

Mtoto
30-07-2009, 12:08 AM
Bob,

Bishop's Yarn ran against Pegwell Bay and this race is gone into in some detail in Betting The VDW way.
Righthand Man was the winner of the Welsh National this race is shown in Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune. Reading your post you have both of these.

I'm still not sure how important these figures are. For me they are only REALLY important IF a horse has to be a probable to be a selection. Also for me VDW may not have pointed an arrow at the passages but I think he did explain how the figures were arrived at.

Hi Fulham,

Agreed about the other selections you mention, (Love From Verona and Son Of Love) I was just taking it one step at a time.:cool:

Be Lucky

domfascia
30-07-2009, 12:09 AM
VDW A VERSION ; GOODWOOD 29/7

2 OUT OF 3

ALSACE LORRAINE 9/2

CLASSIC VINTAGE 11/1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOODWOOD 30/7

2.10; TOP 6 ON ABILITY
SHAMPAGNE 105 (18*); RIVER CAPTAIN 105 (12*); ROMAN REPUBLIC 105 (18*) ; ALAZEYAD 92 (19);TAKAATUF 88 (21); CHANGING THE GUARD 72 (11*);

TOP 4 TO RATINGS
SHAMPAGNE 83 (inform) 114 (RP)
RIVER CAPTAIN 91 112 2ND TOP RATED
ROMAN REPUBLIC 84 112
CHANGING THE GUARD 87 113 TOP RATED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.35 TOP 6 ON ABILITY
INFRAAD 91(12*); DARK MISCHIEF 81 (19); BONNIE CHARLIE 68 (13*); KYLLACHY STAR 65 (8*); JOBE 64 (17); SHAMWARI LODGE 63 (11*)

TOP 4 TO RATINGS
INFIRAAD 82 113 drawn 1 !!
BONNIE CHARLIE 83 115 TOP RATED (!! POOR DRAW IN 3)
KYLLACHY STAR 78 115 2ND TOP RATED (MODEST DRAW IN 7)
SHAMWARI LODGE 82 113 drawn 8

Difficult race as top rated is drawn 3 -Full of Love today just got touched off over 1m 1f -this is 7f where the draw should be more significant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.45 TOP 7 ON ABILITY
INDIAN TRAIL 180 (17*); NORTHERN FLING 105 (27); PISCEAN 84 (29); DAZED AND AMAZED 79 (22*); TOTAL IMPACT 72 (22*); LUSCIVIOUS 57 (12*); VHUJON 59 (11*)

TOP 5 TO RATINGS
INDIAN TRAIL 85 103 3RD TOP RATED
DAZED AND AMAZED 80 104
TOTAL IMPACT 84 109 2ND TOP RATED
LUSCIVIOUS 85 105 TOP RATED
VHUJON 83 103

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bobajobber
30-07-2009, 12:22 AM
Bob,

Bishop's Yarn ran against Pegwell Bay and this race is gone into in some detail in Betting The VDW way.
Righthand Man was the winner of the Welsh National this race is shown in Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune. Reading your post you have both of these.

I'm still not sure how important these figures are. For me they are only REALLY important IF a horse has to be a probable to be a selection. Also for me VDW may not have pointed an arrow at the passages but I think he did explain how the figures were arrived at.

Hi Fulham,

Agreed about the other selections you mention, (Love From Verona and Son Of Love) I was just taking it one step at a time.:cool:

Be Lucky

Thanks for that Mtoto.

Please excuse me all for me being so objective,..I need to be to get the answers I require,but most of all I appreciate every single piece of information that everyone has put up.

joeli100
30-07-2009, 08:06 AM
In letter 24, VDW says ''the previous method I gave isolates Secret Express, Easter Girl, The old Fellow giving 4 out of the sixteen with probability''.

Are the 3 he mentions not found by the Betting F/C and Consistency?

Fulham1000
30-07-2009, 08:44 AM
Joeli

Yes indeed they are.

wiko
30-07-2009, 10:29 AM
know its going back some years but are the figures a mistake by vdw, or misprints in the prominent king, example..thanks

Ark Royal
30-07-2009, 11:15 AM
Hi Wiko,

Welcome aboard.

My interpretation from what the guys have posted is that the figures are neither a mistake or a misprint.

All the Best

AR

Mtoto
30-07-2009, 11:23 AM
are the figures a mistake by vdw, or misprints in the prominent king, example..thanks

Wiko,

The short answer to both questions is NO. It was ASSUMED (because of the remark about Mr Kildare c/r) that they were consistency ratings.

Fulham,

Looking at The Old Fellow example raise a question for me, is the the forecast the important element or the final form figure? Looking at Strombolus, not in the forecast using the Mail and Life, we know VDW used at least three different forecasts so how can we be sure we arrive at the same probables.

Be Lucky

Chesham
30-07-2009, 11:41 AM
Roushayd Form Figures 346

The second numerical picture is very positive

Chesham

Fulham1000
30-07-2009, 12:02 PM
Mtoto

I think both are equally important.

The difficulty that arises, of course, is that while the form figures are facts, the betting forecasts are expressions of opinion and do vary. It is certainly possible that in the occasional case, two equally knowledgeable VDWers, using different papers' forecasts, could reach different conclusions, though not in my view on the Strombolus example.

bobajobber
30-07-2009, 01:25 PM
are the figures a mistake by vdw, or misprints in the prominent king, example..thanks

Wiko,

The short answer to both questions is NO. It was ASSUMED (because of the remark about Mr Kildare c/r) that they were consistency ratings.

Fulham,

Looking at The Old Fellow example raise a question for me, is the the forecast the important element or the final form figure? Looking at Strombolus, not in the forecast using the Mail and Life, we know VDW used at least three different forecasts so how can we be sure we arrive at the same probables.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

I would appreciated if you could post the three different forecasts that he uses,I know it is a bugbear to keep spelling things out,but because it is all cross referencing it becomes confusing,..cheers

Mtoto
30-07-2009, 01:42 PM
Bob,

Again it is interesting that Strombolus did not feature in the first six in my
daily,( Mail) or in a well known sporting daily (Sporting Life). To the credit of the Sporting
Chronicle it did feature.

Be Lucky

wiko
30-07-2009, 02:15 PM
thanks for the welcome and feedbak on the first letter this really interested me in horse racing my first copies of the then handicap book... many years later??..still looking for the answers van der wheil put to racing punters think i may have had successful parts to his methods..ie 3 most consistent..top on ability ratings...using raceform private handicap ratings split second ratings...remember vdw reply to g marney..about using the mail along with the split second rating..think it was wazir,..but have not progressed with his examples..

Dont ban me baby
30-07-2009, 05:38 PM
To some degree I was wondering if this method will ever be known in its entirety.I know we can only realy make assumptions on most of it,without VDWs direct input.Its just in a letter to Tony Peach,VDW stated that he had not released the entire method,and said he may one day if he wrote a second book(which we know to date he has not).Please see the extract below ;


QUOTE:
Extract from letter received February 1996.

"When I first began to write for Sports Forum it was clear that to splash the whole lot in front of your readers would be a pointless exercise and only by adding bits as time went by could it be hoped a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership would eventually see the light.

I had intended to give away everything in due time, but you will recall telling me you had decided to call a halt to discussions of my methods in your column. This was fine by me, but only a fraction had been revealed at that time.

Later I was asked to write 'Systematic Betting' a title I didn't like, but never argued over. In fact I wrote two versions. You will remember I received words of warning at the time and as you know they came true.

I took the cautious step of only advancing my methods slightly and as it turned out it's as well I did. Needless to say when the request for a second book came I turned it down.

The first book included my methods of sorting a card out, but has nothing to do with what had previously been explained. Perhaps one day I'll write another book and include it.

Regards your mention of the Old Newton Cup. It would seem the object of the exercise was lost, which is a pity and a waste of my efforts - because had it been understood it would have carried your readers a long way.

Regards the evaluation of Travado and Rivage Bleu mentioned in my letter - (which was 'You (Tony Peach) tried to draw me on a couple of issues, namely my remark previously that anyone knowing what they were doing could go to the races knowing they would win, and going back quite a few years to Prominent King in the Erin Foods Champion Hurdle at Leopardstown. I noted Channel 4 were covering racing at Huntingdon and Cheltenham on Tuesday 21st of Nov, so went through the cards just to give an example. At the principal meeting Huntingdon you could have had a field day, but the best bet of the day provided Travado in the 2.45. At Cheltenham the best bet and second best for the day was Rivage Bleu in the 2.25. Rivage Bleu and Prominent King were both horses without a winning class rating, but in each case the trainer 'told you the horse was really OUT TO WIN'.)

You will recall that during a conversation I mentioned that anyone who knows the game could go racing with the certainty of winning. This is done quite differently from anything I have shown to date. They were just examples of what you would go to bet when you know how."END QUOTE:


Any thoughts appreciated.

Mtoto
30-07-2009, 08:27 PM
Rivage Bleu and Prominent King were both horses without a winning class rating.

Anyone with any thoughts on this remark made by VDW? PK did have an ability rating as he had won two races. This suggests a class rating is different to the ability rating, but VDW said class and ability were the same thing??

Be Lucky

wiko
30-07-2009, 08:42 PM
hi mtoto,

would this be anything to do with official ratings..not being assessed as winning a handicap by their handicap marks

Dont ban me baby
30-07-2009, 08:58 PM
Im not sure with out checking Mtoto but,was it they had not won at "this" class of race in which they were competing?

Mtoto
30-07-2009, 10:17 PM
Dbmb,

From memory Rivage Bleu had never won a race, so why bracket him with PK? The only reason I can see for using the term "class rating" is because it is a measurement of class/ability, what other reason could there be? Of all the examples VDW used why go right back to PK, is he trying to tell us something?

Wiko,

As far as I can see VDW didn't use OR's + the fact they were not readily avalible at that time.

Be Lucky

Chesham
30-07-2009, 11:37 PM
Both were tied up with temperament and Odds

Chesham

Mtoto
31-07-2009, 12:55 AM
Both were tied up with temperament and Odds

Chesham,

This is the 2nd post I don't quite understand. Are they answers or just random statements??

Be Lucky

bobajobber
31-07-2009, 01:06 AM
Lads,

I think DBMB had the right idea,we need some upto date races where we can consructively and objectively,pick the bones out of it.
Digressing about VDW examples are confusing to the point that information about is not freely available,I have tried getting it but cannot find it,mainly because databases dont go that far back.
Maybe an attempt at:Goodwood 3:05 Blue Square Nassau Stakes (Group 1) Cl1 1m1f192y to get the ball rolling

NO. FORM HORSE AGE WGT TRAINER RTF% JOCKEY OR TS RPR
1 511 Barshiba 14 5 9-5 D R C Elsworth 50 Paul Hanagan 110 123 123
2 122 Heaven Sent 24 6 9-5 Sir Michael Stoute 82 Ryan Moore 114 101 125
3 3-5 Katiyra 35 4 9-5 John M Oxx 60 M J Kinane 114 107 126
4 3-5 Saphira´s Fire 28 4 9-5 W R Muir 58 Martin Dwyer 103 99 110
5 313 Spacious 24 4 9-5 J R Fanshawe 38 L Dettori 113 98 124
6 331 High Heeled 8 3 8-10 B W Hills 85 Michael Hills 114 125 124
7 123 Midday 20 3 8-10 H R A Cecil 50 T P Queally 118 129 128
8 311 Moneycantbuymelove 45 3 8-10 M L W Bell 68 Jamie Spencer 106 102 117
9 185 Nashmiah 21 3 8-10 C E Brittain 70 N Callan 101 110 110
10 434 Rainbow View 24 3 8-10 J H M Gosden 52 Jimmy Fortune 114 120 126

Betting Forecast: 11/4 Midday, 4/1 Rainbow View (USA), 13/2 Heaven Sent, 7/1 Spacious, 7/1 Moneycantbuymelove (IRE), 8/1 Barshiba (IRE), 8/1 Katiyra (IRE), 14/1 High Heeled (IRE), 25/1 Saphira's Fire (IRE), 33/1 Nashmiah (IRE)

B/F from the Sportinglife

Date, Meet,Posi, Race Val,Dist Beat/won, Wght, Racetype,Going, SP, weight theybeat/beaten and their price

BARSHIBA
18/7 Nmk 1st 220 9-9 12f C1Ld(F&M) Gd 9/2 9-2 14/1
4/7 Hay 1st 560 9-5 12f C1G2(F&M) Gf 12/1 8-6 7/1
4/6 Asc 5th 700 3.75 12f C1G2 Gf 25/1 9-3 8/1

HEAVEN SENT
8/7 Nmk 2nd 1130 0.5 8f C1G1(F&M) Gd 8/1 9-5 7/4
17/6 Asc 2nd 700 1 8f C1G2(F&M) Gf 5/2 8-12 10/1
3/5 Nmk 1st 360 9f C1G3(F&M) Gf 4/11 8-12 14/1

KATIYRA
27/6 Cur 5th 1310 3.5 9-9 10f G1 Stakes YD 5/2 9-9 9/2
5/10/08 Long 3rd 1050 3 8-11 10f G1(F&M) 9/2 8-11 16/1
13/9/08 Cur 1st 590 8-12 10f G2(F&M) 1/2 8-12 4/1

SAPHIRA'S FIRE
4/7 Hay 5th 560 6 9-5 12f C1G2(F&M) Gf 10/1 9-5 12/1
18/10/08 Nmk 3rd 600 2.75 8-10 12f C1G2(F&M) Gd 16/1 8-10 4/1
6/6/08 Eps 2080 21 9-0 12f C1G1 Oaks(F) Gd 40/1 9-0 33/1

SPACIOUS
8/7 Nmk 3rd 1130 1 9-5 8f C1G1(F&M) Gd 11/2 9-5 7/4
17/6 Asc 1st 700 8-12 8f C1G2(F&M) Gf 10/1 8-12 5/2
6/6 Eps 3rd 360 9-6 9f C1G3(F&M) Gd 13/8 9-6 4/1

HIGH HEELED
24/7 Yor 1st 220 8-8 10f C1Ld(F&M) Gd 1/1 8-8 3/1
4/7 Hay 3rd 560 5.25 8-6 12f C1G2(F&M) Gf 11/8 9-5 12/1
5/6 Eps 3rd 1980 2.75 9-0 12f C1G1(F) Gd 33/1 9-0 9/4

MIDDAY
12/7 Cur 3rd 2720 7.5 9-0 12f G1(F) Irish Oaks Hy 9/2 9-0 1/1
5/6 Eps 2nd 1980 Hd 9-0 12f C1G1(F) Gd 5/1 9-0 9/4
9/5 Lin 1st 280 8-12 11f C1Ld(F) Gf 5/2 8-12 7/2

MONEYCANTBUYMELOVE
17/6 Asc 1st 280 8-11 8f C1Ld(F) Gf 9/2 8-9 8/1
21/5 Goo 1st 230 9-0 10f C1Ld(F) Gf 13/2 9-0 12/1
3/5 Nmk 3rd 280 6.25 8-12 10f C1Ld(F) Gf 8/1 8-12 15/2

NASHMIAH
11/7 Chs 5th 220 4.75 8-6 7f C1Ld Gf 15/2 9-2 11/4
19/6 Asc 8th 1540 23 9-0 8f C1G1(F) Gf 50/1 9-0 2/1
15/5 Yor 1st 220 9-1 8f C1Ld(F) Gs 2/1 8-12 2/1

RAINBOW VIEW
8/7 Nmk 4th 1130 1.25 8-10 8f C1G1(F&M) Gd 9/4 9-5 7/4
19/6 Asc 3rd 1540 4.25 9-0 8f C1G1(F) Gf 13/2 9-0 2/1
5/6 Eps 4th 1980 7.25 9-0 12f C1G1(F) Gd 3/1 9-0 9/4

Please just point out if I have made any mistakes,...cheers

Fulham1000
31-07-2009, 07:30 AM
B

With respect, if the aim is to understand the VDW method, one cannot focus on current races for the very obvious reason that we don't have his views against which to make progress in our understanding. It is by working out the answers to problems such as why Prominent King was a selection despite not qualifying on the two factors VDW was ostensibly showing us (and of course what those numbers mean); why while Little Owl and Sunset Cristo were strong enough to back, the likes of Kenlis, Wild Gamble, Gaye Chance, Billet etc were't; and why in the Pegwell Bay example Warner for Leisure wasn't a consistent horse and Bishops Yarn was that one makes progress towards fully understanding the method. I agree that the races for which VDW gave selections are mainly not available on databases such as the Post's (though of course some are, including important ones such as Roushayd, Pegwell Bay and Braashee), but the old Form Books are surprisingly readily available.

Of course understanding the VDW method is not the only reason for reading his letters, articles and book - several folk I know have drawn something from them which they use in their current endeavours without having looked far into the examples, and in no way would I criticise those who decided that the commitment of resources, not least time, to study all the examples was not for them. But the folk to whom I have just referred (with one possible exception, and he couldn't find a winner in a one horse race), don't make the mistake of imagining that they have got to grips with the method as such.

Chesham
31-07-2009, 09:56 AM
Both were tied up with temperament and Odds

Chesham,

This is the 2nd post I don't quite understand. Are they answers or just random statements??

Be Lucky

Mtoto

The first is a statement and outside of open forums is known by others. The second is a signpost that VDW left behind. How many have explored the trail, I know that a few have.

Chesham

Ark Royal
31-07-2009, 10:53 AM
Fulham/Boba

I think you both make relevant points.
Of course you can't focus simply on current races and hope to understand the method without looking back at the examples put forward by VDW and conversley you will be forever stuck in the past if you all you do is look at the examples and do not apply what you have learned to current races.

The problem with even the past examples is that despite years of discussions and review there still remain differences of opinion as to what was meant by VDW and how it is interpreted. Perhaps by looking at more modern races, not necessaily current, where everyone can easily get at the form etc we may be able to get some new input and ideas rather than the same circular discussions that seem to be repeated from forum to forum.

I for one greatly appreciated Fulhams post #167, which I am now calling the Pavershooz race ;) , and feel that there is much to be learnt from it particuarly was Pavershooz a form horse or not.

All the Best

AR

Fulham1000
31-07-2009, 11:18 AM
AR

It would indeed be strange just to focus on VDW's examples, though there is of course a crossword puzzle-like satisfaction to be gained just in solving the problem. The reason for looking at the examples is, for most, presumably to learn the method in order to be able to apply it to current races.

Today, for example, assuming the 19 that were scheduled to run when I analysed the race early this morning all go to post, it is helpful to be able to identify Acronis as the class/form horse in the 3.25 and to know exactly why (despite being the individual horse in the race most likely to win on the basis of VDW's presumptions) he falls a little short of betting material. This is a straightforward race, methodologically speaking, and one wouldn't need to have looked very deeply into the VDW writings to get to Acronis. But one does need to have looked rather deeper into them to know why he is not an 80% horse.

Ark Royal
31-07-2009, 01:32 PM
Fulham

I think you mean Acrostic?

Agree that Acrostic is the class/form horse.
As to why it is not a 80% horse, well I don't know but I notice that Acrostic was beaten in 4th by Kavachi and is one pound worse of today. The form of the horses it beat on its last run has not been anything to write home about and Huzzah beaten in 4th by 3l is now 6lbs better off. A higher draw would have been nice 11 of the last 13 winners have been drawn within 5 stalls of the far rail. Kavachi also has a great draw in 19

Currently available at 9/1 perhaps an e/w bet.

All the Best

AR

Proprice
31-07-2009, 03:01 PM
I compiled a platform for the Goodwood 3.25 and decided it is not a race to get involved in, although I did advise a friend if he must have a bet a small interest on Spectait may not go amiss as it has dropped so much in weight.

Platform headings: cloth No - f/cst - £class - consistency - Topspeed - best Topspeed

6. *_*_*_0_0 Acrostic
16. *_*_*_0_0 Spectate

The complete * list
1. 1
2. 2
3. 2
4. 0
5. 2
6. 3 Acrostic
7. 0
8. 1
9. 1
10. 0
12. 1
13. 0
14. 0
15. 0
16. 3 Spectait
17. 1
18. 1
19. 2
20. 2

Fulham1000
31-07-2009, 03:09 PM
AR

Yes, Acrostic, not Acronis, which is quite another matter.

domfascia
31-07-2009, 03:21 PM
Sorry,
I haven't had time to post any workings out (just come in) but my top three VDW version) ARE

1' EXTRATERESTRIAL (DRAWN 20 +) - 2 ACROSTIC (awful draw -last 8 winners drawn in three highest) 3. COURT MASTERPIECE

domfascia
31-07-2009, 03:57 PM
My VDW version didn't give the winner but the following may be interesting;

TOP 6 ON ABILITY
COURT MASTERPIECE 629 (11) 80 (INFORM) 115 (RPR)
ACROSTIC 324 ( 9) 85 119
LA RAAB 251 (22) 88* * 125* * TOP RATED
LOVELACE 218 (19) 84 117
EXTRATERRESTRIAL 183 (16) 86 119
SPECTAIT 168 ( 21) 85 118


After ability and consistency I then take the Top 3/4 to be rated by Inform (Topspeed will do) and RPR. La Raab and Lovelace wouldn't be rated..If I apply the ratings to all six -see what happens to the top rated?

I'm just wondering if I should consider ignoring consistency in main handcaps and rating after ability. Yes I know it's one example only and after the event (I'll look at it for the Stewards Cup).

anchor
31-07-2009, 04:16 PM
why is my ability different


court masterpiece..........680
spectait......................507
acrostic......................323
laa raayb....................304

Fulham1000
31-07-2009, 04:20 PM
D

There is a great deal of logic, from a VDW perspective, in what you propose, bearing in mind that from his viewpoint (and leaving to one side races for unexposed younger Flat horses) the top rated on ability is the best horse in the race, second top rated second best, etc etc. VDW advised that "it is unwise to stray from the top few [on ability]" and I know of no example where VDW specifically says he had a bet, or from his comments it can confidently be assumed he did, that was not in the top five on the ability rating ranking.

But being the best horse doesn't of course mean it will win - it may be out of form, inconsistent (and thus less than reliable) or unsuited by conditions, and VDW's method aims to factor all of these in. But as a highly accessible VDW-based method, doing what you propose strikes me as likely to find quite a few winners. Among recent big handicap winners high in the ability rating ranking have been Knot In Wood, Munsef and Drumfire, though I don't know how those would have come out, in relation to, say, the other four highest rated on ARs in their races, on the two ratings you are using.

Ark Royal
31-07-2009, 04:40 PM
why is my ability different


court masterpiece..........680
spectait......................507
acrostic......................323
laa raayb....................304
Hi Anchor,

I think that Dom uses inform for the ability rating and has previously said they are not the same as if you use the RP.

I notice that you are not using AW winnings in your figures.

All the BEst

AR

domfascia
31-07-2009, 05:06 PM
Anchor,
Can I say that your ability ratings are 'true' to VDW. However to help me put together a view on an evening when I have more time I use Inform ( he didn't post his ratings until am for today ) ) I worked out the same as you this morning using the RP.
Inform doesn't rate Irish, French and Nad Al Sheba (the latter doesn't bother me)

Reference Ark Royal -I also would not use AW figures or prize money ideally but I suppose we are getting a better class of horse and trainer on these courses -still don't like them.

Fulham1000 -thanks for your comments ; Drumfire was second top and as I remember Munsef top (but I made reference to this after the race) I didn't rate Knot on Wood's race -we'll see if it figures tomorrow Stewards on 9-12
Dom

Ark Royal
31-07-2009, 05:32 PM
Reference Ark Royal -I also would not use AW figures or prize money ideally but I suppose we are getting a better class of horse and trainer on these courses -still don't like them.


I did ask a general question, earlier in the thread, regarding whether or not one should isolate AW figures from Turf Figures but only got one response, thanks Fulham, along the lines that as VDW was happy to combine chase and hurdle figures then we could assume he would behappy doing the same for turf an AW.

At the class of racing we have been looking at there have not been many cases of where the AR is changed much whether or not you include the AW. That is until today when Laa Rayb and Spectait's ratings are hugely enhnced by leaving out the AW winnings.

All the Best

AR

goodlife
31-07-2009, 07:07 PM
Hello everybody, this is the first post I have made although I have posted on one or two other VDW fora.
Ark Royal, in answer to your query about including wins on the all-weather when compiling ability ratings, in my experience it is best to take only turf wins when dealing with turf and ditto for all-weather.My ratings for today's race involving Acrostic were exactly as yours.

Ark Royal
31-07-2009, 07:09 PM
Hi Goodlife,

Welcome aboard, hope you enjoy your time on the forum.

All the Best

AR

goodlife
31-07-2009, 07:22 PM
AR,
Thanks for the welcome. Just to clarify,my ratings corresponded with those of Anchor's.
GL

domfascia
31-07-2009, 07:38 PM
VDW ( a version) Stewards Cup; 1/8

top 6 on ability;
Brave Prospector 648 (28)
Advanced 320 (10*)
Kostar 161 (27)
Knot in Wood 160 (6*)
Genki 144 (16*)
Even and Odds 143 (21*)

top 4 to ratings
Advanced 87* (inform) 118 **(RP) TOP RATED
Knot in Wood 89 ** 117* 2ND TOP RATED
Genki 85 114
Even and Odds 86 117* 3RD TOP RATED

As earlier post, rating all six makes no difference in this case.

domfascia
31-07-2009, 08:42 PM
VDW A VERSION 1/8

2.30 GOODWOOD TOP 6 ON ABILITY;

DONATIVUM 2481 (10*) ;ASHRAM; 193 (7*); OCEAN'S MIST 162 (15); BRIEF ENCOUNTER 148 (11); PURE POETRY 117 (15); FOUR WINDS 71 (9^)

TOP 3 TO RATINGS
DONATIVUM 83 (inform) 123 (RP) 2ND TOP RATED
ASHRAM 87 127 TOP RATED
FOUR WINDS 80 121
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

305 GOODWOOD; TOP 6 ON ABILITY;
RAINBOW VIEW 481 (11); SPACIOUS 334 (7*); BARSHIBA 278 (7*); MONEY...LOVE 260 (5*); HEAVEN SENT 209 (5*); NASHIMAH 196 (14)

TOP 4 TO RATINGS
SP ACIOUS 91* 124 2ND TOP RATED
BARSHIBA 90 123
MONEY..LOVE 83 117
HEAVEN SENT 91* 125* TOP RATED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.55 GOODWOOD TOP 6 ON ABILITY;
GUESTOFTHENATION 57 (17); NATURAL FLAIR; 52 (10*); ITLAAQ 49 (19); BECAUSEWECAN 45 (10*); JEDI 45 (9*); EASTERN ARIA 42 (12);

TOP 3 TO RATINGS
NATURAL FLAIR; 73 99
BECAUSEWECAN 85* 104* TOP RATED
JEDI 79 101 2ND TOP RATED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.30 THIRSK TOP 6 ON ABILITY;
MAZE 173 (19); GRAZEON GOLD BLEND; 82 (16*); NEVADA DESERT; 65 (19); FLAWED GENIUS 62 (14*)
ANGEL ROCK 60(15*); FESKO 57 (21)

TOP 3 TO RATINGS
GRAZEON GOLD BLEND 83 97* TOP RATED
FLAWED GENIUS 85* 95 2ND RATED
ANGEL ROCK 83 96

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mtoto
31-07-2009, 08:50 PM
Stewards Cup

Ability before any other considerations

Sonny Red 1
Judd Street 2
Advanced 3
Knot In Wood 4
Markab 5
Tamagin 6
Brave Prospector 6

After consistency

Sonny Red 1
Advanced 2
Knot In Wood 3
Markab 4

Now the work would start if I backed in sprints

Be Lucky

domfascia
31-07-2009, 09:15 PM
Hi Mtoto,
Whilst we are slightly different on ability (yours is true VDW) we have two in the final four 'Advanced (27 on BF) and Knock on Wood (22 on BF);
In my 2 and 1 methodology Sonny Red is top rated -So come on have a couple of £'s on your 4 and watch the cavalry charge
Dom

BlackBullet
31-07-2009, 09:57 PM
With elements of VDW here is my top four. Last two are equal.

1-Genki
2-Knot In Wood
3-Tamagin
3-Valery Borzov

Ark Royal
31-07-2009, 09:58 PM
VDW ( a version) Stewards Cup; 1/8

top 6 on ability;
Brave Prospector 648 (28)
Advanced 320 (10*)
Kostar 161 (27)
Knot in Wood 160 (6*)
Genki 144 (16*)
Even and Odds 143 (21*)


Hmm, I get something different....

Brave Prospector 648 (28)
Beaver Patrol 282 (30)
Advanced 250 (10)
Judd Street 215 (16)
Even and Odds 178 (21)
Kostar 176 (27)

All the Best

AR

Ark Royal
31-07-2009, 10:05 PM
Hi Mtoto,

Cam you give me a prod in the right direction as to how you arrive at your top 6 for Ability?

All the Best
AR

wiko
31-07-2009, 10:06 PM
i have some letters from the handicap book on vdw methods some excellent ones from keith stokes,..clasform will try and upload

Mtoto
01-08-2009, 12:18 AM
Whilst we are slightly different on ability (yours is true VDW)

Dom,

I think so but there are a few who would disagree.

AR,

I'm just using my PK template, (with a minor adjustment). I have never understood how prize money can measure class. Ten horse run for a prize of say £10,000, the same ten horse run under the same conditions (course, weight, going and distance) for £20,000, how is that a rise in class???

Be Lucky

Fulham1000
01-08-2009, 07:36 AM
Mtoto

Manchester United might well field the same 11 players in an essentially meaningless pre season cup competition in Asia as they will in the Champions League final against Barcalona months later. But is it really the same team?

Ark Royal
01-08-2009, 09:46 AM
Mtoto

Manchester United might well field the same 11 players in an essentially meaningless pre season cup competition in Asia as they will in the Champions League final against Barcalona months later. But is it really the same team?




I have never understood how prize money can measure class. Ten horse run for a prize of say £10,000, the same ten horse run under the same conditions (course, weight, going and distance) for £20,000, how is that a rise in class???


Can see where you are both coming from.

I think the answer to your question Fulham is that yes it is the same team, but they may be trying harder in the second game.

All the Best

AR

Fulham1000
01-08-2009, 10:23 AM
AR

Only "may"?

Ark Royal
01-08-2009, 10:38 AM
Fulham,

Well it is only Man U after all :rolleyes:

Fulham1000
01-08-2009, 11:21 AM
Arguably more important is the training strategy - for which game, do you think, would the Man United management put in the more thought and preparation?

VDW may, of course, be wrong in his fundamental assumption that it is money that drives racing, but there is no doubt that that was his view and the point could not have been made more explicitly than in the fifth para. of chapter 5 of "Systematic Betting" (where I think we have different editions). In my copy it is on page 31 and starts "With horse racing how then do we assess the class element? There are many views but a method found by myself to be most satisfactory is to use the value of the prize to the winner ..." Note he said "most" satisfactory, implying that he had explored other possibilities and reached the stated conclusion.

bobajobber
01-08-2009, 12:37 PM
Lads,

I think DBMB had the right idea,we need some upto date races where we can consructively and objectively,pick the bones out of it.
Digressing about VDW examples are confusing to the point that information about is not freely available,I have tried getting it but cannot find it,mainly because databases dont go that far back.
Maybe an attempt at:Goodwood 3:05 Blue Square Nassau Stakes (Group 1) Cl1 1m1f192y to get the ball rolling

NO. FORM HORSE AGE WGT TRAINER RTF% JOCKEY OR TS RPR
1 511 Barshiba 14 5 9-5 D R C Elsworth 50 Paul Hanagan 110 123 123
2 122 Heaven Sent 24 6 9-5 Sir Michael Stoute 82 Ryan Moore 114 101 125
3 3-5 Katiyra 35 4 9-5 John M Oxx 60 M J Kinane 114 107 126
4 3-5 Saphira´s Fire 28 4 9-5 W R Muir 58 Martin Dwyer 103 99 110
5 313 Spacious 24 4 9-5 J R Fanshawe 38 L Dettori 113 98 124
6 331 High Heeled 8 3 8-10 B W Hills 85 Michael Hills 114 125 124
7 123 Midday 20 3 8-10 H R A Cecil 50 T P Queally 118 129 128
8 311 Moneycantbuymelove 45 3 8-10 M L W Bell 68 Jamie Spencer 106 102 117
9 185 Nashmiah 21 3 8-10 C E Brittain 70 N Callan 101 110 110
10 434 Rainbow View 24 3 8-10 J H M Gosden 52 Jimmy Fortune 114 120 126

Betting Forecast: 11/4 Midday, 4/1 Rainbow View (USA), 13/2 Heaven Sent, 7/1 Spacious, 7/1 Moneycantbuymelove (IRE), 8/1 Barshiba (IRE), 8/1 Katiyra (IRE), 14/1 High Heeled (IRE), 25/1 Saphira's Fire (IRE), 33/1 Nashmiah (IRE)

B/F from the Sportinglife

Date, Meet,Posi, Race Val,Dist Beat/won, Wght, Racetype,Going, SP, weight theybeat/beaten and their price

BARSHIBA
18/7 Nmk 1st 220 9-9 12f C1Ld(F&M) Gd 9/2 9-2 14/1
4/7 Hay 1st 560 9-5 12f C1G2(F&M) Gf 12/1 8-6 7/1
4/6 Asc 5th 700 3.75 12f C1G2 Gf 25/1 9-3 8/1

HEAVEN SENT
8/7 Nmk 2nd 1130 0.5 8f C1G1(F&M) Gd 8/1 9-5 7/4
17/6 Asc 2nd 700 1 8f C1G2(F&M) Gf 5/2 8-12 10/1
3/5 Nmk 1st 360 9f C1G3(F&M) Gf 4/11 8-12 14/1

KATIYRA
27/6 Cur 5th 1310 3.5 9-9 10f G1 Stakes YD 5/2 9-9 9/2
5/10/08 Long 3rd 1050 3 8-11 10f G1(F&M) 9/2 8-11 16/1
13/9/08 Cur 1st 590 8-12 10f G2(F&M) 1/2 8-12 4/1

SAPHIRA'S FIRE
4/7 Hay 5th 560 6 9-5 12f C1G2(F&M) Gf 10/1 9-5 12/1
18/10/08 Nmk 3rd 600 2.75 8-10 12f C1G2(F&M) Gd 16/1 8-10 4/1
6/6/08 Eps 2080 21 9-0 12f C1G1 Oaks(F) Gd 40/1 9-0 33/1

SPACIOUS
8/7 Nmk 3rd 1130 1 9-5 8f C1G1(F&M) Gd 11/2 9-5 7/4
17/6 Asc 1st 700 8-12 8f C1G2(F&M) Gf 10/1 8-12 5/2
6/6 Eps 3rd 360 9-6 9f C1G3(F&M) Gd 13/8 9-6 4/1

HIGH HEELED
24/7 Yor 1st 220 8-8 10f C1Ld(F&M) Gd 1/1 8-8 3/1
4/7 Hay 3rd 560 5.25 8-6 12f C1G2(F&M) Gf 11/8 9-5 12/1
5/6 Eps 3rd 1980 2.75 9-0 12f C1G1(F) Gd 33/1 9-0 9/4

MIDDAY
12/7 Cur 3rd 2720 7.5 9-0 12f G1(F) Irish Oaks Hy 9/2 9-0 1/1
5/6 Eps 2nd 1980 Hd 9-0 12f C1G1(F) Gd 5/1 9-0 9/4
9/5 Lin 1st 280 8-12 11f C1Ld(F) Gf 5/2 8-12 7/2

MONEYCANTBUYMELOVE
17/6 Asc 1st 280 8-11 8f C1Ld(F) Gf 9/2 8-9 8/1
21/5 Goo 1st 230 9-0 10f C1Ld(F) Gf 13/2 9-0 12/1
3/5 Nmk 3rd 280 6.25 8-12 10f C1Ld(F) Gf 8/1 8-12 15/2

NASHMIAH
11/7 Chs 5th 220 4.75 8-6 7f C1Ld Gf 15/2 9-2 11/4
19/6 Asc 8th 1540 23 9-0 8f C1G1(F) Gf 50/1 9-0 2/1
15/5 Yor 1st 220 9-1 8f C1Ld(F) Gs 2/1 8-12 2/1

RAINBOW VIEW
8/7 Nmk 4th 1130 1.25 8-10 8f C1G1(F&M) Gd 9/4 9-5 7/4
19/6 Asc 3rd 1540 4.25 9-0 8f C1G1(F) Gf 13/2 9-0 2/1
5/6 Eps 4th 1980 7.25 9-0 12f C1G1(F) Gd 3/1 9-0 9/4

Please just point out if I have made any mistakes,...cheers


Here is the odds from RP

BETTING FORECAST: 3/1 Midday, 9/2 Rainbow View, 7/1 Heaven Sent, 7/1 Katiyra, 7/1 Moneycantbuymelove, 7/1 Spacious, 11/1 Barshiba, 12/1 High Heeled, 33/1 Saphira´s Fire, 50/1 Nashmiah.

Although it points to MIDDAY ,My selection will be KATIYRA

Good Luck

Mtoto
01-08-2009, 01:42 PM
Manchester United might well field the same 11 players in an essentially meaningless pre season cup competition in Asia as they will in the Champions League final against Barcalona months later. But is it really the same team?

Fulham,

It is the same team, but WHY even if the Asian game is worth more money would you use it to gauge the class of that team? VDW went into some detail to show the strength of competition was the important aspect when judging class. Form is what they did and class is the level at which it was achieved.

While I'm not happy that prize money can be used as a measurement of class, it is the fact an AVERAGE is used to find the A/R. If the prize money was used as a marker to find the best ever performance of a horse I could just about live with that. I do note NO mention was made of the A/R in Systematic Betting!!

Goodwood 3:05

Rating after consistency/forecast are taken into consideration

Katiyra 1
Midday 2
High Heeled 3
Rainbow View 4
Barshiba 5
Heaven Sent 6

High Heeled was over priced and worth an e/w bet. Barshiba although not as strong the same could be said (a small e/w bet) or place only.

Be Lucky

Fulham1000
01-08-2009, 02:51 PM
Mtoto

There is a danger in conflating two things - class of race and class of horse. With the former, VDW clearly took win prize money as the primary measure, as the section from "Systematic Betting" I referred to above shows, but he was also interested in class of the opposition, as is evident from a couple of the very first selections he mentioned.

If one takes win prize money as the class measure of a race, then it follows that horses that, on average, win more higher class races than other horses are likely to be better, and the AR gives us a convenient measure of this. As VDW acknowledged, it has its limitations, but like everything else he used he says is was adopted after extensive research, and either we trust him on that point or we don't (the second paragraph in the "Form Can Mislead" section of the March 1981 article refers).

BlackBullet
01-08-2009, 04:11 PM
With elements of VDW here is my top four. Last two are equal.

1-Genki 1st 14/1
2-Knot In Wood 3rd 10/1
3-Tamagin
3-Valery Borzov

Cherry-pick VDW then use your noddle :)

bobajobber
01-08-2009, 04:17 PM
Cherry-pick VDW then use your noddle :)

Nice shot BB.

BlackBullet
01-08-2009, 10:03 PM
Thanks bobba..but the silence is deafening is it not? I must have pis@ed a few people off!
I was born in ‘41. A contemporary of VDW. I read everything he submitted to the SCHB. I have no records but I have a bloody good memory.
He advocated various methods for various aspects of assessing the various outcomes of a particular race. Some of them worked. Some did not. He never once ‘proofed’ an outcome before the event. He was a supreme ‘aftertimer’.
He would take a race, show you why you should be on this-that-the other, or why you should leave the race alone. What he could, or would not do, is do that BEFORE the race.
He had some sound principles about cracking a puzzle. His reputation is based on showing you why THIS one won by applying THESE/THOSE elements of his method. His method is as loose as Moll Flanders was.
Be honest! Any punter worth his/her salt is aware of all these factors already. The trick is….Sorting out the priorities and then adding a twist…or a bit of spin…that’s what makes the difference.
Don’t get me wrong. I still like reading all this VDW stuff. You never know what nuggets it might throw up. It’s thought provoking and that is exactly what a punter needs in his/her armoury.

Come on folks! Say TY fot Genki. :)

Dont ban me baby
01-08-2009, 10:13 PM
Hat off to you mate

Ark Royal
01-08-2009, 10:21 PM
Hat off to you mate

Only the one:)

wiko
01-08-2009, 10:49 PM
well done bb, most competitive race to work out

Mtoto
02-08-2009, 08:10 PM
..but the silence is deafening is it not? I must have pis@ed a few people off!

BB,

Why do you think that? I'm sure all of us are pleased for you if you backed that winner. The rest of your post makes it hard to reply, because any nevative response could be mistaken for sour grapes.

Personally I more than a little puzzled, why the search for a system if you have such a good handle on racing?

THIS one won by applying THESE/THOSE elements of his method. His method is as loose as Moll Flanders was.

Not sure I can agree with that statement, as it reads he changed elements to suit the results. For me anyway the princapals laid out and shown in the first example hold good for all examples using THAT method.

Well done with that winner anyway. :)

Be Lucky

klunky
02-08-2009, 08:12 PM
well done mate

Fulham1000
03-08-2009, 02:05 PM
Mtoto

"The rest of your post makes it hard to reply, because any nevative response could be mistaken for sour grapes."

I can't agree with your reasoning there, Bob. It is surely more the lack of substantial content.

Mtoto
03-08-2009, 03:20 PM
I can't agree with your reasoning there, Bob. It is surely more the lack of substantial content.

Fulham,

My reasoning is the same as yours, but I'm not as good with words. I can't think of a way of asking how was that a consistent horse, what about the lack of ability?, and a few other doubts about that being a VDW selection.

Don't you think/see it could look like sour grapes asking those questions. I don't think BB has any intention of explaining now, or why this horse with a low(ish) c/r and in the forecast was a selection, and many others with the same two requirements are not.

IF that selection was backed up with a bet fair play, but how is it a VDW bet?

Be Lucky

BlackBullet
03-08-2009, 04:08 PM
I probably rate differently to you guys. The resources I use are perhaps different too. Unorthodox but seemingly effective. For that race I rated nine horses.

Career earnings for all races div by number of races won div by age of horse-1 = figure.
Genki was highest followed by Prohibit, then Knot In Wood, then Sony Red.

For consistency all 1st & 2nd placings div by all career runs percent = figure.
Genki was highest followed by Valery Borzov, then Tamagin, then Markab/Buachil Dona.

For all nine I then do a distance rating = figure
Going rating = figure
General overall rating = figure
Speed Rating = figure
Simple Trainer rating = figure

I note the top 2 figures in each of seven columns.
The four horses that scored best were as per my post .

Fulham1000
03-08-2009, 05:02 PM
Mtoto

In fairness, there was no suggestion that it was a VDW selection, rather a personal selection influenced by what the poster had taken from VDW.

And Genki was a serious contender, irrespective of the result. If one lays the field out as VDW did in the right hand half of the first Pegwell Bay table (page 12 in my copy of "Betting the VDW Way"), on the face of the runners' last three runs (not that the last three runs always tell the whole story) only five of the 26 were feasible. Bearing in mind we were looking at a class 623:

Genki, dropped from a 935 where he had been beaten only 3.3l

Enderby Spirit and Markab, both close in class 623 races

Knot in Wood, won class 315

and at a pinch Biniou, won successive races at class 120 and 97.

Nothing else came close, on its last run in the context of the previous two, to suggesting it was feasible to win a class 623 winner. Take some of the other fancied horses:

Sonny Red: won a class 112 lto, but having flopped in a class 130;

Buachaill Dona: very close second in a class 125, having flopped in a class 249;

Mac Gille Eoin: won a class 78 after coming second in a class 280.

what is there to suggest any of these were likely to be involved in the business end of a class 623? (Not that it is infallible, of course, as one would not have predicted Evens and Odds would have run so well looking at the "Pegwell Bay" facts for him.)

When one then goes through the VDW stages as per the material in "The Golden Years", three of the five that were feasible emerge as probables with form, with Knot in Wood ahead of Biniou and Markab on ability, but some conflict over form between Knot in Wood and Markab. And one is also invited by the procedure to review Mac Gille Eoin, who also emerges as a probable with form despite not showing in the very first numerical picture. Had Genki been a consistent horse, he'd have been right in there with better form than both Knot in Wood and Markab, though a lower AR than the former, so more conflict. Genki wouldn't be found by the procedure which finds all the VDW selections up to 1990, but if one takes from his work the importance of that three race picture, and especially the last race one, he was an understandable selection.

The same "Pegwell Bay" procedure for the Nassau puts the eventual winner in number one spot - dropping in class from 2723 to 1135, with the only other horse dropping in class Katiyra (from 1311). Unlike Genki, Midday emerges through the "Golden Years" stages as the class/form horse.

I didn't used to start with the "Pegwell Bay" table, rather I went straight to the "Golden Years" stages. But having re-read the various evaluations in the Roushayd chapter of "Systematic Betting", and noting how VDW drew strong conclusions from just part of the data I've referred to above (in the race won by Merce Cunningham, for example, VDW gets almost immediately to Shimshek (2nd lto in a class 254), Ala Hounak (4th in class 249) and Merce Cunningham (won class 79), for a class 77) I've been using the "Pegwell Bay" table to set context. I'm now very wary of class/form horses who don't show as feable from the "Pegwell Bay" picture.


ps

I posted the above before seeing BB's post immediately above. Good to have the thinking behind the selection and it will be interesting to see how that thinking works out in other races.

domfascia
03-08-2009, 06:00 PM
Hello everyone,
I've probably joined the debate late in the day but if you'd like to refer to my VDW posting for the Stewards Cup you will see that Genki was a selection - unless you value Nad el Sheba form (which I don't, over valued races for moderate horses )in which case Beaver Patrol and Judd Street were in the 6 on ability. .

This was a painful day for me because unlike BB I left out Genki in my four going for Advanced, Even and Odds, Knot in Wood and Buchail Donna (from my 2 and 1) - I backed them in forecasts and tricasts and the nightmares continue.

bobajobber
03-08-2009, 06:08 PM
B

With respect, if the aim is to understand the VDW method, one cannot focus on current races for the very obvious reason that we don't have his views against which to make progress in our understanding.


I can't agree with your reasoning there, Bob. It is surely more the lack of substantial content.


The same "Pegwell Bay" procedure for the Nassau puts the eventual winner in number one spot - dropping in class from 2723 to 1135, with the only other horse dropping in class Katiyra (from 1311). Unlike Genki, Midday emerges through the "Golden Years" stages as the class/form horse.


I am a bit bemused by your replies,...I put the race up so we can pick the bones out of it,..you tell me its not a good idea,..then after the fact you start questioning my choice, are we all here to share and learn from this experience or are we here to to mock and ridicule people who have the bollox to put a suggestion up....
In the words of A Chambers.
"If you pass the hat round,throw some silver yourself"

domfascia
03-08-2009, 06:18 PM
Good for you Bobajobber,

I selected the first three in my VDW method - comments received ? NIL (apart from a private request)

Like you, never mind the theory, let's put it into practice. Some we'll win, some we'll lose
Dom

Ark Royal
03-08-2009, 06:36 PM
Boba,

Think you have the wrong end of the stick mate.




I can't agree with your reasoning there, Bob. It is surely more the lack of substantial content.


This was a comment aimed at Mtoto, real name Bob, regarding BB's list of 4 qualifiers.



The same "Pegwell Bay" procedure for the Nassau puts the eventual winner in number one spot - dropping in class from 2723 to 1135, with the only other horse dropping in class Katiyra (from 1311). Unlike Genki, Midday emerges through the "Golden Years" stages as the class/form horse.

This actually shows that you got the class/form horse correct in your assesment.



I am a bit bemused by your replies,...I put the race up so we can pick the bones out of it,..you tell me its not a good idea,..then after the fact you start questioning my choice, are we all here to share and learn from this experience or are we here to to mock and ridicule people who have the bollox to put a suggestion up....
In the words of A Chambers.
"If you pass the hat round,throw some silver yourself"

If you reread the posts again, in context, I think you will see that Fulham is far from trying to mock and ridicule you.

All the Best

AR

wiko
03-08-2009, 07:09 PM
excelelnt post fulham, great shout by bb, sometimes forget to go through the race with analtyical procedure as fulham, has pointed to the hard work factor comes into play..

bobajobber
03-08-2009, 07:19 PM
Boba,

Think you have the wrong end of the stick mate.




This was a comment aimed at Mtoto, real name Bob, regarding BB's list of 4 qualifiers.



This actually shows that you got the class/form horse correct in your assesment.




If you reread the posts again, in context, I think you will see that Fulham is far from trying to mock and ridicule you.

All the Best

AR

Thanks Ark and I apologise for taking it out of context,....but why the coded posts,does it help this thread.

anchor
03-08-2009, 08:49 PM
catterick 5.50 yes not one of the best races,some marchwood rather than vdw


toy top..............161
king of swords......145
sternsall.............141
monsieur rey........139
calypso girl..........134
metal garu..........131


rating = best top speed + bhb rating+marchwoods consistency rating

toy top coming down in class from lto 4k to 2.3k and unlucky lto only beaten shd and hd,s
if catterick stays on the firmish side think philip makin and dods can get there only runner home at a nice price,what do others think?

domfascia
03-08-2009, 09:56 PM
VDW A Version

5.50 catterick

Top 6 on Ability; Monsieur Reynard; 49 (22); Strensall 49 (19*); Sir Don 47(18*); ToyTop 41 (10*);
King of Swords; 39(27); Calypso Girl 36 (19*)

top 4 to ratings;
Strensall; 72 71
Sir Don 64 37
Toy Top 78 73 top rated
Calypso Girl 69 84 2nd top rated

Fulham1000
03-08-2009, 09:57 PM
B

Sorry for the confusion and any upset caused as a consequence. AR is quite right: Mtoto and I go right back to days of the VDW Methodology board and we have long been on Bob and Alan terms, but of course neither you nor anyone else was to know that.

But I stand by my basic point. While there are dozens of ways of selecting horses to back, all of which have their day from time to time, there is only one VDW main method, which if fully understood MAY (we certainly don't know for sure) enable one to achieve a very high strike rate. The only way to derive that method (short of persuading VDW to explain it more fully) is to study VDW's examples so that one understands the principles or rules by which those were found. And even then there is no way of knowing for sure whether one has really found all those rules - the best one can hope for is to identify a set of rules which truly finds ALL the relevant examples and which when applied to current races delivers results compatible with VDW's claims.

Chesham
03-08-2009, 10:32 PM
Systematic Betting Booklet

Page 14 " The Fact remains there are only perhaps two, three or sometimes four horses in any race whatever the number of runners that can have a chance irrespective of the odds offered. Therefore, as opinion is varied it does not follow that the market reflects the real odds about a particular horse's chance of winning. This then opens the door to finding true value in your bets which means you obtain odds greater than the factual odds suggest."

The Real Odds
Prominent King 7/2
Mr Kildare 5/1


Chesham

bobajobber
03-08-2009, 11:24 PM
B

Sorry for the confusion and any upset caused as a consequence. AR is quite right: Mtoto and I go right back to days of the VDW Methodology board and we have long been on Bob and Alan terms, but of course neither you nor anyone else was to know that.

But I stand by my basic point. While there are dozens of ways of selecting horses to back, all of which have their day from time to time, there is only one VDW main method, which if fully understood MAY (we certainly don't know for sure) enable one to achieve a very high strike rate. The only way to derive that method (short of persuading VDW to explain it more fully) is to study VDW's examples so that one understands the principles or rules by which those were found. And even then there is no way of knowing for sure whether one has really found all those rules - the best one can hope for is to identify a set of rules which truly finds ALL the relevant examples and which when applied to current races delivers results compatible with VDW's claims.

All cleared up with the mistake,..trouble is the thread appears to be leading to nothing constructive.

The confusing part is,..you say there is one main VDW method,but there is several different ways to approach,why would he complicate things? ,...
When he writes in "Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune""The Missing Link",..he clearly states:
"The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element had been chosen to fit into the method.Calcu;ating consistant horses,ability ratings and everything else,providing you READ WHAT WAS THERE(changing it later to UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS THERE).
The last in capitals because it was ALL there although a vital factor.call it the missing link if you like was not deliberately pointed out.It is there for you to see and it was not covered up,but until you approach the problem in the right way the odds are it will remain obscure."

About the numerical picture,..there are signs of frustration when he writes in "Betting the VDW Way""VDW:The Myth Of The MIssing Link"
"The first part of the method has been illustrated so often that I feel all that is necessary is to carry over the relevant details to show you how to equate with the later data."

Here is a man that is frustrated with explaining the same thing over and over again,this also tells me that there is no hidden agenda,with the numbers that were wrong in the PK race.

Nobody has explained the 80%+ horses,so if I was to assume,..I would come to the assumption that it equates to his e.g 3 3 3 99%. ....approach.

He mentions that he deliberately never pointed out something,...is this the fact that all the race examples that I have, the winners were top rated in his Hcap ratings(Obviously some examples never had ratings)

If you look at the Little Owl race,...he mentions that it is a racing certainty,..from looking at it,..you can see that the race has the 3 3 3 = 99% and LO has best Class - Consistancy and his two sets of Hcap Ratings are way out in front.

Can you tell me if I have anything right here

anchor
04-08-2009, 12:13 AM
bobajobba

just my take on this,the consistency rating is given a percent in all the other books top rated are given percent top mail ratings ect ect you dont back till you have an 80% horse,everthing is by percentages
if you have a 111 ,top on ability,top mail and racing post it = 80%+,maybe wrong but my take on all this

Chesham
04-08-2009, 12:37 AM
Bobajobber



"The spade work is all complete and it can be seen that there is a possible winner for each race, but once again the odds must be weighed. Providing a reasonable price can be obtained Little Owl will be taken"

"When the true odds are calculated a price 3/1 on would represent value. Wayward Lad is obviously a false forecast favourite and if it were to remain so on course, a very fine bet would be there"

" I would estimate that I wager on less than 20% of horses I consider potential winners"

"Go back to the begining and you will fiid it all tied up with Temperament and Odds.

Chesham

Fulham1000
04-08-2009, 08:51 AM
B

1. "The confusing part is,..you say there is one main VDW method,but there is several different ways to approach,why would he complicate things? ,...
When he writes in "Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune""The Missing Link",..he clearly states:
"The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element had been chosen to fit into the method.Calcu;ating consistant horses,ability ratings and everything else,providing you READ WHAT WAS THERE(changing it later to UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS THERE).
The last in capitals because it was ALL there although a vital factor.call it the missing link if you like was not deliberately pointed out.It is there for you to see and it was not covered up,but until you approach the problem in the right way the odds are it will remain obscure."

About the numerical picture,..there are signs of frustration when he writes in "Betting the VDW Way""VDW:The Myth Of The MIssing Link"
"The first part of the method has been illustrated so often that I feel all that is necessary is to carry over the relevant details to show you how to equate with the later data."

Here is a man that is frustrated with explaining the same thing over and over again,this also tells me that there is no hidden agenda,with the numbers that were wrong in the PK race."


VDW is confusing, In the piece from which you quote he implies he had a method (singular) - "the whole concept ... " and earlier in the piece "... the way I do things". But elsewhere he suggests that he had several methods - the way he found The Old Fellow (item 24 of "The Golden Years") looks different to, for example, the analyses in the March 1981 article. Personally, I think the letter of Feb. 1996, reprinted in "Systems in my racing" (page 6) helps us here - VDW was showing us bits at a time and we need to take the material as cumulative and mine it for the essentials, leaving aside the less relevant or indeed what looks to be wholly irrelevant.


2. "Nobody has explained the 80%+ horses,so if I was to assume,..I would come to the assumption that it equates to his e.g 3 3 3 99%. ....approach."

I don't think so. VDW wrote that he backed less than 20% of the horses he thought likely to win, and with Gaye Chance, Kenlis, Beat the Retreat, First Division, etc he gave us some examples of those he thought likely to win but did not back. The best sense I have been able to make of this is that finding the most likely winner (the class/form horse) is one thing, assessing its probability of winning is quite another matter. And on the latter point, a class/form horse could have the best individual chance of winning (from VDW's presumptions) but still be long odds against (because the aggregate chances of all the other runners was much greater). From this point of view it follows that we need to compare the examples where VDW said he did back them with those where he said he didn't, and try to see why he rated the former as having very much higher chances. When we do this, in my view the picture becomes much clearer and the characteristics of the "80%" horses emerge, but from this position it is not a matter of calculating probabilities but of identifying the characteristics which, in reality (ie in the results of races where they occur) do generate an 80% or thereabouts strike rate.

It also follows that I think the placing percentages VDW gave have only a very limited purpose - to show that consistent horses (on his last three placings rating) on average win much more often than less consistent ones.


3. "He mentions that he deliberately never pointed out something,...is this the fact that all the race examples that I have, the winners were top rated in his Hcap ratings(Obviously some examples never had ratings)

If you look at the Little Owl race,...he mentions that it is a racing certainty,..from looking at it,..you can see that the race has the 3 3 3 = 99% and LO has best Class - Consistancy and his two sets of Hcap Ratings are way out in front."


I don't think so. My own belief is that what VDW was referring to is how he assessed whether a horse was a form horse or not, a matter on which, in the March 1981 article, he had given us precious little except one ambiguous phrase "what is form if it is not that one performance is better than another?".

It is certainly the case that the four winners from the tables in the March 1981 article all came top on his ratings (though not the Daily Mail ones he quoted in some later examples). But there are two reasons for supposing that that was not of central importance. First, in the section of the March 1981 article prior to the four tables VDW said "To complete the working platform it is useful to have another measure ..." , not "it is necessary" or "it is essential", which implies that the "another measure" was ancilliary rather than an essential part of the method (and not of course used in later important evaluations such as Roushayd and Pegwell Bay). Second, both in the section from which I have just quoted and later, for examaple in the 13 April 1985 article, VDW makes it clear that they can be any decent ratings and are only a guide. Nowhere does he say that his personally-generated ratings (as distinct from the various methods of rating - consistency, probability, form, and ability - he showed us) were essential to the exercise.

BlackBullet
04-08-2009, 10:06 AM
The Cat 5.50 race is not one I would usually rate. Low Class and with a few maidens in it. However, for comparison purposes, I did.

Eight Rated
1-Toy Top
2-Future Gem
3-Red Cell

The two I have rated at NA look fine though.

NA 2.30 Six Rated
1-Sweet World
2-Weather Front
3-Corum (pretty lowly rated)

NA 5.00 Six Rated
1-Arctic Shadow
2-Bengal Bullet
3-Bathwick Breeze

BlackBullet
04-08-2009, 11:04 AM
With Sweet World now a n/r, Corum rates much closer to top rated Weather Front.

anchor
04-08-2009, 01:56 PM
even if you think you know odds are you still dont know how to move on lol

Larry
04-08-2009, 02:55 PM
When working out the selections either true VDW or mock VDW does one take into account other factors i rated a few races & i like most had TOY TOP as a top rated selection but on draw stats it badly drawn, it hasnt won on anything but fast ground for 3 years, it hasnt carried this much weight to victory, all in all this would be as no bet for me(yes i know VDW wouldnt even have looked at the race) if my arm was twisted & it wont be i would have RED CELL to very small stakes
please dont bite my head off on 2nd thoughts i dont care if u do bite my head off just making a point
all the best
Larry

anchor
04-08-2009, 03:33 PM
i agree larry but we are talking about a horse real time dont agree with vdw not going over this race ,what about the coconut seller?.the draw should be ok but i would like it a bit firmer 20/80 for me

Larry
04-08-2009, 03:51 PM
I may have the going wrong RP says its good going (good to firm in places) i thought it was just good going, but i wont be playing in the race at all

Mtoto
04-08-2009, 03:57 PM
The confusing part is,..you say there is one main VDW method,but there is several different ways to approach,why would he complicate things? ,...

Boba,

For what its worth I don't think VDW went out of his way to complicate things, he didn't need to, plenty of others did that.

Right from the very first example it started. On reading that example the first thing that has to be done is get rid of Beacon Light otherwise it would have been the selection. IF VDW had used the ability rating as later explained in this example. NOWHERE does VDW explain, or even hint this is how he judged ability for the early examples. What he did talk about was two sets of ratings that put BL well out of the equation. (He also said he would never explain how these ratings were formulated)

I think these ratings were the ability rating, they had PK joint top and just ahead on the other. So VDW didn't need BL to be out of form... a none form horse or whatever, his form (the way VDW looked at it) just wasn't good enough. As has been pointed out VDW then suggested ANY good set of ratings would do the trick, but what other set of ratings would have shown BL well out of it in that race?

So what do we have now? A very complicated puzzle, a set of important ratings having no real importance. A method of judging whether a horse is a form horse, that at best is more than a little subjective. I say this as if PK hadn't been the selection along with Celtic Pleasure in another example they to would have failed for most. VDW went out of his way to comment on BL's performance noting he had a hard race. No mention should have done better, or not up to standard.

Be Lucky

joeli100
04-08-2009, 03:57 PM
VDW suggested sticking to better class races, but used the seller to show potential. Also if you have a selection [class/form horse], do not forget the probability and capability.

Fulham1000
04-08-2009, 05:21 PM
Mtoto

"What he did talk about was two sets of ratings that put BL well out of the equation"

With respect, he didn't. Rather, he said "using two methods of rating ...". The phrasing is important because later VDW distingushed between methods of rating and ratings - "two different matters". The methods of rating he used were central to his method, the ratings were ancillary.

BlackBullet
04-08-2009, 05:28 PM
The methods of rating he used were central to his method, the ratings were ancillary.

Quite!
To each his own.

anchor
04-08-2009, 05:57 PM
fulham was his ratings all his own ratings or a combination of widely available ratings + add ons
ie there is no talk of c/d added

Fulham1000
04-08-2009, 08:47 PM
Anchor

I don't know. Some while ago I put in some time on this but without much success. My only observation that may be relevant is that the second set bears some correspondence with the Daily Mail ratings (there were no Life ones for NH races at that time). In the Little Owl illustration all the second set are the DM ratings plus 12, and that pattern recurs in some of the horses in the other three races. So maybe VDW used the Mail ratings as a base and added and subtracted where he thought it appropriate, but if so I haven't been able to discover a logic in the additions/subtractions.

The only other thing I established is that neither set of ratings is straight Timeform, though they might of course be based on Timeform with additions and subtractions.

As to the other set, Guest, a poster on the old Gummy board, had done some work on them and thought they might in part correspond to the Haig (which later became Superform) ratings, perhaps in the same way (if only we could fathom it) that the second set do to the Mail's. But I've never checked this out as I am convinced the two sets play no material part in the method.

anchor
04-08-2009, 09:37 PM
thought about this to ,thought that the second set were maybe add on for probability ie proprices book probability list + c/d ,say the old fellow was 78 in the mail the rest from probability and c/d=91

Skint
04-08-2009, 09:49 PM
Having looked at the whole VDW business on and off over several aeons, I am convinced that it is all a chimera.

The main reason for the whole mystique is the name - Van der Wheil. Reminiscent of some lost Dutch masterpiece. Wouldn't be the same if it was Joe Bloggs. How many 'vans' indeed could you fill up with the reams of useless print that have been wasted by people 'whiling' away their lives trying to fathom the unfathomable - which, incidentally, isn't worth fathoming in the first place. Der!

anchor
04-08-2009, 09:53 PM
ocht it keeps me aff the refreshment

Dont ban me baby
04-08-2009, 10:00 PM
Having looked at the whole VDW business on and off over several aeons, I am convinced that it is all a chimera.

The main reason for the whole mystique is the name - Van der Wheil. Reminiscent of some lost Dutch masterpiece. Wouldn't be the same if it was Joe Bloggs. How many 'vans' indeed could you fill up with the reams of useless print that have been wasted by people 'whiling' away their lives trying to fathom the unfathomable - which, incidentally, isn't worth fathoming in the first place. Der!

Would you care to expand on the statement that it is not worth fathoming in the first place.I see this type of statement on a regular basis in regards to VDW but,never with any worth while argument to back up the statement.Have you worked the method out?As really this would be the only way to de-bunk the method.If you have then please feel free to expand and put this to bed.

bobajobber
04-08-2009, 10:53 PM
Having looked at the whole VDW business on and off over several aeons, I am convinced that it is all a chimera.

The main reason for the whole mystique is the name - Van der Wheil. Reminiscent of some lost Dutch masterpiece. Wouldn't be the same if it was Joe Bloggs. How many 'vans' indeed could you fill up with the reams of useless print that have been wasted by people 'whiling' away their lives trying to fathom the unfathomable - which, incidentally, isn't worth fathoming in the first place. Der!

To be perfectly honest,.....I agree with the second part of this statement,...there is too much 'whiling' away time and I know the most experienced of us is going to disagree,...because they have lived and breathed it for so long, ...but why spend a lifetime on something if it has no substance.

This is where I disagree with Skints statement,I think it has substance(Thats why the experienced have followed it for so long) ,..in the short spell I have been following it,.. it has indeed amazed me in its coincedence.

It truly is a conundrum and hopefully I can a least improve my selection process and temperament. so lets see.

Larry
05-08-2009, 12:57 AM
Hi all i dont agree or disagree with Skints post but what i will say this thread is 38 pages long thats 380 replies & i'm willing to bet ProminentKing, Little Owl etc & races from 20 years ago are mentioned more than any present day examples, also as i see it if you gave 5 different VDW disciples the same race to analyse the likliehood is they would come up with 5 different solutions. I'm a relative virgin in this territory been looking on & off for about 10 years & i would honestly say i'm no nearer to an answer than i was 10 years ago, hell on Direct Racing about 8 years ago i used to put up what i thought were vdw based selections but whether they won or lost there was always criticism that they were not proper vdw selections.
Lastly let me apologise for this post been out with my friends had a drink or 3 tonight so this probably makes no sense
all the best
Larry

Fulham1000
05-08-2009, 07:41 AM
Larry

"also as i see it if you gave 5 different VDW disciples the same race to analyse the likliehood is they would come up with 5 different solutions"

Maybe not five, but I agree that unless it was a very straightforward race there would be more than one. But there are clear reasons for this, which in no way reflect adversely on VDW and his work.

The first is that, entirely reasonably, some of those who are interested in VDW's work including Jock Bingham, Alan Colderick, Philip Close and Sadken (all of whom have published booklets related to VDW) and posters on forums like this, such as BlackBullet, have done exactly what BlackBullet advised and have cherrypicked the work for elements they find useful, and have constructed their own approaches. None would, I think, assert that they have unravelled the full method, and their selections will only coincidentally be the VDW class/form horse that meets the 80% standard, but all have found something of value in the work, and sometimes their approaches, when applied to a specific race, will get the winner when the full method doesn't (BlackBullet's selection in the Stewards Cup being an excellent example). And to avoid any misunderstanding, in no way do I disparage such approaches. Indeed for a while before I made sufficient progress in understanding the VDW method, I got good results, and a decent profit, by using a couple of Jock Bingham's methods from his "Four Ways To Win", and I know that Sadken, with his approach of backing multiple selections in a race, very often finds long priced winners.

The second is that among those who are interested in unravelling the full method, some have gone further towards that objective than others, and will be basing their analyses on more of the method. Thus what for some seems like the class/form horse will sometimes, to others who have unearthed more of the rules VDW seems to have used, fall by the wayside and another horse will be the class/form horse. There is nothing untoward in this, and no one is being tricky. It is simply a reflection that some have made more progress than others. But it isn't encouraging to those who find something of interest in their first contact with VDW and are wondering whether there might truly be something of real value there.

The VDW follower who undoubtedly has the best strike rate for the selections he has posted before the races concerned is Lee, who posted on the old Gummy forum for several years and briefly on TheRacingForum, with a strike rate broadly consistent with VDW's 80% claim. His view is that those who really understand the VDW method will always have the same selection, although sometimes there will be differences as to the betting decision. The first part of that is absolutely consistent with what VDW himself wrote - words to the effect that when you understand the method you'll have the same horses as he did. And for what it is worth, I think Lee is absolutely right.

joeli100
05-08-2009, 11:42 AM
Rivage Bleu and Prominent King were both horses without a winning class rating.

Anyone with any thoughts on this remark made by VDW? PK did have an ability rating as he had won two races. This suggests a class rating is different to the ability rating, but VDW said class and ability were the same thing??

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto

Nothing came of your question, I wonder if it has to do with the horses last 1/2 placings, where neither horse had a win. That would also beg the question, why not mention Roushayd, VDW certainly went back to the beginning with this.

mickeddy
05-08-2009, 03:29 PM
Hi Guys,
I'm new on here but have been on several forums and know a few of you. Having just read the articles by Taffman and Gdubsuk I do think this forum could be quite interesting. A lot of time and effort has obviously gone into the posts and I do find them quite an informative read. Both writers are to be commended. It isn't often on a forum that something so detailed is given. Hopefully I will be able to contribute but maybe on a lesser standard as the two learned members above.
Mike.

mickeddy
05-08-2009, 03:38 PM
Hi Guys,
Having just read page 2 may I also say that I have Sad Kens books and also find them informative. I also have Clive Holts Fineform which again is a good read and Jock Binghams books. I believe all the above are written to make you think of what you are doing. You can learn a lot by selecting the parts that fit into the way you work.
Mike.

ec4me
05-08-2009, 03:56 PM
Hi Guys,
Having just read page 2 may I also say that I have Sad Kens books and also find them informative. I also have Clive Holts Fineform which again is a good read and Jock Binghams books. I believe all the above are written to make you think of what you are doing. You can learn a lot by selecting the parts that fit into the way you work.
Mike.
I have to agree there, Mikeddy. There have been many booklets printed, many posts made and much thinking done on VDW. Overall there is no right or wrong way. If by reading the books you have learnt something then you've not wasted time or money. It doesn't matter if you follow VDW to the letter as long as you can find something that serves you well then you should be happy.
I know that Taffman has spent many hours reading and re-reading most books on VDW and he went off and devised a few methods that although not following VDW to the letter have a lot of merit. One has only to read his posts to appreciate his knowledge and understanding.
Keep this thread going as all the differing views can only help us all towards making the as near as possible correct choices.

Ark Royal
05-08-2009, 05:21 PM
Hi mickeddy,

Welcome to the forum and this thread in particular.

All the Best

AR

mickeddy
05-08-2009, 05:34 PM
When I first read VDW's books in the 90's I thought this is easy, as I suppose did others, and proceeded to think the class form horse had to be the highest ability rated horse in the race. Several trips to the bookie's to place my bets with no return to collect soon convinced me I was wrong. I had made the classic mistake of taking a short cut which led nowhere. Having since re-read the books several times along with other books I now know better. I'm probably wrong here but I found reading Fineform as well as Jock Bingham and more recently Sad Ken have actually helped me understand VDW. I know JB and SK have their critics but they helped me. I bet very rarely and probably only have one or two bets a month. I have a friend I write to daily who says I err on the side of caution too much. When watching a horse win on TV and saying to my Wife that I had selected that in my book I think she agrees with him. I only look at class three and above and rate each race according to my ratings. I think this forum has some very knowledgeable members so with a little luck I may learn more. As VDW said at the start nobody knows it all but together who knows where you can go?
Mike.

goodlife
05-08-2009, 06:17 PM
Quite a number of interesting contributions over the last few days. I myself owe thanks to such posters on the Gummy forum as Lee, Guest , Fulham and others. The discussion that took place there explored VDW’s work in the most thorough, exhaustive manner. In my view between them all they really did “ set the pages alight.”
Around eighteen months ago I decided not to bother with VDW methods again. After reading and re-reading “The Golden Years” and the other booklets for ten years or so, I reluctantly reached the conclusion that I would never properly understand what he was putting across. I decided at that point that I would look at racing in my own way and rely on my own judgement.
What changed my mind was studying the results of the main handicaps at Glorious Goodwood last year. From that moment on I vowed to myself that I would make my maximum effort to understand VDW methods. In truth, his examples such as Prominent King, Celtic Pleasure, etc HAVE to be studied before you have any chance of understanding what he was saying.
I don’t know whether a strike-rate of 80% plus is possible but I’m beginning to suspect that it may well be. What you have to remember is that VDW was/is a very clever man who had forgotten more about racing than I, for one, ever knew.

bobajobber
05-08-2009, 06:35 PM
Hello Mickeddy and goodlife,
Its nice to have you involved in the thread,...maybe you can point us newbies to the VDW in the right direction.
As you probably have seen,..we have a strong bunch of experienced aboard already,with your input,maybe we can see the light.

mickeddy
05-08-2009, 07:15 PM
Bobajobber,
If you follow me the only light you may see will be the stars floating around as you wonder where you are. I do believe though that the most important thing you must have for analysing any race is a short list. Its true not all horses are there to win that race and a short list can guide you to the probables. Whether you use consistency, Ability ratings, Value of last time out race, speed figures or whatever it is a must. I'm sure people like Fulham could give you even more to think about. I count myself as a learner and am willing to learn hopefully from these pages. Fulhams advice about reading Lee's posts is good advice. I have been lucky enough to have a copy of his last post asnd have learnt from that. Another well respected poster who sadly is now no longer with us was Beppo. I believe Fulham would also acknowledge that he also understood VDW better than most
Mike.

Mtoto
05-08-2009, 07:25 PM
With respect, he didn't. Rather, he said "using two methods of rating ...". The phrasing is important because later VDW distingushed between methods of rating and ratings - "two different matters". The methods of rating he used were central to his method, the ratings were ancillary.

Fulham,

What you point out is of course correct, but how/why can/should it be taken that both these methods didn't involve the use of numbers? I can see a yes/no or good/poor set of questions COULD be termed as rating, but does this idea really hold with VDW's thinking. He seems to rely on numbers. I can see if the reply to questions is being used, we can get joint result (level) but how does the one having the edge work? Isn't that a bit like being a little bit pregnant?

When one looks and reads the text in the examples shown in SIAO the "other" rating appear to be anything but ancillary. In a couple of case they are the deciding factor.

Joeli,

While I agree with your idea that Roushayd DIDN'T have a winning class rating, I don't think it automatically has anything to do with a horse last two runs. For me R had NEVER had a winning class rating. I still think it is very strange VDW picked on PK to use as an example, why go right back to the beginning?

Be Lucky

wiko
05-08-2009, 07:32 PM
prominent king, had the edge by one method and was level with the other....dony know how many times i have looked at the first example by van der wheil, any enigma code breakers...out there~

bobajobber
05-08-2009, 07:35 PM
Bobajobber,
If you follow me the only light you may see will be the stars floating around as you wonder where you are. I do believe though that the most important thing you must have for analysing any race is a short list. Its true not all horses are there to win that race and a short list can guide you to the probables. Whether you use consistency, Ability ratings, Value of last time out race, speed figures or whatever it is a must. I'm sure people like Fulham could give you even more to think about. I count myself as a learner and am willing to learn hopefully from these pages. Fulhams advice about reading Lee's posts is good advice. I have been lucky enough to have a copy of his last post asnd have learnt from that. Another well respected poster who sadly is now no longer with us was Beppo. I believe Fulham would also acknowledge that he also understood VDW better than most
Mike.

Mick,

You could you give a copy of Lee's last post,...or point us in the right direction.

Cheers

mickeddy
05-08-2009, 07:51 PM
I will try to find it and give a couple of pointers from it.
Mike.

Fulham1000
05-08-2009, 07:53 PM
Mtoto

"What you point out is of course correct, but how/why can/should it be taken that both these methods didn't involve the use of numbers? I can see a yes/no or good/poor set of questions COULD be termed as rating, but does this idea really hold with VDW's thinking. He seems to rely on numbers. I can see if the reply to questions is being used, we can get joint result (level) but how does the one having the edge work? Isn't that a bit like being a little bit pregnant?"

Why does it have to be either/or rather than both? My assumption is that one of the methods of rating required a yes/no answer (with Beacon Light well out of it because the answer in his case was no, while Prominent King and Mr Kildare were level because the answer in their cases was yes), while the other generated numbers and Prominent King had the edge over Mr Kildare because his number was bigger.


Mickeddy

Beppo seemed a generous guy and like everyone else posting on the forum where we "met" him, I was both shocked and saddened to hear of his terminal illness.

I know (because he showed me the letter) that Tony Peach had correspondence from Beppo in which he claimed to have made his first half million from VDW. While I have no reason to dis-believe that, I am of course in no position to confirm it as I never had a direct relationship with Beppo.

I don't have a well founded view about how close Beppo came to deriving the whole method. My sense is that he had certainly cottoned on to the potential in Roushayd types and if we can take his claimed selections as accurate (as far as I know he didn't put them up before the races) he was good at picking out the ones that went on to win from those that didn't.

anchor
05-08-2009, 07:59 PM
i,ll have a guess with the pk ratings ,the one he was in front was the lto ability rating,the one it was even with was formcast/vdw rating yes or no?

wiko
05-08-2009, 08:27 PM
hi anchor, last time out class value 6 beacon light was coming out of sure it was higher than class 6 .. last time out..thanks

anchor
05-08-2009, 08:36 PM
so that was a no/yes then :)

bobajobber
05-08-2009, 09:26 PM
Hi,

You can get into the old gummy forum,..how do i go about it.

Cheers

Chesham
05-08-2009, 11:44 PM
How VDW made the decision to bet or not to bet.

Therefore, as opinion is varied it does not follow that the market reflects the real odds about a particular horse's chance of winning. This then opens the door to finding true value in your bets which means you obtain odds greater than the factual odds suggest.

The Real Odds
Prominent King 7/2
Mr Kildare 5/1

The Real Odds
Beau Ranger 8/11
Lean Ar Aghaidh 6/4

Chesham

Ark Royal
05-08-2009, 11:50 PM
Hi Chesham,

How do you arrive at the 'real odds' shown above?

All the Best
AR

Chesham
06-08-2009, 12:32 AM
Hi Chesham,

How do you arrive at the 'real odds' shown above?

All the Best
AR

Little Owl gives part of the answer.

Chesham

joeli100
06-08-2009, 12:10 PM
Joeli,

While I agree with your idea that Roushayd DIDN'T have a winning class rating, I don't think it automatically has anything to do with a horse last two runs. For me R had NEVER had a winning class rating. I still think it is very strange VDW picked on PK to use as an example, why go right back to the beginning?

Be Lucky

He combined the method in PK example, with TOF example, after which he said combining the two gave you the probables.Personally I think this example is ignored too often, he gave another way in this example of narrowing the field.

Mtoto
06-08-2009, 01:19 PM
the other generated numbers and Prominent King had the edge over Mr Kildare because his number was bigger.

Fulham,

Now it could just me being picky. can a difference of 70% (17 plays 10) really be discribed as an edge?

***********

i,ll have a guess with the pk ratings ,the one he was in front was the lto ability rating,the one it was even with was formcast/vdw rating yes or no?

Anchor

Not sure I understand the question, but. PK came from a race classed as a 6, so can't see how the last time out class could put him in front of much. As far as I know there were no Formcast ratings shown for this race. PK was ranked joint 7th (with Cooch Behar who wasn't in the list VDW said he applied the rating(s) to) for ability.

Be Lucky

bobajobber
06-08-2009, 01:40 PM
He combined the method in PK example, with TOF example, after which he said combining the two gave you the probables.Personally I think this example is ignored too often, he gave another way in this example of narrowing the field.


what is the TOF example?.....sorry!!

Mtoto
06-08-2009, 01:56 PM
what is the TOF example?

TOF = The Old Fellow

Be Lucky

Fulham1000
06-08-2009, 02:39 PM
Mtoto

Assuming VDW was referring to the ability rating, I think so. Don't forget Guest's point - why does the ability rating equal win prize money divided by 100?

anchor
06-08-2009, 04:41 PM
the two ratings HAD to confirm what was there ie the first 2 ratings,would the first rating of the other 2 be money won by races ran?

bobajobber
07-08-2009, 10:12 AM
Fulham,

On 1st June 1978, VDW quotes"Since the opening of the flat I have placed 32 bets of which 29 had won.
No wonder I smile when a self appointed 'Old Un' of 50 years experience topples from his pedestal by stating he finds it even more difficult to show a profit now tax has been increased to 9%."

He has got to be touching 90 yrs old now from a guesstimation and you reckon you have met him,.... unless this like his pseudonym was a porky pie....to add to the mystery.

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 10:55 AM
B

I've never met VDW, only corresponded with him. He is 78, so hopefully has a good few years ahead of him yet.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 11:04 AM
B

I've never met VDW, only corresponded with him. He is 78, so hopefully has a good few years ahead of him yet.

If you look at this letter and date ;

2nd VDW letter to Sports Forum published March 23, 1978.
Methodmaker, Feb 23, 1978, again returns to the subject of staking plans. It appears he is plagued by readers seeking advice on how to ENHANCE PROFITS using varying stakes. Perhaps I am the odd man out, but I view the question of staking not from the view of enhancing profits but to SHOW a profit.
Readers may be interested in the method I have used for over 40 years, which basically aims to ensure 1 point profit from each bet.


Here VDW is "implying" that at the time of writing this letter he was at least 58,which would mean that this year he would be in the region of 89-90 years of age at least.

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 11:28 AM
D

He certainly wrote what you quote. But the evidence is not just to my mind, but to those of colleagues with whom I have shared it, nevertheless conclusive that he was born in 1931.

I understand that one of those with whom I shared the evidence - John in Brasil - started a thread on the old Gummy forum confirming that VDW had been found and contacted, and that the thread contains endorsing comments by Lee, Oldtimer and Mtoto, who are among the others who have seen the evidence.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 02:01 PM
D

He certainly wrote what you quote. But the evidence is not just to my mind, but to those of colleagues with whom I have shared it, nevertheless conclusive that he was born in 1931.

I understand that one of those with whom I shared the evidence - John in Brasil - started a thread on the old Gummy forum confirming that VDW had been found and contacted, and that the thread contains endorsing comments by Lee, Oldtimer and Mtoto, who are among the others who have seen the evidence.


This would mean he was about 7 years old then when he started using his staking plan!!!
He stated he had used the method for "over" 40 years in 1978.Im sorry but "something" does not smell right.

Chesham
07-08-2009, 02:23 PM
This would mean he was about 7 years old then when he started using his staking plan!!!
He stated he had used the method for "over" 40 years in 1978.Im sorry but "something" does not smell right.

Are you saying that the wrong person has been pursued.


Chesham

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 03:21 PM
This would mean he was about 7 years old then when he started using his staking plan!!!
He stated he had used the method for "over" 40 years in 1978.Im sorry but "something" does not smell right.

Are you saying that the wrong person has been pursued.


Chesham

That "may" be the case but,the more likely explanation is that one of the above statements is not true.The question is which one?If VDWs opening letter contains information that is not true,then it puts questions as to the validity of the latter letters.Or am I missing something?

Horseplayer
07-08-2009, 03:35 PM
They may have been typos or cryptic puzzles. :)

Just think of what age the poor sod was when sent to fight in the Second World War

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 03:42 PM
They may have been typos or cryptic puzzles. :)

Just think of what age the poor sod was when sent to fight in the Second World War

I forgot about the reference to him fighting in the second world war,thats a good point.If born in 1931,he would have been just 14 years old at the end of the war in 1945.

joeli100
07-08-2009, 04:13 PM
I think we all know he told lies about his personal life. It's his horse racing methods that interest me, if you feel you can profit by them, then what does it matter if he told porkies. As for the 80% strike rate, and the 29 wins from 32 bets, then who knows.

It has been fun, and for myself profitable, over the years.

Chesham
07-08-2009, 04:23 PM
I guess VDW thought that his address would remain confidential. Mr Peach did try his best to protect that.

It does not really matter, VDW works for you or it does not, so why pursue him?

Chesham

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 04:23 PM
Im not saying that "some" of the information he gave could not be made profitable,after all "some" of what he gave us is statistical fact.The question is,who is lying?If it is indeed VDW then this "has" to bring in to question the "majority" of what he wrote and claimed.Lets face it,outside of the statistical facts that he gave us(and is widely accepted anyway),the rest remains unclear,possibly because he was not telling the truth from the off but,was in fact "fishing" for other peoples profitable information instead.Its that or(sorry for this)Fulham and co are the ones lying,trying to cloud the truth from view.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 04:26 PM
It does not really matter, VDW works for you or it does not, so why pursue him?

Chesham


For some people who have yet to unravel anything profitable,this could be the deciding factor as to where to target thier search.After all why go to the expense and time spent investigating something that others have proven fallible(if that is the case).

anchor
07-08-2009, 04:30 PM
something for the weekend sir



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCmUhYSr-e4&feature=related ;)

joeli100
07-08-2009, 04:41 PM
For some people who have yet to unravel anything profitable,this could be the deciding factor as to where to target thier search.After all why go to the expense and time spent investigating something that others have proven fallible(if that is the case).

It's your choice mate, I would say the time factor far outways the expense.

mickeddy
07-08-2009, 04:43 PM
Sorry, I can't print all of Lee's last letter but here are a couple of hints he gave:
The first fact that has to be pointed out is that anyone, including G Hall, is able to spot the "key" as he phrased it with the information that VDW had written at the time. However, the final part of the solution came and tied it all together in Systematic Betting and the Roushayd example, and, as intended, it should carry the reader a long way. Notwithstanding that, just the first SEVEN examples that VDW elaborated on, along with Prominent King, still reveal the main crux of the method. When mentioning "Subject to other considerations" he was referring to the way he rated Prominent King and later stated that there are numerous ways of rating and it is simple to devise one yourself. Note that at that point he introduced the Ability rating. Read and re-read every "missing link" article and letter, and note everything that is said, there are certain phrases and words that he refers to more than once. Within his Pegwell Bay example for instance, there is a big hint, but the eye manages to glance right across it.
If you feel that your interpretation of the method is is in any way complicated, then it most certainly is, for sure.
Mike.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 04:50 PM
It's your choice mate, I would say the time factor far outways the expense.

Luckily I avoided most of the expense but,others are not so lucky.You are correct of course the time invested is FAR more expensive.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 04:53 PM
Sorry, I can't print all of Lee's last letter


Obvious question maybe but,why not?

Mtoto
07-08-2009, 05:01 PM
While I can only agree there are questions that cast some doubt about the truth about some of the statements/remarks made by VDW. I think it should be remembered there are two people involved with this saga, VDW and a Mr Peach.

For what its worth, and of course I have no proof two things happened here. First VDW wanted to gain attention, I think he had an idea that needed capital to make it work. The pages of the SCHB seemed a good idea, and getting Mr Peach on board was part of that "plan". Mr Peach didn't/doesn't know that much about horse racing and the idea was lost on him, but he did see it as a way of increasing cirulation for the paper.

So I think the early untruths/exaggerations (40 years, and possibly 29 winners from 32 bets) were to make Mr Peach think he was dealing with an older experienced person. I do wonder if other "interseting" items like rich Dutch business man, war hero, etc. were added later. Which looks better taking notice of the person discribed, or Joe Blogs from the local factory/office?

Mr Peach says he never meet VDW, but he did speak to him on the phone, and paid him for some of his contributions. So why didn't the lack of a accent raise doubts??

As said by Joeli its the method that is the important bit. I find the fact that Mr Peach (who does seem to like making money) had all this at his finger tips, but only made money by perpetuating and selling the myth.

Be Lucky

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 05:05 PM
Mickeddy

Do you happen to have the date of the post by Lee from which you have posted part, please?

Chesham
07-08-2009, 05:26 PM
There is still plenty of work to do even when you know the Key.

Chesham

wiko
07-08-2009, 05:27 PM
hi mckeddy,i still have some of lees, post as fulham, as said..do you have the date..thanks

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 05:34 PM
There is still plenty of work to do even when you know the Key.

Chesham


Is that G halls key or are you referring to another.G Halls key only helps to a point once known,it does not unlock the method.

goodlife
07-08-2009, 06:04 PM
As Chesham says finding the “key” is only the beginning of the hard work which is necessary to make the method work. VDW was a worker, he made that clear on several occasions. What many don’t realise is the extent to which you have to commit yourself to the VDW method in order to make it work as it should

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 06:12 PM
As Chesham says finding the “key” is only the beginning of the hard work which is necessary to make the method work. VDW was a worker, he made that clear on several occasions. What many don’t realise is the extent to which you have to commit yourself to the VDW method in order to make it work as it should

The sad truth though regarding G Hall's"key" is that while it does "help" to some degree, it does not help towards the understanding of the method itself,if indeed this is the "key" as referred to by Chesham.

From your statement can we assume you have made the method work?

Any endeavour requires you to apply yourself,if you plan on making that endeavour work to its full potential,not just VDW.The question is,if that effort can be better spent elsewhere?

mickeddy
07-08-2009, 06:24 PM
Don't Ban Me Baby,
It is G Halls key that is mentioned in The Golden Years to which the letter refers.
Fulham,
The date on the copy I have is 30-09-2004
Mike.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 06:27 PM
Don't Ban Me Baby,
It is G Halls key that is mentioned in The Golden Years to which the letter refers.
Fulham,
The date on the copy I have is 30-09-2004
Mike.

I just wasnt sure if that was indeed the one Chesham was referring to.If you "know" what that particular "key" is then you "know" it does not unlock much.;)

goodlife
07-08-2009, 06:29 PM
Dbmb,
If you are asking whether I am regularly placing bets which return an 80%+ success rate, the answer is no, I am not. Over the last twelve months, truth to tell, I have mostly been researching selections mentioned in “ The Golden Years “ and “Systematic Betting”. I have had a handful of bets, the most successful of which was Kayf Aramis at the Cheltenham Festival for which I obtained 33/1 on the morning. I dithered to my cost when deciding not to back Niche Market in the Irish National, but I am comfortably ahead on the year.
Most of what I have managed to fathom out has been realised over the last year and believe me, it does take some thinking about - even when things do begin to add up.
Hope this answers your question

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 06:30 PM
I did ask earlier.Is there some reason you cannot copy/paste that letter/post of Lee's?

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 06:33 PM
Dbmb,
If you are asking whether I am regularly placing bets which return an 80%+ success rate, the answer is no, I am not. Over the last twelve months, truth to tell, I have mostly been researching selections mentioned in “ The Golden Years “ and “Systematic Betting”. I have had a handful of bets, the most successful of which was Kayf Aramis at the Cheltenham Festival for which I obtained 33/1 on the morning. I dithered to my cost when deciding not to back Niche Market in the Irish National, but I am comfortably ahead on the year.
Most of what I have managed to fathom out has been realised over the last year and believe me, it does take some thinking about - even when things do begin to add up.
Hope this answers your question


It doe's yes and many thanks for taking the time to respond to my question.You gave a direct answer to a direct question,something that some seem unable to do sadly.

Congrats on your success so far,long may it continue for you.:cool:

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 07:13 PM
Mickeddy

Thanks. I don't have that Lee post but its content does seem familiar. In looking, I came across a post of Lee's that may help some members in the light of recent discussions here:

"The VDW method is based on the same principles for each and every example including Prominent King and Roushayd. The two methods of rating have Beacon Light well out of it in the Erin in the same way that Burrough Hill Lad is out of it, for instance, although not classified as such, in the King George. Neither are form horses. They are also used to rate ALL horses/selections that appear in Systematic Betting ...

Form is where the answer lies, this has been stated before, and normally only the last 3 runs are required to establish if there is a winner in the race. When there is a winner in the race the conditions that the horse is going to face are normally irrelevant. These horses are such that the trainer has already taken care of it's placing."

This comes from a post on the old Gummy forum, made on 24 November 2004.

And from one of Lee's last posts on Gummy, 22 December 2007, an extract that bears on another matter under discussion;

"I had noticed, like everyone else, that he'd [Alan = me] been actively trying to trace VDW and so I asked how the research was going, and he promised me that once it was completed he would let me have a copy of the evidence in return for my opinion/conclusion, just as he would with several other people ....

Last week Alan forwarded to me the evidence, which again is 100% conclusive as to his identity and that, barring having millions stashed away, VDW did not capitalized on the information contained in his writings."

bobajobber
07-08-2009, 07:25 PM
One thing I cannot fathom out is the fact that G.Hall was a novice,yet in just a few posts,he managed to unravel something that has eluded some of the ardent form workers.
Win from Brighton appears to be someone who knows his onions and he sends a scathing attack to VDW 'Be Warned Of A Vale Of Tears'... section 41 of the Golden Years,...why would he do that?.....He would understand the fundamentals that VDW was trying to put across to people.

Was G Hall planted,..he only made 3 posts...One to praise VDW ...Two to shoot down someone...Three to solved the method,.......I dont really know,but did he ever appear again.

wiko
07-08-2009, 07:46 PM
me too how could g hall, have worked out vdw, methods from the first example

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 07:46 PM
B

Hall claims to have found the "key", but did not give any hint about what it was, though of course we are entitled to assume that it is a common factor in the small number of selections that VDW had given prior to that point, and that it had helped him [Hall] find four named winners on Cambridgeshire day 1978. In response, VDW confirmed that the four named winners were good things.

That surely suggests a starting point for anyone wishing to unearth the method. And to examine those examples,including Hall's four, one doesn't need many Form Books - indeed one could manage nicely with just four (Flat 1977 and 1978, NH 1976/7 and 1977/8) - and not too much else.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 07:47 PM
Last week Alan forwarded to me the evidence, which again is 100% conclusive as to his identity and that, barring having millions stashed away, VDW did not capitalized on the information contained in his writings."

So the question has got to be,if VDW could not make his method profitable,how can anyone else and why do they even try?

bobajobber
07-08-2009, 08:13 PM
Fulham,

This is something I also cannot comprehend....Your Quote:
""Van der Wheil" lives modestly - except for his cruises - and when passing his home one would not assume he was a man of means, and indeed in a recent letter he claims to have made his money from the stockmarket rather than racing, which would not surprise me as from close study of his published material I doubt he has the temperament to work his method successfully - like many another I suspect he tried to find too many bets.

Considering,..he pounds on about temperament,...surely you have to have temperament to work the stockmarket.

Dont ban me baby
07-08-2009, 08:15 PM
Good point Boba,surely the stock market being more volatile,temperament would be even more important.

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 08:44 PM
B

I'm afraid I know nothing about the stockmarket.

There are facts, and there are conjectures. The wealth issue is conjecture based on limited and not all one way evidence:

two wills;

living in a modest (and somewhat run-down) bungalow in what I would categorise as a lower middle class suburb;

a recent round-the-world cruise (of which Lee did not know when he made his comment for the very good reason that it had not happened at the time).

bobajobber
07-08-2009, 08:46 PM
Fulham,

Excuse me if you think they are digs at you,...they are not, but purely at the writings, in order to understand and get a clear picture,we must remove all doubts.
Its difficult to comprehend certain circumstances like those I have mentioned,the fact that he had lied about his real age,why would he lie about his age,his person was hidden behind a pseudonym.

Chesham
07-08-2009, 09:05 PM
If your intending on publication in the future I could see that it would be important to let VDW himself put the record straight.

Chesham

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 09:11 PM
B

I do agree that to get a clear picture we need to remove the doubts, and that applies to the man's life history (if, like me, one is interested in that) and the method. And that is what I have been trying to do over some years, but with only partial success. At this stage I see no way of removing all the doubts without the active help of VDW himself, and that, so far, he has been unwilling to give, even under offered conditions of confidentiality.

So I am where I am - certain of some aspects of VDW's life history, confident of a great deal about the method, in a state of informed conjecture about other aspects of VDW's life history and current circumstances, and in the dark about one or two bits I'd like to be able to understand such as how he compiled his two sets of ratings as per the March 1981 article.

bobajobber
07-08-2009, 09:36 PM
Thanks for that Fulham,

After some adverse posts, I understand what your saying.... also you didn't have to enlighten us with you honest replies, so thanks for that to.
I do still think there is something fishy about the G Hall posts,but I can turn a blind eye to that for now.

I still havent grasped the different approaches to the races,eg the Roushayd or the PK, but I think I fully understand the G.Hall/methodmaker thing.

Fulham1000
07-08-2009, 10:38 PM
B

"I still havent grasped the different approaches to the races,eg the Roushayd or the PK"

You may find the following extract from a Lee post dated 25 November 2004 helpful:

"The purpose of Roushayd and co was to advance his methods, in his words, only slightly. Prior to this he had been dealing with consistent horses that had fought out the finish in their respective races.

Systematic Betting showed the unaware punter how to judge improvement in higher class, where the horse had finished down the field."

Chesham
07-08-2009, 11:11 PM
Its worth looking at how Il De Chypre was placed to win and evaluate the other runners in the Newbury Race. Who they had been beaten by.

Chesham

Fulham1000
08-08-2009, 07:23 AM
Sidestepping Ascot, as I don’t like the Shergar Cup format, leaves me with two decent handicaps, the 3.15 Haydock and 3.35 Newmarket. The first of these is relatively straightforward from a VDW perspective but the second is much trickier, so to offer a pre race example of how I think the method works the former is much the better.

First, setting out the field in the same way as VDW did in the righthand half of the first Pegwell Bay table gives one an initial impression of plausibilities, and I would merely draw attention to two aspects:

* in this class 405 race there are four runners dropping in class from their last runs, all a long way: Cold Quest (from 530), Laterly (from 971), Nanton (from 935) and Re Barolo (from 971). But none of these was involved in the business end of its race and there is nothing obvious to suggest that they have been placed to win today. Neverthless these are substantial drops in class;

* three horses won last time out and have consistent/progressive profiles and are prima facie candidates to win today: Dancourt, Plaister and Summer Gold. But all are being raised a long way in class.

Thus from a first look at the field there are actually only three with clear chances, and they don't over-excite on the basis of the class rises they face.

Moving now into the various "Golden Years" stages, and working from the Post's forecast, there are four unquestionable consistent horses, the three lto winners referred to above plus Libel Law – the four being the horses from the first six in the forecast with the lowest consistency totals. To these I would add Sweet Lightning from among the other horses with one of the five lowest consistency aggregates in the field, leaving me with five consistent horses.

Applying the procedure I believe VDW used to generate the numbers in the table in his Prominent King letter is helpful on this occasion, and eliminates two of the consistent horses, leaving three probables - Dancourt, Summer Gold and Plaister (who happen to be the three plausible horses from the very first table, but this is by no means always the case).

If we then look at the three probables, all meet VDW's criteria as form horses, so we have three probables with form to evaluate comparatively.

Looking at the three, Dancourt comes highest on the basic ability rating - 87 compared with Summer Gold's 66 and Plaister's 49. He has the joint best form (a win in class 97) with Summer Gold, and no obvious disqualifying capability issues that I can see, so for me Dancourt is the clear class/form horse.

The final issue is does Dancourt have all the characteristics of a "winner in the race" horse, or as I prefer to think of them, an 80% horse? In a word, no. While Dancourt is a super-consistent class/form horse, in my view there are two reasons for caution:

1) he is insufficiently high in the ability rating - 6th of the 17 declared runners. Not far from the top four as per the March 1981 article, and of course only one place below the 5th ranking which VDW clearly accepted sometimes (eg Pegwell Bay). But that alone makes me cautious, as it means that from a VDW perspective there are five better horses in the race any of whom would be a threat if returning to form. (This perspective would of course change if one or more of the five does not go to post.) As a relatively unexposed 3yo, his position in the ability ranking can usefully be cross-checked with VDW’s time-based ability rating, but in this case it doesn’t lead me to view him more favourably);

2) he is being pushed up a long way in class - from a best win in class 97 on his penultimate run to today's 405. For me this challenge invokes VDW's comments on Billet in relation to the 1988 Northern Dancer. In the first account of the race in "Systematic Betting", after noting that Billet "is raised considerably in class now" VDW concluded that while his analysis "gives a clear indication of the possible winner in Billet but is not good enough for me [to back] on points which should by now be clear". In the second account, in "Racing in my System", VDW puts it arguably even more helpfully: "Billet one again showed the classic give away of improvement and is a probable winner although reaching a bit high". Dancourt may win easily today, but it might prove that he is being aimed “a bit high”.

In sum, I see Dancourt as the probable winner but short of being an 80% horse, for the two reasons given above.

anchor
08-08-2009, 07:47 AM
some marchwood

2.20 ascot

docofthebay.............230...........114......... ..114
city of kings..............224...........106...........106
we,ll come................221...........109...........10 6
dunn o....................216............108........... 107
dubia,s touch............214............101...........110

well weighted class/form horse
column 1 marchwoods rating
column 2 raceform speed ,and is speed plus
column3 raceforms handicap

coming 3rd in a 93k race lto,is hayley been given her big return ,cant believe its not fav

Dont ban me baby
08-08-2009, 08:45 AM
An exellent detailed post Fulham and a pleasure to read,not least for an idea of how the rest of us should be viewing the information available.

goodlife
08-08-2009, 09:54 AM
Excellent post Fulham. I must be getting somewhere as I reached broadly the same conclusion as yourself!
Just noted that two of the three consistent horses in this race - Dancourt and Plaisterer - are also among the three lowest LTO class ratings. Like Fulham, it would not surprise me to see Dancourt prevail as his form in his last two runs is very good. Given his connections he is likely to be overbet.

mickeddy
08-08-2009, 12:47 PM
Excellent post Fulham and one with which I agree. On my short list I had:
Dancourt
Summer Gold
The Which Doctor.
In fairness Nanton also made it but has been discounted due to his recent poor form. From my short list Dancourt comes out the highest Ability rated and the most consistent. This is probably where we differ in our approach. Libel Law is interesting as you say but he has only won once on turf and twice on the all weather. His trainer has an excellent strike rate at Haydock and likes to have a winner here. He should strip much fitter today and is an obvious danger. I think if you wrer to back Dancourt then you would also have to have a saver on Libel Law. His ability rating however is nothing to shout about.
Mike.

bobajobber
08-08-2009, 01:26 PM
I re-iterate excellent post Fulham,

3.15 Haydock
Although I wouldn't really get involved in it,its not clear-cut,..for one,the massive step up in class for most of the consistant horses,...in the case of Dancourt,.....he is a definate improver,but can he improve enough to win this,he would have to be half decent,....but we will see,I would look closely at Re Barolo and Charlie Cool,..but like I say,..I won't be betting in it.

I will be having a closer look at.

Haydock
5.30 Final Victory.

Newmarket
2.25 Vainglory.

joeli100
08-08-2009, 01:41 PM
Fulham

It just shows how we can rate a race and come up with different numbers. The way I do the AR, Dancourt is 3rd highest.

Are the 3 horses that won last time out, your interpretation of VDWs Winning Rating?

mickeddy
08-08-2009, 01:56 PM
Interesting to see there appears to be money for Nanton now. Some bookie's have him into 12/1 from 20/1 and I have seen 14/1 from 25/1 from one bookie. Shows that it is a competitive race. Apparently the trainer was going to send him to the Shergar Cup last year, changed his mind and sent him to Doncaster instead where he won. Could this be a repeat?
Mike.

Fulham1000
08-08-2009, 02:51 PM
I'm away from home at the moment so just a very quick update and I'll respond to points raised by other posters later.

The withdrawal of Plaister is significant (that of Jawaab insignificant and presumably more robbery of Saturday afternoon mug punters by bookies). With Plaisterer's withdrawal, the consistent horses don't change except obviously less him. But the way the probables mechanism works, instead of eliminating two of the original five, none of the current four is now eliminated and so there are four probables: Dancourt, Summer Gold, Sweet Lightning and Libel Law, of whom the first three are form horses. Because Sweet Lightning has a lower ability ranking than Dancourt, the latter remains the class/form horse, but there is now an element of conflict as we have in Sweet Lightning a probable with form who has, arguably, better form than Dancourt. Although from an overall point of view, with Plaisterer (and Jawaab) non runners Dancourt's chance is greater, from the VDW perspective it is, paradoxically, slightly reduced because of Sweet Lightning's enhanced status.

Ark Royal
08-08-2009, 02:58 PM
Thanks for the original post and the update Fulham.

All the best

AR

Fulham1000
08-08-2009, 11:02 PM
Just to offer some post-race comments on the 3.15:

1) I was wrong about Libel Law's form status, which comes of working on the fly from the Post pdf and not checking things out properly. With this sort, the question one has to answer is the one Guest posed on the Gummy forum re Stray Shot and to which Lee immediately responded to point out its importance - expressing it in terms of today's race the question is was Libel Law entitled to beat Big Bound in the 16 July race? My answer was yes, but the info. missing from the Post pdf but of course in the Form Book was that Libel Law was 3lb worse off with Big Bound on handicap terms, and thus not entitled to beat him at level weights. Taking account of other relevant factors, to run BB to a head was a decent performance. Not that this error changed anything as regards the overall conclusion as Libel Law was 4th of the four probables on ARs and his form was not all that exciting;

2) Dancourt ran well but the rise in class proved too tough as was always possible. The trouble with this type is that one cannot be sure in advance, and some like Dancourt do win (as of course Billet did in the VDW example). My suspicion is that if VDW did not make his fortune via his method it was because he backed too many of the Dancourt/Billet type and didn’t in fact have the temperament to wait for those where everything lines up.

To respond to three members:

D: You wrote "... should be viewing the information". "Might view" would be better, as although I obviously think my interpretation of the method is right (because if I didn’t I’d do things differently), it is only opinion and unless/until more is learnt from VDW we simply don't know for sure.

Joeli: Presumably the difference between us on AR ranking is due to you extracting AW wins? And no, the three lto winning horses I mentioned were not my interpretation of VDW’s winning rating, merely that in the context of the horses’ two previous races the wins suggested they were plausible today. (Presumably you are referring to the VDW comment re Rivage Bleu and Prominent King raised earlier on the thread by Mtoto?)

Mick: As noted above, I made an error with Libel Law. He only became a probable courtesy of Plaisterer’s defection, but once a probable the form warranted regarding him as a form horse. The book you suggested would of course have been a winning one and the distance Libel Law put between himself and the rest of the field was impressive.

Horseplayer
09-08-2009, 12:47 AM
Just spent a while reading through the later posts, a lot of good information for anyone who wants to figure out the VDW conundrum.

It seems that to progress with this method understanding what VDW meant by a “form” horse is pivotal, I’m personally very happy with my own methods of doing this.

Fulham, you mention VDW’s “rules” on a couple of occasions, surely rules would suggest a system and he stressed he used “methods”. In fact he clearly states he uses a number of “methods”. From these “methods” he seems only interested in his “class/form” horses. RIGHTHAND MAN and DESERT HERO are “system” selections that then have to meet his class/form requirements, only if these include an element of judgment would this turn them into methodical rather than systematic.

Anyway, tossing a little silver into the hat.

One of the ratings my DB produces are simply taking today’s OR from the highest winning OR, clicking on the OR tab on RP site will enable you to do it although I only use up to the last 3 seasons plus the present one.

For narrowing the field in handicaps it’s probably a bit better than anything VDW put forward, although you still need to be aware of Progressive or Promising horses.

Following are the said ratings (listed down to the winner) for the handicap races I’ve noted on this thread:

17/7/09 7.55 Ham 6f (0-105) 15ran
EXCUSEZ MOI 4
BABY STRANGE -2
INTERNATIONALDEBUT -2
PROTECTOR -2
QUEST FOR SUCCESS -3 - W14/1

20/7/09 4.30 Ayr 5f (0-105) 16ran
STONEACRE LAD 9
FULLANDBY -1
RIVER FALCON -2
CANADIAN DANEHILL -3
LOOK BUSY -3
PAVERSHOOZ -4 - W13/2

27/7/09 4.30 Yar 6f (0-85) 7ran
TUDOR PRINCE 6
SUNDAE 4 - W13/2

31/7/09 3.25 Gwo 1m (0-110) 20ran
SPECTAIT 1 (2nd 9/1)
LAA RAYB -1 - W25/1

1/8/09 3.40 Gwo 6f (0-105) 26ran
ADVANCED 11
HITCHENS 1
GENKI -2 - W14/1

Badly handicapped horses, and being badly handicapped is relative, rarely win.

Unlike the above handicaps yesterday’s 3.15 at Haydock looked ripe for a Progressive/Promising horse, the speed figs earned by the Proven horses, both from this and last season, generally fell short of 0-105 form. LATERLEY came top on above rating and was 1 of the few who had managed a decent fig, he managed a respectable 3rd at 25/1

ATB
Steve

Fulham1000
09-08-2009, 07:10 AM
H

What, I think, led VDW to assert his approach a method not a system was that, while having a number of main rules that covered most situations, he recognised that following them inflexibly was inconsistent with his overall view on how to spot a potential "winner in the race". In other words, at times he found himself faced by circumstances which required him to expand on a main rule.

He gave us an example in his very first discussion of a race, where his rule about finding the consistent horses - add last three placings - clearly did not apply to Mr Kildare, who had only two runs. So he sensibly added a sub-rule, that where a horse has less than three runs add on the last place once or twice as appropriate. (I am not of course suggesting that Mr Kildare was the first horse he'd considered with less than three runs, but that when he had first faced that problem adding on was his solution and it became a sub-rule to his main rule on consistency, which he was able then to apply to similar situations later .)

Only by having consistent ways of dealing with the non-usual, such as horses with less than three placings, could a comment of his possibly be true, ie that if we understood his method properly we would have the same horses as him. If, for example, he responded randomly to assessing the consistency of horses with less than three runs - sometimes adding on the final placing, sometimes not - there is no way we could know what he he would have done with any current example and thus we would not necessarily find the same horse as him.

This poses a double challenge to those who want to understand VDW's method. First, we have to try to discern what I have referred to as sub-rules from the examples. Sometimes of course he helps us by flagging them, as with Mr Kildare's less than three runs, and Gaye Chance's duck egg when raised extremely highly in class. But sometimes he doesn't and it is hard work finding them, because every time one thinks one has found one alternative explanations need to be considered and all the other examples re-worked to check that applying it does not call into question previous selections.

Second, we may encounter situations for which the examples VDW gave do not provide the answer, and have to provide our own. An obvious example here, touched on more than once in the last few days, arises because of the introduction of AW racing. When calculating ability ratings, do we just take AW wins for an AW race, turf wins for a turf race, or all Flat wins whatever the Flat race we are analysing? There is no answer to be found in the VDW examples, because they all pre-date AW racing, but we can be sure that, if he was still analysing races when AW racing started, VDW would have made his decision and applied it consistently. What criterion would he have used? Surely the one he thought consistent with his overall approach to winner finding.

So it is fair enough for VDW to say his approach is not a system, of the crude type often put forward - the "back the top weighted horse(s) in 5f races at Epsom in July" type of thing. But provided that he was consistent in dealing with the non-usual, which to my eye the evidence suggests he was, what VDW was really doing was adding sub-rules to what was a complex and potentially ever-expanding system.

Least this makes it sound as though it is impossible to get a grip on VDW's approach, apart from how to deal with AW racing, where I have made my judgement and simply get on with it, I cannot off hand think of any problem I've come across not covered in the VDW examples. Thus in 99+% of races one is effectively applying a well thought through system.

joeli100
09-08-2009, 07:29 AM
Fulham

Yes, I stick to turf wins only, with turf racing. I also discarded the horses FTO, although not always.

spreadform
09-08-2009, 11:29 AM
Least this makes it sound as though it is impossible to get a grip on VDW's approach, apart from how to deal with AW racing, where I have made my judgement and simply get on with it, I cannot off hand think of any problem I've come across not covered in the VDW examples. Thus in 99+% of races one is effectively applying a well thought through system.

This thread is a goldmine of information, thoughts and ideas. It takes a lot of effort to work out VDW's method if there ever was one.

I for one adopted a fairly straightforward system, which also flagged Dancourt as the selection in the 3:15 at Haydock yesterday. I cannot claim an 80% strike rate, but this couldn't be expected from such a mechanical approach. It has given me over 40% success on runners around 4/1, which works out to a yield of in excess of 100%, so it's doing well. There are only two selections in a week though.

With respect to the eventual winner (Libel Law), I don't think that this could have been found with VDW-type methodology. It only had claims in the form department and was inferior in all other areas. I think Dettori made the difference in this case, and I'm not aware of VDW considering jockeys in a methodical way.

bobajobber
09-08-2009, 01:39 PM
Is there anywhere I can get some more detailed races,like the one Ark posted (PK) in this thread of VDW examples.
Thanks in advance.

Mad Chef
10-08-2009, 03:42 AM
This thread has been superb reading, some very knowledgeable folk sharing their thoughts, ideas and ways forward. Hats off to all that have contributed so far.

I’m a newcomer to the VDW methodology and to my own discredit I haven’t read any of the booklets or official literature on the subject as of yet. The information I have picked up though more than suggests that there’s mileage in perusing the method further, and I fully intend to do so.

The question I would like to ask of those that are familiar with the writings was touched on in some part by Spreadform in his post yesterday when discussing Libel Laws’ win; he wrote “I think Dettori made the difference in this case, and I'm not aware of VDW considering jockeys in a methodical way”.

Is it the case that the jockey, trainer, draw and perhaps trends (generalised stats pertaining to the race) are covered anywhere within the method? Were any of the trainers considered to be "in form" or the jockeys course specialists in some of the examples that were given?

Of course we can (and I’m sure most do) apply these aspects of narrowing the field ourselves, but I I’m just curious if these aspects were ever covered in the original correspondence / booklets.

Cheers All
Mad Chef

Fulham1000
10-08-2009, 07:35 AM
Mad Chef

I think VDW only referred to one of these matters directly (trainer) and can recall no reference to specific jockeys being pluses (or minuses). In this context, and for what it is worth, Lee, who I regard as a VDWer who has taken things as far as any, once posted on Gummy to the effect that he was not interested in who happened to be riding his selections (consistent with his view that when a trainer has a horse ready to win, one can rely on him placing the horse to advantage which would include having a jockey capable of getting him home).

Most of VDW's examples were on the NH (his story was that he was always out of the country for much of the Flat), though he did give some on the Flat, mainly middle distance races. I don't recall an explicit mention of the draw.

As to general stats. concerning races, I can think of no specific references, but personally I believe there is evidence that VDW was aware of factors likely to generate particular patterns of results. His selection for the 1979 Nassau is, I think, a case in point.

Ark Royal
10-08-2009, 09:16 AM
Mad Chef,

We have had to wait a long time for your secod post to the forum:D
Glad you decided to put it in this thread.

For what its worth, I agree with Fulham's answer to your question. Its an interesting view from Lee, why indeed would a trainer who has got a horse ready for a particular target put his trust in a jockey thats not up to the job?

All the Best

AR

Chesham
10-08-2009, 09:22 AM
Mad chef

Prior to riding Libel Law on Saturday, Frankie had ridden 7 winners from 58 rides for Michael Jarvis and only 1 winner for the owner.

Bobbajobber

One method that the trainer employed for Prominent King is still evident in modern training methods. Why was Prominent King put into the race with Drumgora when he had to give him 19lbs. Why would the trainer of Press The Button put him into a race where he would have to give Dancourt 16lbs

Chesham

joeli100
10-08-2009, 10:39 AM
Following on from Cheshams post highlighting Press The Button, have a look at Libel Law in the Chester race on the 8th May.

Mtoto
10-08-2009, 02:08 PM
Mad Chef,

My understanding of VDW is the HORSE is the important aspect of the methods. THIS horse, in THIS race. The trainer becomes important because in theory he knows the horse. Apart from mentioning the trainer the only other thing he (VDW) seemed to think was important was track configuration, he went out of his way to mention this.

As far as I can see the only stats VDW used were the general stats, the forecast, and last three finishing positions with an emphasis on the last run.

Fulham,

Can I ask what do you think the difference is between a class rating, and an ability rating?

Be Lucky

goodlife
10-08-2009, 02:33 PM
Following on the posts by Chesham and Joeli, it might be instructive to check the form of Point Of Light which runs tonight at Windsor.Unlikely to be much of a price, though.

mickeddy
10-08-2009, 02:39 PM
Goodlife,
Funnily enough I was looking at the Windsor card for tonight and wondered about Vhujon in the 7-20. Raised in class in each of his last three runs showing improved form, especially in the last, and now dropped in class tonight.
Mike.

Fulham1000
10-08-2009, 02:46 PM
Mtoto

As far as a horse is concerned, none (fourth from last, and penultimate, paragraphs of item 36 of "The Golden Years"). But of course VDW also used class rating in relation to races, as in the 5th paragraph of chapter 5 of "Systematic Betting".

Mtoto
10-08-2009, 03:06 PM
For those unable to balance the factors it would be well if they stuck with the class horse (highest ability rating)

Fulham,

Sorry it must be me being thick. In the above it says the class horse, based on its ability rating. VDW said PK DIDN'T have a winning class rating!! To have an A/R a horse must have won a race, so surely there is a difference between the two ratings.

Be Lucky

mickeddy
10-08-2009, 03:15 PM
Mtoto,
I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that PK had an ability rating of 18 prior to the Erin. I think that also came from Leopardstown.
Mike.

goodlife
10-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Goodlife,
Funnily enough I was looking at the Windsor card for tonight and wondered about Vhujon in the 7-20. Raised in class in each of his last three runs showing improved form, especially in the last, and now dropped in class tonight.
Mike.

Mike,
Yes you're right, that does create conflict. I was thinking more of how it might be enlightening for newcomers to view POL's form.
:)

Getting totally mixed up here! Of course, Vhujon is in an earlier race.

Mtoto
10-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Mickeddy,

You are correct PK did have an A/R. VDW said PK DIDN'T have a wining class rating, that's why I think it is a different measurement of class.

Be Lucky

goodlife
10-08-2009, 03:28 PM
Mtoto
That point which you raised - where VDW says that PK was without a winning class rating - has always had me baffled.

joeli100
10-08-2009, 03:55 PM
There was a non runner on Saturday Kay Gee Be, if you want to look at its last race. It does depend on the race today of course.

Sorry it was a reserve at Ascot, doesn't have a future entry.

Fulham1000
10-08-2009, 04:07 PM
Mtoto/Goodlife

You need to be imaginative. We know Prominent King had won and therefore had an AR. Thus unless we are to assume that VDW was ignorant of Prominent King's record - unlikely in the extreme - that phrase clearly meant something else.

There are several plausible meanings, and I see no way of being absolutely sure which is correct. But given the totality of examples the most likely in my view relates to recent form. On this interpretation, taking the main table in the Pegwell Bay article five of the runners didn't have winning class ratings - but all have ability (or class) ratings.

joeli100
10-08-2009, 04:26 PM
Mtoto/Goodlife

You need to be imaginative. We know Prominent King had won and therefore had an AR. Thus unless we are to assume that VDW was ignorant of Prominent King's record - unlikely in the extreme - that phrase clearly meant something else.

There are several plausible meanings, and I see no way of being absolutely sure which is correct. But given the totality of examples the most likely in my view relates to recent form. On this interpretation, taking the main table in the Pegwell Bay article five of the runners didn't have winning class ratings - but all have ability (or class) ratings.


LTO Rating.

goodlife
10-08-2009, 04:27 PM
Fulham,
I see what you are getting at, but – to quote from “Systems In My Racing” – “Rivage Bleu and Prominent King (from the Erin Foods Champion Hurdle) were both horses without a winning class rating “.
Prior to Rivage Bleu’s win on November 21st, 1995 he had never won a race so he was a horse without an ability rating.
It may well be that there is deeper significance attached to his remarks, and I couldl be missing something but I remain puzzled at the moment

Mtoto
10-08-2009, 04:49 PM
You need to be imaginative.

Fulham,

Personally I think that's part of the problem. Folk are being too imaginative, and missing the point.

VDW mentioned the lack of a winning class rating when he was also talking about the point of the exercise of showing the Roushayd example had been missed.

In this example while he showed how to find the class of a race, at no time did he mention the A/R or show how to formulate it. For me he even goes as far as showing he is using a DIFFERENT method to measure class in these examples. He says.. Shimshek, however, was only beaten a head and this should indicate to you the importance of class. As he later said Shimshek LACKED class as a horse, (this being shown by his A/R) he had to be using a different method here.

My "imagination" says by linking PK with a horse that had never won a race was no accident. To me he is saying I never said I used the ability rating in the Erin example. So how is the class rating for a horse formulated? It can't just be based on the class of the last run. Also as ability never fades why would you just throw the rating away and not use it in future events?

Be Lucky

Fulham1000
10-08-2009, 04:56 PM
Goodlife

With respect, are you sure you see what I am getting at? Which do you think are the five Pegwell Bay race horses to which I referred in my previous post? It is worth bearing in mind the challenges PK and RB faced, and the placing profiles of the vast majority of VDW's other selections facing similar challenges.

An alternative possibility is that VDW meant neither horse had won at the class of the race under consideration. But if so, why mention Prominent King and Rivage Bleu in particular as that applies to umpteen others?

goodlife
10-08-2009, 04:58 PM
LTO Rating.

Joeli,
Thank you, you are absolutely correct. I have just been on the RP site checking Rivage Bleu's race.

goodlife
10-08-2009, 05:01 PM
Fulham,
See my last post. The fault was mine, the method involving Rivage Bleu, Valiant Warrior, etc is one which I have yet to do any serious research on.

domfascia
10-08-2009, 05:44 PM
So come on lads, let's put all of that dialogue into practice and make a VDW selection for 7.20 Windsor;

TOP 6 ON ABILITY;
Pearley Way 125 (23)
Phantom Whisper 95 (16*)
Viking Spiirit 89 (15*)
Esteem Machine 60 (12*)
Vhujon 59 (21)
Bel Cantor 57 (23)

TOP 3 TO RATINGS
Phantom Whisper 82 (inform) 102 (RP) TOP RATED (drawn 13)
Viking Spirit 81 104 2ND TOP RATED
Esteem Machine 81 102

bobajobber
10-08-2009, 06:21 PM
Mad chef

Prior to riding Libel Law on Saturday, Frankie had ridden 7 winners from 58 rides for Michael Jarvis and only 1 winner for the owner.

Bobbajobber

One method that the trainer employed for Prominent King is still evident in modern training methods. Why was Prominent King put into the race with Drumgora when he had to give him 19lbs. Why would the trainer of Press The Button put him into a race where he would have to give Dancourt 16lbs

Chesham

Chesham,

I know exactly what your saying,with all that weight,cued it up for a raise in class at a lower weight
Press The Button ..Dancourt Race: led: 3 l clr 4f out: pushed along and kpt advantage fr over 2f out tl hdd wl over 1f out: sn no ch w wnr but kpt on wl for 2nd

spreadform
10-08-2009, 06:47 PM
I have Viking Spirit 4* in this race, no other contenders.

Ark Royal
10-08-2009, 07:13 PM
So come on lads, let's put all of that dialogue into practice and make a VDW selection for 7.20 Windsor;

TOP 6 ON ABILITY;
Pearley Way 125 (23)
Phantom Whisper 95 (16*)
Viking Spiirit 89 (15*)
Esteem Machine 60 (12*)
Vhujon 59 (21)
Bel Cantor 57 (23)

TOP 3 TO RATINGS
Phantom Whisper 82 (inform) 102 (RP) TOP RATED (drawn 13)
Viking Spirit 81 104 2ND TOP RATED
Esteem Machine 81 102


Hi Dom,

If you ignore AW winnings then Phantom Whisper and Viking Spirit both have an AR of 89. In that case which would be your top rated as PW is 82 -81 on inform but VS is 104-102 on RPR?

All the Best
AR

Horseplayer
10-08-2009, 07:16 PM
Not VDW, Viking Spirit just shades things the way I do class/form. Draws a bit of a worry though

Mtoto
10-08-2009, 07:19 PM
Fulham,

You seem to be saying class rating is just another name/term for A/R. How can this be, how can a horse that has never won a race have an A/R?

Be Lucky

Horseplayer
10-08-2009, 07:32 PM
Fulham,

You seem to be saying class rating is just another name/term for A/R. How can this be, how can a horse that has never won a race have an A/R?

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Surly Roushayd explains what a “class rating” is. He specifically mentions “class ratings” when telling about his 3 wins as a 3yo

Fulham1000
10-08-2009, 07:43 PM
Mtoto

In general, a horse which has not won a race cannot have an ability (or class) rating, in the sense of that term VDW first described in item 35 of "The Golden Years" and showed us in various illustrations from then right through to Pegwell Bay. But in item 47 of the same booklet, while cautioning us against backing a horse that has never won, he did offer a time-based rating of ability as a supplementary one for use with younger horses. I imagine that if he was tempted to back a maiden 2yo or 3yo (which I doubt he did often) he would use the supplementary rating to see where it stood relative to the other runners.

Rivage Bleu is a horse of, forgive the pun, a different colour found, VDW told us, by a method quite different to that he had previously shown. As it was an older horse running in an NH race, I doubt he used the supplementary rating described in item 47 but one can't be sure.

Mtoto
10-08-2009, 09:10 PM
Horseplayer,

Yes he certainly mentions class rating there. However for me they are race ratings and a horse doesn't have to win a race to get a class rating. If a win was required how could a horse not have a winning class rating?

**************
VDW told us, by a method quite different to that he had previously shown.

Fulham,

While VDW did use the word shown couldn't he have easily used the word explained? When we look at the Erin it is ASSUMED he used the A/R.He never said he did, or even hint at it. For me it doesn't fit with the explainations given in SIAO. If the examples shown in the Roushayd example are followed PK again loses out, the same can be said for the Pegwell Bay example.

He went out of his way to bracket those two horse, why? Much is made of VDW not saying anything for the sake of it. Here we have something in HIS handwriting and it is being played down! How much of the other writing can we be sure were his actual words?

Be Lucky

Fulham1000
10-08-2009, 09:40 PM
Mtoto

Prominent King can be found in the same way as the four in the March 1981 tables, Roushayd and Pegwell Bay, and as you know I am far from being the only VDWer to think that - Lee, for example, on Gummy 24/11/04:

"The VDW method is based on the same principles for each and every example including Prominent King and Roushayd. The two methods of rating have Beacon Light well out of it in the Erin in the same way that Burrough Hill Lad is out of it, for instance, although not classified as such, in the King George. Neither are form horses. They are also used to rate ALL horses/selections that appear in Systematic Betting."

The question is, was Prominent King found the same way as all the others? I think the evidence is strong that the answer is yes, and for me it lies in articles such as that of 13 April 1985 (especially paragraphs 4-5) and the letter of February 1996 reprinted in "Systems in my Racing".

You say VDW went out of his way to bracket Rivage Bleu and Prominent King. He certainly did mention that they had a common characteristic. On my interpretation, given earlier, he could have mentioned one or two others instead or in addition. But what would you do if a fellow poster asked a question on the lines are there VDW examples where the selections were ... ? If you know the answer is yes, you'd probably name one or two that most immediately come to mind, but I doubt you'd trawl though all the examples to give a comprehensive list.

Dont ban me baby
10-08-2009, 10:00 PM
Was G Hall planted,..he only made 3 posts...One to praise VDW ...Two to shoot down someone...Three to solved the method,.......I dont really know,but did he ever appear again.

There was/is a G Hall that owns/owned a cycle shop in Market Harborough.It certainly makes one think.

domfascia
10-08-2009, 10:19 PM
AR ,
Sorry for not replying earlier -Viking Spirit and Phantom Whisper were joint top rated, so I chose the draw to separate them -it made no difference. The race was won by Olynard which I couldn't sadly include on ability but which was 2nd top in my 2 and 1 methodology and drawn 12/13 (that said Bel Cantor was drawn 3 , so was the draw that significant tonight at Windsor?)
Dom

Chesham
10-08-2009, 10:30 PM
There was/is a G Hall that owns/owned a cycle shop in Market Harborough.It certainly makes one think.

George Hall is 68 and was the top British Amatuer road cycle racer
in 1964

Chesham

joeli100
11-08-2009, 09:01 AM
Fulham

Can you tell me the date of Lees last post on the Gummy Board?

If possible.

Dont ban me baby
11-08-2009, 09:38 AM
Fulham

Can you tell me the date of Lees last post on the Gummy Board?

If possible.

If you register there you can use the search facility.:rolleyes:

joeli100
11-08-2009, 10:03 AM
I wouldn't have asked if I could register, tried before without success.:rolleyes:

Dont ban me baby
11-08-2009, 10:17 AM
I wouldn't have asked if I could register, tried before without success.:rolleyes:

Registration is currently open at Gummys old forum at ;

http://gummy.infopop.cc/eve