Mtoto - Again thanks for your response. I would like to clear up a few points some of which are my opinion and some of which are facts.

In my opinion , we never heard from G.Hall again because he probably didn't feel as generous as VDW in respect of giving a few nudges in the right direction. The 4 horses he mentioned were confirmed as good things by VDW but we don't know about any other selections he may of made. I hold the opinion that maybe G.Hall was finding plenty of winners but maybe not in the percentages VDW was talking about. I doubt he would have continued to make fancy bets such as yankees , etc if he was being as selective as VDW and G.Hall confirms the 4 horses as his best day. Just my opinion I know.

As I inferred earlier Mtoto , I am not saying you were wrong to back the winner Kates Charm just that it was not the class/form horse by way of VDWs methods. For me there is a difference.

You sound concerned that the rules were changed in later letters. Firstly there were only guidelines not rules. Rules can be found in a system but a methodical approach is made up of guidelines. I'm glad the Beacon Light data was found to be of interest but I promise you Prominent King was the class/form horse in the same way those such as Little Owl , Sunset Cristo , etc were. Yes , there were higher rated horses in the field but were they in form ?
We already know about Beacon Light so what about the other ability horses ?
Decent Fellow in form ? Not based on his last run and he now has to carry more weight against some of those he beat in the Irish Sweeps Hurdle.
Meladon ? Showed the uplift was too much last time in the Irish Sweeps and now has penalties. Not a form horse.
Master Monday - won the race last year but now out of form with 12-0.
Monksfield not in form by any means.
Prominent King/Troyswood - The latter is not in form , but the former is. He must be the class/form horse then?

But it doesn't end with isolating the class/form horse. ALL the factors have to be checked and this all takes time. The only time VDW deviated from the above was in the case of 2/3yos where he told us to use an all time best speed figure unadjusted seeing as they were lightly raced horses and in the cases of closely knit rated horses such as with Justafancy the week following Little Owl/Sunset Cristo. Again though , common sense showed how to split those closely matched horses to show they were not that close really.

It's worth asking a question. How was VDW able to declare both Little Owl and Wing & A Prayer the class/form horse before checking the form in depth ? Anyone able to answer that correctly is well on their way to consistently finding winners.

I don't remember VDW telling us to stick to class C races and above , Barney. He did say try and keep to the upper reaches on a card which is more flexible.

Barney

On my knowledge of VDW's work, Guest is absolutely right about there being no reference to grade C races and above only. VDW's general guidance was to concentrate on the better class races, but he did not himself rigidly follow the more specific guidance he gave in the "Spells it All Out" article. For example, Rifle Brigade was a selection in the second highest value race at a second order meeting.


Guest

Another most helpful posting, but I'm not confident that I have properly understood the question posed in your penultimate paragraph. Are you saying that, without going into the form in depth, VDW was able to declare Little Owl and Wing and a Prayer the "class/form" horses in any different sense than he meant when he so declared Canny Danny? (That is, could he tell from the ratings platform alone that the first two were serious bets while Canny Danny was one to avoid?) Or is the key word "depth"? If the former, you've certainly set a challenge.

Fulham - An in depth study is needed to confirm the initial numerical picture , but some class/form combinations stick out like a sore thumb. Canny Danny was also one of these , but why ?

Remember we should only back the class/form horse when other factors support it. An in depth study showed that all systems were go for Little Owl and Wing & A Prayer , but Canny Danny had a big task on his hands.

when considering form should a figure be taken literally if it appears obvious that it ran without a real chance???

Guest

Just taking into account the numerical platform, the common factors with Little Owl, Wing and a Prayer and Canny Danny were very low (ie very good) consistency ratings and ability ratings that were not just the highest but well above the next highest. These attributes were supported by other ratings, but in the case of the last named two these ratings themselves were not absolutely clear cut.

While such situations are certainly always of interest, and occur reasonably often, its been a long time since I was impetuous enough to back on the numerical platform alone. Frequently the in depth form study throws up significant doubts, very often re weight as with Canny Danny, when of course the race must be left alone if one is seeking the kind of strike rate that VDW and others referred to as possible. (And I may be on my own in this, but I firmly believe that strike rates of well over 50%, and possibly over 80%, are there to be achieved, without backing more than one horse in races, and without confining one's attention to very short-priced selections.)

Personally, I think the major challenge VDW set us is not filtering down by serious form analysis those horses that stand out from the initial numerical platform to the subset that can be backed with real confidence. Rather, its discovering what might be termed the real "class/form" horses, like Prominent King and Rifle Brigade, which don't stand out so obviously from the initial numerical platform but which, by use of the various techniques VDW has shown us, can be seen to be "good things".

Barney.

I have to agree vdw didn't ever say class C or above. As pointed out he said keep to the better races. This for me does raise the question where's the logic in betting on a lower class race at another meeting. Just because it is one of highest rated at the poor meeting. The quality can be far lower than in the remaining at the principal meeting. There is another point to consider, there is far more racing now, and it does pay to specialise, grade C may not be a bad cut of point. Plus when vdw was setting out his guide lines, races where not classified by grade. Penalty value was the easiest way to grade a race.

Can't answer your other question, that would be down to personal choice. Although vdw did on occasions ignore a bad run from a consistant horse, if there was a good reason, i.e. badly out classed. It must be stressed only consistant horses.

Regards

I'm still of the opinion that there is nothing to be gained from becoming too obsessive about races from 20+ years ago. For those of you interested, there are numerous books on VDW available from Browzers in Manchester, in addition to those detailed by another contributor. Try these for size :-

The Golden Years of VDW (ed Tony Peach) ; Racing in my System (Tony Peach) ; Betting the VDW way (ed. T.Peach) ; the Ultimate Wheil of Fortune (ed T.Peach) ; 4 Ways to Win (John Bingham) ; Be a Winner (John Bingham) ; Trainers Track Tips (John Bingham) ; The Key (to Roushayd) (John Bingham, ed . John Collins) ; Close Encounters of the VDW Kind (Phillip CLose) ; Pros & COns of VDWs winning Methods (Alan Coldrick). I believe that Moss publications have recently issued another one (100 pages or so) on peoples findings re.VDW.

If anyone wants a copy of the above cheaper than direct from Browzers, I'm willing to sell mine.
Please let me know via this forum.

Pazuzu

I don't suppose you've got any of the Raceform Form Books for the years covered by those early VDW examples you want to sell, have you? If so, I'd be very interested in buying those that would fill the odd gaps in my collection, as I take a diametrically opposite view to you on the value of working on those early examples.

Fulham - Just to clear up my comment about those class/form combinations that stick out like a sore thumb , Can I restate the point that VDW made ie To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form ,etc.

Just being the class/form horse is not enough. All the other factors have to be checked. The point I was making re Little Owl,Wing & A Prayer and Canny Danny was hopefully to show the simplicity of VDWs ideas about what constitutes form. I would never advocate betting on the initial numerical picture alone , though many thought that was all they had to do. The same comments apply to the Roushayd method with it's numerical picture of class and speed figures just the initial groundwork for finding a winner in the race.

The selection of races to evaluate is also methodical and it is logical to assume the better horses will be found in the better races. However , an element of targetting comes in here , especially when talking about the other meetings. Often , the selection of principle races at the other meetings has been called into question. As I mentioned before , everything is relative and whilst the main handicap chase at Market Rasen may be of much less value than one of the lesser races at Newbury , the Market Rasen race will most likely feature the best horses on that card with limited opposition. This is the same reasoning as for selecting the main races on the principle card. No one is saying the horses in the Market Rasen are of similar ability to those running in the less valuable races at Newbury. Worth thinking about from a trainers point of view also.

Guest.

Thank you for your very helpfully reply to my questions. I have given your answer a lot of thought, but must admit I am still very puzzled. If I still haven't understood what you are saying I apologise. As I understand it the facts are these.

Beacon Light was the CLASS/FORM horse in Prominent Kings race. He however was ejected on the grounds he had gone past his best. Then through a process of elimination the rest of the field where ejected until we where left with PK. After getting all the facts I am now happy PK was the horse to back in this race. Although coming to the same conclusion, I have to say not for the same reasons. I have other reasons for rejecting BL that I feel are just as logical and valid as vdw's.

My method of working may not follow the same sequence as vdw, but as I have said more than once all the elements are the same. I rejected Majed at source following the same logic I would have rejected BL source, but for me it was automatic so neither would ever have the chance to be class/form horse. Who is to say if vdw had seem the same flaw his selection wouldn't have been Kates Charm? the numerical platform was in place,,just waiting for the elimination process.

I think I understand how vdw methods work, but I still say it is possible for two people to have different answer to the same question. Ok they can't both be right but that does not mean the one that was wrong doesn't understand vdw. The only way for everyone to agree would be if it was a system with set rules.

I must thank you for making this a very good and interesting debate. I still think we could learn a lot from each other!!

Regards

Did VDW detail any selection that he arrived at that did not win. This might provide some ideas by contrast.

Guest

Thanks. I had read more into the question in your previous post than clearly you intended, and am now much relieved!


Epiglotis

Yes - Broadsword, Cheltenham 1981.

Hello All,

It is almost too addictive to discuss such an interesting subject as VDW methodology that one sometimes loses conscienceness of giving too much away and spoiling it for those who have spent alot of time and effort in unearthing the secrets of the great man. However, now and again one must, I guess, give a little help to those in need of guidance especially when one has received some himself. It is a common misconception that VDW never tipped a winner before a race, but he did, in a way in the shape of Pegwell Bay after that horse won the Mackeson in 1988. OK he didn't state which race he would win but he did say the result made it appear that the horse would win again before too long. Needless to say it duly won its next race a month later at odds of 7/2. The cynics will have to check with Tony Peach but I trust VDW's honesty implicitly. The point of this exercise is to give another example of identifying a class/form horse before evaluating a race, indeed knowing the race.

regards

An interesting contribution from Bensam and a well timed reminder of the Pegwell Bay double.

I agree , VDW created such interest with his letters and articles that they made for compulsive reading. He later stated he had intended to give away everything in time , but he never got the chance. Deciphering his clues is indeed a time consuming passion and I use the word passion because that is exactly what is required to reach the goals set out. You have to literally live the game , something not everyone is prepared to do which is why I have always felt ,personally,that giving something back would not unduly spoil the broth. However I have already stated several times , I am not about to spell out the way in which I use VDWs methods. So to Bensam and others out there who have done the hard work and reached their goals , and I know they are out there , take assurance that the eyes and tees are not about to dotted and crossed for all and sundry.

Hopefully though , those who really want to get there will have found some useful info to help them on their way. You can't say fairer than that really.

no you cant, thanks guys

No, unfortunately I got rid of old form books a good while back to make some room.

Re old races, consider that the form book has changed in content and presentation significantly since the late 70s. The same goes for the racing press. Again, I don't think there's anything to be gained, etc....

Browzers will probably have the form books that you are seeking. Check out their website if you haven't already.

Pazuzu

Thanks. Unfortunately Browzers and other well known suppliers of second hand racing books seem to lack the very ones that I lack.

are the books in them selves of any use without the form books of that era to support the numerical picture.

how much you want for the books?

tubs
(totally lost on vdw)

Not sure, check out prices new on Browzers website and make me an offer. (It'll be considerably cheaper than cost for new, but I'm not really keen on spliiting, all or nothing).

Thanks for your interest.