Swish,

Funnily enough the strike rate of horses coming to a handicap chase from a hurdle (14.32%)is about the same as that of horses coming from another handicap chase (13.73%).

Cheers

Guest.

I have been thinking about the VC Chase at Ascot, and am a little puzzled. In the PK race vdw eliminated BL, and then worked his way down the contestants. That's how you said he came to back PK. Why then did you not follow the same procedure with the VC chase? For me anyway, there is still a major doubt that BL had gone over, there was far more concrete evidence that WS and GR would struggle to win. The point I am trying to make is he could see a flaw in BL AND TOOK IT ON. Why would that not be the case in this race? For the record the flaw I saw in BL was the same flaw as I could see in WS. Another question about the PK race, don't you think the statement that PK was top in one set of ratings, and joint top in the other was a deciding factor for him? He could not have been talking about the forecast, consistency or ability ratings, could he?

Swish

I agree with Struggles Glory he was my top rated in the race, but shorter than I though a fair price. My bet on Saturday was our selection Copeland, and his price was a 100% higher than it should have been. Instead of backing the 2 or 3 to win have you ever though of backing them in cross doubles as suggested in Systematic Betting? That would at least multiply the odds instead of reducing them.

Regards

Mtoto - VDW said he rated all 5 horses in the fc using 2 different methods in PKs race. He later said that the subject of rating and ratings was 2 different matters. Worth thinking about.

The difference between PK and Turgeonev was there to be seen in the form. As mentioned before there are certain aspects I consider that I have not spelt out. Turgeonev showed up as the probable winner but not every horse we think should win should be backed.

Dear Mtoto,
Yes I have done 3X3,3X2 doubles etc many times. When I am ready I may well do it again, in the meantime I prefer to carry on learning and experimenting,
Yours
Swish

Dear Crock,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to look these things up,
Yours
Swish

THE FRENCH FURZE

the trainer of this horse must be well versed in vdw, these are his comments after saturdays race,he was commenting on the decision to send tff to ireland for this w/e champion hurdle.

"THE PRIZE MONEY IS GOOD EVEN FOR PLACED HORSES AND THEY PAY THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES SO WHY NOT?YOU WIN NOTHING WHEN THEY ARE IN THEIR BOXES."

when you look at the horses win money and then its place money you can see what he means.and also see why it wasn't going to win on saturday.

One of VDW's methods I have used with some success is that he described in chapter 6 of "Systematic Betting", namely the selective following as three year olds of lightly raced 2yos who achieved a SF of at least 40 over 7f or more on selected tracks without winning.

I haven't researched the matter as fully as I may need to, but it seems to me that the scale for SFs that Raceform moved to for the 2001 Flat season brings horses much closer together in terms of their SFs than the old scale. Have those for whom SFs are central to their form study found the new scale equally satisfactory and, if not, are there better alternatives out there? Any advice on this whole area would be much appreciated.

Dear Fulham,
I use last six Topspeed figs as on Racing Post internet and find them very useful indeed. Whether they are better or worse than any others, I would not know,
Yours
swish
p.s.
If you go back a bit on this thread, you will see I thought Struggles Glory was cert VDW bet. Would you agree?

Swish

Thanks.

As regards Struggles Glory, I'm afraid I did not look at the race and cannot therefore comment.

Dear Fulham,
I find that answer very dissapointing. it is not hard to look a race up. let's face it we look races up every day to find winners. Don't you think it is worth a look, because a) it might teach you something, or b) it might teach you something,
Yours
swish

Swish

If I had the relevant RP, I'd gladly have a look at the race, it takes (me, at any rate) so much longer on their website.

Always glad to learn from interesting examples and, when I've studied a current race that comes under discussion here, to offer any comment that seems likely to be helpful. But at the moment my priority for historical research is VDW's early selections.

re speed figures

one article i read stated that SF OVER 70 should be recorded,on certain courses,last years raceform seems to have a large number of horses with figures above 100 is this a reasonable base.

Guest.

I am well aware of the vdw thinking on rating and ratings (although I'm not sure if that is fact, or what someone else thinks) That can't take away the fact that if PK was top on one and joint top on another, he was not talking about the consistency or ability ratings. It had to be the other set of ratings. The ones that are not *important* Or does the not *important* apply to the fact it's not important which ratings you use as long as you use some ratings as a form of cross reference.

Fulham.

I used to use the RFU speed figures until the change. The change was major, not only did they stop adjusting for weight (making them much better). They also changed the standard times for the courses (big mistake) I think the best way to reline them to the old figures is to take 20/25 off the winners figure. With the placed horses use the handicappers guide 1 length = 3 points in a 5/8 furlong race. 1 length =2 points in 9/14 furlongs and 1 length = 1 point in all races over 15 furlongs. The place element may not be accurate but it works for me when I check my figures against theirs.

Hope this is of some help.

Regards

Putting up a horse before the event doesn't give away any more secrets about the method than talking about a horse after the event. At this point I dont think your reputation is such that posting some selections would seriously effect the prices available but if it worries you you could post after betting, however were you to demonstrate by posting a few unobvious, decent priced winners that you have the ability to be more than wise-after-the-event I'm sure the members would feel that your general contributions are worthy of serious consideration.

hello everbody. i personally feel that lady cricket,copeland have outstanding chances today,also a good one to dutch(barney) cyfor malta/marlborough.good luck chappies

Epiglotis - I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think that by posting my own selections I would be damaging the price. My concern is that posting little known VDW factors or considerations would eventually cause harm. Obviously I do have my doubts given most peoples misunderstanding and lack of real effort to figure out the VDW method, but nevertheless I am not about to put them to the test.

It is upto those interested as to if they want to take on board any clues or views I have given. I am certainly not going to twist anybodys arm or justify my selection process by posting selections. I know it works in the long run and it is of no consequence to me personally if others have doubts. Any points I have made about my own bets were clearly there to be seen before the race if you know what to look for. Not everyone thinks along the same lines and I'm sure there will be others who have different considerations they use. All that matters is that the selections are profitable in the long run.

To Guest and others,

I have been doing a little research into this race at Thirsk in April 1978, in which VDW proclaimed BATTLEMENT 'a good thing'.

I must confess to having difficulty in isolating BATTLEMENT as the class/form horse over MOVE OFF. I accept that there was very good reason in not backing MOVE OFF, notably he was unproven carrying this type of weight having failed carrying 9-09 at Redcar 3 races previous (although this over a distance further than he had won over).

My initial view of this race shows MOVE OFF as the class/form horse although not one to bet because of doubts already expressed. I would be grateful for any pointers or hints from those better versed than myself into what I am missing in not recognising BATTLEMENT as the class/form horse.

Regards

The point is that you are prepared to discuss horses that have won races in terms of "VDW logic" after the event but not before. Can your correspondents feel confident of the veracity of your judgements if they are always viewed retrospectively?

Hi Crock

Like you, I'm only in the early stages of analysing the 1978 Websters, haven't yet even narrowed the race to Battlement and Move Off, and am far from reaching firm conclusions. However, as regards those two, so far observations include:

1) Battlement's record in handicaps in 1977 was a model of consistency;

2) it is clear from his run on 6/4/78 that Battlement was capable of winning a race of the class of the Websters (0-70 handicap, class 24);

3) the two placements in 1978 suggest to me that Battlement was being readied to win the Websters: first run carrying 7.11 in a race of comparable class over 2f shorter, then dropped in class and set to carry 11lb more over the "right" distance with no risk of a penalty, given his OR and the conditions of the Websters. Thus by the time of the Websters, Battlement's fitness and "in formness" were established, and he was in a race of a class at which he had shown he could win; over what seems to have been his best trip; carrying the lowest weight the race conditions allowed; and carrying 15lb less actual weight than on his last run, and 4lb less actual weight than when he won at the same class on 6/4/78;

4) turning to Move Off, on some 1977 form lines he was fully entitled to be rated 35lb (or more) above Battlement, and was also very consistent;

5) Move Off hadn't run in 1978 prior to the Websters, but was clearly capable of winning first time out, as he won the 1977 Websters fto carrying 4lb less than he was set to carry in 1978;

6) Move Off had a very busy season in 1976 - ran 14 times, last run on the last day of the season. In 1977 he was nearly as busy early on, having had 8 runs by mid September. But his win on 22 September was his last run of the 1977 season which, for a horse of this type (decent handicapper) suggests to me a problem. (Incidentally, although one would not have known it when weighing up the 1978 Websters, Move Off had a busy 1978, with 12 runs and, as with 1976, finishing with the November Handicap on the last day of the season.)

So, with a long way to go yet, and other horses' form to be examined, my tentative view is that this is one of those races where VDW spotted a very consistent horse (Battlement) being readied to win, and was able to discount a horse which had achieved more (Move Off), on grounds which have yet to be fully established but probably included doubts as to whether it would do itself justice fto after a possibly enforced lay off of seven months.

If I am anywhere near the mark, this example must surely be in the same broad category as the 1978 Erin, where there were good reasons for believing that the APPARENT class/form horse (in the Erin, Beacon Light) would not run to its best form, and good reasons for believing that another consistent horse, capable of winning at the relevant class, was being readied to win and was therefore the actual class/form horse on the day.

Incidentally, did you have a look at the 4.30 Cheltenham yesterday? As good a bet as I've seen for some days.

Epiglotis - I spent a huge amount of my time reading,researching and trying to understand what our good friend Mr Van Der Wheil was trying to impart. Most of the material he wrote was published weeks or months after the events under examination, but any flaws or backfitting would have shown up very early on. The reason they made no show was because they were not there.

Over the years I have read reams upon reams of articles, letters and books concerning the art of winner finding. Most of it, above the obvious, was utter rubbish. Upon first discovering VDWs articles I quickly became aware that here was someone who actually seemed to know what he was talking about. It took me some years to finally confirm this and as a consequence I don't feel inclined to splash my findings all over the net. Whatever the size of readership for this forum, things are easily copied and pasted elsewhere as has already been seen with info from one private forum appearing on other boards.

As mentioned before, I was kindly given some extra clues by someone who had been using the methods far longer than I had and I have given a few nudges in the right direction to someone else who showed the right attitude and willing to graft to get there. By offering a few clues and not spelling it all out I am ensuring that only a very small minority will figure out the right conclusions. Hopefully this friend won't mind me mentioning that he recently resumed betting to be greeted with consistent winners. I know he also feels the same with regards to being discreet and guarded about certain aspects.

All I can say Epiglotis is this. It is upto the individual as to if they think there is something worth looking into re VDW methods. No one should twist their arm. Plenty mocked and goaded VDW over the years and I'm sure he fully expected it. If he had taken the bait and supplied winners to the Forum page in the old Handicap Book then surely this would have insured even greater interest in discovering his methods. Part of the fascination with trying to find the answers is it that it seems almost too good to be true. It is true but it seems very few will find this out for themselves.