Hi Guest,

In the way I've already suggested, ie that Carved Opal was by no means out of it at the time of his fall. Some horses, perhaps most, fall for the reason you gave, but on the Form Book quote alone (and I have nothing else to go on) it is impossible to be sure that Carved Opal was one.

Systematic was, of course, the horse I assumed you'd be backing.

you mention the fact that you thought guest would support systematic,did you? if not i would be interested in your reasons why not..

Hi Investor,

You've lost me somewhat, but here goes.

Having, unusually, myself backed such a short priced horse this morning, I found myself thinking I'll bet Guest hammers that, as its just his kind of bet (on all fours with a number of others he has discussed on the thread).

Then, coincidentally, about lunchtime I logged on to Gummy and found a post from Guest to which I needed to reply. I added the comment about betting today simply because the thought was fresh in my mind. Silly, really.

Cheers.

Thanks to Marchwood for this posting on VDW I will also put it on the VDW page on the site.
Here are some thoughts which I collected from a very much
respected VDW supporter. Maybe it should be stressed
that as VDW was not a systems man but a man of methods
many devotees use his methods and adapt them to suit their
own means thus creating their own systems!

This is what VDW is saying: Logical reasoning will lead you
to arrive at numerous sound methodical ideas and any normal
racing fan can devise his own path to success using the abundance
of data available.

Charlie Anderson who was one of the principal
contributors to the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book and
Raceform Update's Sports Forums. Here is his advice:-

ignore:
*******
2 year olds.
Fillies.
races below grade C
races for 3 year olds only.
maidens of any type.
mad hair brained systems from the pack of rogues out there,
tipsters and telephone lines, none of these people would be selling
tips etc if they had a winning method,would you?.

things to do if you are looking for success!:
*******************************
look at the highest value races of the day, Group races and grades
A, B, & C only, and try to confine your bets to the top class races
at each meeting, basing class on VDW's rating system mentioned below..

never ever back a horse that has not won at least one of its last
three races and was placed in the other two.

last three form figures must add up to no more than a total of five
we are looking for consistent horses nothing else. (see below*) e.g.
1st=1, 2nd=2, 3rd=3 up to 9th=9 and 0=10.

never back a horse that has not shown form at the distance being run
today, this applies only to its last three races any other form
cannot be judged as valid.what do I mean by showing form? I hear you
ask, showing form means being placed in the first three at the
distance in one of the horses last three races.

never back a horse that has not shown form with today's weight or
more in its last three races, again showing form means placed in the
first three.

look for horses down in class in today's race, use vdw class rating
to arrive at this figure, i.e. today's race worth 10,500 pounds class
= 105(delete last two figures) last race worth 25,000 pounds class
= 250, the horse is well down in class,also remember to rate all
runners
on a last race class basis using the same method you can then see how
your possible selection rates against the rest of the field.

*The only last three outings that Charlie Anderson is suggesting are
as
follows: 111=3; 112=4; 113=5; 121=4; 131=5; 122=5; 221=5;
212=5; 311=5.

Please note: All of the above does not conform strictly with VDW
methodology and you will see some horses in VDW examples whose
form figures do not correspond. However, it appears to be usually
accepted that this was the type of thinking that was in VDW's mind.

But this is certainly VDW methodology:
please will you all focus your minds on the job in hand and not go
down tracks which make your brains boil and confuse the issue
remember what we are trying to find is good consistent horses which
have the class, form, ability and history to win today's event.

MARCHWOOD FEELS THAT THIS IS A GREAT STARTING
POINT - ALSO REMEMBER VDW STATED IN MARCH 1979
IN REPLY TO A LETTER FROM G. HALL:-

'The method I gave produces 85% to 90% winners Flat and
jumps, year in and year out" He as usual stresses "I know in the
N.H. season there can be long waits. There are of course days
during the flat when nothing can be found and there is no point in
trying to find what is not there" Many people look upon this
statement which VDW calls 'Temperament' as the missing link
or the Key!

Marchwood

Thanks to Marchwood for this posting sent by e-mail
As it seems there is a lot of interest in our VDW
pages; can I suggest that some people are put off
the methodology due to that fact that the term
'much hard work is needed' crops up on a
regular basis. I am not suggesting it is due to
laziness but nearly always due to just not having
the time. This has always been my problem but
I have tried to keep an interest by studying what
is provided by my National Daily and occasionally
the Raceform Update rather spending hours on
form study.

My own ideas using vdw as a base really comes
from the VDW letter to Rfu of the 23rd August
1979 the outline of which is a follows:

Concentrate on better-class races with GOOD consistent horses.
Consider performance over the last two furlongs in each of the three previous outings. Horses that improve noticeably at this stage to make a race of it without winning can be looked on as potential candidates in the near future and note should be made of how the trainer places them.

Coupled with the further method to reduce the field: -
1. Mark all those horses with form figures 1 -4 in either of their last two outings.
2. Select in days the five most recent runs from those marked.
3. Select from the above the three most consistent by adding together the last three placings.

Use a combination of both elementary and mechanical procedures to narrow the field. The two processes which he describes as elementary and mechanical are clear for all to see.

I completed my own selections by using my own last threeoutings chart (which was sent to Methodmaker), the OR rating and best SF figure from the Rfu added together to give a total and then using the ability figure as vdw procedure as a checking device.

In my previous posting I gave a set of last three placings figures which added up, using VDW methodology, to no more than 5 but suggested that this was not always the case. This is the method above I was referring to because the last TWO outings could add up to 8 but furthermore he says 'in the race example none has a second
place, so mark those with a 5th place'again leading to a much higher total than 5 if we were looking at three races.

The point I am making here is also that it does seem on many occasions, his methodology was not hard and fast but formed a base which was/could be altered to suit the circumstances. I am
sure that many of you could find many instances of this in his methods.

I might also suggest it is this sort of action that gives the doubters support that maybe the methodology is concocted after the race to suit the results. Nevertheless the more you read I am still convinced the more you will learn. This 'backfitting' as it is now called was
also what Jock Bingham was accused of but for my own part I can say that his interpretation of the VDW methodology taught many people including me more about VDW than initially did VDW!

Marchwood

Thanks for this posting received by e-mail from Marchwood the chart mentioned will be on the systems page tomorrow.
My titled Email friend has been in touch with me again recently and claims to have solved the mysteries of The Flying Dutchman. Here is what he said:-

Subject: read what is there

Having puzzled over vdw for the last twenty years or so in frustration, i decided that enough was enough, this is like trying to find blackbeards treasure, however something that a fellow vdw said ie read what is there struck a chord, so i decided more in hope than having any real chance to have another go andhaving wiped out any preconceptions i got my friend who knows nothing about horseracing on the promises of a couple of pints to read THE GOLDEN YEARS and then he
would instruct me as a student to work out races as HE saw the problem rather than me with my preconceived ideas.
FRIDAY OCTOBER 26TH 2001 FOUR RICHEST RACES:
2.40 NEWBURY, 3.10 NEWBURY, 3.40 NEWBURY 3.15
DONCASTER
my friend having read the book believes that letter 24 ,letter 13,letter 8,letter 20 hold the key.
2.40 newbury
five most recent runs.....RANVILLE,XELLANCE,SPY
KNOLL,FOLLOW LAMMTARRA,ARGAMIA. in first five or six in betting forecast: RANVILLE, FOLLOW LAMMTARA
most consistent RANVILLE 3* FOLLOW LAMMTARRA 18*
RESULT: RANVILLE wins 2/1,FOLLOW LAMMTARRA 2nd
XELLANCE 3RD.
3.10 newbury
five most recent runs....ADVANCE PARTY,LASCOMBES,PIETER BRUEGHEL,RAPSCALLION,SAMHARI in first five or six betting forecast PIETER BRUEGHEL,RAPSCALLION,SAMHAN most consistent pieter brueghel 11*, rapscallion 3*, samhari 15*
RESULT: RAPSCALLION wins 7/2....look at the full
result
3.40 newbury
five most recent runs...BOUNCING BOWDLER, NOW LOOK
HERE,TEDBURROW,ANDREYEV,SEVEN NO TRUMPS
in first five or six betting forecast SEVEN NO TRUMPS,TEDBURROW,ANDREYEV most consistent seven no trumps 15*, teddburrow 24*, andreyev 26*
RESULT: SEVEN NO TRUMPS wins 11/2
3.15 doncaster my friend thinks "there isnt a winnerto be found" I would like to add after picking myself up off the ground that if you look at the speed figures either in the d.mail, or the times for theses races and look atthe result of where the rest of the horses were placed after the race and if you read the race comments about
the winners it becomes blindingly apparent that these winners were staring us in the face.my friend thinks that reading the letters its obvious, perhaps its a case of not seeing the woods for the trees!
Comments please.


This really supports some correspondence with our
friend Alan Coldrick (Acceleratorform) who quoted
me, in a private correspondence, exactly the same
letters, from The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil,
but added the one on the 8/3/79 which deals mainly
with National Hunt Racing which was of course a
favourite with VDW.

Maybe, like my titled email friend some of you found
REGAL SONG 7/1 yesterday!

This approach to the VDW methodology is not new to me.
Many years ago I found many winners just by using
a consistency chart for last three outings for all the runners in the race, then narrowing this down using the first four, five or six in the betting depending type of race
and number of runners, then adding points for C(1), D(3)and C&D (5) to arrive at a rating. I will ask Gummy to
post the chart to the systems page for you all to look at.
I then got more ambitious - VDW might say lack of
temperament- and added to this rating figure the SF and form rating both from the RfU to obtain a total.

I can say that in the majority of cases the horse indicated by the overall rating was the same one as my own consistency/C,D,C&D rating.

There will always be those people that prefer to look much deeper (looking for a key or missing link thatis not there) than is necessary into any form of problem.
However, I would suggest that my friends' approach entails little work, other than maybe an accuracy with figures, no unnecessary expense on overpriced racing papers and a easily understood basic method that spells it all out for one and all. Three winners in an afternoon should also
satisfy those that crave for more betting opportunities.

What is wrong with this or are we all candidates forthe weakest link!

Marchwood

Received by E-Mail from Marchwood
Hello Mtoto.

I felt I should clear up my statement that more horses being raised in class do better than those being lowered in class. The following relates to six year records between 1994 and 1999 and the total races figure each year has been adjusted to allow for first time runners or first time in Britain runners.

In Group races the total races run were 616 and of these 131 (21.27%) won in the same class.380 (61.69%)winners were up in class and only 105 (17.04%) winners down in class.

In Class A races there were 666 in total of which 142 (21.32%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 427 (64.11%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 97 (14.56%) in a higher class.

In Class B races there were 1027 in total of which 333 (32.42%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 557 (54.23%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 137 (13.34%) in a
higher class.

In Class C races there were 2846 in total in which 887 (31,16%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 1220 (42.87%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 739 (25.97%) in a higher class.

In Class D races there were 6895 in total in which 4042 (58.62%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 1675 (24.29%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 1178 (17.08%) in a higher class.

In Class E races there were 5160 in total in which 1831 (35.48%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 1390 (26.94%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 1939 (37.58%) in a higher class.

In Class F races there were 4690 in total in which 1558 (33.22%) had run in the same class in their previous race. 429 (9.15%) run in a lower class in their previous race and 2703 (57.63%) in a higher class.

In Class G races there were 1580 races in total; in which 393 (24.87%) had run in the same class in their previous race and 1187 (75.13%) in a higher class.

As the research shows my statement is fact in all races classes D and upwards. However, in the lower classes as is to be expected the trend
reverses. Maybe, Should I have made it clear that I do not bother with race classes below Class C; which I also believe is the type of race
that VDW would also be mainly interested in although I am aware that this type of classification was not in use in the late 70's.

It would appear that our personal correpondence course is now longer of interest to others and that maybe we have lost the thread somewhat!

Marchwood

Hello Swish,
You are nearly there with the pictures thing don't give up, the reason it didn't show was because you had http twice in the url :http://http://www.time-communications.co.uk/gummypics/smile.jpg
I have some bananas going cheap if you want them.

Gummy

This message was forwared to me from Marchwood.
Thanks for your email on VDW, I have no objections to you passing on some info,thats what groups are all about. I have had a quick look at the Gummy site and my first impression is that members still seem to going off in all directions, have you managed to form any basic method based on the dutchmans original concepts,
I think one of the main problems with many devotees is that they are looking for far to many bets using this method, remember the original idea was based on possible selections from the highest value races at the principle meeting of the day with a possible consideration being given the the next highest value race and also the highest value races at the other meetings for that day,how many people are sticking to this basic method rule?

Another way to get some idea of the class of the horses engaged for todays race is to formulate a class rating based on the last three races run by each horse ie: last three races ran in 20.000,15.500 and 18.000 ratings are 200, 155,and 180 add together for a total of 535 divide by 3 = 178 which is the class rating for this horse today,do this for all runners in the race,then
compare all the ratings against todays race say 13.000 race rating = 130 now make a judgement of all todays runners together with the last three form figures and the ability rating here is what a race may look like.

horse class rating ability rating form.
one 82 62 6
two 210 168 5
three 110 120 7
four 116 129 11
five 168 150 18
six 170 78 3
you have created another numerical picture,you still have to evaluate the form for each horse etc.i would be focusing my attention on horse number two it has the class rating for todays race,it has proven ability,and looks to be in form,a question to finish with, has our possible selection shown form with todays weight.

This was sent to me by Charlie Anderson who was a
regular contributor to Sports Forum and I believe a very successful VDW devotee. You may not agree
with his reasoning but it is just another contribution towards the methodology from the thinking of VDW,

regards
Marchwood

This is a test as I tried to post a table from Hedgehog and lost the entire VDW thread in the process three heart attacks and a nervous breakdown later I have managed to get it back.
the Hedgehog article will appear on the articles page on Tuesday.
I'm off for a lie down.

Gummy

Just seen the message about books I am not too bothered about advertising in this thread as long as the advertising involves anything about VDW or anything by others relating to his methods.

Gummy

Hello Det,
I think you may have misinterpreted my posting it is okay to post any address or source of information that concerns VDW or anything by others concerning VDW, as Jock Bingham is one of the others it is okay.

Gummy

[This message was edited by Gummy on March 02, 2002 at 07:10 PM.]

Order, Order, Order.
This thread is about VDW and his methods and everyone has their own opinion about VDW which they are entitled to, but it is now starting to get personal.
Could we please stick to the subject gentlemen and leave out the slagging I never thought I would have to say this on the VDW thread but any message that I consider not in the spirit of VDW will be either edited or deleted.

Gummy

Hello Everyone,
I don't usually like to interfere in this forum but as it is now a massive 170 pages long I was thinking of making it a read only forum and starting another thread at the weekend entitled VDW1.
Would everyone be happy with that?

Gummy

Fulham - I think you are missing the point I was making with the 3 horse scenario concerning Carved Opal and friends. Race comments are just an opinion of course, but when related to the other factors they become a useful guide also. I wouldn't just take the opinion of a racereader that Classified was going better at the same point that Carved Opal fell. But using the facts of what actually happened ie Beau Ranger won comfortably by 4 lengths at such a stiff track as Cheltenham and that Classified made no impression, it takes a leap of faith to suggest that Carved Opal would have unduly troubled the winner. It's not as if CO came there after being held up and made a mistake. He was 2nd and ridden before the race had really got serious.

You may say it is all down to opinion and I do agree it is open to interpretation, but it has to be realistic interpretation surely ?

i don,t see how iv,e lost you ,it was simple enough to understand after re.reading it,did you not see systematic as a good thing and worthy of support,if not why not.please don,t say there was no value.

i,m sorry iv,e just read your post again,i do apologise i must still be high on caffreys,ignore my last posts i better have a cold bath...

I have been thinking about this discussion all day. Guest and a few others are making it very complicated. The question I have to ask after reading this, why is it complicated? Another thing that strikes me, is there is at least one horse in the list that Guest would not consider to be a form horse, let alone a class/form horse. (without a little juggling)


Boxing Day is one of those family days out at the races and to give
added interest let us consider just the three minor meetings which is
where the once-a-year man might go. Huntingdon, Market Rasen and
Sedgefield, a total of 18 races. We are not going to bother with the
real scrubber races i.e. sellers and novice hurdles, so with two such
events at each meeting, the number of races left will be 12. The only
horses that will receive consideration are the form horses and the first
three or four in the forecast.

The only other factor that will be used is that the indicated
horse should have three point advantage on the “class” rating to
qualify for selection. To be fair, other points should be taken into
account, but all I wish to demonstrate at the moment is the power of the
“class/form” combination. The results of this little exercise gave
six horses form the 12 races as selections and they were as follows:

Meeting Time Sel Adv’tge Result
Hunt 1.00 Stray Shot 5 Won 3-1
Sedge 1.15 Bonny Gold 3 Won 2-1
Hunt 2.00 Castle Warden 4 Won 11-2
Mkt Rae 2.15 Zamandra 3 Won 13-8
Hunt 2.30 RIver Rhine 9 Won 6-4
Mkt Rae 3.15 Kevlnsport 4 Won 5-6.

So today's question is why is BL out of form but Stray Shot is a class/form horse according to vdw?

Investor.

I know you addressed your question to Fulham, but I did consider Systematic a poor value bet today. I expect it is one of the reasons I fail to get my strike rate to a nice 80%. I am not worried about strike rate, as far as I am concerned strike rate is like turnover, an ego trip. Profit is what I need. and I can't see the point of laying out a weeks wages to make half. It is put to better use, I could use £500 to make 3/4 weeks money. There is no such thing as a certainty, saddles slip, horses break legs. I know it happened to me, a horse 6 lengths clear in the last furlong broke it's leg at Epsom.

Be Lucky

mtoto,

stray shot was coming to hand early in his campaign.

Guest

As I read the Cheltenham race, several horses seemed to be in with shouts towards the end of the race, including Classified, Bishops Bow, Kathies Lad and Carved Opal. Three of these stayed on their feet and failed to trouble the eventual winner, but that tells us nothing about the chances of the fourth, Carved Opal, had he stood up.

I accept that it is entirely possible that Carved Opal fell because he was under pressure to stay with the pace, or that, had he not fallen, his challenge would have amounted to no more than those of the other three. But its also, in my view, possible that (under the nearest equivalent in those days to Tony McCoy) he'd have run on and won. I therefore see it as reasonable to place a conservative interpretation on his "informness".


Investor

On re-reading your original question, I agree it was clear. The first time around I misunderstood it because I thought the words "did you" were linked to whether or not I had commented on whether Systematic was a likely bet for Guest, rather than being a straightforward question about whether I thought S a good thing.

And on that I take a different view to Mtoto, although it is quite rare for me to back a horse at such a short price because of the strike rate needed to achieve worthwhile profits at such prices.

As Mtoto says, there are inherent risks in racing, and one needs a minimum price for those (though in a 3 horse event some of those inherent risks are of course much reduced). The other danger is that, despite the public records, one of the competitors may be better (or have improved more) than one assumes. And to cover that a further element of price is needed.

But looking at the respective form of the three yesterday, I thought that the early 4/5 on Systematic with UK Betting and 8/11 with Luvbet (though with them, as always, only to small money) were very generous prices, and as such would be readily convertable to more than evens to my intended stake. That proved to be the case, as S shortened steadily, and at a shade of odds against, I thought S was one of the best value bets I've had all season.

That said, Mtoto's general point is to my mind a wise one. Usually there is more doubt (as well as more runners!) and the prices some have apparently been willing to take on horses mentioned on this thread have surprised me.