Rob - The criticism was mainly directed at Epiglotis, who I believe started the alternative thread. He seems to base his findings on the results of one day. A complete waste of time. The class/form horse has been winning for decades and will continue to do so long after we have all departed. Again I ask, how can someone who can't even be bothered to read the manual expect to find the answers to VDW?

Mtoto - Firstly, I would like to point out that just as a consistent horse is not automatically a form horse, the class/form horse may not be one of the consistent horses numerically speaking.

Secondly, as I said, the races Soaf had been winning were actually better than the bare race class rating implied. Just as the race Rosette won was below the normal standard for such a class of race. Even the bare race class rating was below the Newmarket event though.

I also specifically said "apparently a bad one" when talking about Soaf. I also said it was a 2yo race and included speed ratings which acts as a further guide to these young inexperienced horses. This is all in keeping with what VDW suggested when considering 2 and 3yos on the flat.

To be honest,Mtoto, I don't think we will clear it up with what I am willing to post on the thread. I can only offer hints and hope that anyone interested follows the thinking and gets the picture. Yes, VDW did use many different methods with different lines of investigation, but the ones he outlined in the articles and books all had class and form as the main factors. This was a consistent approach as to how VDW measured class and form.

I may email you personally in future because I find myself being drawn back into the fray and as stated before I am not really interested in the hecklers and doubters anymore. They will never change their views and that's their perogative, but the constant bickering is really pathetic and fruitless. At least those such as yourself are open minded to varying degrees.

Guest

I see your point. I had been thinking of introducing a thread for 'real time' VDW analysis and Epiglotis' thread allowed me a go at that. I agree that someone who has read any of the texts is hardly in a position to comment on them. Shades of 'The Satanic Verses' methinks! I would point out that I did point Epi at the Van Der Wheil posts on The Open Forum which include 'Van Der Wheil Spells it Out' and provide a little of the background. I hope he has read it.

I was hoping that posting my analysis might be useful to myself and to others. Discussion and constructive criticism are welcomed. My win percentage has previously hovered around the 30% mark, which is pretty poor in comparison to some, but my aim is to be much more selective and to increase that to 50% plus. Hardly in the VDW class, but if I can achieve that aim then I'll be making progress.

In an attempt to encourage positive discussion may I draw attention to a quote from VDW's reply to Win of Brighton

'Between us we can really set this page alight. After all, none of us knows the lot, but with a combination of knowledge we can really go places.'

A telling comment from someone who knew a lot but not 'the lot', and appreciated that he would always be learning.

Rob

I looked at all the VDW stuff in the open forum yesterday all the stuff written by VDW I had read before, what else is it that I am meant to read before I qualify to ask questions?

Epi

You don't HAVE to read anything, but if you are going to comment on VDW then the more the better. The articles on the Open Forum give only an introduction.

I haven't read all the VDW books, but I have read 'The Golden Years Of Van Der Wheil', 'The Ultimate Wheil Of Fortune' and 'Systematic Betting'. Each book adds more to the story, and reveals more about VDWs methods.

I've also just read Jock Bingham's books '4 ways 2 Win' and 'Back Methodology Not Kidology'. The latter seeks to investigate VDWs method whereas the former shows a number of methods which look for specific qualifications for a selection, nearer to a system with set rules, though not quite. People who have read '4 Ways' would understand that last sentence!!

Rob

dont go putting yourself down,you have demonstrated more than anyone on this thread that you are not afraid to go into races before they have been run which is to be commended.in fact at times you have singlehandly kept things going and have been the reason for me sticking around when i see one of your posts.
the fact that you are open to others opinion is a refreshing change when compared to the usual tunnel vision that some stubbornly stick to and dont for one moment go comparing your s/r to the mythical 80% because thats exactly what it is,a myth.
no one and i mean no one has come anywhere close to the figure quoted and for those that claim they are are only fooling themselves.

i hope you continue to post up future races and do not get stuck in the time warp that this thread has become.
the best thing that could happen to the vdw discussion was epi's alternative thread and i hope more and more members realize its the way forward and leave those that want to to sit here quietly contemplating the 78 mackeson winner.
for a while now the thread has been the butt of jokes on the whole gummy board and it is not surprising.
like the old saying goes"those that can do,those that can't teach"

those that can make it pay do,those that can't visit the vdw thread.

Hi all,
I've only just joined the forum and have been reading the latest views on the VDW page.
I don't know you all if any, but I do agree with the member who says that we should stop living in the past and analyse present day races.
We all receive criticism at times as I probably will, but I do intend to try and contribute.
I am going to look at the 2-40 at Chepstow Friday and see if there is a selection possible in this.
I'll leave it there for now. Just like to thank mtoto and Fulham who I believe sponsored my membership.
See you soon,Mike.

Welcome mickeddy!

We certainly welcome your contribution. A few of us have been trying to get some current race analysis going on the VDW(Alternative) thread. Some seem happier if the method discussion and current analysis are kept separate.

A thick skin is helpful at times, but we look forward to further contributions from you.

Rob

Hi Mike,
Welcome to the forum mate....I see your a VDW fan...I think you will enjoy it here...theres a bit of fun sometimes so dont take it too seriously sometimes ..youll see what I mean when youve done a bit of reading...lol....Im not on the VDW thread much but do look in sometimes....good luck mate
Im off now to find a nominee to level the sides up...lol
Regards.......

BRICK

welcome aboard the good ship VDW.

in your reply to swish you refer (Mysteriously) to the roushard method -

There are many pages devoted to this method. -
for example -

quote:

---

The missing links from the Roushard example were peak fitness and the capability to perform well at todays weight. Also note how the trainer is training a particular horse. He is using quality (class) to bring the horse to peak fittness (speed).
When he thinks the horse is fit enough to do itself justice , it is then dropped to run against lower quality horses (class). It is a well known fact that about 85 % of all winners are dropped in class to win whatever type of race.

---

Barny - care to comment on this quote ?

Speed figures have not featured strongly in your Postings !

Tc

I dont remember ever saying that.

My view of roushayd is that it was on a list of horses to follow from the 2 yr old method, it stayed on the list of horses to follow due to a class 650 win (handicap) on its penultimate run as a three year old.

It had been highlighted that the horse had an optimum trip and vdw just waited untill the horse showed form and was then subsequently placed as the best horse in the race.

vdw only, in my view, related to SF, because "without a numerical basis to evaluate a race" many would be lost.

to qualify this I would quote VDW's comments on Zilzal and Brashee "ONE MANS MEAT IS ANOTHER MANS POISON"

Speed figures, again in my view, were introduced because many cant see when a horse is in form, even after five years of letters and pointers, and this numerical indicator although adequate is not as reliable as VDW's own methods.

Barny -

No you certainly never said that !

The Quote was from Jock Bingham in his publication "The Key" to 'ROUSHARD'

I was interested in your views of his research into VDW.

You appear to think that they were worthless !

Do you Dismiss Jock Bingham as a Pillock ?



Tc

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on January 16, 2003 at 09:13 PM.]

Sorry - for Roushard Please read "ROUSHAYD"

I bought J.Binghams books at more or less the same time as the vdw ones and before I managed toget hold of the form books.

His books most certainly are not worthless!! They helped me no end in getting an to "instant basics" in VDW's methods, although at the time I thought they were the answer.

I think vdw also said he had done well because he hadnt been shown how to do it. He also said that he had missed much, even after the comments on rivage bleu and travado.

What J bingham told in his books are the "bare bones", in my view. I personally think he knew more than he let on. In the chapter "know what you are looking for" he says as much, "form is more important than peak fitness on the flat"

YET HE HAD JUST GIVEN NUMEROUS EXAMPLES BASED ON PEAK FITNESS.

It can drive you potty though VDW.

Talk later

"potty" - Maybe VDW intended That !

Tc

Barney

Again an area of VDW which -would bear much discusion.

V Underrated !

Tc !

If you think that Jock Bingham knew more than he let on, you are mistaken.
JB was one of these people who thought he had it sussed, but he was well wide of the mark, as VDW himself implied.
How do I know?. Through personal experience of talking to himself and his wife when he started his 'Odds to' service, and following his selections until the 7th loser in a row.
Just my opinion, but there are a lot of people on this thread who are further forward that JB ever was!

Hello everyone,
As some of you will be aware I have closely followed the thread posting from time to time but in the main have been studying the letters, thread most of the current examples and some of the other original races.
I have now got to the point where I am ready to analyse races the VDW way but not betting (taking his advice) and would like to ask for help as I put up some races.
I would be grateful for any replies (after racing of course). I am following the consistency method using the numerical picture to point to a winner in the race and only then do I investigate the race further. So here goes:
The 1.40 at Haydock pointed me to Hussard Collonges (HC)
Starting with highest ability rating:
Bindaree: Not a form horse in the context of this race only narrowly beating Rugged River in a slow race LTO
Hussard Collonges: IMHO the class form horse. Two good run this season but has not given weight to horses of this class before - did not do so LTO.
Baton: difficult to weigh up, certainly beaten horses of this class before - has to run best race ever to win FTO. A tentative second c/f horse (help please is this right?)
Royale De Vassey: Not a form horse in context of this race.
Gougenard: Distance and class wrong
Iznogoud: Out of form. 2 poor runs - one to watch
Whitenzo: No chase win for 2 years tends to hit the odd fence but has a chance if jumps well., This horse was a contender for second c/f on the basis of horses run against.l
Truckers Tavern: No wins at distance - needs plenty of cut - no form to show he can beat these.
Scotmail Boy: No chance
Conclusion: HC is a potential winner but not one to be on because of the weight factor and the unknown quantity Barton.
The 2.25 at Kempton pointed towards Dark'n Sharp. My analysis is as follows:
Fondmort - IMHO the class/form horse although again in my view the distance is wrong and therefore there is a question mark over 'capability'. Also has to give weight to better horses than last time.
Wahiba Sand: Not a form horse in the context of this race.
Fadoudal: Down turn LTO therefore not a form horse.
Dark'n Sharp: My reading is that this may be a much improved horse this season. Could have won LTO but for fall at the water. IMO second c/f.
Young Devereaux: Form horse, last 2 runs in good class, must have a chance.
Seebald: Still has to give weight to decent horses although 7lbs less today. Cannot be safely ruled out depends on what the last race took out of him.
The Rest: Not form horses.
Conclusion: Too much conflict. Fondmort probably wants a stiffer test, Dark still has it to prove and Young Devereaux could well be let in off 10-4 and then there is Seebald.
I hope the above the details give enough for you good people to come back with constructive criticism/question. Thanks for reading. Good luck for tomorrow.
Graham.

Graham

For what it is worth, in the matter of form/not form horses, I largely agree with you.

As regards the 1.40 Haydock, my only possible point of difference would be in respect of Bindaree, where I am unsure whether or not VDW would have regarded him as a form horse (and, if he did, he would of course have been the c/f). If one assesses Bindaree against the horse that beat him, rather than the horse he beat, a different conclusion to yours is possible - and for me this is one of those judgements about which I don't feel wholly confident. (Not that, in practice, it is important, as I agree with your conclusion that no decent bet emerges from an overall analysis of the race.)

As regards the 2.25 Kempton, our judgements on form/not form horses coincide.

[This message was edited by Fulham on January 18, 2003 at 08:16 AM.]

looks like racing certainty to me

been on my list a long time now.

fails on the recent run cross check however

I hope he is fit enough to do himself justice.